Question For Those Who Think That Voter Fraud Will Decide Election...

[candycorn]

Lets entertain the rather humorous thought that the Democrats can orchestrate voter fraud in enough places to sway the election anyway they wanted (and ignore that they forget how every off year) and the equally humorous thought that the media was fully on board with the Democrats and would do the bidding for whomever got the nomination....

Why would the Democrats have nominated Ms. Clinton? Supposedly they could sway the election for anyone and the media would be on board to promote whomever was anointed?

Just wondering what the peanut gallery thought

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems fucked Bernie or did you forget

 

[MarathonMike]

The DNC as you might recall was totally in the tank for Hillary. That was why Wasserman Schultz resigned and was immediately hired for Hillary's campaign. That's how super delegates were purchased and stole the nomination from Bernie.

There have been two elections in recent history where voter fraud did play a role so it is not laughable at all it could happen a third time.

 

[Dale Smith]

Lets entertain the rather humorous thought that the Democrats can orchestrate voter fraud in enough places to sway the election anyway they wanted (and ignore that they forget how every off year) and the equally humorous thought that the media was fully on board with the Democrats and would do the bidding for whomever got the nomination....

Why would the Democrats have nominated Ms. Clinton? Supposedly they could sway the election for anyone and the media would be on board to promote whomever was anointed?

Just wondering what the peanut gallery thought

So why is the leftard clown posse party working so hard to do just that?????

 

[candycorn]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

 

[S.J.]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Your argument would only work if there was little or no voter fraud. If they know they have a certain number of fraudulent votes that are going to be cast, no matter what, it doesn't matter if their candidate is dirty or not, does it? The dead and the fictitious are still going to vote, aren't they?

 

[Dale Smith]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Nothing about Trump says any of the things you claim. What Trump represented was someone that was not part of the establishment and wanted to change the status quo instead of electing career politicians that have continued this same debt slavery system as the middle class swirls the drain. You are simply ignorant and/or uninformed and "yes" the fix was in and it would take a miracle of monumental proportions i.e an act of God for the election to be fair. ANYONE that has been paying attention can see the amount of people that attend Trump rallies as opposed to the piddly amount that attend those for Hitlery (and she didn't even have that many) knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that she doesn't have the support that people claim. Look at the ones that attended the Barrypuppet rallies...they mirror those that Trump has had and even McCain and Romney had more visual support than Hitlery...then you throw in the e-mail scandal, the Wikileaks and Project Veritas revelations as well as the testimony of people that worked for the Clintons? Who the fuck are you trying to convince? Yourself? Good luck with all that....there is no spin to be spun on this. The cows are out of the gate and you can try and corral them all you want but this corrupt system has been exposed for anyone with the ability to think.

You can bank on the fact that the vast majority of thinking people will never acknowledge her and they will shun her. You honestly think that real people will tout her? Seriously?

 

[candycorn]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Your argument would only work if there was little or no voter fraud. If they know they have a certain number of fraudulent votes that are going to be cast, no matter what, it doesn't matter if their candidate is dirty or not, does it? The dead and the fictitious are still going to vote, aren't they?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. If you're going to have the dead and fictitious vote, why not "have them vote" for someone who also doesn't automatically turn off so many people. In other words, why not run Jane Doe from Kokomo whom nobody hates at the very mention of her name instead of HRC whom you guys have despised (for little or no reason) for 30 years? The press has 18 months to build her up into a contender....

 

[007]

Let's talk about this...

Criminal President Obama Encourages Illegal Aliens to Vote - Promises No Repercussions (VIDEO)

 

[S.J.]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Your argument would only work if there was little or no voter fraud. If they know they have a certain number of fraudulent votes that are going to be cast, no matter what, it doesn't matter if their candidate is dirty or not, does it? The dead and the fictitious are still going to vote, aren't they?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. If you're going to have the dead and fictitious vote, why not "have them vote" for someone who also doesn't automatically turn off so many people. In other words, why not run Jane Doe from Kokomo whom nobody hates at the very mention of her name instead of HRC whom you guys have despised (for little or no reason) for 30 years? The press has 18 months to build her up into a contender....

Ok, so why did they scheme against Bernie Sanders?

 

[Lakhota]

Dems fucked Bernie or did you forget

No, Comrade Bernie fucked Comrade Bernie! He wasn't even a Democrat. BTW, how "exactly" did Dems fuck Bernie?

 

[MarathonMike]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

You question assumes that the DNC had a choice in installing Clinton. They didn't. She is the queen it was her time, they all work for her. There was no option to pick another person. Period.
Secondly voter fraud never guarantees victory. But it is one of the many ways Democrats stick their finger on the scale to tip the odds to their favor. I personally thought Martin O'Malley would have been an honorable Democratic nominee but he never got the time of day from the DNC.

 

[candycorn]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

You question assumes that the DNC had a choice in installing Clinton. They didn't. She is the queen it was her time, they all work for her.

She was the queen in 2008 too. Didn't work out that way. Your post is garbage.

There was no option to pick another person. Period.

Wow...I guess Obama didn't happen then?

[
Secondly voter fraud never guarantees victory. But it is one of the many ways Democrats stick their finger on the scale to tip the odds to their favor. I personally thought Martin O'Malley would have been an honorable Democratic nominee but he never got the time of day from the DNC.

Okay, lets take that "logic" to it's conclusion. If there are 10,000 people in a precinct and 50% vote that is 5,000 people voting right? Given the "thumb on the scale" theory, doesn't that thumb count for more in that precinct than it would in one where there are 100,000 people and 50,000 are voting?

 

[candycorn]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Your argument would only work if there was little or no voter fraud. If they know they have a certain number of fraudulent votes that are going to be cast, no matter what, it doesn't matter if their candidate is dirty or not, does it? The dead and the fictitious are still going to vote, aren't they?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. If you're going to have the dead and fictitious vote, why not "have them vote" for someone who also doesn't automatically turn off so many people. In other words, why not run Jane Doe from Kokomo whom nobody hates at the very mention of her name instead of HRC whom you guys have despised (for little or no reason) for 30 years? The press has 18 months to build her up into a contender....

Ok, so why did they scheme against Bernie Sanders?

Not sure. I'm guessing they wanted a Democrat to win the Democratic Party Nomination for President.

 

[westwall]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Your argument would only work if there was little or no voter fraud. If they know they have a certain number of fraudulent votes that are going to be cast, no matter what, it doesn't matter if their candidate is dirty or not, does it? The dead and the fictitious are still going to vote, aren't they?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. If you're going to have the dead and fictitious vote, why not "have them vote" for someone who also doesn't automatically turn off so many people. In other words, why not run Jane Doe from Kokomo whom nobody hates at the very mention of her name instead of HRC whom you guys have despised (for little or no reason) for 30 years? The press has 18 months to build her up into a contender....

Probably because it is really really expensive (sometimes) to buy politicians. The shrilary has been a project for decades. They want their investment to be paid back.

 

[EverCurious]

NONE of you "selected" the president you doltz. They selected for you and you fought the ONLY two candidates who were /real/

 

[S.J.]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Your argument would only work if there was little or no voter fraud. If they know they have a certain number of fraudulent votes that are going to be cast, no matter what, it doesn't matter if their candidate is dirty or not, does it? The dead and the fictitious are still going to vote, aren't they?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. If you're going to have the dead and fictitious vote, why not "have them vote" for someone who also doesn't automatically turn off so many people. In other words, why not run Jane Doe from Kokomo whom nobody hates at the very mention of her name instead of HRC whom you guys have despised (for little or no reason) for 30 years? The press has 18 months to build her up into a contender....

Ok, so why did they scheme against Bernie Sanders?

Not sure. I'm guessing they wanted a Democrat to win the Democratic Party Nomination for President.

So, you're ok with the fact that the will of the people was dismissed by the DNC?

 

[candycorn]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Your argument would only work if there was little or no voter fraud. If they know they have a certain number of fraudulent votes that are going to be cast, no matter what, it doesn't matter if their candidate is dirty or not, does it? The dead and the fictitious are still going to vote, aren't they?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. If you're going to have the dead and fictitious vote, why not "have them vote" for someone who also doesn't automatically turn off so many people. In other words, why not run Jane Doe from Kokomo whom nobody hates at the very mention of her name instead of HRC whom you guys have despised (for little or no reason) for 30 years? The press has 18 months to build her up into a contender....

Ok, so why did they scheme against Bernie Sanders?

Not sure. I'm guessing they wanted a Democrat to win the Democratic Party Nomination for President.

So, you're ok with the fact that the will of the people was dismissed by the DNC?

Too damn funny. I'm sure the will of the Democratic Party members was for a democrat to win it's party's nomination.
Secondly, HRC got more votes than Bernie did outside of the Super Delegates
Thirdly, Bernie knew the rules when he started.

 

[candycorn]

Super Delegates were a fact long before this election. Mondale had super delegates in 1984!!! And Bernie wasn't even a Democrat!!!!

Focus people.

My question was this; why would the Democrats bother with installing Clinton with her negatives instead of just getting someone else with no long history to pick apart? Put another way, if you are guaranteed victory by rigging the election (as you dopes seem to think) and guaranteed favorable coverage by the media (as you dopes seem to think), why not run a brand new person instead of someone who has a history and a lot of baked in hatred of the family name.

Your argument would only work if there was little or no voter fraud. If they know they have a certain number of fraudulent votes that are going to be cast, no matter what, it doesn't matter if their candidate is dirty or not, does it? The dead and the fictitious are still going to vote, aren't they?

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. If you're going to have the dead and fictitious vote, why not "have them vote" for someone who also doesn't automatically turn off so many people. In other words, why not run Jane Doe from Kokomo whom nobody hates at the very mention of her name instead of HRC whom you guys have despised (for little or no reason) for 30 years? The press has 18 months to build her up into a contender....

Probably because it is really really expensive (sometimes) to buy politicians. The shrilary has been a project for decades. They want their investment to be paid back.

Not sure why a democrat would have to be "bought"...but whatever.

The responses have been about what I figured...idiocy on parade.

 

[007]

Dems fucked Bernie or did you forget

No, Comrade Bernie fucked Comrade Bernie! He wasn't even a Democrat. BTW, how "exactly" did Dems fuck Bernie?

Ask Debbie - "I'll fix the election for you" - Schultz.

Leaked DNC Emails Confirm Democrats Rigged Primary for Hillary

OUCH... aye corny? Don't those pesky facts just roast your little snowflake butt?