The DNC should never have let Bernie run

[TNHarley]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

I don't understand this thinking. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat. Now that he's lost, he should turn his back on the party?
I would argue he's showing integrity by supporting the party nominee.

And more than that, practicality. We're mired in a winner-take-all Duopoly where we invariably end up with what's been called for my entire lifetime a choice between the "lesser of two evils". Because of the wacko Electoral College system, which I have no doubt the Duopoly seeks to perpetuate forever because it serves them to, no entity outside the Duopoly can possibly compete with it. The last outside entity to even outpoll either one of them was Teddy Roosevelt's run in 1912, and that was after he had the name recognition of eight years in the White House and came into the Republican convention having swept the primaries. TR pushed the Republican nominee to third place --- well, that's what the effect of Sanders bolting to a third party would have likely led to --- the installation of Mister Orange-a-Tan with less than 42% of the popular vote while he and Hillary split up the rest.

Those spewing about Sanders "not having integrity" -- like the post directly above -- belie their ignorance of how the System actually works.

Ironically it's only those who live in locked states (states going red or blue no matter what) who get a voice to choose a third party at all with a vote that means anything. And those states, by definition, would have fewer voters likely to do it anyway.

The system is just plain rigged. We can keep the Electoral College but we should increase its number from 538 to 219 million.

you talk shit about the way it is run, then say people are stupid for being against it? lol
What kind of fallacy is that?

 

[hadit]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

When you get that late night phone call from Sergeant Shultz...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

I don't understand this thinking. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat. Now that he's lost, he should turn his back on the party?
I would argue he's showing integrity by supporting the party nominee.

And more than that, practicality. We're mired in a winner-take-all Duopoly where we invariably end up with what's been called for my entire lifetime a choice between the "lesser of two evils". Because of the wacko Electoral College system, which I have no doubt the Duopoly seeks to perpetuate forever because it serves them to, no entity outside the Duopoly can possibly compete with it. The last outside entity to even outpoll either one of them was Teddy Roosevelt's run in 1912, and that was after he had the name recognition of eight years in the White House and came into the Republican convention having swept the primaries. TR pushed the Republican nominee to third place --- well, that's what the effect of Sanders bolting to a third party would have likely led to --- the installation of Mister Orange-a-Tan with less than 42% of the popular vote while he and Hillary split up the rest.

Those spewing about Sanders "not having integrity" -- like the post directly above -- belie their ignorance of how the System actually works.

Either that or they're just whining to score points on a message board in a vast self-infatuated wank where you apparently get X number of points for generating insults while ignoring all context.

Ironically it's only those who live in locked states (states going red or blue no matter what) who get a voice to choose a third party at all with a vote that means anything. And those states, by definition, would have fewer voters likely to do it anyway.

The system is just plain rigged. We can keep the Electoral College but we should increase its number from 538 to 219 million.

Sanders managed to force the most progressive Democratic Party platform ever.
In that way he won big time.

 

[hadit]

Bernie is not now nor has he ever been a Democrat. But they decided to be nice; a dumb move when it comes to politics. The DNC should have known that allowing a socialist to run would end up making the party look stupid. Oh well hindsight is 20/20.

Also, I'm amused that republicans are showing such strong support for Bernie, who is an open communist. Almost as if they have no idea how much better he polls against Trump than Hillary.

Coming from the guy who was a Trump supporter, classic

Trump > Rafael. This isn't hard Kaz. Get it together.

Republican want Bernie to hurt Hillary, not to win. How do you possibly not get that?

Shhhh. Let them figure it out on their own. It'll never happen, that's the point.

 

[hadit]

Bernie is not now nor has he ever been a Democrat. But they decided to be nice; a dumb move when it comes to politics. The DNC should have known that allowing a socialist to run would end up making the party look stupid. Oh well hindsight is 20/20.

Also, I'm amused that republicans are showing such strong support for Bernie, who is an open communist. Almost as if they have no idea how much better he polls against Trump than Hillary.

Hoisted upon their own petard.

They thought Bernie would be marginal, and serve to magnify the shining glory that is Hillary Clinton, and forward the coronation.

Now he is a drunken tiger, and has them by the neck, locked in his jaws. If he had any spine at all, he'd shake his head and finish it.

Hillary's complained that he's not a real democrat. He should reply, "Yup, y'all are a bunch of crooks", and go third party.

 

[Pogo]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

I don't understand this thinking. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat. Now that he's lost, he should turn his back on the party?
I would argue he's showing integrity by supporting the party nominee.

And more than that, practicality. We're mired in a winner-take-all Duopoly where we invariably end up with what's been called for my entire lifetime a choice between the "lesser of two evils". Because of the wacko Electoral College system, which I have no doubt the Duopoly seeks to perpetuate forever because it serves them to, no entity outside the Duopoly can possibly compete with it. The last outside entity to even outpoll either one of them was Teddy Roosevelt's run in 1912, and that was after he had the name recognition of eight years in the White House and came into the Republican convention having swept the primaries. TR pushed the Republican nominee to third place --- well, that's what the effect of Sanders bolting to a third party would have likely led to --- the installation of Mister Orange-a-Tan with less than 42% of the popular vote while he and Hillary split up the rest. That's exactly how we got Woodrow Wilson, another racist asshole.

Those spewing about Sanders "not having integrity" -- like the post directly above -- belie their ignorance of how the System actually works.

Ironically it's only those who live in locked states (states going red or blue no matter what) who get a voice to choose a third party at all with a vote that means anything. And those states, by definition, would have fewer voters likely to do it anyway.

The system is just plain rigged. We can keep the Electoral College but we should increase its number from 538 to 219 million.

you talk shit about the way it is run, then say people are stupid for being against it? lol
What kind of fallacy is that?

NO, I blasted the way the system runs, and noted that YOU don't seem to understand that.

Ya want Woodrow Wilson again, this time in Orange and having no clue what he's doing? That's where a Sanders split would have taken us. He knows that, I know that -- you don't know that.

Now if we had a parliamentary-proportional system where you end up with representation proportional to your public support whether you come in first or not -- as opposed to our present winner-take-all-everything, then a Sanders (or Cruz or anybody else) split might have made some kind of sense. You get back to us if you can make that happen overnight, K?

Two words: "Woodrow Wilson"

 

[AntonToo]

Bernie is not now nor has he ever been a Democrat. But they decided to be nice; a dumb move when it comes to politics. The DNC should have known that allowing a socialist to run would end up making the party look stupid. Oh well hindsight is 20/20.

Also, I'm amused that republicans are showing such strong support for Bernie, who is an open communist. Almost as if they have no idea how much better he polls against Trump than Hillary.

Bernie is about as much of a socialist as he is a monkey.

 

[Pogo]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

I don't understand this thinking. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat. Now that he's lost, he should turn his back on the party?
I would argue he's showing integrity by supporting the party nominee.

And more than that, practicality. We're mired in a winner-take-all Duopoly where we invariably end up with what's been called for my entire lifetime a choice between the "lesser of two evils". Because of the wacko Electoral College system, which I have no doubt the Duopoly seeks to perpetuate forever because it serves them to, no entity outside the Duopoly can possibly compete with it. The last outside entity to even outpoll either one of them was Teddy Roosevelt's run in 1912, and that was after he had the name recognition of eight years in the White House and came into the Republican convention having swept the primaries. TR pushed the Republican nominee to third place --- well, that's what the effect of Sanders bolting to a third party would have likely led to --- the installation of Mister Orange-a-Tan with less than 42% of the popular vote while he and Hillary split up the rest.

Those spewing about Sanders "not having integrity" -- like the post directly above -- belie their ignorance of how the System actually works.

Either that or they're just whining to score points on a message board in a vast self-infatuated wank where you apparently get X number of points for generating insults while ignoring all context.

Ironically it's only those who live in locked states (states going red or blue no matter what) who get a voice to choose a third party at all with a vote that means anything. And those states, by definition, would have fewer voters likely to do it anyway.

The system is just plain rigged. We can keep the Electoral College but we should increase its number from 538 to 219 million.

Sanders managed to force the most progressive Democratic Party platform ever.
In that way he won big time.

Exactly --- that was always the point. Thanks to the level of his support he had way more clout for it than he had had before.

Some of these simpletons can see only in terms of "winning this or that election" while the whole context of undercurrent sails blithely over their heads. They actually think the ultimate goal is "to be President". Because for the shallowminded --- it is.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Bernie is not now nor has he ever been a Democrat. But they decided to be nice; a dumb move when it comes to politics. The DNC should have known that allowing a socialist to run would end up making the party look stupid. Oh well hindsight is 20/20.

Also, I'm amused that republicans are showing such strong support for Bernie, who is an open communist. Almost as if they have no idea how much better he polls against Trump than Hillary.

1. Bernie Sanders had two choices and that was running Democratic which he caucus with even if he is Independent or run Green Party. The reality is he made the correct choice when running Democratic because it open the eyes of the Nation of how many Socialists wanted what he was selling.

2. As for Trump voters supporting Bernie Sanders has to do with Hillary Clinton and less to do with Sanders. They will ignore the polls and focus on how they want Sanders to be the wedge that causes Clinton to lose this November by urging his voters to vote third party.

---

As for me I believe Bernie Sanders is a sellout in my eyes. No way should he endorse Clinton and him and Cruz should endorse Johnson so it will tell the establishment their nonsense has grown old and will no longer be tolerated!

 

[TNHarley]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

I don't understand this thinking. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat. Now that he's lost, he should turn his back on the party?
I would argue he's showing integrity by supporting the party nominee.

And more than that, practicality. We're mired in a winner-take-all Duopoly where we invariably end up with what's been called for my entire lifetime a choice between the "lesser of two evils". Because of the wacko Electoral College system, which I have no doubt the Duopoly seeks to perpetuate forever because it serves them to, no entity outside the Duopoly can possibly compete with it. The last outside entity to even outpoll either one of them was Teddy Roosevelt's run in 1912, and that was after he had the name recognition of eight years in the White House and came into the Republican convention having swept the primaries. TR pushed the Republican nominee to third place --- well, that's what the effect of Sanders bolting to a third party would have likely led to --- the installation of Mister Orange-a-Tan with less than 42% of the popular vote while he and Hillary split up the rest. That's exactly how we got Woodrow Wilson, another racist asshole.

Those spewing about Sanders "not having integrity" -- like the post directly above -- belie their ignorance of how the System actually works.

Ironically it's only those who live in locked states (states going red or blue no matter what) who get a voice to choose a third party at all with a vote that means anything. And those states, by definition, would have fewer voters likely to do it anyway.

The system is just plain rigged. We can keep the Electoral College but we should increase its number from 538 to 219 million.

you talk shit about the way it is run, then say people are stupid for being against it? lol
What kind of fallacy is that?

NO, I blasted the way the system runs, and noted that YOU don't seem to understand that.

Ya want Woodrow Wilson again, this time in Orange and having no clue what he's doing? That's where a Sanders split would have taken us. He knows that, I know that -- you don't know that.

I don't give a shit about the way the corrupt duopoly run shit. That is NOT an excuse. That's just bending voer and taking it. Pathetic.
Integrity is a thing of the past

 

[Pogo]

As for me I believe Bernie Sanders is a sellout in my eyes. No way should he endorse Clinton and him and Cruz should endorse Johnson so it will tell the establishment their nonsense has grown old and will no longer be tolerated!

--- and that would give you Woodrow Wilson only ten times worse. You'd make your statement and suffer the consequences.
Profoundly naïve.

 

[kaz]

Bernie is not now nor has he ever been a Democrat. But they decided to be nice; a dumb move when it comes to politics. The DNC should have known that allowing a socialist to run would end up making the party look stupid. Oh well hindsight is 20/20.

Also, I'm amused that republicans are showing such strong support for Bernie, who is an open communist. Almost as if they have no idea how much better he polls against Trump than Hillary.

Bernie didn't make the Democrats look stupid, he just gave them the opportunity to demonstrate that they are stupid

 

[kaz]

As for me I believe Bernie Sanders is a sellout in my eyes. No way should he endorse Clinton and him and Cruz should endorse Johnson so it will tell the establishment their nonsense has grown old and will no longer be tolerated!

--- and that would give you Woodrow Wilson only ten times worse. You'd make your statement and suffer the consequences.
Profoundly naïve.

It's between Trump and Hillary, there is no win in that

 

[Pogo]

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

I don't understand this thinking. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat. Now that he's lost, he should turn his back on the party?
I would argue he's showing integrity by supporting the party nominee.

And more than that, practicality. We're mired in a winner-take-all Duopoly where we invariably end up with what's been called for my entire lifetime a choice between the "lesser of two evils". Because of the wacko Electoral College system, which I have no doubt the Duopoly seeks to perpetuate forever because it serves them to, no entity outside the Duopoly can possibly compete with it. The last outside entity to even outpoll either one of them was Teddy Roosevelt's run in 1912, and that was after he had the name recognition of eight years in the White House and came into the Republican convention having swept the primaries. TR pushed the Republican nominee to third place --- well, that's what the effect of Sanders bolting to a third party would have likely led to --- the installation of Mister Orange-a-Tan with less than 42% of the popular vote while he and Hillary split up the rest. That's exactly how we got Woodrow Wilson, another racist asshole.

Those spewing about Sanders "not having integrity" -- like the post directly above -- belie their ignorance of how the System actually works.

Ironically it's only those who live in locked states (states going red or blue no matter what) who get a voice to choose a third party at all with a vote that means anything. And those states, by definition, would have fewer voters likely to do it anyway.

The system is just plain rigged. We can keep the Electoral College but we should increase its number from 538 to 219 million.

you talk shit about the way it is run, then say people are stupid for being against it? lol
What kind of fallacy is that?

NO, I blasted the way the system runs, and noted that YOU don't seem to understand that.

Ya want Woodrow Wilson again, this time in Orange and having no clue what he's doing? That's where a Sanders split would have taken us. He knows that, I know that -- you don't know that.

Now if we had a parliamentary-proportional system where you end up with representation proportional to your public support whether you come in first or not -- as opposed to our present winner-take-all-everything, then a Sanders (or Cruz or anybody else) split might have made some kind of sense. You get back to us if you can make that happen overnight, K?

Two words: "Woodrow Wilson"

I don't give a shit about the way the corrupt duopoly run shit. That is NOT an excuse. That's just bending voer and taking it. Pathetic.
Integrity is a thing of the past

That's kind of what I just said. You can't be bothered to consider how the system works and what the result would be WITHIN that system --- which we're sentenced to --- and just want to score points on a message board, completely ignorant of what the result of that course would be.

Prove me wrong. Regale us with tales of what would actually happen if Sanders were to split third party, with his current level of support, and we DON'T end up with Woodrow Wilson. How's that work?

Hm?

Who wins?

 

[easyt65]

The Libs NEVER expected the American people to hate and distrust Hillary so much that they would rally around Sanders, forcing the DNC to betray, plot, scheme, and have to rig the system in order to help her beat Bernie!

In the end, without the massive effort by the DNC and their rigging the system, Hillary would NOT have won the candidacy.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't understand this thinking. Sanders chose to run as a Democrat. Now that he's lost, he should turn his back on the party?
I would argue he's showing integrity by supporting the party nominee.

And more than that, practicality. We're mired in a winner-take-all Duopoly where we invariably end up with what's been called for my entire lifetime a choice between the "lesser of two evils". Because of the wacko Electoral College system, which I have no doubt the Duopoly seeks to perpetuate forever because it serves them to, no entity outside the Duopoly can possibly compete with it. The last outside entity to even outpoll either one of them was Teddy Roosevelt's run in 1912, and that was after he had the name recognition of eight years in the White House and came into the Republican convention having swept the primaries. TR pushed the Republican nominee to third place --- well, that's what the effect of Sanders bolting to a third party would have likely led to --- the installation of Mister Orange-a-Tan with less than 42% of the popular vote while he and Hillary split up the rest. That's exactly how we got Woodrow Wilson, another racist asshole.

Those spewing about Sanders "not having integrity" -- like the post directly above -- belie their ignorance of how the System actually works.

Ironically it's only those who live in locked states (states going red or blue no matter what) who get a voice to choose a third party at all with a vote that means anything. And those states, by definition, would have fewer voters likely to do it anyway.

The system is just plain rigged. We can keep the Electoral College but we should increase its number from 538 to 219 million.

you talk shit about the way it is run, then say people are stupid for being against it? lol
What kind of fallacy is that?

NO, I blasted the way the system runs, and noted that YOU don't seem to understand that.

Ya want Woodrow Wilson again, this time in Orange and having no clue what he's doing? That's where a Sanders split would have taken us. He knows that, I know that -- you don't know that.

Now if we had a parliamentary-proportional system where you end up with representation proportional to your public support whether you come in first or not -- as opposed to our present winner-take-all-everything, then a Sanders (or Cruz or anybody else) split might have made some kind of sense. You get back to us if you can make that happen overnight, K?

Two words: "Woodrow Wilson"

I don't give a shit about the way the corrupt duopoly run shit. That is NOT an excuse. That's just bending voer and taking it. Pathetic.
Integrity is a thing of the past

That's kind of what I just said. You can't be bothered to consider how the system works and what the result would be WITHIN that system --- which we're sentenced to --- and just want to score points on a message board, completely ignorant of what the result of that course would be.

Prove me wrong. Regale us with tales of what would actually happen if Sanders were to split third party, with his current level of support, and we DON'T end up with Woodrow Wilson. How's that work?

Hm?

Who wins?

AGAIN, integrity is lost. Just keep that ass pointed out for the duopoly
If people don't expect change, change wont happen.

 

[Pogo]

And more than that, practicality. We're mired in a winner-take-all Duopoly where we invariably end up with what's been called for my entire lifetime a choice between the "lesser of two evils". Because of the wacko Electoral College system, which I have no doubt the Duopoly seeks to perpetuate forever because it serves them to, no entity outside the Duopoly can possibly compete with it. The last outside entity to even outpoll either one of them was Teddy Roosevelt's run in 1912, and that was after he had the name recognition of eight years in the White House and came into the Republican convention having swept the primaries. TR pushed the Republican nominee to third place --- well, that's what the effect of Sanders bolting to a third party would have likely led to --- the installation of Mister Orange-a-Tan with less than 42% of the popular vote while he and Hillary split up the rest. That's exactly how we got Woodrow Wilson, another racist asshole.

Those spewing about Sanders "not having integrity" -- like the post directly above -- belie their ignorance of how the System actually works.

Ironically it's only those who live in locked states (states going red or blue no matter what) who get a voice to choose a third party at all with a vote that means anything. And those states, by definition, would have fewer voters likely to do it anyway.

The system is just plain rigged. We can keep the Electoral College but we should increase its number from 538 to 219 million.

you talk shit about the way it is run, then say people are stupid for being against it? lol
What kind of fallacy is that?

NO, I blasted the way the system runs, and noted that YOU don't seem to understand that.

Ya want Woodrow Wilson again, this time in Orange and having no clue what he's doing? That's where a Sanders split would have taken us. He knows that, I know that -- you don't know that.

Now if we had a parliamentary-proportional system where you end up with representation proportional to your public support whether you come in first or not -- as opposed to our present winner-take-all-everything, then a Sanders (or Cruz or anybody else) split might have made some kind of sense. You get back to us if you can make that happen overnight, K?

Two words: "Woodrow Wilson"

I don't give a shit about the way the corrupt duopoly run shit. That is NOT an excuse. That's just bending voer and taking it. Pathetic.
Integrity is a thing of the past

That's kind of what I just said. You can't be bothered to consider how the system works and what the result would be WITHIN that system --- which we're sentenced to --- and just want to score points on a message board, completely ignorant of what the result of that course would be.

Prove me wrong. Regale us with tales of what would actually happen if Sanders were to split third party, with his current level of support, and we DON'T end up with Woodrow Wilson. How's that work?

Hm?

Who wins?

AGAIN, integrity is lost. Just keep that ass pointed out for the duopoly
If people don't expect change, change wont happen.

You didn't answer the question. Didn't even touch it.

The fact remains, you can't just bury your head in the sand, make low moaning sounds and think "it's safer in here", ignoring the way the world works, warts and all.

Now answer the question. Like you should have before you started.

--- WHO wins in that scenario? What are the results?

 

[TNHarley]

you talk shit about the way it is run, then say people are stupid for being against it? lol
What kind of fallacy is that?

NO, I blasted the way the system runs, and noted that YOU don't seem to understand that.

Ya want Woodrow Wilson again, this time in Orange and having no clue what he's doing? That's where a Sanders split would have taken us. He knows that, I know that -- you don't know that.

Now if we had a parliamentary-proportional system where you end up with representation proportional to your public support whether you come in first or not -- as opposed to our present winner-take-all-everything, then a Sanders (or Cruz or anybody else) split might have made some kind of sense. You get back to us if you can make that happen overnight, K?

Two words: "Woodrow Wilson"

I don't give a shit about the way the corrupt duopoly run shit. That is NOT an excuse. That's just bending voer and taking it. Pathetic.
Integrity is a thing of the past

That's kind of what I just said. You can't be bothered to consider how the system works and what the result would be WITHIN that system --- which we're sentenced to --- and just want to score points on a message board, completely ignorant of what the result of that course would be.

Prove me wrong. Regale us with tales of what would actually happen if Sanders were to split third party, with his current level of support, and we DON'T end up with Woodrow Wilson. How's that work?

Hm?

Who wins?

AGAIN, integrity is lost. Just keep that ass pointed out for the duopoly
If people don't expect change, change wont happen.

You didn't answer the question. Didn't even touch it.

The fact remains, you can't just bury your head in the sand, make low moaning sounds and think "it's safer in here", ignoring the way the world works, warts and all.

Now answer the question. Like you should have before you started.

I didn't answer it because im pretty sure we wont end up with a 100 year old dead body

 

[Pogo]

NO, I blasted the way the system runs, and noted that YOU don't seem to understand that.

Ya want Woodrow Wilson again, this time in Orange and having no clue what he's doing? That's where a Sanders split would have taken us. He knows that, I know that -- you don't know that.

Now if we had a parliamentary-proportional system where you end up with representation proportional to your public support whether you come in first or not -- as opposed to our present winner-take-all-everything, then a Sanders (or Cruz or anybody else) split might have made some kind of sense. You get back to us if you can make that happen overnight, K?

Two words: "Woodrow Wilson"

I don't give a shit about the way the corrupt duopoly run shit. That is NOT an excuse. That's just bending voer and taking it. Pathetic.
Integrity is a thing of the past

That's kind of what I just said. You can't be bothered to consider how the system works and what the result would be WITHIN that system --- which we're sentenced to --- and just want to score points on a message board, completely ignorant of what the result of that course would be.

Prove me wrong. Regale us with tales of what would actually happen if Sanders were to split third party, with his current level of support, and we DON'T end up with Woodrow Wilson. How's that work?

Hm?

Who wins?

AGAIN, integrity is lost. Just keep that ass pointed out for the duopoly
If people don't expect change, change wont happen.

You didn't answer the question. Didn't even touch it.

The fact remains, you can't just bury your head in the sand, make low moaning sounds and think "it's safer in here", ignoring the way the world works, warts and all.

Now answer the question. Like you should have before you started.

I didn't answer it because im pretty sure we wont end up with a 100 year old dead body

So you have no answer. Because you didn't think it through.

Here's your answer: Your result is Woodrow Wilson, painted Orange, minus all education, experience and ability but with enhanced con artist features. And it wouldn't at this point surprise me if you have no clue what that means.

You can't just ignore how the System works.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't give a shit about the way the corrupt duopoly run shit. That is NOT an excuse. That's just bending voer and taking it. Pathetic.
Integrity is a thing of the past

That's kind of what I just said. You can't be bothered to consider how the system works and what the result would be WITHIN that system --- which we're sentenced to --- and just want to score points on a message board, completely ignorant of what the result of that course would be.

Prove me wrong. Regale us with tales of what would actually happen if Sanders were to split third party, with his current level of support, and we DON'T end up with Woodrow Wilson. How's that work?

Hm?

Who wins?

AGAIN, integrity is lost. Just keep that ass pointed out for the duopoly
If people don't expect change, change wont happen.

You didn't answer the question. Didn't even touch it.

The fact remains, you can't just bury your head in the sand, make low moaning sounds and think "it's safer in here", ignoring the way the world works, warts and all.

Now answer the question. Like you should have before you started.

I didn't answer it because im pretty sure we wont end up with a 100 year old dead body

So you have no answer. Because you didn't think it through.

Here's your answer: Your result is Woodrow Wilson, painted Orange, minus all education, experience and ability but with enhanced con artist features. And it wouldn't at this point surprise me if you have no clue what that means.

You can't just ignore how the System works.

you mean the duopoly rigged system? LOL
This is what they call a circle of stupidity. Im done.