Aaaahh..You're a Clinton fan, well that's explained. I'm afraid the media & experts here. for what it's worth, didn't agree with you. They said, & I agreed, you had two fucking awful candidates, it was a case of which one voters hated the least!
Printable View
Aaaahh..You're a Clinton fan, well that's explained. I'm afraid the media & experts here. for what it's worth, didn't agree with you. They said, & I agreed, you had two fucking awful candidates, it was a case of which one voters hated the least!
Guys; Listen to someone who knows, I've got the cunting scars to prove it;
You DON'T want fucking bitches running your country! Believe me! :hide-1:
When I think about the cabinet Clinton would have picked, the Judges, ...........after 8 years of Obama you would see a team 20 years in the making, Clinton really would have been the best prepared President ever.... 8 years in the White House, State Senator, State Department, what a preparation, what a rolodex. And while millions would complain and condemn, the World would see what "as good as it gets" looks like.
Instead we get a guy who is the worst prepared President in History.
Valid point.
But I would still debate that had the DNC and Sally Wasserman not interfered with the primaries, Sanders could have won the nomination - not Hillary.
And it's my opinion (yes everyone has one) that Sanders stood a better chance of defeating Trump than Hillary.
You don't seem to have read that article because it doesn't say what you claim it says. The court made no finding on whether the DNC had actually rigged the primaries. The basis for the decision to dismiss the case was that even if the allegation was assumed to be true, the DNC would have had the legal right to choose their preferred candidate.
This article seems to provide a better discussion of what happened.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e4d712c0ad14
Your complete lack of self-awareness is hilarious. According to Wikipedia "a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion."
Six posts from you in this thread in the past day alone, and none of them relate to the issue that MrFanti raised. But if you enjoy being a laughing stock then keep going.