Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

(Unreviewed study): DNC frauded primary

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:51:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Most third parties will probably endorse it after reading nothing but that title.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:05:10 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Could you summarize the findings when you have time?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 7:02:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
They did this in many filmed events. Hillary won almost 100% of the coin tosses, at the Nevada convention, The super delegates are probably scared of Hillary, did anyone ever notice how many Clinton rivals die under suspicious circumstances?

She sits there and tries to turn the Orlando massacre into a political thing, completely disrespecting the victims instead of focusing on the real causes.

established members of the DNC are actually blocking Republican attempts at gun control measures, one of the rare times the GOP has been willing to play ball to get legislation passed.

The establishment on both sides are just blatantly corrupt
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 7:13:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Note these do not include June contests.

States with direct-recording electronic voting (something that has been banned in other countries for fraud risk) voted for Clinton 12 of 14 times (other 2 being Kansas and Indiana), and 63.1% of delegates in those states went to Clinton.

In DRE states with no paper trail, all 4 states (SC, GA, LA, DE) voted Clinton with 70.9 of delegates to her.

In DRE states, with paper but no trail, she won 6 (TX, VA, TN, FL, PA, KY) of 7 states (1 being Indiana) with 61.3% of delegates to her.

In DRE states with paper with trail and without trail, she won 2 (MS, AK) of 3 with 62.3% of delegates to her.

No DRE state without required paper trail can be audited or recounted due to its lack of paper trail. That means the allocation of 1252 delegates (790 to Clinton) cannot be challenged.

As for paper-trail contests, she got just 46.1% of delegates. She won 12 of 30 states. Of the states she won, 8 have received complaints to their state Democratic Comittees, allegations, and lawsuits for fraud and voter suppression - and said fraud and suppression has had good backing evidence. Those 8 are Iowa (which "lost" some results from 90 precincts), Nevada (even more so after some delegates we're "disqualified"), Alabama, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Arizona, and New York.

One other state received complaints - Michigan. For all trail states with complaints, she won 8 of 9, and 537 of 974 delegates, or 55.1%.

For paper-trail contests with no allegations of fraud, she won 4 of 21. The states she won were North Carolina, Maryland, Missouri (which I think was recounted), and Connecticut.

The other paper trail state with complaints was Michigan, which she lost anyway - but obviously by very little.

Overall, paper trail states with no complaints, she won 425 of 1,013 delegates, or 41.9%.

---

Then we get into unadjusted exit polls vs end result. The Clinton-Sanders margin swing between the two for without paper trail states, and then gain for Clinton in popular vote percentage from exit to end.

SC - 10.26%, in favor of Clinton; 68.67%-73.48%
AK - 13.5%, in favor of Clinton; 61.52%-66.28%
GA - 18.28%, in favor of Clinton; 62.45%-71.33%
TN - 7.33%, in favor of Clinton; 63.17%-66.11%
TX - 0.61%, in favor of Clinton; 65.72%-65.21% (Sanders also dropped)
VA - 2.94%, in favor of Clinton; 66.02%-64.29% (see above)
MS - 9.2%, in favor of Clinton; 78.48%-82.63%
FL - 3.26%, in favor of Clinton; 63.96%-64.44%
PA - 2.58%, In favor of Clinton; 54.72%-55.58%
IN - 4.73%, in favor of Clinton; 44.64%-47.5%

States with trail with complaints (Iowa and Nevada not given):

AL - 12.33%, in favor of Clinton; 73.16%-77.84%
MA - 7.96%, swinging state for Clinton; 46.73%-50.11%
MI - 4.79, in favor of Clinton; 46.84%-48.28%
IL (so we can pretty much already guarantee it) - 4.06%, swinging state for Clinton; 48.84%-50.46%
OH - 9.94%, in favor of Clinton; 51.92%-56.50%
AZ (almost laughably blatant) - 43.68% (like, WTF), swinging state for Clinton; 37%-57.63%
NY (*cough* Brooklyn suppression) - 11.99%, in favor of Clinton; 52%-57.99%

The states that can be considered mathematically possible from the above are Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and I stretched a bit Massachusetts (1 in 90 mathematical chance). The only definitely (1 in 1) not rigged states were Texas, and Florida. Pennsylvania has a 1 in 2 chance, Michigan had a 1 in 4, Illinois 1 in 5, Tennessee 1 in 17, and Indiana 1 in 28.

As for the others:

SC - 1 in 12,824
AK - 1 in 5,814
GA - 1 in (extreme; exact not given)
MS - 1 in 848
AL - 1 in 509
OH - 1 in 8,333
AZ - 1 in (extreme; exact not given)
NY - 1 in (extreme; exact not given)
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 7:37:11 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
TL;DR Clinton won due to widespread fraud - especially in states with no paper trail. New York, Arizona, and Georgia can be mathematically *proven* to be frauded.

In order of least to most likely, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, and South Carolina can be mathematically shown to be highly likely to be frauded.

Massachusetts is moderately likely to have been frauded.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, and Indiana are mostly safe, but fraud is barely (PA-IL) to slightly (TN-IN) likely.

The only states that were analyzed with advanced mathematics that were 100% safe were Texas and Florida.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 7:39:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 7:37:11 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The only states that were analyzed with advanced mathematics that were 100% safe were Texas and Florida.

That is, the ones that Clinton won with no paper trail and/or allegations of fraud (Texas and Florida both had no such allegations).
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 5:38:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The Google Doc is a bit confusing for non-stats people like me to read in parts lol... Can anyone explain to me what they did by regressing on the presence of a paper trail? Was it logistic regression? And how about blueness? They did a simple linear regression for that? How did they combine the two? D:
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 5:41:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:38:14 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
The Google Doc is a bit confusing for non-stats people like me to read in parts lol... Can anyone explain to me what they did by regressing on the presence of a paper trail? Was it logistic regression? And how about blueness? They did a simple linear regression for that? How did they combine the two? D:

Oh hey, just realised there's a link to a better-written version. Darn.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 5:59:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 7:37:11 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
TL;DR Clinton won due to widespread fraud - especially in states with no paper trail. New York, Arizona, and Georgia can be mathematically *proven* to be frauded.

In order of least to most likely, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, and South Carolina can be mathematically shown to be highly likely to be frauded.

Massachusetts is moderately likely to have been frauded.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, and Indiana are mostly safe, but fraud is barely (PA-IL) to slightly (TN-IN) likely.

The only states that were analyzed with advanced mathematics that were 100% safe were Texas and Florida.
I'm not sure what you meant by this. Don't NY and Ohio have paper trails?

And I think you have a little misunderstanding about the data here. I'm not sure which sections you used to come to these conclusions, but p-values are not the posterior probability that fraud occurred. Rather, it is the probability that we would get a result even stronger than this if no fraud had occurred. There's a huge difference there. States like NY and Ohio have low prior probabilities of fraud because they have paper trails, and by Bayes' theorem, this will reduce their posterior probabilities of fraud too.

Besides, there are many assumptions to statistical tests that we cannot always rely on. For example, for the exit polls, we need to trust that the polls truly perform random sampling, which they obviously do not do (the sampling method they use is haphazard sampling, as they simply ask people who are convenient to sample.)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 6:00:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:59:20 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/21/2016 7:37:11 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
TL;DR Clinton won due to widespread fraud - especially in states with no paper trail. New York, Arizona, and Georgia can be mathematically *proven* to be frauded.

In order of least to most likely, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, and South Carolina can be mathematically shown to be highly likely to be frauded.

Massachusetts is moderately likely to have been frauded.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, and Indiana are mostly safe, but fraud is barely (PA-IL) to slightly (TN-IN) likely.

The only states that were analyzed with advanced mathematics that were 100% safe were Texas and Florida.
I'm not sure what you meant by this. Don't NY and Ohio have paper trails?

And I think you have a little misunderstanding about the data here. I'm not sure which sections you used to come to these conclusions, but p-values are not the posterior probability that fraud occurred. Rather, it is the probability that we would get a result even stronger than this if no fraud had occurred. There's a huge difference there. States like NY and Ohio have low prior probabilities of fraud because they have paper trails, and by Bayes' theorem, this will reduce their posterior probabilities of fraud too.

Besides, there are many assumptions to statistical tests that we cannot always rely on. For example, for the exit polls, we need to trust that the polls truly perform random sampling, which they obviously do not do (the sampling method they use is haphazard sampling, as they simply ask people who are convenient to sample.)

Ignore bolded part
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 6:04:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 6:00:58 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:59:20 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/21/2016 7:37:11 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
TL;DR Clinton won due to widespread fraud - especially in states with no paper trail. New York, Arizona, and Georgia can be mathematically *proven* to be frauded.

In order of least to most likely, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, and South Carolina can be mathematically shown to be highly likely to be frauded.

Massachusetts is moderately likely to have been frauded.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, and Indiana are mostly safe, but fraud is barely (PA-IL) to slightly (TN-IN) likely.

The only states that were analyzed with advanced mathematics that were 100% safe were Texas and Florida.
I'm not sure what you meant by this. Don't NY and Ohio have paper trails?

And I think you have a little misunderstanding about the data here. I'm not sure which sections you used to come to these conclusions, but p-values are not the posterior probability that fraud occurred. Rather, it is the probability that we would get a result even stronger than this if no fraud had occurred. There's a huge difference there. States like NY and Ohio have low prior probabilities of fraud because they have paper trails, and by Bayes' theorem, this will reduce their posterior probabilities of fraud too.

Besides, there are many assumptions to statistical tests that we cannot always rely on. For example, for the exit polls, we need to trust that the polls truly perform random sampling, which they obviously do not do (the sampling method they use is haphazard sampling, as they simply ask people who are convenient to sample.)

Ignore bolded part

And this part as well. Sorry - I hadn't read through your longer post before I posted. I saw your post above mine and didn't read it in context. I really should have, lol.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 6:29:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Not news, and has no bearing on the vast majority of Hillary Supporters that believe the democratic party will provide stable Benevolent Dictatorship.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 9:21:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Oh that was reviewed by several professors, but not a formal review board.
But it's not the first hint of fraud in the primaries. There are lawsuits already underway over this in New York, California and at least 2 other states.
Oddly enough the only show covering this IS A COMEDY SHOW!!!!!!!! Redacted Tonight with Lee Camp has been covering it. He has been following this story for a couple months now, but Mainstream Corporate Media just acted like nothing was happening.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 9:22:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 6:29:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Not news, and has no bearing on the vast majority of Hillary Supporters that believe the democratic party will provide stable Benevolent Dictatorship.

Well it is news, because there are lawsuits in court right now on this issue in New York, Illinois and a few other places.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 9:37:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
The study isn't actually eligible to be published by a journal, as it is simply a statistical analyisis of election results, that's why it was published online.
But here is Lee Camps segment on that study
This will explain it to people that don't understand the technical language of the study.
https://www.youtube.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 10:04:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 9:22:36 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:29:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Not news, and has no bearing on the vast majority of Hillary Supporters that believe the democratic party will provide stable Benevolent Dictatorship.

Well it is news, because there are lawsuits in court right now on this issue in New York, Illinois and a few other places.

I have no doubt "Benevolent" Hillary and the DNC will suppress everything.
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:19:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:20:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:19:57 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint.

Because fvck statistics, right?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:24:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:20:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:19:57 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint.

Because fvck statistics, right?

Not exactly. Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint in there calls that voter fraud completely reversed the election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote discussion over. I think the Bernie-Bots are a little salty after when Sander's revolution failed.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:26:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:24:20 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:20:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:19:57 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint.

Because fvck statistics, right?

Not exactly. Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint in there calls that voter fraud completely reversed the election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote discussion over. I think the Bernie-Bots are a little salty after when Sander's revolution failed.

Did you read the thread? Anything in it?

I mean, even if you did - you have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in the election.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:28:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:26:22 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:24:20 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:20:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:19:57 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint.

Because fvck statistics, right?

Not exactly. Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint in there calls that voter fraud completely reversed the election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote discussion over. I think the Bernie-Bots are a little salty after when Sander's revolution failed.

Did you read the thread? Anything in it?

I mean, even if you did - you have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in the election.


What evidence do you have to back this up? Are you saying this just because I don't support Bernie and support Clinton?
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:30:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:26:22 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:24:20 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:20:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:19:57 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint.

Because fvck statistics, right?

Not exactly. Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint in there calls that voter fraud completely reversed the election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote discussion over. I think the Bernie-Bots are a little salty after when Sander's revolution failed.

Did you read the thread? Anything in it?

I mean, even if you did - you have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in the election.

That's a little harsh lol.
thett3
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:37:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Interesting I will write more about this later.

I am full tin foil hat on this score. I think she would've won fair and square, but it's pretty obvious that the DNC did indeed rig several states for Hillary, particularly close ones. The only close state Bernie won was Michigan, the biggest polling upset in my lifetime. Whereas there were so many close states where Bernie kept a small but consistent lead only for Hillary to suddenly win with 100% of precincts reporting.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:41:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:37:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
Interesting I will write more about this later.

I am full tin foil hat on this score. I think she would've won fair and square, but it's pretty obvious that the DNC did indeed rig several states for Hillary, particularly close ones. The only close state Bernie won was Michigan, the biggest polling upset in my lifetime. Whereas there were so many close states where Bernie kept a small but consistent lead only for Hillary to suddenly win with 100% of precincts reporting.

I can agree with this writing.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 11:42:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:30:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:26:22 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:24:20 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:20:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:19:57 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint.

Because fvck statistics, right?

Not exactly. Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint in there calls that voter fraud completely reversed the election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote discussion over. I think the Bernie-Bots are a little salty after when Sander's revolution failed.

Did you read the thread? Anything in it?

I mean, even if you did - you have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in the election.

That's a little harsh lol.

Trust me, it's not new. Bernie supporters on social media are willing to say very negative things about people that don't support him. I am used to these insults.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 12:05:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 11:28:04 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:26:22 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:24:20 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:20:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/21/2016 11:19:57 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:50:45 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
https://docs.google.com...

This hasn't been reviewed yet, but if it is reviewed and the results endorsed by third-parties...well...

Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint.

Because fvck statistics, right?

Not exactly. Bernie supporters never fail to disappoint in there calls that voter fraud completely reversed the election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote discussion over. I think the Bernie-Bots are a little salty after when Sander's revolution failed.

Did you read the thread? Anything in it?

I mean, even if you did - you have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in the election.


What evidence do you have to back this up? Are you saying this just because I don't support Bernie and support Clinton?

No. If you were a Hillary supporter that understood reality, you'd be able to see that your candidate didn't win quote so fairly.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King