What makes it incompatible? You’re dismissing questions of legitimacy and looking only at the results. The results of the 2016 democratic primaries were that Hillary won, and you say regardless of how legitimate or illegitimate the process may be, that happened because not enough Bernie supporters showed up. How is that different from looking at the North Korean elections and putting aside any questions of legitimacy or fairness and just looking at the results and saying the same thing? It’s the exact same logic.
You don’t see the difference between your imaginary DNC scenario and North Korea’s elections which have been decried as sham elections?
When international observers start showing that the votes in the Democratic primaries don’t count, then you’d have a case.
Until then, this is the stupidest argument I’ve read or hears in weeks and not worth anymore of my time.
If you’re arguing in good faith, God help us all. I much prefer to think you’re trolling as it breaks my heart to think someone this dumb has the same number of votes that I do. (Well, fewer as you’re too dumb to vote in primaries but still…)
You don’t see the difference between your imaginary DNC scenario and North Korea’s elections which have been decried as sham elections?
Oh, so it does matter whether or not elections are legitimate? So then why do you automatically dismiss all questions of legitimacy regarding the Democratic primaries?
(Well, fewer as you’re too dumb to vote in primaries but still…)
Again, did not say that one shouldn’t vote in primaries, only that the primaries are not a sufficient answer to how to enact left-wing polices.
Oooof, you’re in your 30s and these are the sorts of arguments you’re making? I mean, when I was in grade school, maybe…
Right now though, your argument is like saying it’s dangerous to go outside because no one can prove that Michael Meyers isn’t out there ready to chop you to bits. Sure, it’s possible a psychopath is out there lurking but it’s very unlikely. Similarly, sure, it’s possible the DNC could rig the primaries and not count the votes but it’s comically unlikely. Since the primary system began, the candidate with the most votes has won the nomination. Should that not happen, then there’ll be outrage and chaos but until then, it seems kind of insane to not actually try to make things better because you can pretend a scenario in which your vote doesn’t matter.
Like I keep saying - time doesn’t ipso facto make you wise. Wisdom is something you earn with hard work and dedication to intellectual honesty. It does not simply come with time and you are yet another great example of this.
Pretending like elections in North Korea and the USA are comparable is either very ignorant or wholly disingenuous.
What makes it incompatible? You’re dismissing questions of legitimacy and looking only at the results. The results of the 2016 democratic primaries were that Hillary won, and you say regardless of how legitimate or illegitimate the process may be, that happened because not enough Bernie supporters showed up. How is that different from looking at the North Korean elections and putting aside any questions of legitimacy or fairness and just looking at the results and saying the same thing? It’s the exact same logic.
You don’t see the difference between your imaginary DNC scenario and North Korea’s elections which have been decried as sham elections?
When international observers start showing that the votes in the Democratic primaries don’t count, then you’d have a case.
Until then, this is the stupidest argument I’ve read or hears in weeks and not worth anymore of my time.
If you’re arguing in good faith, God help us all. I much prefer to think you’re trolling as it breaks my heart to think someone this dumb has the same number of votes that I do. (Well, fewer as you’re too dumb to vote in primaries but still…)
Oh, so it does matter whether or not elections are legitimate? So then why do you automatically dismiss all questions of legitimacy regarding the Democratic primaries?
Again, did not say that one shouldn’t vote in primaries, only that the primaries are not a sufficient answer to how to enact left-wing polices.
Like I said, this isn’t worth my time.
Reread what’s been written, it has the answers.
Maybe it’ll make sense when you grow up?
And I’ve answered all your points.
I’m in my 30’s and the older I get the further left I go, so don’t hold your breath on that.
Oooof, you’re in your 30s and these are the sorts of arguments you’re making? I mean, when I was in grade school, maybe…
Right now though, your argument is like saying it’s dangerous to go outside because no one can prove that Michael Meyers isn’t out there ready to chop you to bits. Sure, it’s possible a psychopath is out there lurking but it’s very unlikely. Similarly, sure, it’s possible the DNC could rig the primaries and not count the votes but it’s comically unlikely. Since the primary system began, the candidate with the most votes has won the nomination. Should that not happen, then there’ll be outrage and chaos but until then, it seems kind of insane to not actually try to make things better because you can pretend a scenario in which your vote doesn’t matter.
Like I keep saying - time doesn’t ipso facto make you wise. Wisdom is something you earn with hard work and dedication to intellectual honesty. It does not simply come with time and you are yet another great example of this.
Pretending like elections in North Korea and the USA are comparable is either very ignorant or wholly disingenuous.
I never pretended that. My point is that if you categorically dismiss questions of legitimacy in an election, then it leads to absurd conclusions.