Is voting useless in the US?

[Cordel One]

I could say different things if you stopped asking the same questions.

A solid answer has yet to be given other than I don;'t like my candidate lost therefore it was all part of a plot to still it from them.

That's not true, I gave you a few answers detailing what happened and why.

[Sanghyeok]

Cordel patiently explained the process in which Biden's major competitors- ordered by the Democratic Party's politburo- dropped out of running and endorsed Biden en masse. If you're unwilling to listen to their explanation, then no matter what I say you won't be convinced either.

Political endorsements therefore ought to be banned despite such a notion being against the first amendment?

Cordel believes so, I don't. In either way, you shouldn't be so attached to pieces of paper written a few hundred years ago, it's not like they're priceless poetry, archives, or paintings.

Odd how you claim they haven't provided any solid evidence, when I see you're more than happy to use NY Times as a source when it bashes that party you despise.

I don't see what your point here is

My point is you're rather hypocritical in judging if evidence is "solid" or not.

I could say different things if you stopped asking the same questions.

A solid answer has yet to be given other than I don;'t like my candidate lost therefore it was all part of a plot to still it from them.

See my first quote regarding endorsements.
"Cordel patiently explained the process in which Biden's major competitors- ordered by the Democratic Party's politburo- dropped out of running and endorsed Biden en masse. If you're unwilling to listen to their explanation, then no matter what I say you won't be convinced either."

[San Lumen]

A solid answer has yet to be given other than I don;'t like my candidate lost therefore it was all part of a plot to still it from them.

That's not true, I gave you a few answers detailing what happened and why.

why if his base was expanding did he not overtake Biden after Super Tuesday?

[Sanghyeok]

That's not true, I gave you a few answers detailing what happened and why.

why if his base was expanding did he not overtake Biden after Super Tuesday?

viewtopic.php?p=37743119#p37743119

[San Lumen]

why if his base was expanding did he not overtake Biden after Super Tuesday?

viewtopic.php?p=37743119#p37743119

How do explain the election results then? People could have still voted for Sanders and chose not to.

[Cordel One]

That's not true, I gave you a few answers detailing what happened and why.

why if his base was expanding did he not overtake Biden after Super Tuesday?

Because the party interfered.

[Celritannia]

why if his base was expanding did he not overtake Biden after Super Tuesday?

Because the party interfered.

Pretty much.

[San Lumen]

why if his base was expanding did he not overtake Biden after Super Tuesday?

Because the party interfered.

How? It was their freedom of speech for other candidates to endorse Biden. People could have still chosen to vote for Sanders and they did not.

[Celritannia]

Because the party interfered.

How? It was their freedom of speech for other candidates to endorse Biden. People could have still chosen to vote for Sanders and they did not.

Sadly this is how American politics works.
They will curb any and all opposition by any legal means necessary. If you can influence the media, you can get them to cut campaign ads, limiti televised campaign commercials, not report on when rallies are held.

[Galloism]

Because the party interfered.

How? It was their freedom of speech for other candidates to endorse Biden. People could have still chosen to vote for Sanders and they did not.

That is not evidence of what you claim.

And your opinion is not a constitutional one. Any such law would be struck down in court. Go run for office as a communist then.

Here’s the thing: shitty behavior is sometimes constitutionally protected.

It can be a shitty thing the DNC and Obama in particular did to Sanders, and be literally a constitutionally protected act.

A church of whiteness is likely constitutionally protected if they don’t allow black people to become members, under both freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. That doesn’t mean they aren’t being shitty by exercising their rights in that way.

Same thing with the DNC.

[The Lone Alliance]

No Im not. You have failed to provide a single shred of evidence as to how the primary was some sort of mass conspiracy.

You clearly fail to understand how a primary works and your argument boils down to because your candidate didnt win it was somehow rigged or a conspiracy. How do you explain how his vote totals never changed even after it was two person race?

viewtopic.php?p=37743119#p37743119

That's evidence enough for me.

I don't see where San Lumen gets off claiming that they're the sole arbitrator of what is evidence and what isn't evidence.

[Greed and Death]

I will let you know if it useless on January 20th.

[San Lumen]

viewtopic.php?p=37743119#p37743119

That's evidence enough for me.

I don't see where San Lumen gets off claiming that they're the sole arbitrator of what is evidence and what isn't evidence.

I never claimed to be.

[Baloo Kingdom]

My input on this topic:
[Short Answer]

No. It depends on what you deem the word "useless" to mean.

[Long Answer]

Many will claim that voting, whether it be for a President, Governor, issue, or other elected position at the state or national level in America is corrupt, useless, fraudulent, or unreliable. They may say that the electoral college undermines the votes of highly populated states while giving to much say to the less populated ones, or that buying votes or corrupt bargains are too common today and in history. I would agree that it has become more difficult for the common person to gain political prestige and influence without first having wealth. I would add that wealth does seem to make becoming a political figure much easier of a task. However, returning to the topic of voting's use, the electoral college does not make votes worthless. Typically, a state with a higher population density or just plain higher population will have a greater amount of electoral votes and a greater amount of popular votes, for example, California. A state with a lower population or lower population density, for example, Wyoming, will have a lesser amount of electoral votes. Because of this close correlation, the electoral college does not have much, if any, harmful effect on the voting outcome. 90% of all Presidents won both the popular and electoral college votes, and mathematically speaking, that's a high percentage. If you believe the word "useless" to mean "worth less" than I can agree that the electoral college can diminish the value of a vote 10% of the time. If you believe and are using the word "useless" as "no worth", then I would disagree with you. Nevertheless, I will not attack anyone for their opinions, and if change is necessary, things will change as needed.

[Nazis in Space]

The American people as a whole have not reached class consciousness. Similarly, those who exhibit Stokholm Syndrome have been manipulated into supporting their captors, though not intentionally. It's established that the party attempted to undermine the Sanders campaign, and it's safe to assume that he would have been more successful had this not occurred.

Ah, yes. The people, the common man you allegedly support is a fool ensnared by evil people. Lacking in agency, they're automatons, and only you* can free them of their bonds!

By ignoring their vote.

It's not the first time a wannabe dictator has made this argument.

It always ends in one of two ways. Option one: The idea dies a lonely masturbatory fantasy while the young college kid espousing it tries in vain to get laid while quoting Marx. Option two: A dictatorship and executions.

Let's hope you belong to the former camp. It's ultimately harmless, though probably worth a psychological analysis - the whole 'I WANT TO HELP THE VERY PEOPLE WHO I ALLEGE ARE BARELY HUMAN AND UNABLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!' thing is kind of an intellectual disconnect, after all.

The latter, well. It can kill millions. That's not cool.

*A general 'You', covering individuals of the same 'THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE RULED BY MY IRON FIST FOR THEIR OWN SAKE!' ilk as yourself

Unless they weren't planning to win.

That's probably true for Yang, actually. Klobuchar and Buttigieg I'm fairly sure wanted to win, but then they saw the Clyburn endorsement and how they polled relative to Biden in the Southern states, and threw the towel.

You're so desperately trying to avoid the fact that Sanders was the frontrunner. Then the undermining really kicked in.

Mike Huckabee was the frontrunner of the 2008 Republican primary. Frontrunners can fail, y'know.

And we have of course already covered what you mean by 'Undermining' - 'The unwashed masses voted against my candidate!'

Like, you literally said as much in your first sentence.

Cooperation only occurs in the overnment when there's money involved.

Hm. Sanders did have the most funds, and he did fail to cooperate... I mean, I still think it's a pretty hot take for the left to claim that altruism doesn't exist, but still.

You really wouldn't have to use so many fallacies if your argument was worthwhile, ya know.

You probably wouldn't be on the far left if you didn't have erotic fantasies about disenfranchising the working class for its own sake, but here we are.

A coalition that drove Sanders out, supported by party officals. That is the conspiracy. Think of the upper party as a union, but for bourgeois parasites.

Ah, I'm afraid Sanders was the parasite. That's kind of the definition of an organism invading another one and using its resources for one's own gain.

You can't drive out someone who was never in. Sanders is an independent, remember?

Also, and I know you have trouble understanding this, but the goal of a primary is to have one candidate. When one candidate shows that he can unify the party behind him and the other doesn't even try to do this... that is, as noted previously, not a conspiracy. That's literally what a primary is made for. Weeding out the chaff that can't hack it.

That one needs to make allies, not enemies when trying to win a party nomination shouldn't be rocket science. It's basic social interaction. Most people learn that as children.

That Sanders - and you - are not capable of grasping basic socialisation and consider it a conspiracy instead does, once again, not speak well of either of you. Randian heroes only work in fiction. In reality, they're simply incompetent.

Every major politician is a bourgeois puppet or sellout to some extent, and Sanders was one of the few that was noticeably less of one. It's atually impressive that he got as far as he did without forming alliances with any of those worms imo. That's what it's like to be an outspoken politician. Not fully giving in to corporate interests doesn't make him a failure, it means he has more of a spine than the rest of them.

Uh, Sanders only got to be where he is by literally agreeing with those 'Worms' that they wouldn't run a candidate against him in Vermont. Sanders had police arrest protesters against arms manufacturing during his tenure as Mayor of Burlington. And Sanders has passed precisely fuckall.

Sanders literally got to where he is by selling out to corporate interests and conspiring, in the exact fashion you're accusing the Dems of doing against him, for a Senate seat.

And all he has to show for it are a few renamed post offices.

You're fawning over a sellout who has contributed nothing to progress because he has gotten nothing passed.

It's the definition of style over substance.

If your idea of 'Revolution' is 'Angry Twitter Rants' while literally nothing changes... then, and only then is Sanders a success.

But if your goals do in any way, shape or form go beyond twitter, then I'm afraid you're delusional.

Giving in to the status quo is not a good thing, it's cowardly and spineless.

Literally rejecting democracy. Gotcha.

I mean, we knew that already, but I feel it bears mentioning again.

The base rejected him because of the party.

The base is the party, mate.

Ah, right. I forgot. According to you, the common man is an automaton not capable of independent thought. Classic socialist theory.

The people elected Hitler, but opposition to the Nazis doesn't make an individual against them.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Mind rephrasing that?

Sanders was objectively a bad candidate, but he was good enough to make him better than all the rest.

I assume the bad part is the one where Sanders doesn't fantasise about flat-out disenfranchising the working class.

I didn't think he'd win, and he would really have his hands tied if he did becuase at the end of the day the state is run by those with the most money.

Just in case you forgot, the guy with the most money in the primary was Sanders.

He lost.

Not the first time, btw. McCain murdered his considerably better-funded opponents in 2008, Trump did the same in '16.

You're just flat-out deluding yourself there.

[Cordel One]

The American people as a whole have not reached class consciousness. Similarly, those who exhibit Stokholm Syndrome have been manipulated into supporting their captors, though not intentionally. It's established that the party attempted to undermine the Sanders campaign, and it's safe to assume that he would have been more successful had this not occurred.

Ah, yes. The people, the common man you allegedly support is a fool ensnared by evil people. Lacking in agency, they're automatons, and only you* can free them of their bonds!

I don't seem to recall claiming that only I could liberate the proletariat. I'm not nearly that full of myself, I'm just another proletarian.

By ignoring their vote.

It's not the first time a wannabe dictator has made this argument.

I'm allergic to straw, so I'd apprecite it if you'd stop shoving it in my face.

It always ends in one of two ways. Option one: The idea dies a lonely masturbatory fantasy while the young college kid espousing it tries in vain to get laid while quoting Marx. Option two: A dictatorship and executions.

I thought I asked you to stop it with the straw.

Let's hope you belong to the former camp. It's ultimately harmless, though probably worth a psychological analysis - the whole 'I WANT TO HELP THE VERY PEOPLE WHO I ALLEGE ARE BARELY HUMAN AND UNABLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!' thing is kind of an intellectual disconnect, after all.

I'm beginning to think that whole thing about not getting laid is projection. Are you ok?

The latter, well. It can kill millions. That's not cool.

You can add me to the death toll if you continue shoving this much straw down my throat. Friendly reminder, though, that the "black book of communism" includesNazi casualties and nonexistent people.

*A general 'You', covering individuals of the same 'THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE RULED BY MY IRON FIST FOR THEIR OWN SAKE!' ilk as yourself

Enough with the fucking straw.

Unless they weren't planning to win.

That's probably true for Yang, actually. Klobuchar and Buttigieg I'm fairly sure wanted to win, but then they saw the Clyburn endorsement and how they polled relative to Biden in the Southern states, and threw the towel.

And Warren, once her campaign failed.

You're so desperately trying to avoid the fact that Sanders was the frontrunner. Then the undermining really kicked in.

Mike Huckabee was the frontrunner of the 2008 Republican primary. Frontrunners can fail, y'know.

Frontrunners can fail for different reasons, too.

And we have of course already covered what you mean by 'Undermining' - 'The unwashed masses voted against my candidate!'

You didn't cover anything, you built a big strawman because you're incapable of having an actual debate. Saners faile because the party and the candidates ganged up on him and smeared him in front of the people.

Like, you literally said as much in your first sentence.

Cooperation only occurs in the overnment when there's money involved.

Yeah, rich people decide what the state supports.

Hm. Sanders did have the most funds, and he did fail to cooperate... I mean, I still think it's a pretty hot take for the left to claim that altruism doesn't exist, but still.

You really wouldn't have to use so many fallacies if your argument was worthwhile, ya know.

You probably wouldn't be on the far left if you didn't have erotic fantasies about disenfranchising the working class for its own sake, but here we are.

A coalition that drove Sanders out, supported by party officals. That is the conspiracy. Think of the upper party as a union, but for bourgeois parasites.

Ah, I'm afraid Sanders was the parasite. That's kind of the definition of an organism invading another one and using its resources for one's own gain.

...and you're repeating yourself again. If you're gonna insult me you can at least do so in a less pathetic way.

You can't drive out someone who was never in. Sanders is an independent, remember?

and a Democrat candidate for president.

Also, and I know you have trouble understanding this, but the goal of a primary is to have one candidate. When one candidate shows that he can unify the party behind him and the other doesn't even try to do this... that is, as noted previously, not a conspiracy. That's literally what a primary is made for. Weeding out the chaff that can't hack it.

And Space Nazis knocks the strawman out of the ring, leading 4-0! Incredible!

That one needs to make allies, not enemies when trying to win a party nomination shouldn't be rocket science. It's basic social interaction. Most people learn that as children.

It would be nice if you tried reading my post without going straight for the strawman. Here, I'll quote it for you:

Every major politician is a bourgeois puppet or sellout to some extent, and Sanders was one of the few that was noticeably less of one. It's atually impressive that he got as far as he did without forming alliances with any of those worms imo. That's what it's like to be an outspoken politician. Not fully giving in to corporate interests doesn't make him a failure, it means he has more of a spine than the rest of them.

That Sanders - and you - are not capable of grasping basic socialisation and consider it a conspiracy instead does, once again, not speak well of either of you. Randian heroes only work in fiction. In reality, they're simply incompetent.

Every major politician is a bourgeois puppet or sellout to some extent, and Sanders was one of the few that was noticeably less of one. It's atually impressive that he got as far as he did without forming alliances with any of those worms imo. That's what it's like to be an outspoken politician. Not fully giving in to corporate interests doesn't make him a failure, it means he has more of a spine than the rest of them.

Uh, Sanders only got to be where he is by literally agreeing with those 'Worms' that they wouldn't run a candidate against him in Vermont. Sanders had police arrest protesters against arms manufacturing during his tenure as Mayor of Burlington. And Sanders has passed precisely fuckall.

I even acknowledged Sanders was something of a sellout himself, but you probably didn't notice that because you were too busy whipping out the old strawman so you could pretend you were making some sick burns. There are roleplay forums for you if you do want to spend your time beating up strawmen like a big man, but leave me the fuck out of it.

Sanders literally got to where he is by selling out to corporate interests and conspiring, in the exact fashion you're accusing the Dems of doing against him, for a Senate seat.

I know.

And all he has to show for it are a few renamed post offices.

He's a little more acomplished than that but ok

You're fawning over a sellout who has contributed nothing to progress because he has gotten nothing passed.

I'm not fawning over him. He's a sellout, but slightly less of one than his peers.

It's the definition of style over substance.

If your idea of 'Revolution' is 'Angry Twitter Rants' while literally nothing changes... then, and only then is Sanders a success.

But if your goals do in any way, shape or form go beyond twitter, then I'm afraid you're delusional.

And just when we all thought he was done with the strawman Space Nazis comes back to deliver another merciless beatdown to the poor caryopsis.

Giving in to the status quo is not a good thing, it's cowardly and spineless.

Literally rejecting democracy. Gotcha.

Haven't got me at all.

I mean, we knew that already, but I feel it bears mentioning again.

The base rejected him because of the party.

The base is the party, mate.

The party is a set of committees funded by rich people.

Ah, right. I forgot. According to you, the common man is an automaton not capable of independent thought. Classic socialist theory.

Leave the poor strawman alone, he's alreay dead!

The people elected Hitler, but opposition to the Nazis doesn't make an individual against them.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Mind rephrasing that?

In the mid 1930s acountry called Germany was very mad at some other countries, so their people decided to elect a bad man named Adolf Hitler who hurt a large number of people. Some people did not like this man, but this did not mean they were against the people who had been tricked into supporting him.

Sanders was objectively a bad candidate, but he was good enough to make him better than all the rest.

I assume the bad part is the one where Sanders doesn't fantasise about flat-out disenfranchising the working class.

I didn't think he'd win, and he would really have his hands tied if he did becuase at the end of the day the state is run by those with the most money.

Just in case you forgot, the guy with the most money in the primary was Sanders.

He lost.

Not the first time, btw. McCain murdered his considerably better-funded opponents in 2008, Trump did the same in '16.

You're just flat-out deluding yourself there.

And you repeat yourself. Again.

I'm amazed that you managed to write a wall of text that long without making a single argument in good faith, and I have nothing more to say to you.

[San Lumen]

Ah, yes. The people, the common man you allegedly support is a fool ensnared by evil people. Lacking in agency, they're automatons, and only you* can free them of their bonds!

I don't seem to recall claiming that only I could liberate the proletariat. I'm not nearly that full of myself, I'm just another proletarian.

By ignoring their vote.

It's not the first time a wannabe dictator has made this argument.

I'm allergic to straw, so I'd apprecite it if you'd stop shoving it in my face.

It always ends in one of two ways. Option one: The idea dies a lonely masturbatory fantasy while the young college kid espousing it tries in vain to get laid while quoting Marx. Option two: A dictatorship and executions.

I thought I asked you to stop it with the straw.

Let's hope you belong to the former camp. It's ultimately harmless, though probably worth a psychological analysis - the whole 'I WANT TO HELP THE VERY PEOPLE WHO I ALLEGE ARE BARELY HUMAN AND UNABLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES!' thing is kind of an intellectual disconnect, after all.

I'm beginning to think that whole thing about not getting laid is projection. Are you ok?

The latter, well. It can kill millions. That's not cool.

You can add me to the death toll if you continue shoving this much straw down my throat. Friendly reminder, though, that the "black book of communism" includesNazi casualties and nonexistent people.

*A general 'You', covering individuals of the same 'THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE RULED BY MY IRON FIST FOR THEIR OWN SAKE!' ilk as yourself

Enough with the fucking straw.

That's probably true for Yang, actually. Klobuchar and Buttigieg I'm fairly sure wanted to win, but then they saw the Clyburn endorsement and how they polled relative to Biden in the Southern states, and threw the towel.

And Warren, once her campaign failed.

Mike Huckabee was the frontrunner of the 2008 Republican primary. Frontrunners can fail, y'know.

Frontrunners can fail for different reasons, too.

And we have of course already covered what you mean by 'Undermining' - 'The unwashed masses voted against my candidate!'

You didn't cover anything, you built a big strawman because you're incapable of having an actual debate. Saners faile because the party and the candidates ganged up on him and smeared him in front of the people.

Like, you literally said as much in your first sentence.

Yeah, rich people decide what the state supports.

Hm. Sanders did have the most funds, and he did fail to cooperate... I mean, I still think it's a pretty hot take for the left to claim that altruism doesn't exist, but still.

You probably wouldn't be on the far left if you didn't have erotic fantasies about disenfranchising the working class for its own sake, but here we are.

Ah, I'm afraid Sanders was the parasite. That's kind of the definition of an organism invading another one and using its resources for one's own gain.

...and you're repeating yourself again. If you're gonna insult me you can at least do so in a less pathetic way.

You can't drive out someone who was never in. Sanders is an independent, remember?

and a Democrat candidate for president.

Also, and I know you have trouble understanding this, but the goal of a primary is to have one candidate. When one candidate shows that he can unify the party behind him and the other doesn't even try to do this... that is, as noted previously, not a conspiracy. That's literally what a primary is made for. Weeding out the chaff that can't hack it.

And Space Nazis knocks the strawman out of the ring, leading 4-0! Incredible!

That one needs to make allies, not enemies when trying to win a party nomination shouldn't be rocket science. It's basic social interaction. Most people learn that as children.

It would be nice if you tried reading my post without going straight for the strawman. Here, I'll quote it for you:

Every major politician is a bourgeois puppet or sellout to some extent, and Sanders was one of the few that was noticeably less of one. It's atually impressive that he got as far as he did without forming alliances with any of those worms imo. That's what it's like to be an outspoken politician. Not fully giving in to corporate interests doesn't make him a failure, it means he has more of a spine than the rest of them.

That Sanders - and you - are not capable of grasping basic socialisation and consider it a conspiracy instead does, once again, not speak well of either of you. Randian heroes only work in fiction. In reality, they're simply incompetent.

Uh, Sanders only got to be where he is by literally agreeing with those 'Worms' that they wouldn't run a candidate against him in Vermont. Sanders had police arrest protesters against arms manufacturing during his tenure as Mayor of Burlington. And Sanders has passed precisely fuckall.

I even acknowledged Sanders was something of a sellout himself, but you probably didn't notice that because you were too busy whipping out the old strawman so you could pretend you were making some sick burns. There are roleplay forums for you if you do want to spend your time beating up strawmen like a big man, but leave me the fuck out of it.

Sanders literally got to where he is by selling out to corporate interests and conspiring, in the exact fashion you're accusing the Dems of doing against him, for a Senate seat.

I know.

And all he has to show for it are a few renamed post offices.

He's a little more acomplished than that but ok

You're fawning over a sellout who has contributed nothing to progress because he has gotten nothing passed.

I'm not fawning over him. He's a sellout, but slightly less of one than his peers.

It's the definition of style over substance.

If your idea of 'Revolution' is 'Angry Twitter Rants' while literally nothing changes... then, and only then is Sanders a success.

But if your goals do in any way, shape or form go beyond twitter, then I'm afraid you're delusional.

And just when we all thought he was done with the strawman Space Nazis comes back to deliver another merciless beatdown to the poor caryopsis.

Literally rejecting democracy. Gotcha.

Haven't got me at all.

I mean, we knew that already, but I feel it bears mentioning again.

The base is the party, mate.

The party is a set of committees funded by rich people.

Ah, right. I forgot. According to you, the common man is an automaton not capable of independent thought. Classic socialist theory.

Leave the poor strawman alone, he's alreay dead!

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Mind rephrasing that?

In the mid 1930s acountry called Germany was very mad at some other countries, so their people decided to elect a bad man named Adolf Hitler who hurt a large number of people. Some people did not like this man, but this did not mean they were against the people who had been tricked into supporting him.

I assume the bad part is the one where Sanders doesn't fantasise about flat-out disenfranchising the working class.

Just in case you forgot, the guy with the most money in the primary was Sanders.

He lost.

Not the first time, btw. McCain murdered his considerably better-funded opponents in 2008, Trump did the same in '16.

You're just flat-out deluding yourself there.

And you repeat yourself. Again.

Stop.

How many times does it have to explained to you before in sinks in there was no conspiracy and you acknowledge you have no understanding of history or how the process works?

[Cordel One]

How many times does it have to explained to you before in sinks in there was no conspiracy and you acknowledge you have no understanding of history or how the process works?

Making an argument that actually manages to refute a single one of my (or Sanghyeok's) claims would be a good start.

[San Lumen]

How many times does it have to explained to you before in sinks in there was no conspiracy and you acknowledge you have no understanding of history or how the process works?

Making an argument that actually manages to refute a single one of my (or Sanghyeok's) claims would be a good start.

Nazis in Space did a great job at it you you continue to ignore their claims and push your own warped view of reality.

[Cordel One]

Making an argument that actually manages to refute a single one of my (or Sanghyeok's) claims would be a good start.

Nazis in Space did a great job at it you you continue to ignore their claims and push your own warped view of reality.

Nazis in Space insulted a strawman and made a few bad faith arguments, that's about it.

[San Lumen]

Nazis in Space did a great job at it you you continue to ignore their claims and push your own warped view of reality.

Nazis in Space insulted a strawman and made a few bad faith arguments, that's about it.

No they didn’t. It was debunking of your whole argument but you refuse to acknowledge it and label anyone who disagrees with your world view as supporting the status quo and any historical figure that doesn’t hold your world view is a racist.

[Cordel One]

Nazis in Space insulted a strawman and made a few bad faith arguments, that's about it.

No they didn’t. It was debunking of your whole argument but you refuse to acknowledge it and label anyone who disagrees with your world view as supporting the status quo and any historical figure that doesn’t hold your world view is a racist.

Yes, it's exactly what they did. 80% of the text wall was bad insults and the other 20% of arguments were either irrelevant or missing the point.

And yes, racists were racists. Washington and Jefferson were slaveowning parasites and I'd spit on their graves given the opportunity.

[San Lumen]

No they didn’t. It was debunking of your whole argument but you refuse to acknowledge it and label anyone who disagrees with your world view as supporting the status quo and any historical figure that doesn’t hold your world view is a racist.

Yes, it's exactly what they did. 80% of the text wall was bad insults and the other 20% of arguments were either irrelevant or missing the point.

And yes, racists were racists. Washington and Jefferson were slaveowning parasites and I'd spit on their graves given the opportunity.

You clearly have zero understanding of the how the process works or of history. Had the delegates attempted to ban slavery it would have blown up the convention and the country would have collapsed shortly thereafter due to how untenable the articles where but you are incapable of understanding this.

[Cordel One]

Yes, it's exactly what they did. 80% of the text wall was bad insults and the other 20% of arguments were either irrelevant or missing the point.

And yes, racists were racists. Washington and Jefferson were slaveowning parasites and I'd spit on their graves given the opportunity.

You clearly have zero understanding of the how the process works or of history. Had the delegates attempted to ban slavery it would have blown up the convention and the country would have collapsed shortly thereafter due to how untenable the articles where but you are incapable of understanding this.

They didn't want to ban slavery and you've said nothing to prove they did.. They wouldn't have owned slaves if they cared.

[San Lumen]

You clearly have zero understanding of the how the process works or of history. Had the delegates attempted to ban slavery it would have blown up the convention and the country would have collapsed shortly thereafter due to how untenable the articles where but you are incapable of understanding this.

They didn't want to ban slavery and you've said nothing to prove they did.. They wouldn't have owned slaves if they cared.

They would have if they could. It was impossible to do so at the time but you'd rather rewrite history to suit your radical agenda and your belief that the whole system is rigged so your candidates can't win.

Progressives ran in primaries and in the general and some of them did not win. That does mean there is a mass conspiracy. It means not everyone agrees with you.