EatATaco

You think she would have nominated people like kagan or people like gorsuch? Did you see how these votes went down partisan lines? I see for your other responses to me that reality ain't necessarily your thing, but just try to think about this rationally for a second.

That being said, if sanders had won the wh, his choices would have likely been even better.

Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate

I'm sure you'll be able to back this up with some facts.

If she “demolished” Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the “best” candidate. That’s your logic here.

At no point did i say she was the best candidate. I even explicitly said that i voted for Sanders, implying i thought he was the better choice. I'm just pointing out the reality that democratic voters overwhelmingly supported Clinton over Sanders.

The media hyped up the race. An actual race is far more profitable for them than the reality that Clinton was clearly going to win from the start.

Sanders also go the most positive coverage in the media.

30% of the time opinions are 9-0.

sometimes they all rule the same way.

It decidedly is not.

Lol

I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.

So quibbling about how far right they actually are, rather than the actual point that the court is obviously much further right than it would have been had Clinton won.

I kind of feel justified in my "strawmen."

It's the point i made, and one of the arguments you used.

Court overturns roe v wade.

"Well, it's kind of ridiculous to point out that the court has shifted to the right due to trump appointees because sometimes they all rule the same way."

I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.

Nor is that what i did. Or wait...are you arguing that they aren't right wing...because then..wow, I'm not sure what to say.

The fact that it doesn't always line up left right doesn't change the fact that these did.

You’re just being purposely obtuse

Projection. Find me one person who didn't vote because of the superdelegates or voted a certain way because of the superdelegates. After that we can discuss whether or not we think it's reasonable to believe it may have swung in 12 points.

Hillary was the DNC’s person and they did what they could to give her advantages.

Certainly she was their person, but there is scant evidence that they did anything to make this happen. The emails would have revealed a whole lot more if that was the case. Remember, one of the worst things that came out of the emails that was a focal point of the complaints, was saying mean things about sanders. Thats how bad it was. Mean things. Maybe this is all "they could to give her advantages" but if that's the case then the whole argument is silly.

On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other. The other poster made the ridiculous claim that had Clinton instead appointed 3 justices, giving the court of 5-4 left majority, that it still would have gone down the same way.

What opinions gorsuch has written has no bearing on this. I'm not even sure why you're bringing it up.

She demolished him in votes. You take super delegates out, she still destroys him.

Pretending that you know that it was meant to influence the voters is nonsense, but pretending that this actually swayed enough that it might have made it even close is just downright ridiculous.

So you are saying that millions of people were swayed by super delegates? It was extremely early, NH early, that people started getting pumped that sanders could win. The media hyped up the race despite it never being close.

It's grasping at straws to claim that this is why she demolished him.

Literally all of these have been a long ideological lines. Do you really think she would have appointed conservatives? Are "muh both sides"ers really this out of touch with reality?