Court Concedes DNC Rigged Primary against Sanders

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No shit. I did not say you did. I said you did not understand what the court said. And I stand by that.

One more time: what do you think about what the court said?

awful. just awful. super-awful.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
awful. just awful. super-awful.

Lol your meltdown is spectacular.

nope. that's just you projecting your stunted little feelz again.

Originally posted by Surtur
One more time: what do you think about what the court said?

Here is a better question: What do you think the court said? Because you do not seem to understand it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Here is a better question: What do you think the court said? Because you do not seem to understand it.

I've asked you 3 times, now I'm asking you a 4th: what is your opinion on what the court said?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nope. that's just you projecting your stunted little feelz again.

I see, and when it's you claiming others are melting down, same deal correct? Or special rules?

adam, just say "awful". in fact answer every one of his questions with "awful".
i learned from surt that this is apparently a detailed and sufficient answer for...well...everything, really.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
adam, just say "awful". in fact answer every one of his questions with "awful".
i learned from surt that this is apparently a detailed and sufficient answer for...well...everything, really.

This is a possible answer. It would show he is triggered, but it would be acceptable.

Originally posted by Surtur
I've asked you 3 times, now I'm asking you a 4th: what is your opinion on what the court said?

And I have asked you one time. So what?

The judge sided against Sanders supporters, finding their case without merit. The court, in a procedural move, had to presume for the sake of argument that the accusations of the Plaintiffs were true, in order to assess their claims, and dismiss the suit. The author knew idiots like you and Sable are too dumb to understand that, and posted a nice click bait headline for you to fall for.

What is your opinion of that?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And I have asked you one time. So what?

The judge sided against Sanders supporters, finding their case without merit. The court, in a procedural move, had to presume for the sake of argument that the accusations of the Plaintiffs were true, in order to assess their claims, and dismiss the suit. The author knew idiots like you and Sable are too dumb to understand that, and posted a nice click bait headline for you to fall for.

What is your opinion of that?

My opinion is it shouldn't have taken 4 times to get an answer. My opinion is also that there is nothing wrong with what you said, they didn't say they had evidence or anything like that. They did indeed assume it.

Now I feel what I just posted was not necessarily unreasonable. Will people whine over it?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The author knew idiots like you and Sable are too dumb to understand that, and posted a nice click bait headline for you to fall for.

that's exactly what happened. headline knee-jerking as usual, and he never read the article.

Originally posted by Surtur
My opinion is it shouldn't have taken 4 times to get an answer. My opinion is also that there is nothing wrong with what you said, they didn't say they had evidence or anything like that. They did indeed assume it.

Now I feel what I just posted was not necessarily unreasonable. Will people whine over it?

Nice back track:

Originally posted by Surtur
People will cling to the fact the court is saying they merely assume these things, but it is still a pretty big deal when they say stuff like:

“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Damn lol.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg

that's exactly what happened. headline knee-jerking as usual, and he never read the article.

Well you said it, it must be true.

the evidence is clear that you did not read the article, so yes it is correct. you gonna cry about it now, babyman?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the evidence is clear that you did not read the article, so yes it is correct. you gonna cry about it now, babyman?

Ohh? Quote back the clear evidence. Clear evidence is not based on implications, mind you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
He's playing word games so he doesn't have to deal with what the court said. it's rather sad.

He is a clown. We cant expect much more.