Did this actually happen?

Another youtube video pusher. Please provide better proof.

Actually it's an overview of the election fraud case presented by the election justice attny I mentioned. They have a ton of evidence on their webpage at TrustVote.org and I can provide a ton more, but if you don't possess the least bit of objectivity and are going to resort to ad hominem derision, which is not a logical argument, there really is no point in discussing the matter further.

@dystopianAntihero: you keep trotting this out like an old shoe. this proves absolutely nothing about any election. any idiot can file a suit, it's the out come that is the proof and this has nothing to do with 2016

@ladycae: Ugh, you again? There's an entire thread where we discussed this. I provided link after link corroborating my assertions and all you did was equivocate, and flat out out lie. You originally denied that there even was a lawsuit, then I provided you w the documentation and you
your still dismissive of it.


Yes any idiot can file a lawsuit but were talking about an election justice atty w a reputation for having a reputation for having saved and election for the Democrats, form the Republicans. Someone w a reputation for integrity, which is something you'll never understand. It would not serve his purposes to file a fraudulent suit and damage his reputation, and he has no financial interests at stake. And again, they have plenty of evidence on their site. I have a ton of evidence at my disposal, a bread deal of which I produced you, and you just brushed it of bc you have no interest in the truth.

I'm the only person who's the least bit objective in this discussion. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, re voting for Clinton, as mentioned I'm voting for her myself. I was just taking exception to the assertion in the post which is incorrect. Anyone can look up any of the info I stated if their interested enough, but as I mentioned, there really is no point in elaborating on the fact if the individuals w whom I'm discussing them have no interest in examining them objectively.

Being objective, I'm someone who gets it from all sides Trump ppl and Stein supporters try and talk me into voting for Stein rather than Hillary, and Hillary people don't like her being called out on being corrupt in spite of the fact that I'm a propanant of ppl voting blue all the way, for the reasons I stated. If I had no objectivity I'd be a mindless conformist like everyone else and would be voting for Jill Stein bc I'm p/I'd that my candidate didn't win the nomination, but I'm not doing either of those things. That's what an objective, conscientious person does, the actually examine all the evidence, and judge it on it's merits, as opposed to being dismissive of it prior to having done so. After having done so the choose the best course of action in tight of the facts, which is why I'm voting blue and not Green, in spite of my misgivings about Clinton. This is what someone who operates on the basis of reason, rather than emotion looks like.

You left wing ideologues are just as bad as right wing ones, you have no more interest in the facts that a Trump supporter. I'm constantly calling him out on his racism all the time, citing numerous examples, and I get the same types of responses from them re him, as you re her. Both sides are nothing more then the right and left wings of the same predatory bird of prey.

Clinton is the lesser evil, and I'll be voting for the lesser evil bc my concern is how the most marginalised and oppressed members of our society would be disproportionately effected otherwise. And their would be np possibility of Pershing a center left legislative agenda under Trump, mich less a progressive one.

you still don't get it. this proves nothing. if the suit is accepted and goes to trial and found to be correct then it proves something. not before. and even then it proves nothing about the 2016 election.

Btw, it's already come out that the former DNC chair, Debbie Wassman Schultz, was involved in rigging the primaries and was involved in unethical behavior, which is why she had to step down. The party chair is not allowed to show favoritism, and it was proven that she did. Even Hillary supporters called for her removal for the good of the party That's an incontrovertable fact, as well, or am I the only one here aware of it?

@dystopianAntihero: the dnc was not found to have rigged the primaries. they were found to have bias towards hillary. big difference. i know you want desperately to find out elections are rigged, but actually read the words, not just skim and assume

@ladycae: No you don't get it, you've arrived at a conclusion in the abcense of all available evidence to the contrary, not based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. Your assertions are not fact based, they're based on your ideological predispositions.

@ladycae: Technically you're correct, and I meant rigging in terms of showing favoritism. The behavior was unethical and went against DNC rules, but there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing in those incidents, nor did I characterize the situation as such. But it is evidence of corruption and collision, not only between HRC and DWS, but between the DNC and the media. It is rigging bc it effects the outcome in favor of the preferred candidate. It's not election fraud, not did I equate it w it, but it is rigging the selection process, nonetheless.

1. showing favoritism is not rigging. it is saying i prefer a over b. rigging is changing a vote for b to a. big difference. and the fact that you say it is still rigging shows you lack incite and the ability to actually understand what words mean. rigging is changing votes, bias is preferring one over another. the selection process was not rigged at all. i wish it had been i was a bernie fan, but it wasn't.

and it's an old story from months ago so stop trying to deflect from the matter at hand. your lawsuit means nothing unless it is won. and even if won, which is doubtful, it says nothing about the 2016 election. no matter how many times you try to float this video as proof, it won't be proof. proof is cold hard undisputed fact. of course, given that you don't understand the difference between rigging and bias this is no great surprise you mistakenly think this is proof.

It's an unethical rigging of the section process. Its not a matter of personal favortism, if it were merely a matter of personal favoritism it wouldn't be unethical. The fact that the DNC chair effected the outcome of the selection process by showing heavily bias preferential treatment of one candidate over the other means that the selection process was rigged in favor of Clinton.

Again, I made the distinction between bias and voter fraud, the fact that they're both forms of rigging does not make them equivalent, nor did I characterize the as such. Both are unethical examles of corruption, however.

And there's a difference between actual guilt and legal guilt. If a person committed a crime, they are guilt of actually having done so, whether proven guilty, or not. The concept of innocent until proven guilty has to do w legallity and consequences. Innocent ppl are proven guilty and guilty ppl go free all the time, but the proponderence evidence points to the likelihood or unlikihood of guilt.

And the incontrovertable evidence of bias in the selection process is proof of ethical wrongdoing and corruption. You ideologues stay me. It's only wrong when the other side does it. It just goes to show how biased and ethically bankrupt you are. You know if there were allegations of the Republicans rigging the election you'd be apoplectic by now. No wonder the system is so corrupt, it's not just bc of the right, it's bc of ppl like you.

there s no such thing as an unethical rigging that does not rig the vote. beeeep sorry no. was it unethical, yes, was it rigging the election no. there is no such thing as unethical rigging. rigging an election is physically changing the vote to support one candidate over another. it is not an idea, it is a physical act.

bias is not rigging. it is a idea, not a physical act and you saying othgerwise does not make t so. otherwise you woyuld have to rewrite all the dictionaries.

and even though you are avoiding my rebuttal of your video by bringing up something from mothes ago that is over and done with. wasserman lost her job remember? prove to me how your video from 2014 proves rigged elections. and btw, fraud is also a physical act. the dnc did not commit fraud. it committed bias.

so are you going to stop now or must i waste all of my day rebutting your ridiculous attempts to change the English language.

The bias was the reason for the rigging. Apparently you're the one who needs an English lesson, to rig something means to give an unfair advantage to one side over the other in order to effect to ultimate outcome. And it was unethical, that's why DWS was replaced.

The point is HRC's patter of corruption, everything I'm talking about took place over the course of a yr ending w the DNC convention. So it's you who has none of it straight in your mind, including the timeline.

As usual, you've done nothing but obfuscate, and equivocate, it's like arguing w a right winger about Creationism. We're done here.

unethical yes rigged no.

rigging an election: Electoral fraud, election manipulation, or vote rigging is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both.
Electoral fraud - Wikipedia

bias: Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. In other words, bias is generally seen as 'one-sided'." When biased statements are made, and represented as fact or truth however, it is wrong and unethical. Bias presented in this way is a lie!

Is Bias Unethical? http://ethicsforsuccess.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-bias-unethical.html

got you on both counts.

oh so now it's clinton corruption. make up your mind i have continuously defined the same point over and over, you have thrown everything but the kitchen sink to try to obfuscate, and equivocate,

Again I said the rigging don't by DWS, wasn't election rigging. I know what bias is, and it was the motivation for rigging the nomination process, as I said. Nothing you've said disproves or undermines anything I've said you're just dancing around the subject and equivocating. And yes it was unethical, DWS violated the party rules which is why she had to step down. Again, personal preference isn't unethical, per se, but this was not the case.

So no, you didn't get me on any count.

i thought you were done and yes i did, bias is not rigging an election don't change the narrative to make yourself look good. typical trump supporter. if you can't win just change your story.

No, bias is not rigging it's the reason for it. You're the one who's making themselves look like a Trump supporter, they can't be reasoned w either. And I may be voting for Clinton, but I'm certainly not a Clinton sopproter, and I'm certainly not voting for her bc she deserves it.

niether am i but you claimed


and that was incorrect. the dnc was biased but they did nothing to actually rig the election. i am biased against trump that does not mean i am rigging the election. i am biased against hard boiled eggs that does not mean i am stopping you from eating them. People are biased against many things, that does not mean they prevent others from doing, being, r thinking those things

For the umpteenth time, the bias was the reason for rigging the nomination process. You don't seem to grasp the difference between rigging the nomination process and rigging the election, which are two different things. The OP asked a legitimate question and deserved an honest answer, something that you have no interest in, nor are you capable of goving one. I'm tired of you ignorant, trolling rambling, so you're getting blocked.