The thought has never crossed his mind. In his mind Sanders lost because of corruption. He can't point to any actual corruption but his gut knows what the truth is.
His truthyness has never been more truthful!
You realize your candidate lost to the person who lost to the worst candidate in history, right? Have you considered that Sanders lost because he was a bad candidate and people liked Clinton better?
I wonder how the loonytoons in the right are going to convince themselves that this one agent somehow followed around the Trump family for the previous decades and invented all of these fake documents regarding their illegal improprieties and foreign relationships to enemy entities. I wonder how they rationalize this agent's tweets and emails as some nefarious deep-state plot that goes back to the 80s, simply to compromise future president trump and his glorious plans to MAGA.
I wonder how they will do that, though I already see the wheels spinning in Ackmed's brain, because he is starting to question this agent's involvement in the campaign and how it seems to have spearheaded initial investigations. lol, this is cute. the chorus of the gaslighted. I wonder how they will react when Orange Julius goes down, whining like a little toddler, blaming everyone but his own criminal self.
You realize your candidate lost to the person who lost to the worst candidate in history, right? Have you considered that Sanders lost because he was a bad candidate and people liked Clinton better?
That's not really true. Both Dem candidates got little exposure early on due to the farce that was the GOP primary race. That impacted both candidates but this negatively impacted Sanders more as he was not know as Clinton was.I am going to guess it had more to do with the fact that mainstream media refused to give him any coverage. Considering he was an independent and gathering a huge following, he really should have been garnering a lot more media coverage than he was. Heres a guy with no party ties winning debates against one of the chosen political families. In any universe where the media isn't in someone's back pocket, that story would be covered to death. Go ahead, pretend that didn't happen or have any bearing on the election. Considering what he was up against, and how much his voice was muffled, the man took it to the wire.
https://www.boston.com/news/politic...irms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media
I am going to guess it had more to do with the fact that mainstream media refused to give him any coverage. Considering he was an independent and gathering a huge following, he really should have been garnering a lot more media coverage than he was. Heres a guy with no party ties winning debates against one of the chosen political families. In any universe where the media isn't in someone's back pocket, that story would be covered to death. Go ahead, pretend that didn't happen or have any bearing on the election. Considering what he was up against, and how much his voice was muffled, the man took it to the wire.
https://www.boston.com/news/politic...irms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media
That's not really true. Both Dem candidates got little exposure early on due to the farce that was the GOP primary race. That impacted both candidates but this negatively impacted Sanders more as he was not know as Clinton was.
He was also the most favorably reported on candidate overall. Here is the Harvard study. What they concluded was what hurt Sanders coverage the most was his perceived poor debate performance. Your characterization is not reflected in the article you linked.
"The study found that five Republican candidates—Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson—each got more coverage than Sanders during 2015 and that Clinton herself received three times as much press than the Vermont senator."Yes, such a huge following that he lost by millions of votes.
This is the same argument that almost every losing primary candidate makes. ‘I lost because the media didn’t pay enough attention to me!’ Maybe the reason they weren’t paying more attention is because he was losing. Primaries always work that way, it’s not some media conspiracy against Sanders.
And by the way I will never cease being amazed that the media is frequently portrayed as being in the pocket of the person they covered overwhelmingly negatively. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense to you?
It's clawing back because it is true. In 2016, there was a considerable populist movement. Clinton and her surrogates sought to suppress it because it was her turn. Sanders lost because the machine tipped the scales. I hold accountable those responsible for tipping those scales.I'm pretty sure that "Clinton Waterboys" wouldn't be the ones that voted for Trump.
We all have our own choices, to make, yes? Would you not agree that the ultimate responsibility of the individual casting their vote, lies on that that individual? But please, let's keep hearing how people that cast votes for Trump's opponent are the ones responsible for Trump's win. Quite sad that this failure of logic keeps clawing its way back from the grave.
The only reason to remove the appearance of bias if there is evidence of bias to give that appearance.The other possibility is that he wanted to remove any appearance of bias, but don't let that stop you from jumping to your preferred conclusion.
No evidence save the text messages that Mueller cited. I am happy to retract my position if the text messages prove to be nothing.No what he saw was the potential appearance of bias. Not evidence. That is a huge difference from a legal stand point.
Evidence would mean this guy took actual action based on his views towards Trump. There is NO evidence of this that you can cite.
So you know nothing of what it says but you have decided it MUST prove bias unless shown otherwise?No evidence save the text messages that Mueller cited. I am happy to retract my position if the text messages prove to be nothing.
Not unsurprising that people around here aren't talking about that. If on the other foot, they would be all about it. How it is not a big deal to them in incredible. Just more hypocrisy from the lefties here. Clear bias in a pretty big way, in several big "cases". He obviously had a bias agenda and ranked very highly. Passed judgement while having a conflict of interest to say the least. Hmmm, now where have I see this before.
"The study found that five Republican candidates—Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson—each got more coverage than Sanders during 2015 and that Clinton herself received three times as much press than the Vermont senator."
The two winners of the primaries clearly had the most coverage with the most amount of negative ads. Roy Moore's going to probably win Alabama. Don't tell me media coverage doesn't work. Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.
Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk
No it's not. Give you an example. If a judge were to recuse themselves from a case due to some kind of relationship with an involved party. They are removing the appearance of bias. That doesn't mean there was bias. You can remove appearance without any sort of bias actually being exerted.The only reason to remove the appearance of bias if there is evidence of bias to give that appearance.
"The study found that five Republican candidates—Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson—each got more coverage than Sanders during 2015 and that Clinton herself received three times as much press than the Vermont senator."
The two winners of the primaries clearly had the most coverage with the most amount of negative ads. Roy Moore's going to probably win Alabama. Don't tell me media coverage doesn't work.
Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.
Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk
Yeah this right here tells me there's no point engaging you further on this topic.Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.
No evidence save the text messages that Mueller cited. I am happy to retract my position if the text messages prove to be nothing.
Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.
Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk
Not the correct example because the agent did not remove himself, Mueller had no choice but to. When a superior has to remove someone in response to an action that is called damage control.No it's not. Give you an example. If a judge were to recuse themselves from a case due to some kind of relationship with an involved party. They are removing the appearance of bias. That doesn't mean there was bias. You can remove appearance without any sort of bias actually being exerted.
I read today that more millennials voted for Sanders in the primary that Clinton and Trump combined. Whatever happened in the Democratic primary, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sanders had broader appeal to the general electorate, and he remains a much more popular politician than either of the two GE candidates.
In what world is an FBI agent texting negative things about the President he is literally and actively investigating not a source of professional misconduct?That is not evidence he took any improper action against Trump whatsoever. Saying something bad about someone in a text is not evidence of professional misconduct on this planet or any other. Show us even a single shred of evidence he committed professional misconduct.
Also, the idea that the only reason to remove the appearance of bias is if there is evidence of bias is badly wrong. As mentioned, judges commonly recuse themselves from cases for the appearance of possible bias even when it is literally impossible for a biased action to have yet taken place.
Uhhh.. because misconduct would be conduct during the course of his duties. Saying Trump is a raging asshole isn't misconduct. It's an opinion that might demonstrate appearance of bias.In what world is an FBI agent texting negative things about the President he is literally and actively investigating not a source of professional misconduct?
I read today that more millennials voted for Sanders in the primary that Clinton and Trump combined. Whatever happened in the Democratic primary, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sanders had broader appeal to the general electorate, and he remains a much more popular politician than either of the two GE candidates.