We never forget

I've really noticed lately how the top results in most of my searches on Google and YouTube are dominated by CNN, and other top Corporate Media sites. You have to dive deep to find anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

You could show some strength of character and not use those web sites.

I cut out YouTube pretty easily.

If you Google any recent event or controversial statement every single time you will find Snopes as the top result, despite having only an Alexa rank in the 1800s. Even worse if you Google things like "who fact checks snopes", which results in three pages of Snopes articles before seeing a single other website.

Google is manipulating the search results, just compare the results to Bing which is far more in line with website rankings and accuracy.

Im gonna quickly plug DemocracyNow!, TheRealNews, and Secular Talk. All great alternatives to MSM. If you're more on the left like myself, Majority Report and The David Parkman show are also pretty great.

Here's the 2016 DNC convention where superdelgates overruled the will of the people and gave Clinton a 10 point lead over a sanders electoral win in Michigan.

Got that shit bookmarked so I can always come back to it.

Until you can't

Eh, I’m from Michigan and voted for Sanders. I still don’t get this conspiracy, because Bernie lost without superdelegates. He needed like 65% or so in CA to even tie it up, and he got nowhere close. He lost because a majority of CA democrats are closer to socially liberal republicans than most people think.

The superdelegates make the numbers misleading, but the people voted for Clinton, for whatever reason.

He lost because a majority of CA democrats are closer to socially liberal republicans than most people think.

Bernie didn't lose California. Clinton cheated Bernie out of California with voter fraud.

Riiiiiight. Do you have evidence of this?

I have friends in CA who were Bernie supporters posting about how many Clinton yard signs they saw around before the primary. Unlike the rest of the country, they weren't at all surprised by the results.

I have friends in CA who were Bernie supporters posting about how many Clinton yard signs they saw around before the primary. Unlike the rest of the country, they weren't at all surprised by the results.

I'm from LA. The whole city was for Bernie, as was SF. I'm not a bernie or clinton fan so am not biased saying it.

Riiiiiight. Do you have evidence of this?

I don't have personal access to California's voting record. Do you?

I'm from LA. The whole city was for Bernie, as was SF.

My Friend are in the San Jose / San Francisco area (Concord, Sunnyvale, and downtown SF specifically). They said there were Clinton signs all over the place.

My Friends are in the San Jose / San Francisco area. They said there were Clinton signs all over the place.

I didn't see any Clinton signs or Clinton stickers in LA, but Bernie shit was everywhere and I even saw a decent amount of Trump bumper stickers.

It is certainly not clear that Bernie Sanders would have won a majority of pledged delegates. But a major factor is, in my view, that most media almost completely refused to report about him before the first primaries (the blackout against Bernie Sanders). At that time, he had little name recognition, and that probably played a significant role. Then, the number of debates the DNC agreed to was unusually small (and one was at the time of a football game in Iowa). That seems to have been a deliberate strategy by the DNC and the Clinton Campaign (which effectively controlled the DNC).
After Sanders had won some primaries, he could not be ignored, any more, by the media, of course, but the leaked e-mails still show that the DNC, in favor of the Clinton campaign used their influence. Towards the end, the strategy was to pretend quickly that it was already over (which it was, when superdelegates are taken into account, but pretending it was already over probably further hurt Sanders' chances of getting a majority of pledged delegates).
There are reports about voter fraud in different states, but the evidence is not clear.

But a major factor is, in my view, that most media almost completely refused to report about him before the first primaries (the blackout against Bernie Sanders). At that time, he had little name recognition, and that probably played a significant role.

Eh, maybe it's my location, but I knew of him long before. Facebook just recently reminded me of a post where I said a year before the election something like "Man, if Bernie runs next year I might have to volunteer for once"

Then, the number of debates the DNC agreed to was unusually small (and one was at the time of a football game in Iowa). That seems to have been a deliberate strategy by the DNC and the Clinton Campaign (which effectively controlled the DNC).

Actually, lets break that claim down.

So in 2008 there were 21 Debates, but with 8 candidates, and 9 debates after the field narrowed down.

Then, in 2016 there were 10 Debates, with only 4 candidates (one was canceled).

At the same time, in 2016 The GOP had only 12 debates, but with 17 candidates.

So statistically, I wouldn't call that 'unusually small'.

After Sanders had won some primaries, he could not be ignored, any more, by the media, of course, but the leaked e-mails still show that the DNC,

Again, my experience is different from my location, but Bernie was still getting promoted pretty regularly in Michigan. The image of Clinton coming here (In 'Beer City USA' at the time) and pouring herself a beer that was like 90% foam became a joke that was constantly posted, even on some of the local news stations.

Towards the end, the strategy was to pretend quickly that it was already over (which it was, when superdelegates are taken into account, but pretending it was already over probably further hurt Sanders' chances of getting a majority of pledged delegates).

To be fair, after Clinton won the entire south (which is a completely different discussion - why states that never go blue hold so much weight in picking the dem candidate), it was practically over. The only thing that could save Bernie's campaign was a landslide in CA. I stayed up all night watching that, and that loss not only killed any chance of him statistically winning, but was a major upset with how bad the margin was.

There are reports about voter fraud in different states, but the evidence is not clear.

I think the only relevant ones were potential fuckery at the caucuses, but in the end caucuses are inaccurate garbage anyway that we would be better completely getting rid of.

The superdelegates ultimately didn't swing the primary, though. Clinton had a sizeable lead in regular delegates.

Can I ask why the 'Nate Silver' query is in there? What specifically did Silver do?

Inaccurately forecasted the election results, am I right?

He was actually one of the more accurate forecasters, giving Trump a hearty 33% chance of winning on election night.

So funny cause I read these chances. At work on election day, there were dice out(games), so I took one and told a coworker "Trump has a 33% chance. If its 1 or 2, he wins."

I rolled and it was 1. My coworker and I just exchanged ominous looks.

even type trump wont win compilation and its just all CNN and all mainstream shit

I always assumed there must be sites out there archiving every Youtube video that ever existed (and things like that). I'm actually disturbed that there aren't. How will historians know how bad things really were if it is being cleansed from the record?

people archive

Those may get cleansed too.

In the Hall of the Trumpen President still remains unmemory holed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE-uhXKO-nk&

Welcome to net neutrality buddy.

meltdown compilation videos

rather amusing some of them.

Those may get cleansed too.