I don’t mind which position you take, game or comic, but switching mid argument is just bad form.

I’m not a subscriber to this particular theory, but I do think model error is a more plausible explanation than magical, undetectable mass.

You are correct. It’s been a long time since my last game.

That wasn’t your position earlier.

“but the point is that those three are about to be completed”

Actions speak louder than words. Let’s review what happened.

• Wasserman Schultz resigned due to bias then immediately joined Clinton.

Guilty

• The text of the question Brazile sent to the Clinton campaign was identical to a proposed question Martin had offered CNN

Guilty

• Politico found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Victory Fund has stayed in the state parties’ coffers.

Guilty. Note that it’s very easy to claim others didn’t follow the rules when you are the ones writing them (possibly retroactively).

Strange how Ra is allowed in scrabble but not Sa

no tienen las letras del scrabble y este juego esta en ingles

You can’t progress 2 words at the same time.

Dark energy yes. But lots of cosmologists seem convinced dark matter is proven fact. Why are they so certain?

Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous.

Source. Disingenuous is trying to claim the DNC chair was not biased

The emails that were stolen show people being mean,

Showing bias in positions of responsibility is not “being mean”

but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything.

Debate questions in advance.

6 heads in a row.

Obtuse financing rules.

Etc.

Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?

Bullshit. In 2015 in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff.

She did. Eight years ago.

Yes. Because there was clear evidence of bias. Straight after, Debbie was rewarded with an honorary chair of the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.

Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.

How are you sure there was no misconduct?

How are you sure there was no impact?

When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.

Or, because Hillary controled the party’s finances, procedures were made deliberately obtuse to her advantage.

Every head including Lincoln and JFK?

Why did the playstation not have the same piracy problem?

Relevant

https://www.libraryvision.org/digitization/book-scanning-legality/

I think we need to raid futurama’s characters.

I thought the only observation we have of dark matter is via cosmological models.

Maybe it isn’t needed to balance the books

So what were the advantages?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic Party, was found to have sent an email during the primary election saying Mr Sanders “would not be president”

There were six primaries where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent

The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner,

superdelegates system favoured Clinton by pre-announcing their support, giving Clinton a massive early lead.

or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.

Clinton bought the DNC by paying off the debt created after Obama.

Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?

I’m saying she doesn’t align and would happily run as an independent if she thought she would be elected.

The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with.

“The party” is the people who vote in the primary.

Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves.

Party leadership is not the party.

It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.

Exactly. This is why the primaries were rigged in Clinton’s favor and Sanders and his supporters were right to claim unfairness.

We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.

Those rules were broken. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.

The Obama campaign is a good example.

Of fairness (or a super strong candidate beating stacked odds).

So what rules did they break for Clinton?

• Campaign finance
• Debate questions
• Impartiality

What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?

I haven’t researched how unfair Obama had it so I can’t compare.

Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”

Hilarious you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.

Would Kamala beat Trump in the election?

If you are a fan of the show, yes.

Nah. Fatty Owls is named after the hotel.

Chuck is all about Charles Carmichael. (Streeeeeeeetch).

Yeah. I may have to exclude medical/investigative.

House, Sherlock, Columbo, Reacher, Lucifer