• Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Now that was definitely not a primary, not even a checking the box primary. That was a coronation, and the very event I asked if you opposed.

      Anyways, it’s absolutely clear to anyone seeing this that you’re just a hack and not a serious person. I knew from the onset that was the best to be achieved.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          Sure buddy, call that a primary if you want. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Believe what you want, and don’t worry that you’re not respected for it.

            • Tinidril@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              20 hours ago

              The whole reason we are discussing primaries is that you (incorrectly) believe they indicate electability in the general. How exactly does a primary where the citizens didn’t get to vote for the “winning” candidate do that? Not very well apparently.

                • Tinidril@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 hours ago

                  Is this supposed to somehow further the discussion? Are you even trying to be coherent, or are you just grasping at whatever snark you can come up with?

                  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 hours ago

                    Well it’s hard to have a conversation about primaries when your definition doesn’t match the DNC’s.

                    But you’re right this has definitely reached the end of anything productive.