I understand your frustration, when I first came here to read opinions etc, I actually took the time to write the admins to point out some obvious trolls.  Of course nothing was done, and my rating ability was lost.  (not that I ever rated anyone anyways.)

For a while I took the time to try to point out the obvious lies and distortions that were constantly repeated... thinking that interjecting some facts, and truth into the arguments here would help.

But here lately I really think it doesnt matter.  It has become obvious who the actual trolls are here, repeating the talking points of the day, trying to look reasonable and referencing each other to support their arguments.

What has happened though, is that the constant repetition of these claims actually has made not only the argument look silly, but also those that argue it.

So, at this point, it really doesnt matter anymore what the new argument or metrics of the day is.  These people have long ago lost all credibility, and are only digging their own hole.  I understand your frustration, but really, there is no need for it.  They try to stir up people to get into arguments, just to validate their claims.  The point is, they have none, so, let them argue with themselves for a while.  When they are done, they will either get behind the dem candidate and help win the general, or go back to the holes the trolls originally crawled out of.

(and definitely there are a number that are obviously republicans that are here to stir up shiat.  Its not like there is much action going on on sites like lgf, and seriously, the only way they have a hope in hell to win this election is by dividing the other side)

asherrem,
thank you very much. i updated at the beginning to spell that out.

yes, i know that there are MILLIONS of fairminded Clinton voters. i just wish THEY would speak up about the dishonesty coming from the Clinton campaign, and then i wouldn't have to.

Mojo for this line:

"Just keep your cool for a while.  Save some of that powder for the GOP.  "

I love viewing the general election in terms of 18th century warfare :)

First of all, since you are making such a strong claim against one of the top public officials in the country, you might want to at least learn to spell the word.

Main Entry: dis·en·fran·chise  
Pronunciation: ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz\
Function: transitive verb

: to intentionally deprive of a franchise, of a legal right; to deprive of the right to vote

Second, the accusation you make is that Obama intentionally deprived these people of the right to vote.  Which is complete bull shit.  (Not that accuracy is obviously what you were striving for here)  It is true that an agreement could not be reached AFTER the votes were cast on what to do about the mess that was made, but that mess had nothing to do with Obama, and he, in no way, took away anyone's right to vote.  

Regardless of what the reasons were that an agreement could not be reached (and any rational person would assume it was because one side wanted something the other side would not give) things stand now as they are.

In fact, a much stronger claim of disenfranchisement could be made by the many people that were told their vote would not count, but now will.  So, (although this also has yet to be agreed on) if Clinton does get what she wants, for these contests to be seated as they voted... SHE would infact be disenfranchising the many, many people that were told that their vote would not count, so they thus did not bother.

But, we wouldnt want things like facts, reality, and even spelling to get in the way of your arguments.