Yeah, last time that happened dude changed things around and was so popular with the people the other party had to put a rule into place to not let people elect someone more than twice.
Yeah, and the last time someone ran on that platform, they were elected to the Democratic ticket in the midterms by a blowout, then the Democratic party ignored the will of the voters and nominated their donor-approved candidate, who then went on to lose one of the most important elections in US history to a pedophilic Russian asset, who then dismantled the US government, sold it and every state secret to the highest bidder, ushered in an authoritarian ultra-conservative regime, and then performed a self-coup to seize and consolidate power.
look. I voted bernie in the primary but he did not win the popular vote much less blow it out and the dnc did not ignore the will of the voters. There was a lot of bs but an actual ignoring of the vote totals.
Wilding v. DNC is the court case where the DNC admitted that they don’t have to abide by the primaries because they are a private entity and can nominate whomever they want.
There used to be transcripts of this everywhere.
I’m all for everyone voting for the “lesser of two evils”. I think everyone should go vote in the primaries. I also think everyone should pay very close attention to the DNC bureaucracy and minor rule changes and what everyone around them is saying and voting for.
Because seeing everything up close, in a world full of lies and deception, is what most people need to understand the truth. So they can make the hard decisions they will need to make.
The DNC arguing in court that they don’t have to abide by primary elections isn’t the same thing as the DNC actually not abiding by the primary elections. The DNC absolutely abided by the primary elections in 2016, and there’s no evidence to the contrary.
Sure, the superdelegate system was overwhelmingly for Clinton, but Bernie was already behind in the elected delegate total. Either way, in 2018, the DNC changed the rules so superdelegates can’t even vote in the first round anymore, so will only get a vote if a convention is contested.
You are right, arguing in court that you can cheat all you want is not the same as cheating all you want, and nothing was proven because instead of airing it out in court, the judge said “well yes, you can cheat all you want” and it was over.
For the rest of your statements, I’m not getting into the specifics of rule changes and time changes and all the bullshit that happened in 2016. The minutia of bureaucratic processes and small sub-rule changes would be lost on anyone trying to find truth.
The court case though, that’s big and obvious and simple, and it’s very telling that your only argument against it is ‘arguing in court you can legally cheat, is not the same as cheating’, followed by ‘nobody proved anything because they could legally cheat and the case was thrown out’.
For the rest of your statements, I’m not getting into the specifics of rule changes and time changes and all the bullshit that happened in 2016. The minutia of bureaucratic processes and small sub-rule changes would be lost on anyone trying to find truth.
Literally my entire argument is that even without the influence of superdelegates Bernie didn’t win the primary election. If your argument against that is “I’m not getting into the specifics,” that is pretty telling.
I voted for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. I think he would’ve wiped the floor with Trump. I don’t like how the DNC picked sides in 2016 at all and do not support the DNC. That doesn’t mean Bernie didn’t actually lose the election, because he did.
I won’t let you lawyer up the place confusing people with the meanings and influence of the seemingly minor procedural points I bring up that had a huge effect. A court case, with a plain statement, is easy to digest.
But literally statements made by the DNC lawyer aren’t enough for your lalalala fingers in ears bullshit? How about the words of the chair if the DNC? If the head of the DNC says Hillary and the DNC leadership cheated, will you hear it?
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process… By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
I mean, you can readin the transcripts where the attorney for the DNC says as much to the judge in open court. I am not theorizing.
Like I said, anyone reading this should vote in the primaries and watch the DNC’s bureaucracy closely and understand what is going on, whatever that may be, for themselves.
I think it’s somewhere in between the two, but I followed Bernie’s advice and didn’t hold a vote in protest, because that would have been disastrous for… oh, yeah, it was.
Yeah, last time that happened dude changed things around and was so popular with the people the other party had to put a rule into place to not let people elect someone more than twice.
Yeah, and the last time someone ran on that platform, they were elected to the Democratic ticket in the midterms by a blowout, then the Democratic party ignored the will of the voters and nominated their donor-approved candidate, who then went on to lose one of the most important elections in US history to a pedophilic Russian asset, who then dismantled the US government, sold it and every state secret to the highest bidder, ushered in an authoritarian ultra-conservative regime, and then performed a self-coup to seize and consolidate power.
DNC: “Why is everyone looking at me? What?”
look. I voted bernie in the primary but he did not win the popular vote much less blow it out and the dnc did not ignore the will of the voters. There was a lot of bs but an actual ignoring of the vote totals.
Wilding v. DNC is the court case where the DNC admitted that they don’t have to abide by the primaries because they are a private entity and can nominate whomever they want.
There used to be transcripts of this everywhere.
I’m all for everyone voting for the “lesser of two evils”. I think everyone should go vote in the primaries. I also think everyone should pay very close attention to the DNC bureaucracy and minor rule changes and what everyone around them is saying and voting for.
Because seeing everything up close, in a world full of lies and deception, is what most people need to understand the truth. So they can make the hard decisions they will need to make.
The DNC arguing in court that they don’t have to abide by primary elections isn’t the same thing as the DNC actually not abiding by the primary elections. The DNC absolutely abided by the primary elections in 2016, and there’s no evidence to the contrary.
Sure, the superdelegate system was overwhelmingly for Clinton, but Bernie was already behind in the elected delegate total. Either way, in 2018, the DNC changed the rules so superdelegates can’t even vote in the first round anymore, so will only get a vote if a convention is contested.
You are right, arguing in court that you can cheat all you want is not the same as cheating all you want, and nothing was proven because instead of airing it out in court, the judge said “well yes, you can cheat all you want” and it was over.
For the rest of your statements, I’m not getting into the specifics of rule changes and time changes and all the bullshit that happened in 2016. The minutia of bureaucratic processes and small sub-rule changes would be lost on anyone trying to find truth.
The court case though, that’s big and obvious and simple, and it’s very telling that your only argument against it is ‘arguing in court you can legally cheat, is not the same as cheating’, followed by ‘nobody proved anything because they could legally cheat and the case was thrown out’.
Literally my entire argument is that even without the influence of superdelegates Bernie didn’t win the primary election. If your argument against that is “I’m not getting into the specifics,” that is pretty telling.
I voted for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. I think he would’ve wiped the floor with Trump. I don’t like how the DNC picked sides in 2016 at all and do not support the DNC. That doesn’t mean Bernie didn’t actually lose the election, because he did.
Be a big girl and come up with your own words.
I won’t let you lawyer up the place confusing people with the meanings and influence of the seemingly minor procedural points I bring up that had a huge effect. A court case, with a plain statement, is easy to digest.
But literally statements made by the DNC lawyer aren’t enough for your lalalala fingers in ears bullshit? How about the words of the chair if the DNC? If the head of the DNC says Hillary and the DNC leadership cheated, will you hear it?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
so thats a nice theoretical but its not what happened in 2016 with bernie.
I mean, you can readin the transcripts where the attorney for the DNC says as much to the judge in open court. I am not theorizing.
Like I said, anyone reading this should vote in the primaries and watch the DNC’s bureaucracy closely and understand what is going on, whatever that may be, for themselves.
Oh 100%. Primaries at this point are the elections for me.
I think it’s somewhere in between the two, but I followed Bernie’s advice and didn’t hold a vote in protest, because that would have been disastrous for… oh, yeah, it was.