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.
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/