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.
Jesus dude, go back up to the top of the thread. We’re responding to:
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
And then:
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 (no) actual ignoring of the vote totals.
Can you show me where the DNC ignored vote totals? Even the link you shared (which is all info that’s already known to all of us) only says the Clinton campaign influenced DNC messaging. Straight from Donna Brazile’s mouth:
I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.
The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.
Again I voted for Bernie twice and am no fan of the DNC. They fucked up royally during and before (and since 😂) this election cycle. They still didn’t “ignore the will of the voters” in 2016 or alter the outcome of any of the primary elections. Bernie did not win the 2016 primary election.
A candidate who hadn’t been nominated yet (Hilary) had “control of the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” and was given power to “make final decisions on all the other staff” and that’s still not enough for you?!
Because you want emails stating “I, Eric of the nominations, doth pledge fealty to thee, Clinton, on this day, one month prior to the nominating day, and for unofficial and cheaty-pants reasons!”
Well, let me tell you, if I put all my friends in staff positions, and am the defacto leader of the organization because I decide all spending, strategy, and fundraising, I won’t need emails reminding me that I can do what I want at the organization where every fart gets approved by me before it squeaks and before even that squeak I had decided the dinner plan and the guts it would pass through as well, so I know how it will smell.
I’m really struggling to understand what you’re trying to convince me of. I know all this happened at the DNC. The 2016 Democratic primary happened in each state. Bernie didn’t get as many votes from Democratic primary voters as Clinton. The national DNC did not change votes or override votes.
That the cheating is plain as day and twice as big? I said they cheated. You said they didn’t. I showed you the biggest cheating anyone could ever conceive, so big it involved taking over the every input and output of the DNC, and running it like it was her personal household, and you’re saying that’s not cheating because there is no record of people taking about directly manipulating vote totals.
If you can walk into “Hillary’s vote hut” and use “Hillary’s vote pens” to vote on “Hillary’s vote paper” where the votes are tallied by “Hillary’s employees chosen from her friend pool” and then hear the results on “Hillary’s patented news delivery service” and quabble with me about “evidence of cheating” then I can’t help you.
Your viewpoint of what “cheating” means is so obscure and narrow that in the beginning of the chain, which you referred me back to, I genuinely thought you didn’t know all this because surely anyone who knew all this would understand that a complete and total takeover of the apparatus for voting and campaigning, was evidence enough of cheating.
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/
Jesus dude, go back up to the top of the thread. We’re responding to:
And then:
Can you show me where the DNC ignored vote totals? Even the link you shared (which is all info that’s already known to all of us) only says the Clinton campaign influenced DNC messaging. Straight from Donna Brazile’s mouth:
Again I voted for Bernie twice and am no fan of the DNC. They fucked up royally during and before (and since 😂) this election cycle. They still didn’t “ignore the will of the voters” in 2016 or alter the outcome of any of the primary elections. Bernie did not win the 2016 primary election.
A candidate who hadn’t been nominated yet (Hilary) had “control of the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” and was given power to “make final decisions on all the other staff” and that’s still not enough for you?!
Because you want emails stating “I, Eric of the nominations, doth pledge fealty to thee, Clinton, on this day, one month prior to the nominating day, and for unofficial and cheaty-pants reasons!”
Well, let me tell you, if I put all my friends in staff positions, and am the defacto leader of the organization because I decide all spending, strategy, and fundraising, I won’t need emails reminding me that I can do what I want at the organization where every fart gets approved by me before it squeaks and before even that squeak I had decided the dinner plan and the guts it would pass through as well, so I know how it will smell.
I’m really struggling to understand what you’re trying to convince me of. I know all this happened at the DNC. The 2016 Democratic primary happened in each state. Bernie didn’t get as many votes from Democratic primary voters as Clinton. The national DNC did not change votes or override votes.
That the cheating is plain as day and twice as big? I said they cheated. You said they didn’t. I showed you the biggest cheating anyone could ever conceive, so big it involved taking over the every input and output of the DNC, and running it like it was her personal household, and you’re saying that’s not cheating because there is no record of people taking about directly manipulating vote totals.
If you can walk into “Hillary’s vote hut” and use “Hillary’s vote pens” to vote on “Hillary’s vote paper” where the votes are tallied by “Hillary’s employees chosen from her friend pool” and then hear the results on “Hillary’s patented news delivery service” and quabble with me about “evidence of cheating” then I can’t help you.
Your viewpoint of what “cheating” means is so obscure and narrow that in the beginning of the chain, which you referred me back to, I genuinely thought you didn’t know all this because surely anyone who knew all this would understand that a complete and total takeover of the apparatus for voting and campaigning, was evidence enough of cheating.
Show me where I said this