“There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here…it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise.”
They argued this in court. If they ran a fair election, they could have just provided the evidence. Instead they told the court that they don’t have to run fair elections. Why would they say that, if they ran a fair election?
When the DNC had to seek a supreme court decision clarifying they were allowed to cheat during their primaries.
More people voted for Clinton that’s not cheating.
they did cheat, and your inability to accept this is cultish.
this doesn’t address the cheating. you’re just repeating mantra
I’m showing you that Clinton won more votes.
Bernie even admitted it when he endorsed Clinton.
this is not evidence it was a fair primary
It’s evidence that Bernie admitted he lost.
everyone has different standards for justifying their beliefs. what you’re saying clearly is enough to convince you.
It’s probably worth pointing out Feb 1 - June 14 was not a single moment of a single event.
They argued this in court. If they ran a fair election, they could have just provided the evidence. Instead they told the court that they don’t have to run fair elections. Why would they say that, if they ran a fair election?
That was simply the easiest case to argue which is what lawyers do.
It didn’t say they cheated.
“We don’t have to play fair. We can cheat if we want.”
“It didn’t say they cheated.”
In this case the court agreed with the DNC that they didn’t cheat so who are you quoting?
No, the court agreed that they are allowed to cheat.
Cheating is when you don’t play by the rules not when you disagree with what the rules should be.
That’s why the DNC won this case.
You can keep dancing around the fact that they cheated all you want. I find it very telling that you can’t even keep your original argument straight.