• EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            8 months ago

            The fact that you haven’t linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              What Brazile did find was a memorandum of agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, she said.

              “The thing, the only thing, I found – which I said, ‘I found the cancer, but I’m not killing the patient’ – was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation,” Brazile said on “This Week.”

              Per your source. Brazile isn’t willing to go as far as Warren, but she didn’t invalidate shit. The DNC pulled some shady shit and no amount of whitewashing by disingenuous parties such as yourself will change those facts.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                but she didn’t invalidate shit

                She expressly and explicitly said it wasn’t rigged. Saying it’s “dishonest” to point to this when someone claims she would agree it’s “rigged” doesn’t make any sense. Additionally, I never said there was no right to be suspicious. I was suspicious when all this came out at first. But the facts have since made clear that the nomination was not rigged. So I dropped my suspicion. This is how it should work.

                If the argument is that things should change with the process, and that it creates a huge conflict of interest that Clinton controlled the finances, I’m 100% on board. But then we should be having a rational discussion about what we objectively know to be true and what needs to change, rather than making up BS that it was rigged against Sanders and going from there. If we don’t start from a place of facts, the outcome won’t be any good. As they say: Garbage in, garbage out.

                As this paper points out:

                If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party