Unless they specifically write it into their own bylaws. Which they did. But I’m not looking up the cite for the five billionth time.
The bylaws are entirely discretionary—some crying Sanders supporters actually tried to sue the DNC over the 2016 election, claiming they felt their contributions to the Sanders campaign were defrauded since they thought the nominating process would be completely neutral by the DNC. A judge threw the lawsuit out.
Even under the bylaws at the time, the DNC’s only significant letter of the law violations were minor ones that had no impact on the election, such as Donna Brazile leaking a few debate questions in one of a long series of interminable Democratic debates, of which there were too many and none of which really appeared to matter very much.
Stuff like the leaked DNC staff emails of DNC employees talking shit about Sanders did not violate DNC rules in place in 2016. In fact the new rules in 2020 that prohibit DNC staff from speaking negatively about any candidate in private, having political bumper stickers on their cars, prohibiting signs in their yards etc represents a draconian intrusion of an employer into the lives of employees. But of course it serves to try to keep the Cultists of Bernie happy, and considering his love for leftist totalitarian regimes he’s probably happy to see the party stripping away ordinary rights of opinion from salaried staff.
Why are you ok with any of that?
Because technically, legally, if you want to be super anal about it all they did nothing wrong you are ok with with it?
Clearly, with no doubt whatsoever, the DNC leaned heavily on the scales of the 2016 election for Clinton. Maybe you can say that is their right. But don’t expect me to be enthused for their anointed candidate when they blatantly ignored my vote in the primary.
Nothing even close to that happened.
Yeah, it did. The DNC admitted to it.
Ridiculous.
Not kidding. They really did.
Wanna bet on it?
I’m quite sure that your cite does not support your claim, but you will be incapable of seeing that. Thus betting would be a waste of time as you’d never concede that you lost.
We can leave it to the Mods of this channel to choose. (I do not know them…at all)
$100 to a charity of the winner’s choice. (Legit charity…Whack-a-Mole charity is not a thing)
If you don’t want to cite your claim, no one can make you.
Make the bet and I will cite it.
I have posted that cite so many times here I am getting tired of it. Make it worth my time.
Please. It’s for charity!
Loser has to post the payment to the charity in this thread. (screen cap will do)
Haha. No.
You made the (ridiculous) claim. You provide the (irrelevant) cite.
You claiming it is ridiculous does not make it ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is you claiming something is ridiculous but not being willing to stand behind your claim of ridiculousness (that whole thing was hard to type).
Put your money where your mouth is. If I am bluffing/full of shit you’re in the clear.
I don’t think you’re bluffing or full of shit. You’re just wrong. Super duper wrong and incapable of seeing that.
I’m pretty sure I know what cite you’re going to post. You posted it so often you’re tired of doing so. It doesn’t say what you are claiming. Not even close, but the fact that you think it does tells me that betting would be pointless.
Put your money where your mouth is.
I understand why you want to distract from defending your claim substantively.
I tried to remove my last post but was too late to edit. Sorry for junior modding!
Indeed.
No betting. No nothing of a similar nature.
Here let me help you, use this as a cut and paste: " We wuz robbed!"
:rolleyes: