I don’t see why it would be a problem if they tilted the playing field in the first place. Sanders isn’t a democrat. His policy positions aren’t consistent with the party. He was simply hijacking the party to further his cause rather than doing the hard work of building a grass roots movement.
Lots of party loyalists don’t see a problem with it but I think the population at large would. As convenient as the fiction of the parties being private organizations is, the fact remains that the primary process is half the election process.
What counts as “enough support”? Who makes that decision? And why should it matter? If you truly have an unbiased, level playing field, then shouldn’t it be enough for Duke to say to the DNC “I’m a Democrat, I’m running for president, support me”?
I agree that Duke wouldn’t get much support. Then again, there were a bunch of Republicans who didn’t think that Trump had a shot either.
I’ll say it again: if it weren’t for the specific situation regarding Sanders and Clinton and residual hard feelings therefrom (and btw I agree with **asahi **that there’s very little evidence of tilting the playing field), I think most Democrats would have no problem with the notion that the party can–and should, at times–treat candidates differently. If you truly believe that a Duke should get the same treatment as a Warren, well, that’s fine, you’re being consistent, and I’ll certainly accept that as a data point against my argument. I will, however, continue to think of you as an outlier :).
“Nice try” is a reference to the last sentence of your previous post:
Asahi answered quite succinctly:
Your attempt to advance the theory ‘the Democrats are corrupt because their nomination process fails as an example of pure democracy!’ doesn’t seem to be garnering much success.
As for the rest of your points, others in this thread have replied to you on each with wit and cogency.
To be biased is human. You’re telling me that there aren’t members of the RNC who cringed at the idea of Trump or Cruz as their nominees and that they weren’t probably swapping notes on how to avoid this debacle by text?
It’s a story because Julian Assange is a sniveling, snot-nosed, anti-American, anarchist, spying little prick, and he is collaborating with foreign intelligence services hostile to the United States to impugn the credibility of a presidential election. He put it out there with innuendo and people have read into it whatever they’ve wanted to ever since. Otherwise…it’s not much of a story.
For God’s sake. You are seriously saying it’s only a story because Assange is a big poopy head? If he had never been born, the hackers would have released it some other way and Bernie or Busters would have been just as outraged.
Point to one thing that shows anything was *rigged. *
Why should I? I didn’t say anything was rigged.
You’re right, it was a rhetorical “you” - I should have done a better job editing. My apologies and I take it back.
It was a story because of the fact that it came from Wikileaks and because it was well-timed – just in time to give outraged Bernheads the appearance that their guy lost because of a rigged election. The story has since died down, and more than likely, DWS will beat back a primary challenger.
The fact that it came from wikileaks is not even remotely why it was a story, that just added flavor. They could have dumped those emails any number of ways and it would have had the exact same effect, minus the upped Assange hate.
But there was no meat in that burger.
If you read wikileaks headlines “emails prove rigged elections” but if you read the actual worst of the worst emails- nuttin. A little bias.
OK, you seemed to have posted between these two next posts I made so you certainly had the opportunity to read them:
So I am really fucking curious why you are haranguing me about shit not being rigged. Please explain.
I am not, why do you think that replying to you post means disagreement? 
…That’s why I assumed you were disagreeing with me and that you hadn’t actually paid attention to what I have actually posted.
I think doing well in primaries qualifies as enough support.
Did someone release a bunch of RNC emails showing bias against Trump and for a particular candidate?
Yeah, most people who liked Bernie and think that elections should be fair are conservatives :rolleyes::smack:
I thought we were talking about DWS and the DNC under her leadership. The fact of the matter is that most people would see bias by the DNC during the primary process as corrupt.
cite?
Well, facts can be a double edged sword. He was a darling of the left when his leaks hurt the Republicans. Now not so much.
It made international headlines. The next time we wag our fingers at people like Putin for rigged elections, they will point to these emails.
I don’t really give a shit what happens to the RNC, their days are numbered. But they didn’t have a presumptive nominee at the beginning of the primary process towards whom to tilt the playing field. I don’t really measure them by the same standards as I do the Democrats, I don’t expect as much of them.
Uh, not exactly. Little as some people wish to acknowledge it, the parties get to choose who their candidates will be, not the voters. They get to make their choices in November.
1 & 2: How are those remarks related to anything I’ve written?
3: Really, “most people”? You will need to provide supportive evidence for an assertion as shaky as that one.
4: “Cite” the posts that replied to yours? Scroll up. There they are.
You seem to imply, here, that the Democratic primaries were rigged. You will need to provide supportive evidence for your claim.
While you’re at it, please do connect the content of the emails with the “rigging”–what, in any email, constituted “rigging” or provides evidence of “rigging” or proves “rigging”?