this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2026
832 points (99.2% liked)
Progressive Politics
5067 readers
512 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
would be nice if the democrats were a 10th as socialist as the GOP says.
Yeah, last time that happened dude changed things around and was so popular with the people the other party had to put a rule into place to not let people elect someone more than twice.
funny how that's coming back to bite them in the ass, eh? 😂
Yeah, and 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, who then went on to lose one of the most important elections in US history to a pedophilic Russian asset, who then dismantled the US government, sold it and every state secret to the highest bidder, ushered in an authoritarian ultra-conservative regime, and then performed a self-coup to seize and consolidate power.
DNC: "Why is everyone looking at me? What?"
look. 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 an actual ignoring of the vote totals.
Wilding v. DNC is the court case where the DNC admitted that they don't have to abide by the primaries because they are a private entity and can nominate whomever they want.
There used to be transcripts of this everywhere.
I'm all for everyone voting for the "lesser of two evils". I think everyone should go vote in the primaries. I also think everyone should pay very close attention to the DNC bureaucracy and minor rule changes and what everyone around them is saying and voting for.
Because seeing everything up close, in a world full of lies and deception, is what most people need to understand the truth. So they can make the hard decisions they will need to make.
so thats a nice theoretical but its not what happened in 2016 with bernie.
Bernie had the legs knocked out from under him in 16' and the DNC straight up stabbed him in the back in 20'. "Joementum" was manufactured propaganda AFAIC because Biden was in a distant fourth and one minor win in South Carolina does not a lead make. The DNC is just as afraid of socialists as the GOP, but not because they are diametrically opposed to the platform, but because they are afraid they might have to actually work at governance.
GASP!!
yeah Im not debating them being against him. Just that they did not straight up ignore the vote totals or such like that. I think that is a big thing between the republicans and democrats with people saying they are the same. republicans have gotten to where they are straight out violationg laws outright and as a matter of policy including the constitution and even their supreme court make decisions based on chicanery and self interest.
I mean, you can readin the transcripts where the attorney for the DNC says as much to the judge in open court. I am not theorizing.
Like I said, anyone reading this should vote in the primaries and watch the DNC's bureaucracy closely and understand what is going on, whatever that may be, for themselves.
Oh 100%. Primaries at this point are the elections for me.
The DNC arguing in court that they don't have to abide by primary elections isn't the same thing as the DNC actually not abiding by the primary elections. The DNC absolutely abided by the primary elections in 2016, and there's no evidence to the contrary.
Sure, the superdelegate system was overwhelmingly for Clinton, but Bernie was already behind in the elected delegate total. Either way, in 2018, the DNC changed the rules so superdelegates can't even vote in the first round anymore, so will only get a vote if a convention is contested.
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
Right.
I think it's somewhere in between the two, but I followed Bernie's advice and didn't hold a vote in protest, because that would have been disastrous for... oh, yeah, it was.
Sorry to ask this here, but what is the little green +1 next to your user name?
It's a Voyager app thing that means that you (yes you specifically) have upvoted that user's posts and/or comments once or more than once but you've also downvoted.
Here's how yours looks in my client:
So i see a red -1 next to my own name. So I down voted myself once? Sounds like me.
I think summit added that for like less than a week and I kinda liked it but then it went away as suddenly as it arose
Wow. I've upvoted you 16 times. Nice work.
Thanks 😁
Sounds like something your client is doing, as I don't see that
Your honour, my client is innocent!