Post by @Nouvellalia@lemmy.world

2026-10-20 01:06 UTC

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’.

Replies (1)

@protist@retrofed.com 2026-10-20 01:44

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. 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.

Open ##5265250