If the Democratic party rigs the primary for a garbage candidate, then I really hope Bernie runs as an independent. He'd be the stronger candidate, and so if Trump got re-elected, it would have been the Democratic party and not him who was the spoiler.
Define rigged. If the superdelegates overturn his delegate/popular vote lead, then yeah I'd agree with you it would be justified. If you mean irrelevant DNC operatives privately sending snarky emails about him, then yeah...no.
The DKIM verified Wikileaks e-mails showed that the DNC was very biased in favor of Hillary. Including things such as having Donna Brazile feed Hillary debate questions ahead of time. You can find plenty of information online about the Wikileaks emails such as this.
http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/
You mean telling the Clinton campaign they would be getting a question about the drinking water in Flint while debating in Flint at the height of the Flint scandal? Yeah, that was really putting the finger on the scale for Clinton. /s
As if it was just one question.
Oh and I didn't even mention the money laundering to circumvent campaign finance limits for Hillary during the primary.
Really, anyone defending this sh**t deserves to have their side lose.
Sanders was given the same opportunity f.y.i.
The thing was initially presented as "Hillary is raising money for down ticket Democrats, why isn't Bernie?" I don't think the Bernie campaign initially knew about how it was being used to circumvent campaign finance laws. If Bernie had done the same, they would have probably funneled his money to the Hillary campaign as well.
If the Democratic party rigs the primary for a garbage candidate, then I really hope Bernie runs as an independent. He'd be the stronger candidate, and so if Trump got re-elected, it would have been the Democratic party and not him who was the spoiler.
Define rigged. If the superdelegates overturn his delegate/popular vote lead, then yeah I'd agree with you it would be justified. If you mean irrelevant DNC operatives privately sending snarky emails about him, then yeah...no.
The DKIM verified Wikileaks e-mails showed that the DNC was very biased in favor of Hillary. Including things such as having Donna Brazile feed Hillary debate questions ahead of time. You can find plenty of information online about the Wikileaks emails such as this.
http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/
And that phony Datagate scandal was ridiculous. Bernie shouldn't let the DNC have any control over his voter database because they are not trustworthy. The first debate wasn't until after the deadline to change parties in NY. If you were a registered independent in NY who learned about Bernie at the 1st debate, you were sh**t out of luck.
Party members are always going to have preferences even if they're officially neutral. As for NY, that rule might be ridiculous, but I'm not sure how you can claim it is "riggage" when it was in place long before Bernie (or Hillary for that matter) ever ran for president. That would be like claiming the electoral college was rigged for Trump/rigged against Hillary despite being in place since the drafting of the constitution.
It was ridiculous that there wasn't a debate until October, which was 6 months after both Bernie and Hillary announced and 6 months after the first 2008 Democratic debates.
