• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”

    We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making “inexcusable remarks” in private actually supports the claim that he was “heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged”?

    Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

    The only “concrete” thing you cite is that “they said nasty things about him in private.” No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.

    • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

      It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Convenient you skip over the undermine

        Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails “suggest” this, but doesn’t actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.

        But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

        And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.

        It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

        I’m challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.

        • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          And that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him

          Have you read your other replies? Thats not the understanding I got from them.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.

            This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.

            It was literally the central theme of my initial post to you, and explicitly stated.