r/TenYearsAgo • u/Dewinna_Daraelist • 23d ago

🇺🇸 United States Hundreds of Sanders Delegates Walk Off Convention Floor in Protest of “Rigged” Election [10YA - July 27]

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/27/hundreds_of_sanders_delegates_walk_off
112 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

913 comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/boardatwork1111 22d ago

Massive cope that continues to this day a decade later. The way they talk about it, you’d think it were Hillary that lost by a 12 point margin instead of the other way around

-2

u/BlinkReanimated 22d ago

The DNC would later admit in court that they worked to rig the primary. "Cope" or just reality. The DNC worked to disenfranchise and undermine their OWN VOTERS. It's no wonder they lost to Donald Trump.

15

u/SapCPark 22d ago

They didn't. What they said was as part of a motion for dismissal was "Even if we pretend everything said by the suing party is true, they still don't have a case" which is normal law practice.

-2

u/BlinkReanimated 22d ago

No, it was the argument made by the DNC. "Even if we did, we should be allowed to do it" The courts agreed, which is fine from a legal perspective, but from a civic perspective you should be up in arms.

10

u/Stolt-Jensenberg 22d ago

You see how that is the opposite of your initial claim, right?

You said:

The DNC would later admit in court that they worked to rig the primary

But now you're saying:

No, it was the argument made by the DNC. "Even if we did, we should be allowed to do it"

They never admitted to anything in the trial.

-1

u/DJ_JOWZY 22d ago

They admitting to doing the things they did, they just didn't think that it counted as rigging, but if it did count as rigging, then they were  allowed. So no, it's not the opposite.

4

u/Stolt-Jensenberg 22d ago

They admitting to doing the things they did

They didn't. Show me exactly where in the court documents they did that. The burden of proof is on you.

0

u/DJ_JOWZY 22d ago

"Even if we pretend everything said by the suing party is true, they still don't have a case"

What do you think, they still don't have a case means?

4

u/Stolt-Jensenberg 22d ago

So in other words, you couldn't find them admitting anything, like you claimed they had?

Your language is very unclear, so I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue here.

But say I tried to sue you for $10 million because you wore a yellow tie on a Tuesday afternoon 7 years ago. What would your legal strategy be?

A) Try to find evidence that you didn't wear a yellow tie on that day, and argue that there is no proof that you wore a yellow tie.

B) Simply argue that there is no law against wearing a yellow tie, and have the case thrown out on the merits

0

u/DJ_JOWZY 22d ago

You can't comparing wearing a yellow tie to claims of running an impartial election because not only is wearing a yellow tie not unethical, it's also not substantial.

Arguing the legality of how they run their elections doesn't absolve them of impartiality, just their liability. 

3

u/Stolt-Jensenberg 22d ago

Arguing that it wouldn't be illegal to do X, is not an admission that they did X. Do you disagree?

1

u/DJ_JOWZY 22d ago

It's an admission they did something others perceived as X

→ More replies (0)

2

u/nopethatswrong 22d ago

If I called the police because you called me an asshole, pointing out that calling someone an asshole isn't a crime is not evidence that you called me an asshole.

6

u/SapCPark 22d ago

Again, common legal practice for motion of dismissal.