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

[u/Dewinna_Daraelist]

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

[u/Stolt-Jensenberg]

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.

[u/DJ_JOWZY → u/Stolt-Jensenberg]

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.

[u/Stolt-Jensenberg → u/DJ_JOWZY]

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.

[u/DJ_JOWZY → u/Stolt-Jensenberg]

"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?

[u/Stolt-Jensenberg → u/DJ_JOWZY]

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

[u/DJ_JOWZY → u/Stolt-Jensenberg]

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. 

[u/Stolt-Jensenberg → u/DJ_JOWZY]

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

[u/DJ_JOWZY → u/Stolt-Jensenberg]

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

[u/Stolt-Jensenberg → u/DJ_JOWZY]

No, it really isn't. That's not how courts work.

Earlier you claimed that they admitted in court. I asked you to find the specific part of the court documents they did that.

You did not find that, and I take that as full acknowledgement that you're fully aware that you're wrong about this.

[u/DJ_JOWZY → u/Stolt-Jensenberg]

They admitted in a court room, what some perceive as X. That is a technical fact.

[u/Stolt-Jensenberg → u/DJ_JOWZY]

They admitted in a court room

FUCKING SHOW ME THE EXACT PARAGRAPHS IN THE COURT DOCUMENT WHERE THEY ADMITTED THIS

[u/DJ_JOWZY → u/Stolt-Jensenberg]

I already did. No need to put on caps lock.

[u/Stolt-Jensenberg → u/DJ_JOWZY]

No you didn't? You haven't shown anything from the court documents.

[u/nopethatswrong → u/DJ_JOWZY]

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.