Hillary won a rigged election that the DNC had been stacking in her favor as early as 2014, yes.
Caitlin Johnstone
1093

I completely debunked you with exhaustive links, statistics and a full post. The Impartiality Clause does not mean they can’t have a preference for one candidate over the other. It means they can’t openly take any real action against them. If they’d actually run negative ads against Bernie, or done real sabotage, you’d have a point, but considering they didn’t so much as post a single online ad calling him a pinko commie or the like, your claim isn’t accurate. Don’t bring emotional reasoning to a basic logic gunfight. You’re just refusing to believe Sanders lost by any fair stretch because that means admitting you’re wrong about something. He lost by almost four. million. votes.

And if the DNC could truly “rig” something, then why didn’t they do the same for Hillary in 2008? If they could rig things, why wouldn’t they be able to do the same in the GENERAL election? But they didn’t. And don’t go “but they build up Trump”. They built up, according to the emails, and placed emphasis on, the candidates they thought were weakest: Cruz and Trump, because they were the most unlikable, over the top, nasty people, whom they thought would be easy to beat in the general. That’s not rigging anything. And if you want to go by the loosest definition and say “well it’s still putting a thumb on the scale and interfering and that’s wrong”…

Then why is THAT not okay, but Russia blatantly interfering in the election to elect Trump IS okay? Your side can’t have it both ways. You cannot worship at the altar of circumstancial evidence for a “rigged primary” but ignore blatant Russian interference to tear down Hillary and Sanders and elect Trump, who is a “useful idiot” to Putin.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.