• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    20 days 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
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days 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
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        20 days 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.