It's not that great of a comparison because the Patriots didn't actually do much of anything (if anything) wrong, whereas we have definitive proof that the DNC did something wrong.

But I will accept it on the basis that the final result of the contest probably didn't change based on the infractions. The Patriots still would have beaten the Colts just like Hillary still would have beaten Bernie.

Just please stop misrepresenting what happened. The DNC fucked up, and you and Beo were wrong a couple months ago when you said/implied in various forms that the DNC wasn't being biased one way or another and that Bernie supporters were just complaining about nothing.

The DNC rigged the nomination process in favor of Hillary and undermined Bernie. The end result of the DNC nomination shouldn't have to change for that to be true. You should be upset that the DNC did not act neutral, but I assume you might be okay with it because it benefited the candidate you liked more.

You're definitely misremembering. I said that they were unfair but I didn't mind, and then Santara pointed out that I was wrong about that not being against the rules because he's racist.

nah I still think they treated sanders pretty well considering he pretended to be a democrat to reap all the benefits while at the same time making heavy accusations against the people taking care of him
to me he got a lot more benefit than he did mistreatment

pretty much the same as I felt a few months ago

Seeiealjoe.

The main thing to take away from all of this is that the DNC unequivocally and definitively broke their rules of neutrality. Do you have any respect or regard for the rules or principle?

And for the final time, the end result of the nomination process shouldn't have to change for something to be wrong with the process. I'm glad the candidate with the most votes won the nomination, but who is to say the DNC won't tamper with another nomination in the future?

Do you think the DNC should keep their rules of neutrality? Or do you think they should abolish their rules of neutrality and let the DNC openly endorse one candidate and openly undermine another candidate during the primaries? Which do you personally prefer?



The DNC must remain neutral and not favor one candidate over another one. It's not a difficult concept. "Treating a candidate pretty well" by your definition is not the same thing as neutrality.

weren't neutral when she was against obama

world didn't end and she didn't win

Do you think the DNC should keep their rules of neutrality?

Or do you think they should abolish their rules of neutrality and openly endorse one candidate and/or openly undermine other candidate(s) during the DNC primaries?

I think yall finally got rid of DWS and it solves nothing and nothing will change

nothing is truly ever neutral we are humans ffs.

You could replace the whole lot of em with bernie approved hipsters and that shit will be just as biased

I think they should make attempts to keep the playing field evenish but I don't get too upset when the 13 second democrat wasn't fully treated perfectly fairly by those that spend a lot of time in those democrat ditches