I linked you directly to an article discussing the lawsuit.

https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

I’m blocking you now. Good bye.

How can I ignore that which you did not provide?

I literally pointed you to the court case where the court said the DNC was rigging the convention against Sanders. I provided you that. That’s not my opinion, that’s literally what happened in court and Wasserman Schultz resigned over it. Your eyes literally won’t allow you to see it because it completely conflicts with the fantasy you want to believe is true (That the DNC isn’t deeply corrupt and diametrically opposed to progressive values).

You’ve got to be a troll. We’re done here.

So you ignore the facts you don’t like, and take the ones you do. And I’m projecting…

Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down? What is your explanation if it’s not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails? Coincidence? What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?

Ohh, a political “scientist” said it, must be a fact. I take back everything I posted, I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn’t actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that’s what was happening.

Must’ve just been a coincidence!

The way you people try to rewrite history is insane.

I understand that everyone has differing priorities

And what, specifically, are those for Clinton? Protecting corporate oligarchy? What exactly do you believe Clinton truly offers to the average voter that Sanders does not?

The question i originally addressed was whether the DNC screwed Sanders. There is no evidence that they did anything to him that would have overcome the shellacking he took.

Yes, there is. He was painted as an “extremist” by the establishment, his supporters were repeatedly portrayed as “Bernie Bros” despite being a majority women in order to give the impression that his following has some kind of latent misogynist leanings (which Warren played on again in 2020 by lying about him saying that a woman can’t be president). The party super delegates were allowed to pre-vote to give the impression Clinton had a greater lead than she really did. Primary debates between Sanders and Clinton were scheduled for times with the least viewership, he recieved very few interviews on major outlets and when he did it was almost always just some talking head aggressively criticizing his “extreme left wing” policies.

There was the email leak that demonstrated that there was hostility towards Sanders from within the DNC and that members were looking to help Clinton’s campaign.

Do we not remember that it was concluded in court that the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was working to sabotage Sanders. The court didnt deny the rigging was hapoening, it just decided it was ok to rig things against candidates because in its view the party can pick whatever candidates they want.

It’s not a question of whether or not the DNC and their corporate media allies working to undermine the Sanders campaign, it’s established, yes, they were. That’s how public opinion is manufactured; by leveraging the media and party apparatus to create a false narrative to decieve voters and manipulate people’s perception of who and what ideas are viable. Pretending there weren’t powerful interests aligned against Sanders plays into that narrative.

Yes and the American people voted for Trump over Clinton, that doesn’t mean he won due to his popularity, he won because he exploited a broken system, same as Clinton exploited a broken system within the DNC.

Clinton’s primary win is not evidence that she was overwhelmingly popular, it’s evidence that democratic voters was misled about Sanders (who we both supposedly agree is a better candidate). Clinton voters are low-information, a condition that’s fostered deliberately by the DNC and Democrat-aligned corporate media, because if they didn’t decieve people those voters would understand that Sanders is actually someone who would work to deliver the things that benefit all of us.

If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren’t aware of why. On the other hand, if you think Sanders lost fair and square and democratic voters voted with full knowledge then that’s basically just saying you think progressive policy is a failure on its own merits.

Warren backstabbed Sanders in 2016 and 2020 even after she lost, she fell in line with the establushment instead of fighting for what she claims to believe. She’s arguably worse than out and out conservative dems, she’s there to sabotage the left and siphon away votes.

Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.

It’s possible to defeat a popular progressive like sabders when you have the backing of the party establishment and their corporate media apparatus.

Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate, that doesn’t make her a better candidate. The General proved that.

If she “demolished” Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the “best” candidate. That’s your logic here.

Clinton is super pro-corporate, what are you on about? She was unelectable and never should’ve run, she’s directly responsible for Trump.

A vote for neoliberals is a vote to not have fascism for four more years.

That’s an extremely hard case to make at this point though when the “not” fascist guy is funding a genocide and refusing to entertain the measures we’d need to take to actually take the fight to the fascists (ex. Championing an effort to pack the supreme court). Neoliberals are not truly acting like democracy is on the line, they say it a lot but it’s not what their actions communicate, which makes it difficult to believe they’d ever stop obstructing progress.

Neoliberals don’t stop or stall fascists by getting into power – they just soft sell it and give the general public time to acclimate to the slipping of the Overton window. They do this in service of corporate interests rather than theocracy the way the far-right does but it ends us up in the same place.

If the plan is to try and encourage the Democrats to have primaries that actually have the power to move the party left, now is not the time to withhold a vote in protest as there’s a good chance that even if it did convince them, there’d never be another election that wasn’t rigged so they’d lose it no matter how popular they were.

Now is the time that the Democratic establishment chooses to try to strong arm the left into voting for them, they do this every election; claim the sky is falling and that we must vote for them or else. So I guess my view is, if they have assessed that they can risk playing a game of chicken, so can voters.

I understand Project 2025 and its seriousness, but that problem is going to be there every election from here until such a time that the GOP dissolves. I’m skeptical that 4 years will allow them to achieve everything they want to without sweeping the house and senate too. The president cannot legally be crowned king, and if they try to do that perhaps that is what it will take to actually radicalize the self-sedated upper middle-class liberals and political fence-sitters.

I’m sick of defensive leadership, and any offensive needs to start with attacking the Democratic structure that’s making the party so ineffectual and complicit. More time is not enough in my opinion, people were talking about GOP plans to capture the supreme court as far back as Bush Jr. and giving Democrats wins achieved nothing. They need to be forced to take it seriously and I just don’t see that happening without some pain (for them and, unfortunately, us).

So this happened under Obama. People voted blue no matter who, gave Dems a super majority and they used it to pass a GOP-crafted bill that forced people to pay for useless private insurance.

The party itself needs to change and the types of candidates that the establishment supports needs to change. That doesn’t happen when they can do their pied piper thing and keep winning. And no “just one last hit” won’t let them overcome the addiction to corporate conservativism.

Yes, Hillary and the DNC allowed Trump to win by ignoring their base and chasing imaginary “swing” voters. And now they’re doing it again.

People do understand that concept, but it’s literally what Democrats have been doing for the past 40 years and it has put us right here where we are right now. The “lesser of two evils” thing just has no propellant left, no one is buying that line anymore. Neoliberalism needs to go before Democrats can start winning again.

You need to understand that people have been saying “just put the neolibs in power again and we’ll work to improve things” every election cycle, and now we are closer to fascism than we’ve literally ever been. You at least understand why people see that strategy as a failure, right? Like, you understand why no one believes it anymore?

No ones moving goal posts. Give a ballpark of how many immigrants were involved in those 122 attacks.

You’re making the argument that brown immigrants are more dangerous than Europeans and you’re then trying to exclude all types of violent crime except that labeled terror attacks to obfuscate the reality that immigrants are statistically no more dangerous than Europeans themselves. It’s dishonest.

Even in terms of terrorism, the majority has historically been committed by domestic groups (ex. nationalists, political extremists, separatists etc.), not immigrants. Again, this is very similar to my own country where domestic terrorism is actually the greater threat than that from immigrants.

So, even if we assume those 122 attacks were committed by immigrants, how does that compare to violent crimes committed by Europeans themselves? 122 incidents over 9 years is remarkably low for a single demographic. How many bad actors is that per event? How many immigrants are there total and how many committed these crimes?

It’s racist fear mongering.

The rich making money off immigration isn’t an issue with the immigrants, it’s that we don’t force companies to pay all their workers the same wage, regardless of status. That’s a regulatory problem, not an immigration problem.

Because people that tell us low wages (not GDP increase but working class wages for locals), high house prices, and other things people mention like losing culture and crime increasing isn’t an issue. So what would it take for it to be an issue.

None of this is related to immigration. Immigrants aren’t raising housing prices. With crime you have to actually prove that that’s immigrants committing more crimes than Europeans and what kind of crime. They call brown immigrants criminals and rapists here too, and it’s simply not true, they commit crimes at the same rate as citizens.

You have to understand that this is a pattern we see over, and over throughout history; when fascists want to seize control they blame immigrants for all of socieyies woes. And they do so only with rhetoric or twisted facts, not the truth.

Yeah, I know all about that, they use the " brown immigrants are terrorists" in my country too in order to exploit people’s latent racism.

To have a point you’d have to compare those instances to violence by Europeans against eachother, by being selective you’re feeding a narrative that brown immigrants are more violent than Europeans. That’s already been demonstrated to be false. You’re being manipulated by fascists.

Whipping up fear about brown immigrants is what the right does when there is no wedge issue.

I think in regards specifically to the question of resolution, that anti-fingerprint setting will start your browser at a smaller, set resolution. The problem is nothing prevents you from just expanding the window, so it’s not a very strong solution in that aspect.