a primary election is not a government election

the Democratic party are under no LAWS forcing them to treat sanders as an equal to ANY other Democratic party member


More loyal Party members DESERVED to be treated better than Bernie



Its a party election

a partys choice on who better represents the Democratic party


Bernie had no right to complain that he was not treated like a life long member in good standing


he was never a democratic party member

he had to ASK if he could run AS a democratic party member

the Democratic party could have said fuck no



they gave him the HONOR

He used it


he sued Russian lies he knew were lies


fuck Bernie sanders

In other words, despite your claims that equality is a thing to be supported you oppose it when it's convenient?
 
In other words, despite your claims that equality is a thing to be supported you oppose it when it's convenient?

The parties hold elections to determine who gets the nomination in their party. Look at the weird things that happened in Republican primaries. they even changed the results in some states a couple times when they did not come out the way they wanted. These are not national elections. they are essentially private elections, only party people can vote . In some caucus states, they allow an even more select group to vote. This is not new.
ha+

The Dems are more inclusive than Repubs. They allowed a non Democrat to run on their money. Bernie is an independent. The Dems allowed him to debate Hillary on the Democratic stages that were paid for by them. He got national recogniition because of them. Before they allowed him to debate, he was a weird independent senator from Vermont. He became a national figure because of the Dems.
 
The parties hold elections to determine who gets the nomination in their party. Look at the weird things that happened in Republican primaries. they even changed the results in some states a couple times when they did not come out the way they wanted. These are not national elections. they are essentially private elections, only party people can vote . In some caucus states, they allow an even more select group to vote. This is not new.
ha+

The Dems are more inclusive than Repubs. They allowed a non Democrat to run on their money. Bernie is an independent. The Dems allowed him to debate Hillary on the Democratic stages that were paid for by them. He got national recogniition because of them. Before they allowed him to debate, he was a weird independent senator from Vermont. He became a national figure because of the Dems.

Only registered party members can vote in that party's presidential (or direct) primary in closed primary states. In open primary states any registered voter can vote in the primary of their choice. Even in closed primaries a person can change his party affiliation to vote in the primary of his choice. Usually anybody who voted in a party's primary can attend the caucus--it is not limited to a select group although caucus attendance is much smaller than presidential primary turnout.

Neither party is more inclusive in who can run in a party's primary because neither party can exclude a candidate (unless they are a candidate in the other party's primary). The Democrats do have stricter rules about proportional representation of delegates and do not allow winner-take-all primaries like the Republicans. They also have quotas on delegates based on race, age, and gender.

What states changed the results in the Republican primaries?

In my county the Democratic Party just disqualified a candidate for county office because his check bounced although he is still on the ballot.
 
Republicans are not the people who felt disenfranchised by the way DWS, Donna Brazile, the DNC, the Clintons, their acolytes, the leftists in media, etc., rigged the election for Crooked Hillary and against Bernmaster Sandy. I don't know who Daesh is trying to convince here, but, telling Sandernistas that the rigged primary is justifiable since no laws were broken doesn't strike me as very tactful.
 
Back
Top