A Party is allowed to prefer a candidate. You think that's new?

They have told you who to vote for for 3 elections now. You sit there and claim it’s a preference. You don’t deserve voting rights.

Zohran just won the primary. Parties don't tell you who to vote for. They tell you who they think you should vote for. That's not the same thing.

You guys only get the choice they want you to have by rigging the primaries. You get the illusion of democracy. Thus is how they tell you who you are going to vote for.

Zohran won the primary DESPITE THE DEMS BEST EFFORTS. Just look how much further they funded Cuomo over him.

So they didn't make people vote for anybody. The voters decided.

Dude if I tell you "I can give you chocolate or strawberries, but if you choose chocolate I will slap you silly" that's not a free choice dipshit. Just because you allow them to pick both doesn't make it a free and fair choice.

Nobody said that and I voted for who I wanted to. So did you. So did everybody.

You have to be the most disingenuous piece of shit I've ever seen.

Or just capable of thinking and not assuming losing an election means it's fixed, like Trump does. Bernie lost because primary voters preferred Hillary. That's it.

I don't actually like the 0.1% pushing a candidate on us and threatening us with fascists if we don't like it.

So you went for the fascists. Because the DNC expressed an opinion you didn't like. You demand everything or nothing, and the result is you get NOTHING. Grow up.

No, Ive said before I couldn't vote, if I could I'd have gone dnc. That does not, however, means the DNC are good or on the right track. And if a viable enough third party appeared (like more than 5% and not a trump humper like stein) I'd absolutely go for them.

No, because fewer people voted for him.

WHICH WAS BECAUSE IF DNC INTERFERENCE

Bernie was on the ballot in every single primary, and any Democrat could have voted for him. More preferred the other candidate. That's all.

"dude others were on the ballot so it couldn't be rigged" holy fuck we found it, we found the child!

Others were on the ballot and THE VOTERS WERE ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR HIM. They DIDN'T. Get over it.

The DNC testified to the contrary, in their own defense. They had a legal right to undermine the popular vote.

They correctly argued they had the right to, they didn't claim they did.

Yeah, my issue isn't the right, my issue is that they forced in a candidate few people wanted and we knew wouldn't win beforehand, so she pushed for trump to run and it's the DNC process that led us to where we are

Sorry, my issue isn't the right to do it* The Right remains the biggest issue. It's just that the DNC get off on letting them win so they can scare us into giving them easier election cycles

The actual primary voters don't support your assertion

Which specific assertion? That Bernie would be a better candidate? That Hillary pushed trump to run?

The actual primary voters were undermined.

Yes. Exactly.

How was it rigged? You have yet to present any evidence or for you proof.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_De... I will keep posting it then lmao

You'll keep posting something that doesn't support your assertion? Cool I guess.

No, just fewer people wanted him to be the nominee.

Funny, evidence suggests internal collusion to capsize his campaign www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/u...

Your ignorance is both spectacular and adorable in its fullness.

> posts proof "YOURE IGNORANT" fucking ace in the hole for your type isn't it?

Block, don't engage. Let the #resistance dipshits form their own deluded little bubble isolated from the rest of us.

Except you didn't post proof. It's hilarious that you think you did.

"the sign can't hurt me if I can't read it!"

There's the problem, you think signs are evidence. You Sanders dead-enders are tragically comic.

Fascinating how 2000 emails are now a form of sign. Bizarre, really.

Elaborate?

Where's the "proof" in that article?

Maybe the dozens and dozens of emails?