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.

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.

If “their right to exist” weren’t used to mean “their right to take land from Palestinians and create settlements in land they took through violence” it would be a bit simpler to agree with the statement, but the foundation of Israel itself has always been on pretty shakey ground. The only reason Israel has a right to exist is because it’s impractical that they’d leave at this point. They should leave the land they’ve stolen though.

Yeah, if I applied to a job and then they tried to contact me a year later I’d turn them down just based on the principle.

If you reverse it and imagine a prospective hire putting off an interview for months or a year and then calling in expecting to still take the interview it shows how ridiculous it is.

Double whammy is a good idea.

I want to take a picture of a brick and duplicate it over and over, then zip those up and duplicate that zip into OneDtive until it tells me I can’t any more.

I’m not saying it’s still strictly the case, just that the effects of that attitude linger on in the public consciousness (even a decade later).