Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frank Underwood" data-source="post: 202286" data-attributes="member: 35">While others suggest Sanders isn&#039;t liked by the Democratic base, despite him leading, and ignore all of the blatant examples of the DNC trying to sabotage him.After all, they cease to be excuses when you bring the receipts, and I&#039;ve brought many.&nbsp; Here&#039;s another to add to the pile:The DNC was sued for favoring Clinton in the 2016 primaries.&nbsp; The suit was thrown out, but not before a DNC lawyer told the court &quot;If you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I&#039;m gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that&#039;s different. But here, where you have a party that&#039;s saying, We&#039;re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we&#039;re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we&#039;re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That&#039;s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions.&quot;Last I checked, rules are meaningless when you don&#039;t have to abide by them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frank Underwood, post: 202286, member: 35"] While others suggest Sanders isn't liked by the Democratic base, despite him leading, and ignore all of the blatant examples of the DNC trying to sabotage him. After all, they cease to be excuses when you bring the receipts, and I've brought many. Here's another to add to the pile: The DNC was sued for favoring Clinton in the 2016 primaries. The suit was thrown out, but not before a DNC lawyer told the court "If you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions." [I][/I] Last I checked, rules are meaningless when you don't have to abide by them. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?