Why do Liberals support the Democrat party when they rig their own primaries?

How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?

Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?

Ask Bernie supporters that question.

Its like sports teams.

Your own team is never guilty of anything, ever.

The other team is guilty of everything, no matter how minor, misconstrued, or misrepresented.

You just ignore anything that might challenge that notion.

a reply to: intrepid

I supported Bernie but I don't support the corporate Democrats and will never support them. For those of like mind there is another option (besides 3rd party), Justice Democrats.

I also supported Ron Paul back in 2012 who the GOP was clearly rigging against him.

Prediction hardly any "liberals" will respond. Then others will. Then finally "liberals" will chime in to point out how "conservatives" are saying who they are for them, to disarm whatever is said.

originally posted by: Swills

I also supported Ron Paul back in 2012 who the GOP was clearly rigging against him.

SHHHH!!!!!!


We're supposed to act like that never happened so that the GOP gets to act like it isnt just as dirty as the DNC.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ron Paul Openly Calls GOP Election Fraud

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: intrepid

I supported Bernie but I don't support the corporate Democrats and will never support them.

That's what I thought.

It is important to realize that both "the Democrats are bad and need fixing" and "the Republicans are far, far worse" are true statements that can coexist.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Prediction hardly any "liberals" will respond. Then others will. Then finally "liberals" will chime in to point out how "conservatives" are saying who they are for them, to disarm whatever is said.

You're having a very good day! Thanks for the laugh

a reply to: Swills

What does refusing corporate donations have to do with justice?

Playing word games again, I see. Counting on your target audience to be stupid as s#.

"Let's throw the word 'justice' in there! Everybody likes justice! Free justice for everyone!"

a reply to: Swills

So was there proof? The Republican party didn't want Trump as the nominee, yet it happened.

The Democrat party straight up admitted it and defended it.

a reply to: intrepid

Big Money has corrupted US politics and that clearly goes for both sides of the political spectrum, R & D. I will never support any candidate who takes money, dark money, and allows Super Pacs to campaign for them.

A solution to begin to solve this problem is to remove Big Money from politics, Citizens United, dark money, money equaling free speech, and of course corporations allowed to be viewed as a person.

a reply to: NthOther

So refusing to be bought by wealthy elitists and their corporations is a bad thing?

a reply to: jjkenobi

Proof? Well, I haven't looked into the 2012 subject since then so I have nothing. Ron Paul stated in that video at the time he had no proof but was still very suspicious. Ron wasn't accepted by the GOP, just like Trump, but unlike Trump, Ron didn't have the name recognition that Trump did nor did he have the full support of the right wing media, like Fox News and such.

a reply to: Swills

What does it have to do with justice?

That is the question I asked, Mr. Deflection.

a reply to: Swills

The "Rules of Internet Debate" are not particularly conducive to the truth.

Meaning, if an exception exists for a "rule," it doesn't necessarily nullify anything. Its just an exception. Absolutes are a rarity in these contexts.

Much like a situation where the veracity of the person(s) with "burden of proof" is determined by the presence, or lack thereof, of said "proof." Its only relevant to "winning" a debate, but may have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not what is said was true or false.

I'm not sure exactly when winning an internet debate became synonymous with fact finding and truth, but it sure did.

a reply to: NthOther

Deflection? What the hell are you about? The whole point of JD is to separate themselves from corporate money and only focus on grassroots and small donations. So I'll ask you again, do you support Super Pacs and unlimited money in politics?

What does it have to do with Justice? Well, maybe you should read up about them to find your answer. It's pretty obvious but clearly went over your head.

a reply to: Swills

Lol. You don't have an answer other than the one I already gave: condescending manipulation.

Kind of reminds one of Putin and Russia , yes ?