...It is made up of many opinionated politicians who are working together for the good of the party but also to advance their own agenda. This is how it has been and most likely always will be... ...After the votes are all counted it is extremely bad form to not congratulate the winner with the knowledge that you can try again next time. It is the very basis of our democracy.
If one side wins pretty much by de facto cheating via an egregiously skewed and biased playing field by violating its own rules, which has now been clearly demonstrated, on what planet does the loser have to congratulate the winner?
Second, what you're essentially admitting is that the DNC's prejudices and back room deals lend themselves to internal corruption which subverts official policy, and that such corruption is the norm and should be expected. I'm glad you've clarified this and are being so forthright about it.
So far as rule breaking goes, the most egregious offender has clearly been the DNC itself in terms of its unauthorized bias, and DWS' attempt to shut Bernie out of the voter file before the ten day mark.
It is the Danders people that are contesting the will of the vast majority of voters. Is that what Democracy is?
Democracy would indeed involve dispute of an undemocratic by design process, yes.
Further, ~56% of the popular vote (a paltry percentage in light of Clinton's many advantages going in to say nothing of the skewed nomination process) is in no way a 'vast majority'.
Here is a question: why has Bernie Sanders not sued the DNC over this 'ethical' violation?
My guess is he's making a last ditch attempt to negotiate policy compromises with Hillary since his meeting with Obama.
Almost none and AFAIK, not through the party.
Bernie Sanders: Prolific Democratic Party fundraiser - CNNPolitics.com
I find it hilarious how Hillary partisans like yourself attack him for being a 'deadbeat' candidate on one hand, then simultaneously try to smear him by citing articles like this where he engages in Democratic fundraising in an attempt to 'prove' he's as no different from any other politician. Dat cognitive dissonance/Orwellian doublethink.
Meanwhile the antidote to the above hatchet job article:
https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/44dbxa/bernie_sanders_prolific_democratic_party/
OK, so it's corrupt. I'm not sure it's actually "corrupt" so much as human nature and the reality that the 'party' favors the candidate who has been a leader of the 'party' for decades, who's raised $10s of millions for the 'party', for state chapters, and for other party candidates, rather than a newcomer who has no allegiance to and has done nothing for the 'party' except at the tail end of a decades long political career conveniently run under the party's banner because he knows the immense national and 50-state infrastructure he did NOTHING to build helps his chances to be POTUS.
But let's say it's corrupt. Now what? Bernie lost. You want to take you ball and go home? That's helpful. The GOP is self destructing as we speak and if anyone cares about liberal or progressive goals, the best way to accomplish that is to get a democratic House and Senate and if that happens it doesn't matter much who sits in the POTUS chair - he or she will sign any progressive legislation hitting that desk. If the GOP has control, he or she will veto the worst of it.
Since when is 'human nature' conspiring to accrue power, advantages and favours for select individuals outside of the rules not corruption? That is pretty much the
definition of corruption. I don't care how much cause you think the DNC has to favour Hillary; that is irrelevant. The cold hard fact is that they were disingenuous about their bias towards her despite their rules and policy, and systemically refused to acknowledge that bias in an attempt to present the nomination process as being anything more than the borderline sham/pony show so many expected it to be which would have been obviously disenfranchising to the extreme.
Furthermore, going into this, Bernie ran as a Democrat primarily to avoid a split of the left vote; as things became far uglier and dirtier in the nomination process when he got closer to victory than the DNC ever anticipated, his once unconditional commitment to unity against the GOP was taxed to the point where he is now insisting on policy compromises; this is the reality of the situation.
Third, yes, I will take my vote and give it to Jill Stein assuming no meaningful policy compromise comes from Clinton. I refuse to reward the DNC's systemic corruption; I refuse to acknowledge the illegitimate outcome of a rigged nomination process; I refuse to back a lesser evil, and above all, I refuse votation without representation.