I've never said anything supporting the conspiracies so I don't believe them for the most part, though I do think that The DNC doesn't want any challenge to Hillary, because they have no interest in giving a shit about the progressives within the party. The DNC has proven that they don't care about the opinion of the base, because if they did they would be more inclined to support economic populism over the selling out of the working class in favor of Wall Street. Again, you don't see the damage that neo-liberalism has done to the working class, we replaced our manufacturing jobs that payed a decent wage with Service jobs that pay a poverty wage, which has contributed to wage stagnation. If they continue to run candidates like Hillary, nothing is going to change, she doesn't even want to move to non profit Healthcare, she is part of the problem, and you just don't see that.
Oh, fun. So, to summarize your position "I don't believe there are conspiracies, but the DNC is totally trying to skew the nomination to Hillary and I assert this with no evidence or reliable backing of any kind. I just know it is true." What evidence do you have to support the position that the DNC is trying to push the nomination to Hillary? Second, you've previously asserted that the mainstream media was doing the same, referring to Hillary as the "anointed one." Should I take this to mean that you believe the mainstream media also has a bias against Bernie? If so, what evidence do you have of this?
Second, any democrat would go a long way towards reforming our current system. There is this thing called the Supreme Court. There are nine Justices on it. Four of them are over 75. At the time Citizen's United was decided, one of the Justices was appointed by Obama and two were appointed by Bill Clinton.* Both presidents were corporate democrats. Yet, the three Justices that they appointed came down in favor of upholding the campaign finance regulations in McCain-Feingold. If anyone thinks for a minute that Hillary is going to appoint corporate Justices who will continue Citizens United, then you're making assumptions that have no basis in reality. In fact, in the realm of judicial appointments, since Hillary practiced law and has a Juris Doctorate, I am more inclined to trust her SCOTUS appointments over Bernie, albeit the difference is minor as both will appoint liberal (or as liberal as possible with the obstructionist Congress) Justices.
Third, this whole time you've been complaining about free trade, and I'm trying not to get too into the issue. I believe you've mentioned that your dad lost his job due to NAFTA. Him losing his job does not make me happy. That said, I repeat from a post I previously made, that you ignored, that free trade doesn't kill jobs, it just shifts jobs from sectors that rely on government intervention, to more productive markets that can thrive without government intervention. The link I gave you, by Professor Blinder, indicates that protectionist policies may cost the American economy as much as $1,000,000 per job to maintain, which is not very feasible when the job pays $35,000 a year. Also, as Captain Random indicated in WSJ, if not for NAFTA, then Random probably wouldn't have the job that he has. And then, even if I am wrong and this hurts America jobs, this isn't the kind of thing to shout and be aggressive about. We are both motivated by a desire to help people, and simply debating the issues is a far more productive way to change my mind then telling me I'm not a real socialist because I support free trade.
Finally, I can admit that Hillary was dead wrong about Universal Healthcare. Thing is that you never asked me about this: you just assumed that I would dickride Hillary as though she were Barack Obama. Universal healthcare will save America money relative to our current system.** The thing is, look at what both of them are proposing. Hillary is endorsing altering Obamacare. Bernie is insisting on universal healthcare. I don't think Bernie could get 50% of democrats on board with this plan, let alone a single Republican. Hillary's idea is far more likely as democrats are more inclined to take the smaller step, more willing to work with Hillary, and since Hillary is arguing from a position of power (the last SCOTUS case on Obamacare gives off the impression that SCOTUS is done with the issue and will not get involved, meaning a presidential veto wins out), she is in a better position to give the GOP little things that they want in return for more pragmatic changes to the law that will help people out today (er, well, relatively sooner than otherwise). Or, if the GOP plays intransigent, nothing changes and Obamacare is still law. In contrast, a Republican president all but ensures the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and sets us back a great deal in fixing our broken healthcare system. I would also appreciate it if you would stop acting like people who are not dickriding Bernie cannot see obvious truths.
*The fourth, John Paul Stevens, was appointed by Ford.
*There is some debate as to how much. Relative to other countries, America spends vastly more on research and development for treatments, and utilizes treatments that may have no positive effect more often. Regardless of how much is saved, getting corporate hospitals and insurance out of healthcare would only help.