It being legally permissable doesn’t mean that it happens. Just like how the DNC’s argument that if the elections are rigged, it wouldn’t be illegal is not an admission that they rigged it. This statement is made without implying anything, it is a statement about formal logic.
How?
The primaries are non binding and can be legally rigged because of that…
Two things:
Have you ever thought about what a great investment a bridge is?
There’s one a Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing.
Why do you suppose I included this sentence at the end of that bullet point?
…and why did you, having read that, assume I made that implication anyway?
Because that makes any statement meaningless…
Just figured I’d answer first
No, it doesn’t lol. The art of rhetoric is completely lost on you