And when you think about, the one person who this hurt, was the truthful one telling us the whole time..
EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
And when you think about, the one person who this hurt, was the truthful one telling us the whole time..
DWS had every intention of, not only gavel-in, BUT a speech and a closing ceremony, too.
Now THAT is one cold bitch.
She tells so many lies when paraphrasing Comey, she lies about that..she can't even remember her own lies or worse, doesn't even really know because she never listened to what the FBI said..and in that case, god help us all.
At this point she's making up her own truth.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You would if he was putting the drug money into your bank account
If you, me and Buck were playing Monopoly and me, as the banker, gave Buck twice as much money to start, when Buck won the game, would you say that it was a legitimate win?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Was Hillary tied to any of this? I've dug around the web and can't find anything that even links Hillary's campaign staff to the DNC collusion with the media. All of the stuff posted in some articles about the e-mails like the one posted below from by CNN was showed foolish kicking-around of ideas that never went anywhere by apparent nobodies. If that's what the DNC was all about then the real scandal is how inept those fuckers were.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/dnc-email-leak-wikileaks/
You guys are pretty angry about this. I'm not so much, I'm actually pretty glad this stuff came to light. Those amateurs could have really fucked up the general election. Hopefully they will be next found working with @ThickStemz at that Subway for the mentally challenged.
This is the best analysis that I found -- there really isn't much out there, you can make hay out of that I suppose -- it's from a website purportedly to cover Bernie's bid. I don't know anything about the blog but the writer sticks to facts and makes some good points. I'll post a link and some pertinent passages.
http://vtdigger.org/2016/07/25/margolis-for-a-scandal-it-takes-more-than-the-latest-emails/
MARGOLIS: FOR A SCANDAL, IT TAKES MORE THAN THE LATEST EMAILS
In this matter of the significance or lack thereof of the purloined Democratic National Committee emails, here is the fact to keep in mind: If your worst problem is opposition from the Democratic National Committee, if only the DNC stands between you and the realization of your hopes and dreams, you are the most blessed of men or women. All obstacles before you are easily surmounted.
If anything, this reality was confirmed when WikiLeaks released thousands of those emails just as the Democratic National Convention was about to begin in Philadelphia. The messages among senior committee staff left little doubt they hoped Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, would win their party’s nomination.
And we didn’t already know that?
But the emails left even less doubt that those staffers didn’t actually do anything to help Clinton or hurt Sanders.
Not because they had too many scruples. Only because they had too little power. They couldn’t have done anything that made any difference even had they tried.
Which probably explains why they didn’t try.
Like its Republican counterpart, the Democratic National Committee doesn’t have much power. Its purpose is to raise money and issue news releases praising its own candidates and positions and excoriating the opposition.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, that would be legit.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Would Buck's win be legitimate if he didn't know I rigged the game?
That's against the DNC Bylaws, the DNC is to remain neutral and uphold democracy, not subvert democracy and choose which candidate they think would be best for the democratic establishment
How do you explain any of the evidence of direct DNC collusion I just posted then? Vogel's politico piece getting approved by DNC officials before publication, DWSs direct contact with Phil Griffin, feeding Jake Tapper direct questions to be asked during the debates?
Do you not believe the content of the emails released by wikileaks? Do you not believe that had they done what the emails purport, i.e. DNC officials in direct contact with members of the media, it wouldn't have mattered? If so, then why did they do it?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think the DNC is a pile of rubbish, at least that's how it seems from the e-mails. Why did they do it? I don't know. What I get back to is the basic question of whether or not it had an important effect on the outcome. Mind you I voted for Bernie and wanted him to win. Still prefer him over Clinton. Did the DNC's effort make a difference? No, it didn't. Feeding Tapper direct questions to be asked during the debates? Do you really think that is why Hillary won more than 60% of the African American and Hispanic votes or more than 55% of women's votes? Nobody can win the nomination without doing very well in at least two of those three categories. It was up to Bernie to win their support and he did not.
There is another point that is also important to me -- whether any laws were broken and it does not seem so. The DNC subverted it's own rules. Outrageous and I hope to see some changes to take place within the party to assure DNC neutrality going forward. That said, I don't see anybody claiming Hillary was the mastermind of this or even involved. DWS was. She's a turd and getting better than what she deserves for being a weasel.
Also, as from what I've read, no money was taken or illegally misused, at least nothing has been found in the e-mails regarding this. Maybe Russia will spend some more intelligence dollars to verify this. It's kind of strange having Russia as the referee for the Democratic Primary, isn't it?
Moral outrage is absolutely your right. Rage on. I guess.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't understand why you think it only matters if it would have altered the outcome of the election, especially considering you can't prove whether it did or not one way or the other given the information we have
What matters to me is that it happened at all
The problem itself is that no laws were broken. What the DNC did should be illegal. It's against the DNC Bylaws because they know publicly favoring a specific candidate over another would be a subversion of democracy.
There's a good case to be made about the millions of people who donated their time and money to the Sanders campaign being defrauded by the DNC because of their actions. And why would anybody want to donate to a fringe candidate in any future elections now that we have evidence that it doesn't matter anyway? This damages the potential of campaigns of future candidates that are outside of the political establishment
Money donated to the DNC under the presumption that it would be going to down ticket democratic candidates was funnelled through the Hillary Victory Fund to her campaign, more than likely breaking campaign finance laws. Less than 1% went to down ticket candidates
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
OK, what I read is that you are morally outraged. That's your right.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Here's Vogel's article from Politico he sent to Mark Paustenbach (National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director of the DNC) for approval discussing it;
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
And you're not, can you explain that?
Are you with @Unclebaldrick in that you believe beating Donald Trump is more important than upholding democracy in this case? Do you think that if any investigation into the DNC were established it would harm her chances in November?
You seem to be saying "Yeah, they cheated, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway so who cares?" and you haven't sufficiently addressed my criticism that the degree to which they cheated is irrelevant, the problem is that they cheated at all. You and I are in agreement that they probably didn't have to cheat for her to win. The fact is they did and that's what we need to address.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm glad you found time for self reflection.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
We've gone around and around about this. Bernie didn't win enough votes in the important delegations of the party. You seem to think that everybody who voted for Hillary were unduly influenced by machinations of some really stupid people in the DNC. (Have you read the extracts that have been published?) Nonetheless, you are saying that you and I and all the other Sanders supporters were clear headed and unaffected but the majority of the Democratic Party's voters were not. I think that's elitist and don't buy that argument. Hillary got 31% more votes than Bernie did, most of the black and Hispanic votes and a clear majority of the women's vote. Using past elections as a guide, the shit that went on by the DNC maybe might have affected a percent or two. But I don't think even that.
Once we can rule out an actual steal and can rule out actual laws broken then it comes down to a morals issue. There you do have a point. The Democratic Party hacks behaved abysmally. But in this case, I can see no evidence that Hillary was involved. And so, I'm not morally outraged regarding Hillary or her winning the nomination over this. I'm interested in going back after the election and seeing that something is done to prevent it in the future.
That funding issue with the Hillary Victory Fund chaps me though. Again, I'm not going to have a fit over it but I wonder how much "help" the DNC will actually give to State Parties based upon those Victory fund dollars. Hillary's campaign made out pretty well from that bit of shenanigans. I don't like it but it's not enough to move me to vote for Trump. I'd like to see this kind of instrument cleaned up too.
But I'm not in a dither over this. As far as I can tell, this is politics as usual. You can reply with your usual flame.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
why are you the banker ?Did someone put monies in Hillary's bank account. in short. WTF are you talking about
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
This is the heart of the matter; if it's ok to subvert democracy to get your candidate elected, you can't then turn around and say what happened was democracy. Or complain when the other side does the same.
The simple fact is that democracy was egregiously and intentionally subverted at levels high and low throughout the primary process and this is direct evidence of how the establishment reduced democracy to a sham.
@Fogdog I'm disappointed that you seem to be so wilfully obtuse to the facts, the evidence and the inescapable conclusions that follow.
We the People have once again been ignored and our voices muzzled by the 'process'. Small wonder our plight continues to worsen.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Now hold on there varmint.
Subverting democracy to me would be ignoring and defeating the will of the people. That didn't happen. What did happen is dirty and I'm not obtuse about the facts of what happened. If the election had come down to 1% or 2% difference then I'd be really hot about it. But a 31% difference is a landslide and makes the DNC shenanigans foolish. The will of the majority of the Democratic Party was that Hillary be its nominee.
After the election I will follow up on this and see what my representatives are doing to put rules or even laws in place to assure DNC neutrality.