EXPOSED: Leaked Emails Show DNC Colluded with Media to Push Clinton Nomination

[shagg]

I wonder, will that beast Debbie Wasserman-Schultz keep her job as DNC chairman after the election is over? That woman has been in the tank for Hillary for a long time, and she did everything in her power to ensure that Hillary beat Bernie.

If Shillary loses, DWS is going down with the ship. She knows she's not getting re-elected. Her only hope is an appointed position from her liege.

 

[TheGoverness]

If Shillary loses, DWS is going down with the ship. She knows she's not getting re-elected. Her only hope is an appointed position from her liege.

That's one of the very few good things that will come out of a Trump presidency.

 

[shagg]

Some in the GOP, but not the GOP itself, I'm pretty certain, so no, not a hypocrite. Where as the DNC most certainly put their big fat thumb on the scales.

You could even see how bad the RNC wanted to put their thumb on the scales. They failed because they restricted themselves to legitimate methods, but they were right in staying that course.

 

[eohrnberger]

You could even see how bad the RNC wanted to put their thumb on the scales. They failed because they restricted themselves to legitimate methods, but they were right in staying that course.

I would agree. In this instance, the GOP has far more principals and morals than the DNC. It's nice to see. Would like to see more of it.

 

[Surrealistik]

The vast majority of the media has always had a left-leaning slant and report the news through that filter. It only makes sense for them to also use the media to get their candidate elected.

Establishment corporatism/neoliberalism isn't leftism.

What a shock! Illegal and unethical behavior regarding emails by the DNC involving Clinton.

Some will find that hard to believe. Mostly democrats.

This is really more a confirmation of what most Democrats already knew, though there are many Hillary supporters who are willfully blind/ignorant to the reality, yes.

So much for the illusion of the DNC being open and honest and conducting an open and honest primary. :doh

For most, I don't think there even ever was an illusion; the DNC barely attempted a facade of transparency and impartiality.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The vast majority of the media has always had a left-leaning slant and report the news through that filter. It only makes sense for them to also use the media to get their candidate elected.

Well, what do you expect, given that reality itself has a liberal bias?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yes the DNC supported a Democrat...the shame. They should change their name to....oh wait.
What is this world coming to.

Thanks for the chuckle - first one of the day!

 

[Surrealistik]

Thanks for the chuckle - first one of the day!

What's funny about the DNC colluding to elect a specific candidate in the nomination process when it's supposed to be neutral and impartial in this regard?

 

[iguanaman]

What's funny about the DNC colluding to elect a specific candidate when it's supposed to be neutral and impartial in the nomination process?

The funny part is that you brag about Sanders being an "outsider" and then whine and pout when the DNC treats him that way. Bernie made his choice of party all by himself and he did not want to be a Democrat. He also got promises from Hillary that she would endorse him if he won.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

What's funny about the DNC colluding to elect a specific candidate in the nomination process when it's supposed to be neutral and impartial in this regard?

Who got more individual (not delegate, but individual) votes - Sanders? Or Clinton?

 

[Surrealistik]

The funny part is that you brag about Sanders being an "outsider" and then whine and pout when the DNC treats him that way. Bernie made his choice of party all by himself and he did not want to be a Democrat.

So because Sanders defines himself as a non-establishment candidate not ruled by corporate money and lobbyists, that somehow justifies the DNC, again what is supposed to be a neutral party, and which claimed to be a neutral party all throughout the process, blatantly violating that stance to singly support HRC, nevermind the other candidates in the race, none of which are Democratic 'outsiders'?

Didn't think so.

Who got more individual (not delegate, but individual) votes - Sanders? Or Clinton?

Who worked overtime to rig the nomination process in Clinton's favour despite having no mandate or authorization to do so, and despite both their claim of and requirement for neutrality?

Even if she would have won via the most popular votes regardless of DNC and media manipulation, that in no way obviates these ethical violations.

 

[reinoe]

Fact is Hillary was always the front runner- the 'liberal' media did as much to throw shade on Hillary when Bernie won states that had ZERO chance of ever of winning in a general election. Why ol' Bernie was on a winning streak by taking tiny caucuses in red, red, red states out west... :roll:

And let's not forget Hillary's Routing of Sanders in the Deep South. m. i. rite? Whereas Sanders did much better against her in swing states and states that allowed independents to vote. :roll:

 

[shagg]

The funny part is that you brag about Sanders being an "outsider" and then whine and pout when the DNC treats him that way. Bernie made his choice of party all by himself and he did not want to be a Democrat.

So it's ok because Bernie isn't really a democrat? Are you really looking to play this angle?

If he's not really a democrat, they shouldn't have let him run as one. Once accepted as a candidate for the democratic nomination, they were obligated to remain impartial and treat everyone equally. And it doesn't matter if it was 2 independents running, the DNC has no business attempting to pick the nominee they want, never mind directing major media outlets as part of the overall effort to do so. This is despicable and undermines the democratic process in the worst way: attempting to retain the image of fair elections while rigging them behind the scenes where no one is supposed to be able to see. All in an effort to get the most establishment/corporate friendly POTUS elected, to further the establishment, their machine, and their pursuit of more wealth and power.

And I guess this means that the sun may be setting on the Democratic party. After this, anyone who even respected Bernie is going to feel sympathy for him. Supporters will now be much more likely to vote for anyone else. And a whole generation has been spurned by the DNC. Masterfully played.

 

[iguanaman]

So because Sanders defines himself as a non-establishment candidate not ruled by corporate money and lobbyists, that somehow justifies the DNC, again what is supposed to be a neutral party, and which claimed to be a neutral party all throughout the process, blatantly violating that stance to singly support HRC, nevermind the other candidates in the race, none of which are Democratic 'outsiders'?

Didn't think so.




Who worked overtime to rig the nomination process in Clinton's favour despite having no mandate or authorization to do so, and despite both the claim and requirement for neutrality?

Even if she would have won via the most popular votes regardless of DNC and media manipulation, that in no way obviates these ethical missteps.

What makes you think the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"? It is made up of DEMOCRATS (in case you forgot) and they are people and people have preferences and alliances that are built over time. This is how a political party works. So yes there are perks for devoting your life to building those alliances and supporters. That does not mean that the DNC can control voters who are the ones who finally make the decision. That decsion is made and it was not even that close. Nearly 4 million more voters choose Hillary over Sanders.
BTW Sanders is not a member of the Democratic party and that is why he did not get their full support. Ya think?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

And let's not forget Hillary's Routing of Sanders in the Deep South. m. i. rite? Whereas Sanders did much better against her in swing states and states that allowed independents to vote. :roll:

Explain the reason why closed primaries are somehow less democratic then open primaries?

 

[shagg]

What makes you think the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"? It is made up of people and people have preferences and alliances that are built over time. This is how a political party works. So yes there are perks for devoting your life to building those alliances and supporters. That does not mean that the DNC can control voters who are the ones who finally make the decision. That decsion is made and it was not even that close. Nearly 4 million more voters choose Hillary over Sanders.
BTW Sanders is not a member of the Democratic party and that is why he did not get their full support. Ya think?

Then why did Tulsi Gabbard have to resign her position at the DNC in order to endorse Bernie? Why are others who hold positions at the DNC not allowed to endorse anyone? Because they are supposed to remain neutral.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

So it's ok because Bernie isn't really a democrat? Are you really looking to play this angle?

If he's not really a democrat, they shouldn't have let him run as one. Once accepted as a candidate for the democratic nomination, they were obligated to remain impartial and treat everyone equally. And it doesn't matter if it was 2 independents running, the DNC has no business attempting to pick the nominee they want, never mind directing major media outlets as part of the overall effort to do so. This is despicable and undermines the democratic process in the worst way: attempting to retain the image of fair elections while rigging them behind the scenes where no one is supposed to be able to see. All in an effort to get the most establishment/corporate friendly POTUS elected, to further the establishment, their machine, and their pursuit of more wealth and power.

And I guess this means that the sun may be setting on the Democratic party. After this, anyone who even respected Bernie is going to feel sympathy for him. Supporters will now be much more likely to vote for anyone else. And a whole generation has been spurned by the DNC. Masterfully played.

The overseeing of elections is handled at the state level.

The issue of open/closed primaries is not somthing the DNC has immediate control over.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

So because Sanders defines himself as a non-establishment candidate not ruled by corporate money and lobbyists, that somehow justifies the DNC, again what is supposed to be a neutral party, and which claimed to be a neutral party all throughout the process, blatantly violating that stance to singly support HRC, nevermind the other candidates in the race, none of which are Democratic 'outsiders'?

Didn't think so.




Who worked overtime to rig the nomination process in Clinton's favour despite having no mandate or authorization to do so, and despite both their claim of and requirement for neutrality?

Even if she would have won via the most popular votes regardless of DNC and media manipulation, that in no way obviates these ethical violations.

If you want to show the instances where the DNC violated their "neutrality", that would help out the discussion.

 

[Surrealistik]

What makes you think the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"? It is made up of DEMOCRATS (in case you forgot) and they are people and people have preferences and alliances that are built over time. This is how a political party works. So yes there are perks for devoting your life to building those alliances and supporters. That does not mean that the DNC can control voters who are the ones who finally make the decision. That decsion is made and it was not even that close. Nearly 4 million more voters choose Hillary over Sanders.
BTW Sanders is not a member of the Democratic party and that is why he did not get their full support. Ya think?

What Shagg said.

Winning the popular vote in what is now very clearly a rigged process does not in any way legitimize a blatant violation of claimed and mandated neutrality. Yes, the DNC is in fact supposed to be neutral in matters of the nomination process, Sanders _was_ a Democrat during his nomination bid as were the other candidates (none of which were outsiders in any sense), and no matter how much you try to justify or excuse it, corruption remains corruption.

If you want to show the instances where the DNC violated their "neutrality", that would help out the discussion.

You read the article right?

Not even getting into the Superdelegate skew, the debate scheduling (in terms of the number, dates and times), the ridiculous and disproportionate witch-hunt concerning Sanders campaign inadvertent access of Clinton campaign data, as well as the e-mails effectively specifying HRC as the DNC nominee in 2015 well before anything was settled in the nomination process.

Speaking of articles, here's another with a tally of sins listed near the bottom: https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...ty-unity-the-new-dnc-email-leak-means-th.html

 

[Unitedwestand13]

What Shagg said.

Winning the popular vote in what is now very clearly a rigged process does not in any way legitimize a blatant violation of claimed and mandated neutrality. Yes, the DNC is in fact supposed to be neutral in matters of the nomination process, Sanders _was_ a Democrat during his nomination bid as were the other candidates (none of which were outsiders in any sense), and no matter how much you try to justify or excuse it, corruption remains corruption.

Show the examples of rigging.

Was it the number of debates? Was it the order of primary's and caucuses? Was it specific endorsements?

 

[Threegoofs]

A lot of us suspected, some denied it. There can be no denial now. And if you don't think this is worth a few hundred delegates, in a race where over 4,000 are up for grabs, then you're .... a typical Shillary fanboi.

Destroy the machines.

As a Conservative, Welcome to our world.

You mean the world where somebody steals emails, gets half the story, and then runs and pretends it's a major scandal and takes a position that is contrary to all reason and will not be changed no matter what evidence is produced?

Glad you finally admitted it.

 

[Surrealistik]

Show the examples of rigging.

Was it the number of debates? Was it the order of primary's and caucuses? Was it specific endorsements?

You read the article right?

Not even getting into the Superdelegate skew, the debate scheduling (in terms of the number, dates and times), the ridiculous and disproportionate witch-hunt concerning Sanders campaign inadvertent access of Clinton campaign data, as well as the e-mails effectively specifying HRC as the DNC nominee in 2015 well before anything was settled in the nomination process.

Speaking of articles, here's another with a tally of sins listed near the bottom: https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...ty-unity-the-new-dnc-email-leak-means-th.html

Supplemental: Establishment Collectively Stunned To See Citizens Reject Rigged Democratic Primary | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

 

[shagg]

The overseeing of elections is handled at the state level.

The issue of open/closed primaries is not somthing the DNC has immediate control over.

I never said anything about open/closed primaries/caucuses.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Explain the reason why closed primaries are somehow less democratic then open primaries?

Open primaries make no sense to me. At the end of the day, each political party is essentially a private club, free to run their elections however they choose. Allowing non-members to vote is just plain silly.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Supplemental: Establishment Collectively Stunned To See Citizens Reject Rigged Democratic Primary | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

I am going to say one thing about the super delegates, which your article mentions as one of the examples of "rigging"

hundreds of superdelegates pledged their allegiance to Clinton before votes were cast in Iowa

This accusation makes no sense to me. Super delegates endorsing Hilliary Clinton before the first primary is somehow unfair? Ummm sanders could have gotten their endorsement just as easily if he had spent time and effort building political connections and establishing ties to these super delegates. Many of the super delegates in the Democratic Party have known Hilliary Clinton and worked with her for years. Is that some form of cheating? How?