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

[iguanaman]

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.

Like I said the DNC is made up of people and they have their own opinions. It cracks me up that you think Gabbard did not voice HER opinions while still at the DNC. She resigned in protest of her failing to get more debates for her man Sanders. She was out voted in that quest.
What is it about democracy that is so foreign to Sanders people? You don't seem to understand that VOTES are the metric we use in Democracy. Do you have something different in mind? Perhaps you think the DNC should have suspended primary voting and just proclaimed Sanders the nominee because he is so wonderful in every way. That is the ONLY way he would have been nominated and it certainly would NOT have been fair. Somehow I don't think you would care.

 

[Mr Person]

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

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.

Yeah. Because right wing news media and right wing political groups do not try to put their thumbs on the scales in favor of their candidates. If it's on the right, it's all "fair and balanced"; we know it because they tell us so.


Please.

It's not a liberal vs. conservative thing. It has to do with how slimey our politics are....well...how slimey politics always is.

 

[Surrealistik]

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

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?

It's not a form of cheating so much as it's a blatant signaler of blatant and open bias in the party; that these people would presuppose Hillary as nominee en masse well before hearing out the campaigns or platforms of anyone else clearly highlights the lean and open prejudice of the DNC in thought and consequently in action.

It's not a liberal vs. conservative thing. It has to do with how slimey our politics are....well...how slimey politics always is.

Politics doesn't have to be like this as proven in the example of other countries with such things as actual laws meaningfully limiting professional lobbying and private money in politics. Further, politics in America was nothing like this until those laws began to erode in the back in the 70s with Buckley v Vaelo.

Like I said the DNC is made up of people and they have their own opinions. It cracks me up that you think Gabbard did not voice HER opinions while still at the DNC. She resigned in protest of her failing to get more debates for her man Sanders. She was out voted in that quest.
What is it about democracy that is so foreign to Sanders people? You don't seem to understand that VOTES are the metric we use in Democracy. Do you have something different in mind? Perhaps you think the DNC should have suspended primary voting and just proclaimed Sanders the nominee because he is so wonderful in every way. That is the ONLY way he would have been nominated and it certainly would NOT have been fair. Somehow I don't think you would care.

Utterly disingenuous. Tulsi's resignation had more to do with systemic bias against Bernie per the DNC which declares itself and is supposed to be a neutral institution with regards to the primaries.

Sanders supporters don't protest the votes, we protest the nomination process which was and is blatantly crooked in Hillary's favour as this article, among many others so clearly reveals; what about this do you not understand?

You can attempt to rationalize and excuse the DNC's corruption and subversion of the primary all you like, but that does not obviate the fact that it happened, and that it was a blatant ethical violation.

Beyond this, who knows what may have happened if the DNC didn't put their thumb on the scale of this nomination process before the beginning? It is entirely conceivable that Bernie may have won, and to assert otherwise assumes impossible knowledge purely out of partisan bias.

 

[NeverTrump]

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




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.

A few hundred delegates were already Hillary supporters in the first place. It was up to other Democrats get in the race and change their minds and no one exciting enough did. So this would matter more if like six+ democrats did, but no real high profile Democrats ran. Sure Clinton has the upper hand but that's usually how these things work.

 

[Deuce]

It's not a form of cheating so much as it's a blatant signaler of blatant and open bias in the party; that these people would presuppose Hillary as nominee en masse well before hearing out the campaigns or platforms of anyone else clearly highlights the lean and open prejudice of the DNC in thought and consequently in action.




Politics doesn't have to be like this as proven in the example of other countries with such things as actual laws meaningfully limiting professional lobbying and private money in politics. Further, politics in America was nothing like this until those laws began to erode in the back in the 70s with Buckley v Vaelo.




Utterly disingenuous. Tulsi's resignation had more to do with systemic bias against Bernie per the DNC which declares itself and is supposed to be a neutral institution with regards to the primaries.

Sanders supporters don't protest the votes, we protest the nomination process which was and is blatantly crooked in Hillary's favour as this article, among many others so clearly reveals; what about this do you not understand?

You can attempt to rationalize and excuse the DNC's corruption and subversion of the primary all you like, but that does not obviate the fact that it happened, and that it was a blatant ethical violation.

Beyond this, who knows what may have happened if the DNC didn't put their thumb on the scale of this nomination process before the beginning? It is entirely conceivable that Bernie may have won, and to assert otherwise assumes impossible knowledge purely out of partisan bias.

More people voted for Hillary, I don't know what the hell else you want

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

More people voted for Hillary, I don't know what the hell else you want

Assuming that the emails are true, the party has framed the primary process and "tricked" voters.
While not illegal, it's highly unethical.

 

[Moot]

Bernie had access to the same DNC database and talking points as Clinton did....and he's not even a democrat.

But Bernies campaign broke into Hillary's campaign file of voters and stole her data.

And now Clinton is to blame because....why? Because someone hacked the DNC database and posted a bunch of private emails discussing her campaign plans. Wow...I guess that proves she discussed her campaign plans.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Wait what? Can we find 10 people in America who did not know this already?

 

[Deuce]

Assuming that the emails are true, the party has framed the primary process and "tricked" voters.
While not illegal, it's highly unethical.

Who got tricked? How?

 

[shagg]

Yeah. Because right wing news media and right wing political groups do not try to put their thumbs on the scales in favor of their candidates. If it's on the right, it's all "fair and balanced"; we know it because they tell us so.


Please.

It's not a liberal vs. conservative thing. It has to do with how slimey our politics are....well...how slimey politics always is.

Media hacks are found everywhere, sure. This is the DNC directing the media.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Who got tricked? How?

Primary voters, potentially.
I mean, again if these are real, it shows they're pushing one candidate over another, possibly colluding with the media to do so.
It's not a smoking gun, but it's circumstantial enough to look for further evidence and question the primary process of the party.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Media hacks are found everywhere, sure. This is the DNC directing the media.

It is their job to try to shape the narrative, and the not stupid people knew from the jump that Sanders was not on the stage as an equal. He was JUST FINE with that then , he was not there to win, he was there to have the opportunity to give his economics lecture. He only got pissy once he realized that he had ****ed up, that he actually could have gone head to head with Clinton for the nomination. Might have even won if he had.

Bernie did what Bernie almost always does, not played the game thus never had a chance to win the game, then he whines about not winning the game.

He thinks there is some honor in that.

I tend to disagree.

 

[shagg]

Like I said the DNC is made up of people and they have their own opinions. It cracks me up that you think Gabbard did not voice HER opinions while still at the DNC. She resigned in protest of her failing to get more debates for her man Sanders. She was out voted in that quest.
What is it about democracy that is so foreign to Sanders people? You don't seem to understand that VOTES are the metric we use in Democracy. Do you have something different in mind? Perhaps you think the DNC should have suspended primary voting and just proclaimed Sanders the nominee because he is so wonderful in every way. That is the ONLY way he would have been nominated and it certainly would NOT have been fair. Somehow I don't think you would care.

And why do you think she resigned and endorsed Bernie instead of staying and trying to pull some strings for him on the inside? The article would point towards a very pro Shillary atmosphere where such opinions weren't welcome. And it appears all the strings were already being pulled for her. But perhaps she was, as someone else mentioned, protesting the farce of a primary the DNC was holding.

And asking for a fair primary process is a far cry from asking for Bernie to just be appointed, even if the end result is likely the same. You can save your hyperbole.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bernie had access to the same DNC database and talking points as Clinton did....and he's not even a democrat.

But Bernies campaign broke into Hillary's campaign file of voters and stole her data.

And now Clinton is to blame because....why? Because someone hacked the DNC database and posted a bunch of private emails discussing her campaign plans. Wow...I guess that proves she discussed her campaign plans.

If there wasn't direct collusion between the DNC and Clinton to favour her, it would be astonishing. That said, the DNC should absolutely be held accountable for a primary rigged as much in Hillary's favour as it could practically manage, despite its claims and pretensions to neutrality, and the onus on it to be neutral.

Further, no, you can quit repeating that utterly and deliberately exaggerated and largely inaccurate narrative about the Sanders campaign supposedly 'breaking into and pillaging Hillary's data':

Bernie Sanders drops DNC suit after probe confirms campaign's claims

More people voted for Hillary, I don't know what the hell else you want

How about honestly on behalf of the DNC? It wouldn't have been half as bad if they just outright said they were in support of Hillary and were going to do everything in their power to make her nominee (and thus endure the adverse consequences in terms of voter enfranchisement, turnout and public opinion for conducting an almost literal coronation of Clinton). Better yet, how about integrity, such that truly are and act neutral rather than doing their utmost to tip the scales in her favour while lying about it?

 

[Moot]

If there wasn't direct collusion between the DNC and Clinton to favour her, it would be astonishing. That said, the DNC should absolutely be held accountable for a primary rigged as much in Hillary's favour as it could practically manage, despite its claims and pretensions to neutrality, and the onus on it to be neutral.

Further, no, you can quit repeating that utterly and deliberately exaggerated and largely inaccurate narrative about the Sanders campaign supposedly 'breaking into and pillaging Hillary's data':

Bernie Sanders drops DNC suit after probe confirms campaign's claims

How about honestly on behalf of the DNC? It wouldn't have been half as bad if they just outright said they were in support of Hillary and doing everything within their power to make her nominee (and thus endure the doubtlessly averse voter turnout and support consequences for conducting an almost literal coronation of Clinton). Better yet, how about integrity, such that truly are and act neutral rather than doing their utmost to tip the scales in her favour while lying about it?

Just like the RNC..the DNC depends on donors and campaign fund raising by the candidates. Clinton started fund raising before Bernie entered the race. Bernie is a socialist and didn't fund raise for the DNC almost the entire time he campaigned. So what does the DNC owe Bernie?

 

[Surrealistik]

Just like the RNC..the DNC depends on donors and campaign fund raising by the candidates. Clinton started fund raising before Bernie entered the race. Bernie is a socialist and didn't fund raise for the DNC almost the entire time he campaigned. So what does the DNC owe Bernie?

How about a fair and honest nomination process like it promised, and like it is supposed to deliver and ensure?

Further Bernie, per his policy and platform is in actuality an FDR democrat; the best kind, especially vis a vis the neoliberal '3rd way' pro-corporatist sort pioneered by Clinton's husband in the 90s.

That Hillary partisans such as yourself will say anything to excuse the obvious corruption featured in this process rather than acknowledge it, and the obvious problem it presents is both very telling and disturbing.

 

[legalimmigrant]

Anyone remember the Journ-O-List?

This is nothing new. More corrupt liberal media pretending to be unbiased :shrug:

The American reporters, with all the protections the society gave them to watch and expose the crooks in Washington and state capitals, morphed into a despicable bunch of ******s, eager to please the American ruling elites, their beloved presidents, and protected minorities.

I could cite enough examples in support of what you just read to make your eyes bleed, but I will stop now and leave you with this thought: even the Soviet Pravda editors were morally superior, as kissing their masters’ rear ends was the only way to stay out of gulags; the American reporters do it voluntarily.

 

[iguanaman]

And why do you think she resigned and endorsed Bernie instead of staying and trying to pull some strings for him on the inside? The article would point towards a very pro Shillary atmosphere where such opinions weren't welcome. And it appears all the strings were already being pulled for her. But perhaps she was, as someone else mentioned, protesting the farce of a primary the DNC was holding.

And asking for a fair primary process is a far cry from asking for Bernie to just be appointed, even if the end result is likely the same. You can save your hyperbole.

The answer is she was out voted and she quit while pouting that it was not "fair". Much like you are. She certainly was free to give her opinion but when it came to winning her way in a vote she came up short. Again much like Danders. If you want to win the hearts and minds of the DNC you need to do the work, not make demands and whine and cry when you don't get your way. It makes you look like babies who don't have a clue. Meanwhile listen to "The Burn" and go run for local office. One man cannot change things all by himself, or did you not know that either?

 

[legalimmigrant]

It is their job to try to shape the narrative, and the not stupid people knew from the jump that Sanders was not on the stage as an equal. He was JUST FINE with that then , he was not there to win, he was there to have the opportunity to give his economics lecture. He only got pissy once he realized that he had ****ed up, that he actually could have gone head to head with Clinton for the nomination. Might have even won if he had.

Bernie did what Bernie almost always does, not played the game thus never had a chance to win the game, then he whines about not winning the game.

He thinks there is some honor in that.

I tend to disagree.

Another proof that nice guys always finish last.

That's why the RINO's are doomed from this point on till eternity - even with Trump.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Another proof that nice guys always finish last.

That's why the RINO's are doomed from this point on till eternity - even with Trump.

Refusal to play does not equate to nice, it comes from either arrogance or lack of confidence usually.

When it comes to women nice guys tend to finish last ( and they usually deserve to finish last), but that is a whole nother kettle of fish.

 

[Moot]

How about a fair and honest nomination process like it promised, and like it is supposed to deliver and ensure?

Further Bernie, per his policy and platform is in actuality an FDR democrat; the best kind, especially vis a vis the neoliberal '3rd way' pro-corporatist sort pioneered by Clinton's husband in the 90s.

That Hillary partisans such as yourself will say anything to excuse the obvious corruption featured in this process rather than acknowledge it, and the obvious problem it presents is both very telling and disturbing.

Bernie knew the rules before he started...so how about Bernie play by the rules he agreed to...instead of trying to change them in mid-stream because he's losing?

Or how about Bernie getting caught downloading Clinton's voter files and then filing a lawsuit when access to his own files were denied because of the breach. After he was given access to his files...he still didn't drop the lawsuit because Bernie playing the victim gained him more support. But the only victim here was Clinton whose campaign was compromised by Bernie who thinks the DNC owes him support and funding that he didn't give to them. Bernie thinks everything should be for free...and on that I don't agree.

Don't pretend you're not a partisan because it's too obvious that you are.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bernie knew the rules before he started...so how about Bernie play by the rules he agreed to...instead of trying to change them in mid-stream because he's losing?

Or how about Bernie getting caught downloading Clinton's voter files and then filing a lawsuit when access to his own files were denied because of the breach. After he was given access to his files...he still didn't drop the lawsuit because Bernie playing the victim gained him more support. But the only victim here was Clinton whose campaign was compromised by Bernie who thinks the DNC owes him support and funding that he didn't give to them. Bernie thinks everything should be for free...and on that I don't agree.

Did he know about the systemic bias in the DNC favouring Hillary before he started, now confirmed in spite of its lying assertions to the contrary? Even if he did, does that knowledge in any way excuse the anti-democratic corruption exhibited by the DNC in favour of her?

Second, again, you can stop making that hyperbolic assertion about Bernie's campaign pilfering Clinton's voter files given the probe results. Since you refuse to stop peddling this utterly disingenuous version of events, here's yet another article from a traditionally Clinton friendly source contradicting your knowingly disingenuous account: Bernie Sanders ends lawsuit against DNC over voter data breach - Washington Times

He wasn't playing the victim, he _was_ the victim, and his lawsuit was always contingent on the resolution of the independent probe.

Don't pretend you're not a partisan because it's too obvious that you are.

A partisan is not someone who balks at open corruption; a partisan is someone who makes excuses for it as you have.

 

[manise]

How about a fair and honest nomination process like it promised, and like it is supposed to deliver and ensure?

Further Bernie, per his policy and platform is in actuality an FDR democrat; the best kind, especially vis a vis the neoliberal '3rd way' pro-corporatist sort pioneered by Clinton's husband in the 90s.

That Hillary partisans such as yourself will say anything to excuse the obvious corruption featured in this process rather than acknowledge it, and the obvious problem it presents is both very telling and disturbing.

I often read Bernie supporters invoking FDR while simultaneously bashing elitist party hacks. They forget that FDR himself was party hack who built the Democratic Party into an overwhelming machine that relied on undemocratic party convention bargaining instead of the modern primary system. FDR demanded, and got, party discipline. He would never allow an Independent who didn't fully commit to the party until the eve of the primary season to have the influence now displayed by Sanders. A Sanders insurgency during the New Deal or thereafter would be still born.

 

[Moot]

Did he know about the systemic bias in the DNC favouring Hillary before he started, now confirmed in spite of its lying assertions to the contrary? Even if he did, does that knowledge in any way excuse the anti-democratic corruption exhibited by the DNC in favour of her?

Second, again, you can stop making that hyperbolic assertion about Bernie's campaign pilfering Clinton's voter files given the probe results. Since you refuse to stop peddling this utterly disingenuous version of events, here's yet another article from a traditionally Clinton friendly source contradicting your knowingly disingenuous account: Bernie Sanders ends lawsuit against DNC over voter data breach - Washington Times

He wasn't playing the victim, he _was_ the victim, and his lawsuit was always contingent on the resolution of the independent probe.



A partisan is not someone who balks at open corruption; a partisan is someone who makes excuses for it as you have.

A partisan is someone who sees corruption in their political opponents when there is none. A partisan is someone who is blind to any truths that doesn't fit their partisan ideology or belief. A partisan is someone just like you.

 

[Surrealistik]

I often read Bernie supporters invoking FDR while simultaneously bashing elitist party hacks. They forget that FDR himself was party hack who built the Democratic Party into an overwhelming machine that relied on undemocratic party convention bargaining instead of the modern primary system. FDR demanded, and got, party discipline. He would never allow an Independent who didn't fully commit to the party until the eve of the primary season to have the influence now displayed by Sanders. A Sanders insurgency during the New Deal or thereafter would be still born.

FDR also incarcerated Japanese Americans wholesale, so I guess I must value that about him as well?

FDR was a great president albeit also a very flawed one. My concern is with his parallels on economic and social policy with Sanders per the New Deal and aggressive attack on poverty and economic malaise as well as monied corruption of the democratic process, not FDR's sins which I repudiate as mars and blemishes on an exemplary POTUS.

A partisan is someone who sees corruption in their political opponents when there is none. A partisan is someone who is blind to any truths that doesn't fit their partisan ideology. A partisan is someone just like you.

Dat projection.

Also, let's be very clear about this: the DNC is supposed to be neutral, claimed neutrality, and yet was in full support of Hillary. That is corruption. That is a subversion of the Democratic nomination process, end of story.