• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

People still got to vote. "Pushing one candidate" doesn't mean anything. The DNC has every right to like one candidate better than another. They're a private organization. Hell, they don't even have a particular obligation to let you vote on their candidate in the first place. Even if this supposed scandal is accurate, more people voted for Hillary. Nobody stole anything.

People get to try and convince you to vote for them. That's how elections work.

It seems the Danders people do not wish to understand how political parties or elections work. The think the whole process should be made in their image simply because they showed up a few months ago. I chalk it up to youthful exuberance and a little secret prodding from the opposition. It is no secret the Karl Roves Pac has been "helping" Danders and I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few operatives to keep up the pressure on Hillary as long as they can.
 
Yet it's not baseless.

I know you REALLY want to believe...but facts are stubborn things.

Typical projection.

Essentially your opinion is predicated purely on conjecture that there is an explanatory context which the DNC has inexplicably not volunteered for reasons they have yet to disclose despite the fact that such a clarification would work solely to their advantage, whereas mine is based on the evidence and facts as they stand, to say nothing of the debate scheduling, contentious primaries and caucuses, DWS, the preponderance of pro-Hillary superdelegates prior to any voting, etc...

Meanwhile: Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud | Embols
 
Typical projection.

Essentially your opinion is predicated purely on conjecture that there is an explanatory context which the DNC has inexplicably not volunteered for reasons they have yet to disclose despite the fact that such a clarification would work solely to their advantage, whereas mine is based on the evidence and facts as they stand.

Lots of words. No evidence but a disembodied email.
 
Lots of words. No evidence but a disembodied email.

And the verifiable surrounding facts of the campaign found in what you just quoted, including the link to the Stanford analysis I posted.

The balance of evidence is at this point set firmly against you; my interpretation is much more likely to be true than yours.
 
And the verifiable surrounding facts of the campaign found in what you just quoted, including the link to the Stanford analysis I posted.

The balance of evidence is at this point set firmly against you; my interpretation is much more likely to be true than yours.

Didn't see your 'analysis'.

Saw the OP. If that's what you've got, it's pretty much a joke.
 

Ok. I look at the Stanford thing and it looks like Stanford would be pissed to be associated with drivel like that!

It posits fraud in (unnamed) states based on historical data that isn't really specified. It's also not been published, probably because it wouldn't get thru even the softest peer review.
 
Ok. I look at the Stanford thing and it looks like Stanford would be pissed to be associated with drivel like that!

It posits fraud in (unnamed) states based on historical data that isn't really specified. It's also not been published, probably because it wouldn't get thru even the softest peer review.

Are you being disingenuous or merely that unobservant? The state data is all linked; it is all there.

Further, in light of all the information, what is seriously more likely:

A: That these documents are legitimate (the DNC has not denied this) and that they have no explanatory context (the DNC has provided none despite the adverse consequences).

OR

B: The party did indeed put its thumb on the scales in Clinton's favour contrary to its official and purported stance of neutrality in light of the debate scheduling, the number of debates, egregious polling complications, voting inconsistencies, academic studies confirming those voting inconsistencies, DWS' general disposition as DNC chair, DWS' premature lockout of the Sanders' campaign to the DNC voter file in direct contradiction to DNC rules and those e-mails?
 
Are you being disingenuous or merely that unobservant? The state data is all linked; it is all there.

Further, in light of all the information, what is seriously more likely:

A: That these documents are legitimate (the DNC has not denied this) and that they have no explanatory context (the DNC has provided none despite the adverse consequences).

OR

B: The party did indeed put its thumb on the scales in Clinton's favour contrary to its official and purported stance of neutrality in light of the debate scheduling, the number of debates, egregious polling complications, voting inconsistencies, academic studies confirming those voting inconsistencies, DWS' general disposition as DNC chair, DWS' premature lockout of the Sanders' campaign to the DNC voter file in direct contradiction to DNC rules and those e-mails?

Sounds like whining to me.
 
Are you being disingenuous or merely that unobservant? The state data is all linked; it is all there.

Further, in light of all the information, what is seriously more likely:

A: That these documents are legitimate (the DNC has not denied this) and that they have no explanatory context (the DNC has provided none despite the adverse consequences).

OR

B: The party did indeed put its thumb on the scales in Clinton's favour contrary to its official and purported stance of neutrality in light of the debate scheduling, the number of debates, egregious polling complications, voting inconsistencies, academic studies confirming those voting inconsistencies, DWS' general disposition as DNC chair, DWS' premature lockout of the Sanders' campaign to the DNC voter file in direct contradiction to DNC rules and those e-mails?

The disturbing thing is that there is no "thumb" or "scales" in politics that I know of, it is really about going out and getting votes. Where is this "scale" and just how big a thumb is required to push it? How many votes does a "thumb pushing" make? If you don't know the answers, I hope you will stop using that ridiculous meme. It is insulting to our intelligence. Try something like "The DNC was mean to Danders people and they kept treating them like newcomers who did not have a clue how things work and they kept holding votes on issues that we lost and that is not fair. Hillary knew all the DNC people by their 1st names and that was not fair either. I quit" Now that is more like it.
 
Last edited:
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.
.....
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.

I'm a big fan of Bernie's and not of Hillary, but he has spent his entire career as an independent, on his radio bits routinely criticized and distanced himself from the Democratic party (which is why he never joined the party, merely caucused with them for his own benefit and power), and only at the last minute joined the party to take advantage of the party apparatus etc. to help his POTUS campaign - he knows an independent run means he can't even get on the ballot in all 50 states without wasting massive resources.

So what the hell does anyone expect to happen when a major, decades long leader in the party (Clinton) is running against a guy who loves the party so much that he shunned it for his entire political career until the party could benefit him but who has given NOT A DAMN THING to the party itself in his decades in office? Anyone including Bernie who didn't know for a certainty that the DNC would favor Clinton in that scenario isn't being realistic about how the entire world works.

And what I've read many times during the campaign is Bernie's organization has made no effort to reach out to help other candidates, either by appearing or endorsing them, and importantly by raising money for them or for the party as a whole. So, yeah, the DNC has always favored Hillary. Of course they do.
 
People still got to vote. "Pushing one candidate" doesn't mean anything. The DNC has every right to like one candidate better than another. They're a private organization. Hell, they don't even have a particular obligation to let you vote on their candidate in the first place. Even if this supposed scandal is accurate, more people voted for Hillary. Nobody stole anything.

"Pushing one candidate" is a catch all term for giving better funding, better media exposure, etc, etc.
I haven't said anyone stole anything.
I said it was highly unethical.
Obviously you can manipulate people through various means of "pushing one candidate."

I think we should realize at this point that both GOP and DNC are, for all practical purposes, inseparable from the government.

People get to try and convince you to vote for them. That's how elections work.

I didn't say otherwise.
 
Sounds like whining to me.

Sounds more like someone doesn't have a valid counterargument.

The disturbing thing is that there is no "thumb" or "scales" in politics that I know of, it is really about going out and getting votes. Where is this "scale" and just how big a thumb is required to push it? How many votes does a "thumb pushing" make? If you don't know the answers, I hope you will stop using that ridiculous meme. It is insulting to our intelligence. Try something like "The DNC was mean to Danders people and they kept treating them like newcomers who did not have a clue how things work and they kept holding votes on issues that we lost and that is not fair. Hillary knew all the DNC people by their 1st names and that was not fair either. I quit" Now that is more like it.

I can use any metaphor, simile or figurative mode of speech you like; the fact is that yes, per the body of evidence it is evident that the DNC was a biased party contrary to its policy and did deliberately and knowingly skew the outcome of the nomination process in Hillary's favour.

I'm a big fan of Bernie's and not of Hillary, but he has spent his entire career as an independent, on his radio bits routinely criticized and distanced himself from the Democratic party (which is why he never joined the party, merely caucused with them for his own benefit and power), and only at the last minute joined the party to take advantage of the party apparatus etc. to help his POTUS campaign - he knows an independent run means he can't even get on the ballot in all 50 states without wasting massive resources.

So what the hell does anyone expect to happen when a major, decades long leader in the party (Clinton) is running against a guy who loves the party so much that he shunned it for his entire political career until the party could benefit him but who has given NOT A DAMN THING to the party itself in his decades in office? Anyone including Bernie who didn't know for a certainty that the DNC would favor Clinton in that scenario isn't being realistic about how the entire world works.

And what I've read many times during the campaign is Bernie's organization has made no effort to reach out to help other candidates, either by appearing or endorsing them, and importantly by raising money for them or for the party as a whole. So, yeah, the DNC has always favored Hillary. Of course they do.

Actually Bernie has indeed raised money with and on behalf of the Democratic party.

But again, that's a total aside from the fact that the DNC violated its own policies of neutrality and falsely and repeatedly claimed to be a neutral party when it clearly wasn't, which is a blatant ethics violation and is indeed corrupt; Bernie's past affiliation with the Dem party or lackthereof does not in any way ameliorate that. That violation also affected the other Dems running in the nomination process none of which were party outsiders, and have indisputably made material contributions to it.

The DNC should have either been honest and forthright about its bias by declaring its endorsement of Hillary outright, regardless of the certain consequences, or it should have enforced and upheld its own policy of neutrality; it did neither of those things, so it is therefore clearly in the wrong; no amount of rationalization will change that.
 
Last edited:
Sounds more like someone doesn't have a valid counterargument.



I can use any metaphor, simile or figurative mode of speech you like; the fact is that yes, per the body of evidence it is evident that the DNC was a biased party contrary to its policy and did deliberately and knowingly skew the outcome of the nomination process in Hillary's favour.



Actually Bernie has indeed raised money with and on behalf of the Democratic party.

But again, that's a total aside from the fact that the DNC violated its own policies of neutrality and falsely and repeatedly claimed to be a neutral party when it clearly wasn't, which is a blatant ethics violation and is indeed corrupt; Bernie's past affiliation with the Dem party or lackthereof does not in any way ameliorate that. That violation also affected the other Dems running in the nomination process none of which were party outsiders, and have indisputably made material contributions to it.

The DNC should have either been honest and forthright about its bias by declaring its endorsement of Hillary outright, regardless of the certain consequences, or it should have enforced and upheld its own policy of neutrality; it did neither of those things, so it is therefore clearly in the wrong; no amount of rationalization will change that.

I will explain this to you 1 more time. The DNC is not some monolithic entity in umpire suits. It is made up of many opinionated politicians who are working together for the good of the party but also to advance their own agenda. This is how it has been and most likely always will be. The idea that they will throw away their own allegiances and opinions because there is a primary is not only naive it would be impossible. If there is any group that is guilty of not following the spirit of the rules it would be Danders people who, after all the voting have soundly lost to Hillary, yet are still whining and posturing instead of uniting behind the winner. If there is 1 "rule" that should never be broken that one is it. Oh and here's a clue for you when you do not get as many votes as you opponent it is called losing and unless you can prove the votes counted were fraudulent in some way. After the votes are all counted it is extremely bad form to not congratulate the winner with the knowledge that you can try again next time. It is the very basis of our democracy.
 
Last edited:
Sounds to me like Democrats don't believe in Democracy.

It is the Danders people that are contesting the will of the vast majority of voters. Is that what Democracy is?
It appears to be contagious and now it is happening at the RNC too.

Washington (CNN)A coalition of Republican delegates is mounting a last-ditch effort to block Donald Trump from obtaining the GOP nomination by pushing for a "conscience clause" that would allow delegates to vote against the presumptive nominee.

Kendal Unruh, a Colorado delegate, organized a call with dozens of other delegates Thursday night to discuss ways to block Trump at the convention.
RNC delegates launch 'Anybody but Donald Trump' drive - CNNPolitics.com
 
Actually Bernie has indeed raised money with and on behalf of the Democratic party.

Almost none and AFAIK, not through the party.

But again, that's a total aside from the fact that the DNC violated its own policies of neutrality and falsely and repeatedly claimed to be a neutral party when it clearly wasn't, which is a blatant ethics violation and is indeed corrupt; Bernie's past affiliation with the Dem party or lackthereof does not in any way ameliorate that. That violation also affected the other Dems running in the nomination process none of which were party outsiders, and have indisputably made material contributions to it.

The DNC should have either been honest and forthright about its bias by declaring its endorsement of Hillary outright, regardless of the certain consequences, or it should have enforced and upheld its own policy of neutrality; it did neither of those things, so it is therefore clearly in the wrong; no amount of rationalization will change that.

OK, so it's corrupt. I'm not sure it's actually "corrupt" so much as human nature and the reality that the 'party' favors the candidate who has been a leader of the 'party' for decades, who's raised $10s of millions for the 'party', for state chapters, and for other party candidates, rather than a newcomer who has no allegiance to and has done nothing for the 'party' except at the tail end of a decades long political career conveniently run under the party's banner because he knows the immense national and 50-state infrastructure he did NOTHING to build helps his chances to be POTUS.

But let's say it's corrupt. Now what? Bernie lost. You want to take you ball and go home? That's helpful. The GOP is self destructing as we speak and if anyone cares about liberal or progressive goals, the best way to accomplish that is to get a democratic House and Senate and if that happens it doesn't matter much who sits in the POTUS chair - he or she will sign any progressive legislation hitting that desk. If the GOP has control, he or she will veto the worst of it.
 
Sounds more like someone doesn't have a valid counterargument.



I can use any metaphor, simile or figurative mode of speech you like; the fact is that yes, per the body of evidence it is evident that the DNC was a biased party contrary to its policy and did deliberately and knowingly skew the outcome of the nomination process in Hillary's favour.



Actually Bernie has indeed raised money with and on behalf of the Democratic party.

But again, that's a total aside from the fact that the DNC violated its own policies of neutrality and falsely and repeatedly claimed to be a neutral party when it clearly wasn't, which is a blatant ethics violation and is indeed corrupt; Bernie's past affiliation with the Dem party or lackthereof does not in any way ameliorate that. That violation also affected the other Dems running in the nomination process none of which were party outsiders, and have indisputably made material contributions to it.

The DNC should have either been honest and forthright about its bias by declaring its endorsement of Hillary outright, regardless of the certain consequences, or it should have enforced and upheld its own policy of neutrality; it did neither of those things, so it is therefore clearly in the wrong; no amount of rationalization will change that.

Here is a question: why has Bernie Sanders not sued the DNC over this 'ethical' violation?
 
...It is made up of many opinionated politicians who are working together for the good of the party but also to advance their own agenda. This is how it has been and most likely always will be... ...After the votes are all counted it is extremely bad form to not congratulate the winner with the knowledge that you can try again next time. It is the very basis of our democracy.

If one side wins pretty much by de facto cheating via an egregiously skewed and biased playing field by violating its own rules, which has now been clearly demonstrated, on what planet does the loser have to congratulate the winner?

Second, what you're essentially admitting is that the DNC's prejudices and back room deals lend themselves to internal corruption which subverts official policy, and that such corruption is the norm and should be expected. I'm glad you've clarified this and are being so forthright about it.

So far as rule breaking goes, the most egregious offender has clearly been the DNC itself in terms of its unauthorized bias, and DWS' attempt to shut Bernie out of the voter file before the ten day mark.

It is the Danders people that are contesting the will of the vast majority of voters. Is that what Democracy is?

Democracy would indeed involve dispute of an undemocratic by design process, yes.

Further, ~56% of the popular vote (a paltry percentage in light of Clinton's many advantages going in to say nothing of the skewed nomination process) is in no way a 'vast majority'.


Here is a question: why has Bernie Sanders not sued the DNC over this 'ethical' violation?

My guess is he's making a last ditch attempt to negotiate policy compromises with Hillary since his meeting with Obama.


Almost none and AFAIK, not through the party.

Bernie Sanders: Prolific Democratic Party fundraiser - CNNPolitics.com

I find it hilarious how Hillary partisans like yourself attack him for being a 'deadbeat' candidate on one hand, then simultaneously try to smear him by citing articles like this where he engages in Democratic fundraising in an attempt to 'prove' he's as no different from any other politician. Dat cognitive dissonance/Orwellian doublethink.

Meanwhile the antidote to the above hatchet job article: https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/44dbxa/bernie_sanders_prolific_democratic_party/

OK, so it's corrupt. I'm not sure it's actually "corrupt" so much as human nature and the reality that the 'party' favors the candidate who has been a leader of the 'party' for decades, who's raised $10s of millions for the 'party', for state chapters, and for other party candidates, rather than a newcomer who has no allegiance to and has done nothing for the 'party' except at the tail end of a decades long political career conveniently run under the party's banner because he knows the immense national and 50-state infrastructure he did NOTHING to build helps his chances to be POTUS.

But let's say it's corrupt. Now what? Bernie lost. You want to take you ball and go home? That's helpful. The GOP is self destructing as we speak and if anyone cares about liberal or progressive goals, the best way to accomplish that is to get a democratic House and Senate and if that happens it doesn't matter much who sits in the POTUS chair - he or she will sign any progressive legislation hitting that desk. If the GOP has control, he or she will veto the worst of it.

Since when is 'human nature' conspiring to accrue power, advantages and favours for select individuals outside of the rules not corruption? That is pretty much the definition of corruption. I don't care how much cause you think the DNC has to favour Hillary; that is irrelevant. The cold hard fact is that they were disingenuous about their bias towards her despite their rules and policy, and systemically refused to acknowledge that bias in an attempt to present the nomination process as being anything more than the borderline sham/pony show so many expected it to be which would have been obviously disenfranchising to the extreme.

Furthermore, going into this, Bernie ran as a Democrat primarily to avoid a split of the left vote; as things became far uglier and dirtier in the nomination process when he got closer to victory than the DNC ever anticipated, his once unconditional commitment to unity against the GOP was taxed to the point where he is now insisting on policy compromises; this is the reality of the situation.

Third, yes, I will take my vote and give it to Jill Stein assuming no meaningful policy compromise comes from Clinton. I refuse to reward the DNC's systemic corruption; I refuse to acknowledge the illegitimate outcome of a rigged nomination process; I refuse to back a lesser evil, and above all, I refuse votation without representation.
 
Bernie Sanders: Prolific Democratic Party fundraiser - CNNPolitics.com

I find it hilarious how Hillary partisans like yourself attack him for being a 'deadbeat' candidate on one hand, then simultaneously try to smear him by citing articles like this where he engages in Democratic fundraising in an attempt to 'prove' he's as no different from any other politician. Dat cognitive dissonance/Orwellian doublethink.

Nice straw man! I just made an observation that he's raised little to no money for the party or other democratic candidates. Your articles offer no evidence I'm wrong. Good try changing the subject and responding to arguments I never made.

Since when is 'human nature' conspiring to accrue power, advantages and favours for select individuals outside of the rules not corruption? That is pretty much the definition of corruption. I don't care how much cause you think the DNC has to favour Hillary; that is irrelevant. The cold hard fact is that they were disingenuous about their bias towards her despite their rules and policy, and systemically refused to acknowledge that bias in an attempt to present the nomination process as being anything more than the borderline sham/pony show so many expected it to be which would have been obviously disenfranchising to the extreme.

We had a democratic primary here in Tennessee. I voted for Bernie. He got his ass handed to him in my state by Hillary, and overall, she got more votes and more delegates. Which rules, specifically, did the DNC break? As far as I can tell, the only objective complaint (i.e. other than the DNC and DWS were biased towards Hillary which is true) is Hillary got more of the at large delegates than Bernie and I've explained why that shouldn't surprise anyone not an idiot. Effectively Hillary's been working for a couple decades for those votes, and Bernie for about a month now, after he finally realized trashing the DNC and the delegates and the system was pretty stupid if you're losing the voting part of the process and have to rely on the DNC, delegates and the insiders to win.

Furthermore, going into this, Bernie ran as a Democrat primarily to avoid a split of the left vote; as things became far uglier and dirtier in the nomination process when he got closer to victory than the DNC ever anticipated, his once unconditional commitment to unity against the GOP was taxed to the point where he is now insisting on policy compromises; this is the reality of the situation.

I respect Bernie, but if he doesn't throw his support to Hillary against Trump I'll have lost a lot of it.

Third, yes, I will take my vote and give it to Jill Stein assuming no meaningful policy compromise comes from Clinton. I refuse to reward the DNC's systemic corruption; I refuse to acknowledge the illegitimate outcome of a rigged nomination process; I refuse to back a lesser evil, and above all, I refuse votation without representation.

Your choice, obviously, but I disagree.
 
Nice straw man! I just made an observation that he's raised little to no money for the party or other democratic candidates. Your articles offer no evidence I'm wrong. Good try changing the subject and responding to arguments I never made.

Actually those articles clearly show that he has worked to raise considerable sums.

Also, no, it's not an attempt to change the subject (particularly in light of the follow up), so much as I am directly addressing this irrelevancy of an accusation.

We had a democratic primary here in Tennessee. I voted for Bernie. He got his ass handed to him in my state by Hillary, and overall, she got more votes and more delegates. Which rules, specifically, did the DNC break? As far as I can tell, the only objective complaint (i.e. other than the DNC and DWS were biased towards Hillary which is true) is Hillary got more of the at large delegates than Bernie and I've explained why that shouldn't surprise anyone not an idiot. Effectively Hillary's been working for a couple decades for those votes, and Bernie for about a month now, after he finally realized trashing the DNC and the delegates and the system was pretty stupid if you're losing the voting part of the process and have to rely on the DNC, delegates and the insiders to win.

The rules of neutrality as you stated, which is the original sin that has resulted in a skewed process at every step, from debate scheduling to the balloting; the violation of that neutrality is a massive issue that is the progenitor for countless others. DWS also blatantly violated the DNC rule of allowing a campaign 10 days to rectify issues such as the supposed data breach by immediately suspending the Sanders' campaign access to the DNC voter file. Further, it's naive to assert that if only Bernie didn't criticize this egregiously crooked, anti-democratic system (and mostly after they took their toll on his campaign; criticizing Clinton's Wall Street ties and the establishment in general is not the same thing as critiquing the nomination process and the DNC), that he would have won. The DNC has no interest in Bernie and rigged this process not because of his critiques, but because of his policy that is at interminable odds with the neoliberal 'third-way' stance of the DNC establishment.

I respect Bernie, but if he doesn't throw his support to Hillary against Trump I'll have lost a lot of it.

He should only ever extend his support to her in the event she agrees to compromise with him on policy, otherwise he will most certainly deserve a loss of respect in that he will have betrayed and sold short everything he fought for.
 
Back
Top Bottom