• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Clinton

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic primaries through democratic means.

Internal memos, dated May 2015—long before the first state voted in the Democratic primary—referred to Hillary Clinton as though she was already the Democratic presidential nominee. The documents leaked by Guccifer 2.0 not only illuminate the DNC’s efforts to ensure Clinton’s coronation but also reveal the strategies used to shield her from criticism on ethics, transparency and campaign finance reform—all vulnerabilities for the corrupt Establishment darling.

That the DNC showed bias and favoritism for Clinton seems beyond dispute. That the process was rigged through the use of the Superdelegates is clear. But all of this was done in the open according to Democratic Party rules, and no evidence of criminal activity has surfaced vis-a-vis the primary process.

Saunders supporters were fools to think Saunders ever had a chance. Anyone paying attention could have foreseen this outcome. But then I suppose this just confirms the opinion Saunders supporters already have of US "democracy".

It seems to me that the Democrats avoided the kind of problem that Trump presented to the Republicans through the use of a process that guaranteed that an insider would win the nomination. Had the Republicans used this process they wouldn't have the headaches Trump is causing them now.

It's like Tom Friedman always says about China -- an authoritarian system works better. Who needs all that messy democracy, anyway?

After this I doubt that either party will make the mistake of including too much democracy in the nomination process. Historically, that process was never democratic to begin with. One is tempted to say it's ironic that the Democratic Party was the one to re-discover this, but, when you think about it, there's nothing ironic about it at all.
 

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
27,906
Reaction score
21,498
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Let's fire up the Wayback Machine and take it to 2007. There is no difference than today except that in 2016, Clinton will get the nomination. Back in 2007, we all thought it was going to be Clinton v. Giuliani.

2007 Poll: 63% Say Clinton "Likely" To Win - CBS News
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
78,462
Reaction score
32,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic primaries through democratic means.



That the DNC showed bias and favoritism for Clinton seems beyond dispute. That the process was rigged through the use of the Superdelegates is clear. But all of this was done in the open according to Democratic Party rules, and no evidence of criminal activity has surfaced vis-a-vis the primary process.

Saunders supporters were fools to think Saunders ever had a chance. Anyone paying attention could have foreseen this outcome. But then I suppose this just confirms the opinion Saunders supporters already have of US "democracy".

It seems to me that the Democrats avoided the kind of problem that Trump presented to the Republicans through the use of a process that guaranteed that an insider would win the nomination. Had the Republicans used this process they wouldn't have the headaches Trump is causing them now.

It's like Tom Friedman always says about China -- an authoritarian system works better. Who needs all that messy democracy, anyway?

After this I doubt that either party will make the mistake of including too much democracy in the nomination process. Historically, that process was never democratic to begin with. One is tempted to say it's ironic that the Democratic Party was the one to re-discover this, but, when you think about it, there's nothing ironic about it at all.

When talking about a specific Party, "democracy" shouldn't enter into the discussion at all...unless, of course, that Party says they are democratic. For any private organization, it always has come down to the rules of that organization.

Now, I don't know much about the Democratic Party, so I don't know if they tout being a democratic organization. If they don't, then maybe the members are expecting something they shouldn't. On the other hand, maybe the Party does tout being a democratic organization, but their Elites are two-faced about it.

In any case, I see only three options for anyone who doesn't like their Party Elites controlling things:

1. Use whatever democratic process is available, oust those Elites and replace them with people who are different.

2. Either join the Elites or ignore their actions. Either course has the same result...leaving the Elites alone to do as they will.

3. Leave the Party.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic primaries through democratic means.



That the DNC showed bias and favoritism for Clinton seems beyond dispute. That the process was rigged through the use of the Superdelegates is clear. But all of this was done in the open according to Democratic Party rules, and no evidence of criminal activity has surfaced vis-a-vis the primary process.

Saunders supporters were fools to think Saunders ever had a chance. Anyone paying attention could have foreseen this outcome. But then I suppose this just confirms the opinion Saunders supporters already have of US "democracy".

It seems to me that the Democrats avoided the kind of problem that Trump presented to the Republicans through the use of a process that guaranteed that an insider would win the nomination. Had the Republicans used this process they wouldn't have the headaches Trump is causing them now.

It's like Tom Friedman always says about China -- an authoritarian system works better. Who needs all that messy democracy, anyway?

After this I doubt that either party will make the mistake of including too much democracy in the nomination process. Historically, that process was never democratic to begin with. One is tempted to say it's ironic that the Democratic Party was the one to re-discover this, but, when you think about it, there's nothing ironic about it at all.

It would be a definite weakening of the country to give up the democratic pre-selection method of present. Of course, this time around the voter has shown a spectacular inability to handle democratic process.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It would be a definite weakening of the country to give up the democratic pre-selection method of present. Of course, this time around the voter has shown a spectacular inability to handle democratic process.

Had the Republicans realized how disaffected such a large body of the potential voting population is they might not have used the nomination process they did. But then everyone was taken off guard by the way Jeb Bush was eliminated early on.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When talking about a specific Party, "democracy" shouldn't enter into the discussion at all...unless, of course, that Party says they are democratic. For any private organization, it always has come down to the rules of that organization.

Now, I don't know much about the Democratic Party, so I don't know if they tout being a democratic organization. If they don't, then maybe the members are expecting something they shouldn't. On the other hand, maybe the Party does tout being a democratic organization, but their Elites are two-faced about it.

In any case, I see only three options for anyone who doesn't like their Party Elites controlling things:

1. Use whatever democratic process is available, oust those Elites and replace them with people who are different.

2. Either join the Elites or ignore their actions. Either course has the same result...leaving the Elites alone to do as they will.

3. Leave the Party.

I think a lot of people have been surprised and disappointed by the fact that less democracy is involved in the nomination process than they might have supposed. Sanders supporters actually thought that the Democratic Party would let the old socialist kook get the nomination. They actually thought that if the people supported Sanders he'd be the winner.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
83,169
Reaction score
51,967
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I think at this stage, everyone knows that the DNC primary was clearly rigged for Clinton.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think at this stage, everyone knows that the DNC primary was clearly rigged for Clinton.

At this stage, everyone SHOULD know that they only way they will affect change in the democratic process is by boycotting the ****er.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Had the Republicans realized how disaffected such a large body of the potential voting population is they might not have used the nomination process they did. But then everyone was taken off guard by the way Jeb Bush was eliminated early on.

It was really noteworthy, how the thing went and very disconcerting. The Republicans had much better candidates than the Democrats and Trump was able to zap them with what is essentially a repeat of the populist "Yes We Can" attack.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
78,462
Reaction score
32,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
At this stage, everyone SHOULD know that they only way they will affect change in the democratic process is by boycotting the ****er.

The differences between the rank and file membership of the two parties...in the way they've dealt with their party elite's attempts to control who becomes the nominee...is very interesting.

On the Republican side, the rank and file pretty much thumbed their noses at the elites and have made the outsider the nominee. On the Democratic side, the rank and file tried but were unable to overcome the elites...mostly because of the super delegate setup.

What'll be interesting to see is whether the Democratic rank and file will submit to the elites or will they mount a protest vote by either not voting or by voting for someone else. Based on my perceptions, I don't think there will be much of a protest. The Democratic rank and file don't strike me as people who will do much to buck their own party system.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
78,108
Reaction score
33,659
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
At this stage, everyone SHOULD know that they only way they will affect change in the democratic process is by boycotting the ****er.
If you 'boycott' you will allow the mindless partisans that are all too eager to vote for their party to have all the control. if only 30% of the total population votes we will still get a new president. The BEST message that can be sent to BOTH parties this year is to elect Johnson/Weld. More important than sending a message, these two are actually qualified candidates that have demonstrated efficiency and fiscal sanity. They are fiscal conservatives, social liberals, and strong on individual rights and freedoms. Weld carried something like 87% of ALL of Massachusetts in his reelection to governor...thats as broad based bi partisan support as you will ever find.
 

Absentglare

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
36,073
Reaction score
6,861
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic primaries through democratic means.



That the DNC showed bias and favoritism for Clinton seems beyond dispute. That the process was rigged through the use of the Superdelegates is clear. But all of this was done in the open according to Democratic Party rules, and no evidence of criminal activity has surfaced vis-a-vis the primary process.

Saunders supporters were fools to think Saunders ever had a chance. Anyone paying attention could have foreseen this outcome. But then I suppose this just confirms the opinion Saunders supporters already have of US "democracy".

It seems to me that the Democrats avoided the kind of problem that Trump presented to the Republicans through the use of a process that guaranteed that an insider would win the nomination. Had the Republicans used this process they wouldn't have the headaches Trump is causing them now.

It's like Tom Friedman always says about China -- an authoritarian system works better. Who needs all that messy democracy, anyway?

After this I doubt that either party will make the mistake of including too much democracy in the nomination process. Historically, that process was never democratic to begin with. One is tempted to say it's ironic that the Democratic Party was the one to re-discover this, but, when you think about it, there's nothing ironic about it at all.

The DNC supported the preeminent democratic presidential nominee ?!?!?!?

f637aa9c5cac23b43e36168fff77016c.jpg


Seriously what is your point ? What is wrong with the DNC supporting a candidate...?

And yes, even with superdelegates the way it influences democratic primaries, they could not have prevented Trump from being the nominee. Do the math.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
If you 'boycott' you will allow the mindless partisans that are all too eager to vote for their party to have all the control. if only 30% of the total population votes we will still get a new president. The BEST message that can be sent to BOTH parties this year is to elect Johnson/Weld. More important than sending a message, these two are actually qualified candidates that have demonstrated efficiency and fiscal sanity. They are fiscal conservatives, social liberals, and strong on individual rights and freedoms. Weld carried something like 87% of ALL of Massachusetts in his reelection to governor...thats as broad based bi partisan support as you will ever find.

This election proves that this will never happen.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The DNC supported the preeminent democratic presidential nominee ?!?!?!?

f637aa9c5cac23b43e36168fff77016c.jpg


Seriously what is your point ? What is wrong with the DNC supporting a candidate...?

And yes, even with superdelegates the way it influences democratic primaries, they could not have prevented Trump from being the nominee. Do the math.

So, the Will of the DNC is superior to the Will of the Voters?

A private ****ing institution?

Really?!
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
56,627
Reaction score
20,957
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
When talking about a specific Party, "democracy" shouldn't enter into the discussion at all...unless, of course, that Party says they are democratic. For any private organization, it always has come down to the rules of that organization.

Now, I don't know much about the Democratic Party, so I don't know if they tout being a democratic organization. If they don't, then maybe the members are expecting something they shouldn't. On the other hand, maybe the Party does tout being a democratic organization, but their Elites are two-faced about it.

In any case, I see only three options for anyone who doesn't like their Party Elites controlling things:

1. Use whatever democratic process is available, oust those Elites and replace them with people who are different.

2. Either join the Elites or ignore their actions. Either course has the same result...leaving the Elites alone to do as they will.

3. Leave the Party.

LOL You left out one. Mr. Trump supporter.

4. Vote for the candidate of your choice in the primary. The party will support whomever wins the most votes and pledged delegates

This outrage is nothing but a sham and comes from the Russians to boot. I wonder what Trump has promised Putin for his support?
 
Last edited:

Absentglare

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
36,073
Reaction score
6,861
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So, the Will of the DNC is superior to the Will of the Voters?

A private ****ing institution?

Really?!

No, their will is not superior, but a political party isn't necessarily obligated to capitulate to the will of the public.

This controls who the democratic nominee is, not who becomes president.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, their will is not superior, but a political party isn't necessarily obligated to capitulate to the will of the public.

That is the quintessential definition of authoritarianism. Damn those snot-nosed Proles, trying to affect change in the Inner Party...
 

Absentglare

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
36,073
Reaction score
6,861
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That is the quintessential definition of authoritarianism. Damn those snot-nosed Proles, trying to affect change in the Inner Party...

No, it isn't. It all depends on whether or not political parties are able to manage themselves or should be forced to be managed by the public.

The primaries are a compromise, the political parties ask their constituents for their opinions and weigh them in their decision. As we can see with Trump, it may be a begrudging thing to do when the candidate is not their first pick.

Myself, i preferred Sanders. Oh well, he can still influence the process and i'm glad he tried to de-stigmatize the 's' word.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, it isn't. It all depends on whether or not political parties are able to manage themselves or should be forced to be managed by the public.

The primaries are a compromise, the political parties ask their constituents for their opinions and weigh them in their decision. As we can see with Trump, it may be a begrudging thing to do when the candidate is not their first pick.

When the process is this easily infiltrated by the military-industrial complex it is imperative that we reject it. When the candidate of the war machine has better digitized statistics than the candidate of peace, there is no compromise, there is fraud.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
78,462
Reaction score
32,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
LOL You left out one. Mr. Trump supporter.

4. Vote for the candidate of your choice in the primary. The party will support whomever wins the most votes and pledged delegates

This outrage is nothing but a sham and comes from the Russians to boot. I wonder what Trump has promised Putin for his support?

Actually, your "4." would be included in my "1.".

But, of course, you knew that didn't you? You didn't really want to address my point, but instead wanted to deflect from the topic of this thread to Trump, some unexplained outrage and...??? Russians ???
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
56,627
Reaction score
20,957
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Actually, your "4." would be included in my "1.".

But, of course, you knew that didn't you? You didn't really want to address my point, but instead wanted to deflect from the topic of this thread to Trump, some unexplained outrage and...??? Russians ???

You didn't know who hacked the DNC to get that stuff? There also was no deflecton only sanity. Hilary won the nomination by getting the most votes and pledged delegates not through some DNC conspiracy. And you might as well get into bed with Putin since your man Trump already has. Trump is very popular with the world dictators and tyrants, the free world not so much.

Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC’s system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
You didn't know who hacked the DNC to get that stuff? There also was no deflecton only sanity. Hilary won the nomination by getting the most votes and pledged delegates not through some DNC conspiracy. And you might as well get into bed with Putin since your man Trump already has. Trump is very popular with the world dictators and tyrants, the free world not so much.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

...Dude, you're completely missing the point. Because Hillary Clinton operated a private email server, the Russians gained access to state secrets. What part of that is a good thing for Hillary Clinton, the DNC, or, more importantly, the United States? Will Hillary Clinton having a private email server in the White House be any better? NO, quite the opposite.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
56,627
Reaction score
20,957
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
...Dude, you're completely missing the point. Because Hillary Clinton operated a private email server, the Russians gained access to state secrets. What part of that is a good thing for Hillary Clinton, the DNC, or, more importantly, the United States? Will Hillary Clinton having a private email server in the White House be any better? NO, quite the opposite.

Really? Then where are they? Link please. Let's see some State secrets the Russians hacked from Hillary's server. That is a lie and you have stooped even lower than I thought you could. Just go vote for Trump and see how far that gets you.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Really? Then where are they? Link please. Let's see some State secrets the Russians hacked from Hillary's server. That is a lie and you have stooped even lower than I thought you could. Just go vote for Trump and see how far that gets you.

Ok, you were right, I was wrong, It was China, South Korea and Germany.

:lamo

Furthermore,

This outrage is nothing but a sham and comes from the Russians to boot. I wonder what Trump has promised Putin for his support

You have no idea how a private email server works apparently.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
56,627
Reaction score
20,957
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ok, you were right, I was wrong, It was China, South Korea and Germany.

:lamo

Furthermore,



You have no idea how a private email server works apparently.

This thread is about the emails released by Russian Govt. hacking of the DNC servers. Did you not know that? Deflections about Hillary's private server are irrelevant to this discussion.
Your link (from last year) stated that it was inconclusive as to whether Hilary's private server was hacked at all. You do know that it was U.S. Govt. servers were definitely hacked and there are charges against the perp right now. It is likely that Hillary's server was more secure than the Govt. ones.

The attempted intrusions reported late Wednesday by AP were more direct attempts from abroad to gain unauthorized access to Clinton's server and did not rely on email messages. However, it is unclear whether they represented a concerted effort by one or more foreign intelligence services to access Clinton's data or if the efforts were part of the far more commonplace hacking on the internet.

Read more: Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germany - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom