DNC Email Leak

[StevieBevie]

Bernie isn't running for president.

another boring and needless comment from fog on the brain...

 

[Psyphish]

Religion shouldn't matter in politics, but it does for some fucked up reason. How can a crazy person be in charge of anything?

 

[schuylaar]

Have some more whiskey and go to bed, DD.


sorry, but we disagree about the three million voter swing to Hillary. You are talking about points shaving when the opposition just plain ran away.

Bernie lost.

And why do I have to revisit what specific reasons lead to Sanders loss.

I posted so many SMART articles which mapped it.

I made so many comments that went unaddressed from these same articles.

Shame on you for not reading them.

The good news- they're still there..

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[schuylaar]

Proof positive the Clinton campaign was collaborating with the DNC and the DNC was collaborating with the media, namely MSNBC and CNN, to stack the primary against Sanders


DWS asks for Tim Canova's name to be removed from CNN headline

Washington Post and DNC joint unlisted fundraising party

DNC plot to 'expose' Sanders as an atheist

Comms Director goes running to Chuck Todd, telling him Morning Joe aren't allowed to criticize Debbie WS. "This is the LAST straw. Please call Phil a Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize."

"Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters"


Search the database here

Pada- I don't understand these emails and what they expose.

 

[schuylaar]

as bitter and paranoid as he is, he might not make it to election day.

i'm already warming up the RIP desert douche thread.

Coffee/screen

You know, if they all leave..who will we have fun with?

 

[Flaming Pie]

"She won fair and square"

I hope whoever believed that bullshit chokes on those words

That party is dead to me

Can you post the link in my thread?

I was speaking to my father the other night and he told me the last time we had a viable 3rd party was Ross Perot. He only won 19% of the vote.

Then we had Bill Clinton win the election.

 

[desert dude]

What difference, at this point, does it make if a vast left-wing conspiracy is in operation?

 

[Rob Roy]

The election was not a fair contest. Hillary and her team understood how to connect with the media and had lots of time that Sanders did not. It's just like any contest between a more prepared contestant against an able but less prepared one. If the contest is close at all, the more prepared wins.

I'm not saying the best one won. And I'm not saying she won fair AND square. But I will say she won within the legal bounds. The rumpanistas are going to contend with a formidable opponent. I don't think they are prepared for her. On the other hand, Trump is playing by a different set of rules, which is why he still has a chance.

Legal bounds have been and still are, mechanism of enslavement.

No election is a fair contest, if the premise is based in a false dichotomy.

For instance, "none of the above" is not a ballot option.



If it be said that the consent of the strongest party in a nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world rest upon that very principle, viz.: the consent of the strongest party. - Lysander Spooner

 

[Rob Roy]

We were robbed in so many ways.

I wonder if Sanders has plans to bring action against them?

Why should he ? He'll make more money under the table for doing a good job of playing his designated loser role in the election.

I assume you still don't think pro wrestling is real do you?

 

[Fogdog]

And why do I have to revisit what specific reasons lead to Sanders loss.

I posted so many SMART articles which mapped it.

I made so many comments that went unaddressed from these same articles.

Shame on you for not reading them.

The good news- they're still there..

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Sky, your arguments rest on the concept of a conspiracy theory. Its a thin and contrived argument. The reason Bernie lost was because he could not overcome Hillary's advantage with Latino, women and black voters. Bernie could not have won nomination without at least two of those three delegations in the Democratic party's base.

Sure, Hillary had an unfair advantage due to the time and money she had available. And her team took every advantage of rules, and even some NY polling station fraud tilted her way. Nonetheless, the kinds of shenanigans that went on were not enough to swing the election by 12% of the voting margin that Hillary won by.

If you want to talk about campaign reforms to address Hillary's advantages and shenanigans, I'll gladly agree. Looking backward and weeping isn't my bag, however.


The Conspiracy Theory That the Clinton Campaign Stole Votes Makes No Sense
Why would any campaign, no matter how unprincipled, fix a race that it’s been winning from the start?
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-that-the-clinton-campaign-stole-votes-makes-no-sense/

 

[schuylaar]

What difference, at this point, does it make if a vast left-wing conspiracy is in operation?

It was done right before our eyes..we saw it..there was no question and yet it was accepted.

It was 'yeah, but oh well it was HER turn'.

That's scary. It's also unacceptable.

I also rethought my vote and I'm going to write in Bernie as a protest..the fart-in would mess up my Eco-friendly digestive system.

The only way I'd vote for her, is if Sanders were her VP.

 

[Fogdog]

They rigged the primary to favor Clinton, this is direct evidence. You are not in a position to determine to what degree to conclude by what margin which candidate would have actually won by had everything been fair. We will never know because the DNC, the media and the Clinton campaign cheated. Each to secure their own selfish interests by ensuring an establishment politician wins.

This is corruption and we have evidence of it. It should be investigated at the very least

He won 46% of the votes, that's with the entire media and political establishment against him and with zero name recognition 12 months before the convention. Everything equal, he would have wiped the floor with her. They cheated, that's corruption and that's unacceptable.

He could have. If he had started a couple of years earlier and spent time building an organization to compete against the one Hillary had, he would have. I believe this too. I also believe that it was Bernie's decision and prerogative when to start and how to raise the money for his campaign. Bernie had to win the election, not just do well.

What I take exception to is this idea that Hillary stole the primary. That makes no sense. She absolutely killed Bernie in the southern states and fought him to a draw thereafter. She had an advantage of delegates (not super delagates) from the very beginning and did not give the advantage up. By the end of March, Bernie needed to win by an average margin of 24%. Ne never met that goal in any state at any time.

If you want to talk about what to do so that candidates start off on an equal footing going forward, I'm there with you.

 

[NLXSK1]

He could have. If he had started a couple of years earlier and spent time building an organization to compete against the one Hillary had, he would have. I believe this too. I also believe that it was Bernie's decision and prerogative when to start and how to raise the money for his campaign. Bernie had to win the election, not just do well.

What I take exception to is this idea that Hillary stole the primary. That makes no sense. She absolutely killed Bernie in the southern states and fought him to a draw thereafter. She had an advantage of delegates (not super delagates) from the very beginning and did not give the advantage up. By the end of March, Bernie needed to win by an average margin of 24%. Ne never met that goal in any state at any time.

If you want to talk about what to do so that candidates start off on an equal footing going forward, I'm there with you.

If her campaign paid a media organization to not cover Bernie Sanders I think that is an issue. But there are plenty of media organizations so a counter argument is viable.

Hillary is part of the establishment and Bernie never had a chance. They keep him around as the token socialist but as you see, he folds in the end and does what the establishment wants.

 

[schuylaar]

Sky, your arguments rest on the concept of a conspiracy theory. Its a thin and contrived argument. The reason Bernie lost was because he could not overcome Hillary's advantage with Latino, women and black voters. Bernie could not have won nomination without at least two of those three delegations in the Democratic party's base.

Sure, Hillary had an unfair advantage due to the time and money she had available. And her team took every advantage of rules, and even some NY polling station fraud tilted her way. Nonetheless, the kinds of shenanigans that went on were not enough to swing the election by 12% of the voting margin that Hillary won by.

If you want to talk about campaign reforms to address Hillary's advantages and shenanigans, I'll gladly agree. Looking backward and weeping isn't my bag, however.

I know you will never accept the fact that Hillary actually did win the election against your wishes. It bothers me when somebody, left or right spouts their baseless opinion when the facts just can't bear it out. Also, conspiracy theorists are hard for me to sit quietly by and not mock. So, there you have it. Every time I feel like rising up to your endless drivel regarding a "stolen" election, I'll be there. And not always nice, because I'm not nice to people who say things that make no sense. Here's an artilcle that I might pull up every now and then:

The Conspiracy Theory That the Clinton Campaign Stole Votes Makes No Sense
Why would any campaign, no matter how unprincipled, fix a race that it’s been winning from the start?
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-that-the-clinton-campaign-stole-votes-makes-no-sense/

Like I said..I'm not going to revisit the hard factual articles I painstakingly tracked down, posted and gave riveting commentary. So often they would just be skimmed over by everyone..no comments.

I challenge you to go back to the thread, find some of what I was talking about and repost here or post in that thread and I will comment. But I'm not doing the work..YOU want to continue the conversation? Then YOU go back.

Nothing I posted was theory. It's was all factual, you chose not to educate yourself with someone else's opinion.

Are you always this controlling and close minded?

 

[schuylaar]

He could have. If he had started a couple of years earlier and spent time building an organization to compete against the one Hillary had, he would have. I believe this too. I also believe that it was Bernie's decision and prerogative when to start and how to raise the money for his campaign. Bernie had to win the election, not just do well.

What I take exception to is this idea that Hillary stole the primary. That makes no sense. She absolutely killed Bernie in the southern states and fought him to a draw thereafter. She had an advantage of delegates (not super delagates) from the very beginning and did not give the advantage up. By the end of March, Bernie needed to win by an average margin of 24%. Ne never met that goal in any state at any time.

If you want to talk about what to do so that candidates start off on an equal footing going forward, I'm there with you.

Confucius say: It's easy to beat someone when you're the only competitor.

 

[Fogdog]

If her campaign paid a media organization to not cover Bernie Sanders I think that is an issue. But there are plenty of media organizations so a counter argument is viable.

Hillary is part of the establishment and Bernie never had a chance. They keep him around as the token socialist but as you see, he folds in the end and does what the establishment wants.

"If her campaign paid a media organization, blah blah"

Campaigns do pay lobby groups to shil and place favorable articles in the hands of willing media outlets. Not all media outlets print them but lots of them do. Also, advertising dollars play a role in how somebody is treated. All campaigns do that. Hillary's campaign did this as well as Sanders'. Hillary's was better funded and so had an advantage over Bernie in this regard. I thought you supported Citizens United. Hillary intends to work with Congress to submit an amendment to the Constitution to overturn CU, so maybe the kinds of advantages Hillary had this cycle will be the last. I hope so.

Bernie did have a chance but not by the time he kicked off his campaign.

 

[Fogdog]

Like I said..I'm not going to revisit the hard factual articles I painstakingly tracked down, posted and gave riveting commentary. So often they would just be skimmed over by everyone..no comments.

I challenge you to go back to the thread, find some of what I was talking about and repost here or post in that thread and I will comment. But I'm not doing the work..YOU want to continue the conversation? Then YOU go back.

Nothing I posted was theory. It's was all factual, you chose not to educate yourself with someone else's opinion.

Are you always this controlling and close minded?

Did you even read the article I posted? Do you have any rebuttal to it? Who is closed minded?

 

[Fogdog]

Confucius say: It's easy to beat someone when you're the only competitor.

It wasn't that easy for Hillary to beat Sanders or you wouldn't be in such a dither.

 

[potroastV2]

Confucius say: It's easy to beat someone when you're the only competitor.

Confucius say: Write in Bernie's name, or your own name, or Mickey Mouse. Those votes will be equally ignored.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The machines choose your candidates anyway. But this isn't a surprising turn at all.