Merged Wikileaks DNC leak proves primary was rigged /DNC planned to use Sanders' religion ag

Tony Stark said:
Feel free to point out which of these emails proves the rigging.
Click to expand...

Russia releasing emails it hacked months ago on the eve of the DNC. How unsurprising after their Manchurian Candidate **** the bed with his convention/doom festival.
 
Tony Stark said:
Feel free to point out which of these emails proves the rigging.
Click to expand...

"A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 — a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

If it's genuine, this could be interpreted two ways: either the DNC was in the tank for Clinton, or they simply thought a Clinton victory was inevitable. In May of last year, no one took any of Clinton's competitors seriously: O'Malley, Webb, or Sanders.

But what is the surprise here? Since 2009, everyone knew the nominee would be Clinton. The DNC didn't make things easy for Bernie, but they're not the reason he lost.
 
Fudbucker said:
"A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 — a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

If it's genuine, this could be interpreted two ways: either the DNC was in the tank for Clinton, or they simply thought a Clinton victory was inevitable. In May of last year, no one took any of Clinton's competitors seriously: O'Malley, Webb, or Sanders.

But what is the surprise here? Since 2009, everyone knew the nominee would be Clinton. The DNC didn't make things easy for Bernie, but they're not the reason he lost.
Click to expand...
Yep. OMG a party correctly thought the biggest lock for a non incumbent probably ever would win! How evil and corrupt of them!

Bernie lost because significantly fewer people wanted him to win. Simple as that. The only people outrageous conspiracy theories about the primary being rigged helps is Donald Trump and his evil party.
 
Last edited:
Good afternoon ChrisitanProgressive.
ChristianProgressive said:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

I'm not sure if this is the same as the Guccifer2.0 leak from June or not

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-media-rigged-primary-clinton/

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

Sad, sad day for democracy when we have to support the product of a rigged primary to keep a madman out of the White House.
Click to expand...
I must be missing something. I'm not seeing how a document, sent "to" the DNC from an unknown source claiming to want to provide a contrast to HRC and the GOP means anything at all. There must be more to it to lead you to the conclusion that this was some plan.
 
dudalb said:
Not to mention that you can make the same accusation against the RNC.
Click to expand...

I thought Preibus did a good job trying to keep the GOP from completely falling apart. He pushed for other nominees to pledge support, got Trump to promise not to run as an independent.
 
Fudbucker said:
I thought Preibus did a good job trying to keep the GOP from completely falling apart. He pushed for other nominees to pledge support, got Trump to promise not to run as an independent.
Click to expand...

The issue with the RNC was even after Donald won, they kept changing the rules to get him more delegates at the convention. They ignored that a petition satisfied support criteria for requiring a roll call vote for ratifying the rules committee changes during the RNC. It was series of self inflicted wounds to satisfy the ego of the nominee.
 
Stacko said:
The issue with the RNC was even after Donald won, they kept changing the rules to get him more delegates at the convention. They ignored that a petition satisfied support criteria for requiring a roll call vote for ratifying the rules committee changes during the RNC. It was series of self inflicted wounds to satisfy the ego of the nominee.
Click to expand...

Oh.
 
Stacko said:
The issue with the RNC was even after Donald won, they kept changing the rules to get him more delegates at the convention. They ignored that a petition satisfied support criteria for requiring a roll call vote for ratifying the rules committee changes during the RNC. It was series of self inflicted wounds to satisfy the ego of the nominee.
Click to expand...

And the RNC's arm twisting will not be forgotten. It was stupid.I think Preibud was trying more for "Party Unity" then satisfying Trump's ego,but all it did was make the disunity even more obvious.
 
Just a review of some vocabulary here. "Rigged" means cheated, like stuffing a ballot box. That people within the DNC were in Clinton's camp, including working on campaign strategy does not equate to rigged.

Clinton has been a Democrat since her early college days. Sanders has only been a Democrat off and on in order to take advantage of the larger party apparatus. Does it surprise you the members of the DNC actually have a political preference?

The question that has to be answered is, did the DNC have actual committee member rules that these emails are evidence said rules were violated? Are there any W-Schultz emails exposing her statements of neutrality were false statements?
 
dudalb said:
And the RNC's arm twisting will not be forgotten. It was stupid.I think Preibud was trying more for "Party Unity" then satisfying Trump's ego,but all it did was make the disunity even more obvious.
Click to expand...

next level derail.

start you own thread on your RNC obsession, no one here cares.
 
WikiLeaks releases '19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee'.

Since some don't seem to like the particular media outlets cited in the OP, here are some articles from other outlets:

DNC Staffers Mocked the Bernie Sanders Campaign, Leaked Emails Show (The Intercept)
Leaked DNC emails reveal secret plans to take on Sanders (The Hill)
Leaked emails reveal Politico reporter made 'agreement' to send advanced Clinton story to DNC (Business Insider)
Leaked Emails Show DNC Chair Told Chuck Todd Negative Coverage ‘Must Stop’ (Mediaite)
Leaked Email Indicates DNC Wanted Bernie Sanders Interrogated About His Faith (Slate)
Leaked Emails Show DNC Officials Constructing Anti-Bernie Narrative (The Daily Caller)
WikiLeaks’ DNC Email Leak Reveals Off The Record Media Correspondence (CBS San Francisco)
 
Corsair 115 said:
WikiLeaks releases '19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee'.

Since some don't seem to like the particular media outlets cited in the OP, here are some articles from other outlets:

DNC Staffers Mocked the Bernie Sanders Campaign, Leaked Emails Show (The Intercept)
Leaked DNC emails reveal secret plans to take on Sanders (The Hill)
Leaked emails reveal Politico reporter made 'agreement' to send advanced Clinton story to DNC (Business Insider)
Leaked Emails Show DNC Chair Told Chuck Todd Negative Coverage ‘Must Stop’ (Mediaite)
Leaked Email Indicates DNC Wanted Bernie Sanders Interrogated About His Faith (Slate)
Leaked Emails Show DNC Officials Constructing Anti-Bernie Narrative (The Daily Caller)
WikiLeaks’ DNC Email Leak Reveals Off The Record Media Correspondence (CBS San Francisco)
Click to expand...
I'm curious what is so bad. That after Bernie clearly lost the race they were pushing back against conspiracy theories about how everything was rigged against him?

The only thing I have a problem with is one staffer having a plan to try to out him as an atheist. Though it seems they never went through with it.
 
So let's see. Emails show a whole bunch of members of the DNC were pro-Clinton and they discussed it among themselves. Some may have even been involved in the Clinton campaign itself. Is that a surprise to anyone?

There are positions in the DNC that never claimed to be neutral. Donna Brazile, for example, is Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee. She's been working on the Clinton campaign quite openly for more than a year.
Brazile has also gone to bat for Clinton several times this year, taking to television, print and social media to defend the Democratic presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

Didn't seem to bother anyone.
 
Tony Stark said:
...

The only thing I have a problem with is one staffer having a plan to try to out him as an atheist. Though it seems they never went through with it.
Click to expand...
One as to wonder if it was an individual's opinion and whether the tactic was used.
 
Tony Stark said:
I'm curious what is so bad.
Click to expand...


Look again at the third and fourth articles in that list. Aren't media outlets and journalists supposed to be neutral?


Colour me cynical, but somehow I doubt some of the respondents here would be so blasé about this matter if these were RNC e-mails showing much the same thing.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Look again at the third and fourth articles in that list. Aren't media outlets and journalists supposed to be neutral?


Colour me cynical, but somehow I doubt some of the respondents here would be so blasé about this matter if these were RNC e-mails showing much the same thing.
Click to expand...
It looks bad for Politico. Not the DNC. I would not blame the Republicans if they were able to work out that sort of agreement, I would blame the journalist/outlet.

Beside,

The final copy of the story did not appear have any significant edits, and Clinton's campaign seemed unhappy with the final copy of the article. But sending an advanced copy of a story to a subject represents a break from typical journalistic ethics.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how any of this show how the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders.
 
Fudbucker said:
"A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 — a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

If it's genuine, this could be interpreted two ways: either the DNC was in the tank for Clinton, or they simply thought a Clinton victory was inevitable. In May of last year, no one took any of Clinton's competitors seriously: O'Malley, Webb, or Sanders.

But what is the surprise here? Since 2009, everyone knew the nominee would be Clinton. The DNC didn't make things easy for Bernie, but they're not the reason he lost.
Click to expand...

So the media blackout, "superdelegates", voter disenfranchisement (New York, etc), ram-rodded state conventions (Nevada, etc) had nothing to do with it? You're deluding yourself.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Just a review of some vocabulary here. "Rigged" means cheated, like stuffing a ballot box. That people within the DNC were in Clinton's camp, including working on campaign strategy does not equate to rigged.
Click to expand...

Voter disenfranchisement, ram-rodded conventions, polling place irregualrities, etc DO equate to rigged, just like the GOP has been doing since 2000. The DNC ran this year's primary by the GOP/TEAOP playbook.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
So the media blackout, "superdelegates", voter disenfranchisement (New York, etc), ram-rodded state conventions (Nevada, etc) had nothing to do with it? You're deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

ChristianProgressive said:
Voter disenfranchisement, ram-rodded conventions, polling place irregualrities, etc DO equate to rigged, just like the GOP has been doing since 2000. The DNC ran this year's primary by the GOP/TEAOP playbook.
Click to expand...

The system is rigged to favor the persons perceived to have the best chance of winning. Sanders' supporters didn't mind exploiting the non-democratic loopholes in the primary process to gain delegates and now just want to write themselves a thumb-sucking blanket that they can curl up with. "It was rigged. I want some cocoa. We never, sniff, had a chance."

Ramrodded conventions? You mean, like caucuses, where noisy Bernie supporters took most of their only wins? Or you mean when they lost the popular vote in NV and then ramrodded the Clark County convention to steal a delegate or two. Well, no... you mean the state convention where they got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar and are still pissing and moaning about it. "Hey, we should be able to bully the majority into agreeing with us. We got away with it in Washington and Montana."
 
ChristianProgressive said:
So the media blackout,
Click to expand...

What media blackout? The media for a while was playing it like it was a close race (they love the horserace narrative, bigger ratings) when it was never close.

"superdelegates",
Click to expand...

He would have lost big if there were no superdelegates.

voter disenfranchisement (New York, etc)
Click to expand...

Purging voter rolls is supposed to happen. It is a way of getting dead people and people who have moved away off the list.

What do you think happened, they somehow knew who would have voted for Bernie and only purged them? Ridiculous. Hillary won Queens big, more than the state as a whole. If anything, she would have won by more without the purge.

What else are you talking about? Arizona? Arizona and Maricopa County are controlled by Republicans.

ram-rodded state conventions (Nevada, etc had nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...

Nevada? A state Hillary won? And where a bunch of Bernie delegates didn't bother showing up?

You're deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

You're deluding yourself. Hillary won because more people wanted her to, especially black people and actual Democrats. It is that simple.
 
Foolmewunz said:
The system is rigged to favor the persons perceived to have the best chance of winning. Sanders' supporters didn't mind exploiting the non-democratic loopholes in the primary process to gain delegates and now just want to write themselves a thumb-sucking blanket that they can curl up with. "It was rigged. I want some cocoa. We never, sniff, had a chance."

Ramrodded conventions? You mean, like caucuses, where noisy Bernie supporters took most of their only wins? Or you mean when they lost the popular vote in NV and then ramrodded the Clark County convention to steal a delegate or two. Well, no... you mean the state convention where they got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar and are still pissing and moaning about it. "Hey, we should be able to bully the majority into agreeing with us. We got away with it in Washington and Montana."
Click to expand...
Caucuses are easily the most undemocratic part of the primary process. Do Bernie Sanders and the Bernie Bros have anything at all to say about them? No, of course not, because he did best in them.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
So the media blackout,
Click to expand...
Evidence for this claim?

ChristianProgressive said:
"superdelegates",
Click to expand...
Evidence for this claim?

ChristianProgressive said:
voter disenfranchisement (New York, etc),
Click to expand...
Evidence for this claim?

ChristianProgressive said:
ram-rodded state conventions (Nevada, etc) had nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...
Evidence for this claim?

ChristianProgressive said:
You're deluding yourself.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

ChristianProgressive said:
The DNC ran this year's primary by the GOP/TEAOP playbook.
Click to expand...
Evidence for this claim?
 
It actually seems like the DNC was trying to work with Bernie but Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to babysit him because he didn't have his **** together.

Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess. Specifically, DWS had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign to do things because they'd either ignored or forgotten to something critical. She had to call Bernie after the data breach to make his staff to respond to our concerns. Even then they didn't get back to us, which is why we had to shut off their access in order to get them to finally let us know exactly how they snooped around HFA's data. Same was true with the standing committee appointments. They never got back to us with their names (HFA and even O'Malley got there's in six weeks earlier) for the committees. So, again, the chair had to call Bernie personally for his staff to finally get us critical information. So, they gave us an awful list just a few days before we had to make the announcements. It's not a DNC conspiracy, it's because they never had their act together.
Click to expand...
 
Stacko said:
It's not surprising for an organization closely tied to the Kremlin that has done this some thing before. That's the lede being buried here this is Putin actively interfering in the election.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that Putin wants Donald to win.
 
Tony Stark said:
I have no doubt that Putin wants Donald to win.
Click to expand...

There's Donald's refusal to release his tax returns, constant praise of Putin, extremely hawkish foreign policy statements unless it interferes with Putin's ambitions, only request about the GOP platform was to make it very Putin friendly and now this. He has extensive ties to Russian money. It raises the question, "Is he so indebted to Russia through high interest loans,that's how he runs his businesses into the ground, that they can influence him?"
 
Does anyone believe that the DNC was totally in the tank for Obama back in 2007-2008?

In the end, Sanders simply didn't run a campaign that could win. He basically didn't try in the south, completely refused to address major segments of the Democratic base, and instead insisted on keeping to *his* base, many of whom were not actually democrats. It's possible that he could have lost even if he had done everything right, but since he seemed to go to great lengths to do many things wrong, why should anyone bother trying to rescue him from himself?

Meanwhile, O'Malley was also an also-ran - a lot of good ideas, but little momentum or presence. And those other two guys who were running...um...who were they again? Something McGee and um...
 
This bit about sending the story to the DNC before publication isn't necessarily nefarious. I've done it - sent stories to the principals mentioned in the piece to get their comments. Two good reasons to do so:
1) You can sometimes get more information in a reaction, even open/reopen a dialogue.
2) Simple fact checking - dumb stuff like names spelled correctly and the right dates.

They don't get editorial control, but you listen to their input as you would from anyone else involved. I'm fine with that.
 
Mumbles said:
Does anyone believe that the DNC was totally in the tank for Obama back in 2007-2008?

In the end, Sanders simply didn't run a campaign that could win. He basically didn't try in the south, completely refused to address major segments of the Democratic base, and instead insisted on keeping to *his* base, many of whom were not actually democrats. It's possible that he could have lost even if he had done everything right, but since he seemed to go to great lengths to do many things wrong, why should anyone bother trying to rescue him from himself?

Meanwhile, O'Malley was also an also-ran - a lot of good ideas, but little momentum or presence. And those other two guys who were running...um...who were they again? Something McGee and um...
Click to expand...

Sander's fundamental issue was more than how he ran his campaign - it was obvious he simply didn't have a comprehensive enough platform to actually run for president. I mean, can anyone name a tenet of Sanders' foreign policy? You know, the area where the president has by far and away the most power?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom