• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Bernie wuz robbed!

So the media is pushing to get everybody freaked out over an alleged Russian interference and collusion with Trump to win the election, with little evidence for it. Apparently all the intel services agree they "hacked the election", but no evidence has been made public, and nobody has suggested they actually controlled the election, and just that they put out some adds or met with a candidate (Even if true, so what?). And at the same time, we have hard evidence that Hillary DID steal the primary

Oh my, hard evidence! OK, I'll ask again, what exactly logistically did the DNC do that stole the election away from Sanders? The debate schedule is the only thing they controlled that could have had an impact, but Clinton did good in the debates, so that's not even much of a point. What else?

There is no comparison to the effect the Russians had on the election to any role the DNC could have played in foiling Sanders.
 
So the media is pushing to get everybody freaked out over an alleged Russian interference and collusion with Trump to win the election, with little evidence for it. Apparently all the intel services agree they "hacked the election", but no evidence has been made public, and nobody has suggested they actually controlled the election, and just that they put out some adds or met with a candidate (Even if true, so what?). And at the same time, we have hard evidence that Hillary DID steal the primary

Oh my, hard evidence! OK, I'll ask again, what exactly logistically did the DNC do that stole the election away from Sanders? The debate schedule is the only thing they controlled that could have had an impact, but Clinton did good in the debates, so that's not even much of a point. What else?

Semi-relevant: The media played a big role in screwing Bernie, which when you consider how much pull Hillary's campaign had in controlling the narrative as seen in some of the released DNC Emails is pretty bad. Even after the election ends, one common talking point around the TV news circuit was an attempt to shift the blame for H's loss on Bernie.
 
Oh my, hard evidence! OK, I'll ask again, what exactly logistically did the DNC do that stole the election away from Sanders? The debate schedule is the only thing they controlled that could have had an impact, but Clinton did good in the debates, so that's not even much of a point. What else?

Semi-relevant: The media played a big role in screwing Bernie, which when you consider how much pull Hillary's campaign had in controlling the narrative as seen in some of the released DNC Emails is pretty bad. Even after the election ends, one common talking point around the TV news circuit was an attempt to shift the blame for H's loss on Bernie.

You mean you think she got more favorable coverage than Sanders?

L.
O.
L.
 
So the media is pushing to get everybody freaked out over an alleged Russian interference and collusion with Trump to win the election, with little evidence for it. Apparently all the intel services agree they "hacked the election", but no evidence has been made public, and nobody has suggested they actually controlled the election, and just that they put out some adds or met with a candidate (Even if true, so what?). And at the same time, we have hard evidence that Hillary DID steal the primary

Oh my, hard evidence! OK, I'll ask again, what exactly logistically did the DNC do that stole the election away from Sanders? The debate schedule is the only thing they controlled that could have had an impact, but Clinton did good in the debates, so that's not even much of a point. What else?

There is no comparison to the effect the Russians had on the election to any role the DNC could have played in foiling Sanders.

It's a very strange religion that requires someone to believe the Russians can tilt an election with $100,000 of facebook adds, but Hillary can't affect the democratic primaries by controlling the DNC.
 
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

So, it's not so much that the DNC skewed the primary elections to help the Clinton Campaign, it's that the DNC was the Clinton Campaign.

Also it seems Donna Brazile is a Russian hacker.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Bogus. Clinton was the party because Clinton funded the party. Sanders could have participated but his campaign wasn't getting large donations which he could use to help fund the debt ridden national party. I have to blame Obama for his lack of interest in the party for both the decline in state democratic representation and the sate of the part at the start of the 2016 campaign.

As for the spoiled Bernie gang all I have to say is whiny little loser shits.
 
Oh my, hard evidence! OK, I'll ask again, what exactly logistically did the DNC do that stole the election away from Sanders? The debate schedule is the only thing they controlled that could have had an impact, but Clinton did good in the debates, so that's not even much of a point. What else?

There is no comparison to the effect the Russians had on the election to any role the DNC could have played in foiling Sanders.

It's a very strange religion that requires someone to believe the Russians can tilt an election with $100,000 of facebook adds,

You left out the email hacks and all the social media trolls and bots.

but Hillary can't affect the democratic primaries by controlling the DNC.

OK, then please use your superior non-religious rationalism to show what exactly the DNC did that made a real difference for Clinton against Sanders.
 
Oh my, hard evidence! OK, I'll ask again, what exactly logistically did the DNC do that stole the election away from Sanders? The debate schedule is the only thing they controlled that could have had an impact, but Clinton did good in the debates, so that's not even much of a point. What else?

There is no comparison to the effect the Russians had on the election to any role the DNC could have played in foiling Sanders.

Besides having more debates costs money and Bernie wasn't contributing very much.
 
The corruption here is shocking. Had this been the general election, Hillary would be criminal for doing what she did. But lucky for her it was just a primary of a party that pretends to be what it clearly isn't and doesn't live by any actual principles, in a 2 party system, where everybody screamed to vote for this party and this candidate because otherwise Trump would end the world.

Could you perhaps outline what exactly Hillary did that was corrupt and illegal?
 
Semi-relevant: The media played a big role in screwing Bernie, which when you consider how much pull Hillary's campaign had in controlling the narrative as seen in some of the released DNC Emails is pretty bad. Even after the election ends, one common talking point around the TV news circuit was an attempt to shift the blame for H's loss on Bernie.

You mean you think she got more favorable coverage than Sanders?

L.
O.
L.

That is not what I mean. Its not about who the news personalities favored, they get their marching orders from the top down, who in turn were influenced by the Hillary campaign directly. If you can't see how that undermines our democratic process then that is your shortcoming.

Does anybody remember when Donna got into trouble for leaking debate questions to Hillary? And now she's willing to throw the woman under the bus to advance herself financially? So much for honor among thieves.
 
Oh my, hard evidence! OK, I'll ask again, what exactly logistically did the DNC do that stole the election away from Sanders? The debate schedule is the only thing they controlled that could have had an impact, but Clinton did good in the debates, so that's not even much of a point. What else?

There is no comparison to the effect the Russians had on the election to any role the DNC could have played in foiling Sanders.

Besides having more debates costs money and Bernie wasn't contributing very much.

God forbid the state host debates. Wouldn't want to lower the barriers to entry for candidacy, then the plebs might start running!
 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

So, it's not so much that the DNC skewed the primary elections to help the Clinton Campaign, it's that the DNC was the Clinton Campaign.

Also it seems Donna Brazile is a Russian hacker.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Bogus. Clinton was the party because Clinton funded the party. Sanders could have participated but his campaign wasn't getting large donations which he could use to help fund the debt ridden national party. I have to blame Obama for his lack of interest in the party for both the decline in state democratic representation and the sate of the part at the start of the 2016 campaign.

As for the spoiled Bernie gang all I have to say is whiny little loser shits.

Adapt to the new demographics or die with your outmoded ideations; this is the choice of the DNC going forward. Its our party now, old guard. The only question is how long will it take for the dums to get that? How many more elections will they lose before they can take a hint?
 
You mean you think she got more favorable coverage than Sanders?

L.
O.
L.

That is not what I mean.

It is if you want to claim Clinton controlled the media somehow. She controlled it so much, she had the most unfavorable reporting of any candidate.

Its not about who the news personalities favored, they get their marching orders from the top down, who in turn were influenced by the Hillary campaign directly. If you can't see how that undermines our democratic process then that is your shortcoming.

What marching orders? And how is this a special responsibility of the DNC? It's a big leap from a debate question to marching orders controlling the narrative. Where's the evidence for any of this? That the media sucks is a given, but if you want to claim some grand conspiracy against Sanders, you need to show how it sucked in some especially egregious manner in this case.
 
Adapt to the new demographics or die with your outmoded ideations; this is the choice of the DNC going forward. Its our party now, old guard. The only question is how long will it take for the dums to get that? How many more elections will they lose before they can take a hint?

Political parties operate with money. Bernie contributed little to the effort to elect candidates. It will become your party when you put your money before your pureness. Until then all you are do with your acrimony is turn off your partisans which makes them not part of the process.

Have a nice powerless life.
 
That is not what I mean.

It is if you want to claim Clinton controlled the media somehow. She controlled it so much, she had the most unfavorable reporting of any candidate.

Its not about who the news personalities favored, they get their marching orders from the top down, who in turn were influenced by the Hillary campaign directly. If you can't see how that undermines our democratic process then that is your shortcoming.

What marching orders? And how is this a special responsibility of the DNC? It's a big leap from a debate question to marching orders controlling the narrative. Where's the evidence for any of this? That the media sucks is a given, but if you want to claim some grand conspiracy against Sanders, you need to show how it sucked in some especially egregious manner in this case.

At least one Email showed that Clinton staffers were in contact with the top brass of prominent news outlets, even berrating them for negative coverage received and pressuring them to cease such coverage. Now I only know of one Email fine, but we have no reason to assume this is an isolated incident, especially considering that there were Emails destroyed when the Clinton campaign was told to bring them forward.

Edit: Okay this one isn't actually on the DNC so I kind of lost my point there. Still a shitty thing to pull though.

- - - Updated - - -

Adapt to the new demographics or die with your outmoded ideations; this is the choice of the DNC going forward. Its our party now, old guard. The only question is how long will it take for the dums to get that? How many more elections will they lose before they can take a hint?

Political parties operate with money. Bernie contributed little to the effort to elect candidates. It will become your party when you put your money before your pureness. Until then all you are do with your acrimony is turn off your partisans which makes them not part of the process.

Have a nice powerless life.

Have fun trying and failing to win elections without me. /shrug
 
Heh. That's funny.

And my original question, in context, remains unanswered. Could you perhaps outline what exactly Hillary did that was corrupt and illegal?

There was at least one answer to the question in the OP article:

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
 
Back
Top Bottom