DNC Leaks

[Tristan Scott]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that the party itself was slanted towards Clinton, I think everyone had figured that out. It's not surprising-she was a democrat who had over the years developed relationships inside the party. Bernie Sanders wasn't. Should they have been completely unbiased? Yes, of course they should have. But I don't see anything in the emails that showed that there was any cheating on vote tallies or anything like that and as far a Wasserman Schultz some of her emails that are causing outrage should be taken in context. Anyway, what I'm seeing is that just about anything is going to cause outrage-people are disappointed-and they need to get over it. They need to follow up and get with the program. Sanders and his team have laid a good solid foundation to make meaningful changes in the democratic party, but its now up to all of us to follow up and apply pressure to see that these changes are implemented. As individuals we have to make sure that every two years we put a good progressive congressman in the House. That is the way change happens.

People who are quitting over this are, as Silverman said last night, being ridiculous-and knowing her what she wanted to say was grow the fuck up and get over yourselves! I've said it before-to many of us are so used to instant gratification that we can't stand the fact that in order to get change here we are actually going to have to get off our asses and do something. If we don't, guess what? NOTHING IS GOING TO CHAMGE.

It's shitting on the democratic process. It is actively thwarting the will of the electorate.

It is trying to give your friend an advantage. Probably with a hope of a job in a possible administration.

It is corruption and despicable.

Who knows who would have won the primaries had it been a fair fight?

Please, show me which of the emails that were leaked that would leave anyone to believe that Sanders votes weren't counted.

 

[blastula]

It's shitting on the democratic process. It is actively thwarting the will of the electorate.

It is trying to give your friend an advantage. Probably with a hope of a job in a possible administration.

It is corruption and despicable.


Who knows who would have won the primaries had it been a fair fight?

Nobody votes were thwarted by the DNC. Clinton won because more people voted for her.

 

[untermensche]

It's shitting on the democratic process. It is actively thwarting the will of the electorate.

It is trying to give your friend an advantage. Probably with a hope of a job in a possible administration.

It is corruption and despicable.

Who knows who would have won the primaries had it been a fair fight?

Please, show me which of the emails that were leaked that would leave anyone to believe that Sanders votes weren't counted.

It is about using the DNC and DNC funds as an arm of the Clinton campaign. And using the DNC to actively work against Sanders.

That alters the outcome in a different way from miscounting.

There is more than one way to be totally corrupt.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Please, show me which of the emails that were leaked that would leave anyone to believe that Sanders votes weren't counted.

It is about using the DNC and DNC funds as an arm of the Clinton campaign. And using the DNC to actively work against Sanders.

That alters the outcome in a different way from miscounting.

There is more than one way to be totally corrupt.

While this is true, I think the media virtually ignoring Sanders had even more to do with it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is about using the DNC and DNC funds as an arm of the Clinton campaign. And using the DNC to actively work against Sanders.

That alters the outcome in a different way from miscounting.

There is more than one way to be totally corrupt.

While this is true, I think the media virtually ignoring Sanders had even more to do with it.

I think there is some overlap there. Fox News is very well connected to the republican party establishment and at least partially to the dem party establishment. CNN, MSNBC, ABC are well connected to the Dem party establishment and at least partly to the rep party establishment. I don't think pundits or owners from either camp wanted to ruin their bread and butter for stories and talking points and I don't think owners wanted to risk socialism.

 

[untermensche]

While this is true, I think the media virtually ignoring Sanders had even more to do with it.

I think there is some overlap there. Fox News is very well connected to the republican party establishment and at least partially to the dem party establishment. CNN, MSNBC, ABC are well connected to the Dem party establishment and at least partly to the rep party establishment. I don't think pundits or owners from either camp wanted to ruin their bread and butter for stories and talking points and I don't think owners wanted to risk socialism.

The media is the most corrupted part of the process.

A corrupted media, and corrupted parties.

Poison for democracy.

 

[Deepak]

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that the party itself was slanted towards Clinton, I think everyone had figured that out. It's not surprising-she was a democrat who had over the years developed relationships inside the party. Bernie Sanders wasn't. Should they have been completely unbiased? Yes, of course they should have. But I don't see anything in the emails that showed that there was any cheating on vote tallies or anything like that and as far a Wasserman Schultz some of her emails that are causing outrage should be taken in context. Anyway, what I'm seeing is that just about anything is going to cause outrage-people are disappointed-and they need to get over it. They need to follow up and get with the program. Sanders and his team have laid a good solid foundation to make meaningful changes in the democratic party, but its now up to all of us to follow up and apply pressure to see that these changes are implemented. As individuals we have to make sure that every two years we put a good progressive congressman in the House. That is the way change happens.

People who are quitting over this are, as Silverman said last night, being ridiculous-and knowing her what she wanted to say was grow the fuck up and get over yourselves! I've said it before-to many of us are so used to instant gratification that we can't stand the fact that in order to get change here we are actually going to have to get off our asses and do something. If we don't, guess what? NOTHING IS GOING TO CHAMGE.

It's shitting on the democratic process. It is actively thwarting the will of the electorate.

It is trying to give your friend an advantage. Probably with a hope of a job in a possible administration.

It is corruption and despicable.

Who knows who would have won the primaries had it been a fair fight?

Hillary won by 4 million votes. I don't know of a single HRC voter who would have voted Sanders if it weren't for the "DNC rigging". Do you?

 

[untermensche]

It's shitting on the democratic process. It is actively thwarting the will of the electorate.

It is trying to give your friend an advantage. Probably with a hope of a job in a possible administration.

It is corruption and despicable.

Who knows who would have won the primaries had it been a fair fight?

Hillary won by 4 million votes. I don't know of a single HRC voter who would have voted Sanders if it weren't for the "DNC rigging". Do you?

We have no idea how people would have voted in a fair system.

Elections are one contingency after another.

You can't use the end results of a corrupted contingency to demonstrate what a clean election would have looked like.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Hillary won by 4 million votes. I don't know of a single HRC voter who would have voted Sanders if it weren't for the "DNC rigging". Do you?

We have no idea how people would have voted in a fair system.

Elections are one contingency after another.

You can't use the end results of a corrupted contingency to demonstrate what a clean election would have looked like.

So far, I've only seen die hard Bernsters complaining that the election was rigged. I haven't heard of a single HRC voter claiming that they would have voted for Bernie.

 

[untermensche]

We have no idea how people would have voted in a fair system.

Elections are one contingency after another.

You can't use the end results of a corrupted contingency to demonstrate what a clean election would have looked like.

So far, I've only seen die hard Bernsters complaining that the election was rigged. I haven't heard of a single HRC voter claiming that they would have voted for Bernie.

You look at the END results of a corrupted system.

And like a mindless plant say all is well.

It was Bernie with nothing but his truths in a rigged game.

The truth can only do so much it seems.

 

[Will Wiley]

If you happen to be Vlad Putin, Trump is like an angel sent from heaven, to gift you with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania). And from there? The sky's the limit!

Maybe that is true, and maybe it's propaganda. How do we tell the difference?
I'm happy to listen , if you can make an argument based on evidence.

 

[Will Wiley]

You wrote "we weren't targeting civilians". I provided video evidence of you doing just that. Here is more evidence.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwfRT6ued5s[/YOUTUBE]

Look, this derail started when I argued that ownership of the war belonged to the Bush Administration. These atrocities you are referring to took place under that administration and the train wreck of the Bremer occupation. If you want to put that on me and put it on Obama, you are wrong. .

You were the one who wrote "we". Naturally I responded saying "you". Obama continued it, and while I admire some things about him he did not have the balls to do what was good for America during his time. Not many people would have I admit, but his 60 minutes interview was damning. Unfortunately, after Bush, it required someone with more guts. It's a harsh criticism I know, but it's the President of the United States. The world cannot afford at this point in history to have the wrong person in that office.....Though I guess we can and will, and the US will lose it's role. A role that has been so good in so many ways I will add

 

[Tristan Scott]

Look, this derail started when I argued that ownership of the war belonged to the Bush Administration. These atrocities you are referring to took place under that administration and the train wreck of the Bremer occupation. If you want to put that on me and put it on Obama, you are wrong. .

You were the one who wrote "we". Naturally I responded saying "you". Obama continued it, and while I admire some things about him he did not have the balls to do what was good for America during his time. Not many people would have I admit, but his 60 minutes interview was damning. Unfortunately, after Bush, it required someone with more guts. It's a harsh criticism I know, but it's the President of the United States. The world cannot afford at this point in history to have the wrong person in that office.....Though I guess we can and will, and the US will lose it's role. A role that has been so good in so many ways I will add

I think what you're not getting is that the US, and by that I'm referring to WE, made this mess. Colin Powell warned W that if we decided to move in militarily that we would own the situation. Well we own it. It would be immoral to the people of Afghanistan for us to ust up and bail out on them if they are not ready to defend themselves. It's a little more complicated than how much testosterone you have. Like I said, Trump seems to be a good match for you.

- - - Updated - - -

If you happen to be Vlad Putin, Trump is like an angel sent from heaven, to gift you with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania). And from there? The sky's the limit!

Maybe that is true, and maybe it's propaganda. How do we tell the difference?
I'm happy to listen , if you can make an argument based on evidence.

Listen to your man Trump.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She went from former Hillary campaign manager, to political positions, to DNC chair while Hillary was running in primary, back to Hillary campaign manager? That just makes it look worse and they should be concerned about perception as part of their damage control.

History should make it obvious that neither Clinton has a clue about damage control.

It shows serious gall. She knows she is corrupt and she knows we all know it, and she is so powerful that she doesn't feel she has to even try to hide it. Sobering.

 

[Tristan Scott]

History should make it obvious that neither Clinton has a clue about damage control.

It shows serious gall. She knows she is corrupt and she knows we all know it, and she is so powerful that she doesn't feel she has to even try to hide it. Sobering.

I guess if you say that shit enough you actually believe it. What corruption are you referring to? Has this corruption been proven, or is it just something that she has been accused of? I agree she has been accused of more shit than any human being on earth, but what corruption has she been found guilty of, exactly?

 

[Trausti]

More from the leaks.



Wouldn't limit this to the Dems; pay to play is a bipartisan tradition. It's how our government works.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you happen to be Vlad Putin, Trump is like an angel sent from heaven, to gift you with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania). And from there? The sky's the limit!

Don't pay attention to the contents of the emails, pay attention to the illegitimate way they were released.

It is exactly like a guy who was caught cheating trying to twist the conversation to why his wife was snooping on his phone.

 

[laughing dog]

History should make it obvious that neither Clinton has a clue about damage control.

It shows serious gall. She knows she is corrupt and she knows we all know it, and she is so powerful that she doesn't feel she has to even try to hide it. Sobering.

That is certainly one interpretation. I think she has a tin ear about this stuff.

 

[fast]

If you happen to be Vlad Putin, Trump is like an angel sent from heaven, to gift you with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania). And from there? The sky's the limit!

Don't pay attention to the contents of the emails, pay attention to the illegitimate way they were released.

It is exactly like a guy who was caught cheating trying to twist the conversation to why his wife was snooping on his phone.

Say what? Exactly? Yes, the seriousness of a conversation regarding getting caught cheating shouldn't be minimized because of the unscrupulous means upon which the truth is learned, so when the issue at hand is email content or getting caught cheating, then disregard the irrelevant issue of how such knowledge came to light ... until such time that becomes the later topic under discussion. Good try though.