Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ScottMon

Why Aren't We Outraged?

Recommended Posts

Could you help us out by not linking to threads that then link to other sources?

 

What cheating?

 

Bill

I used the words "corruption" and "collusion" (which is cheating). It's all in my post above.

 

The links prove that I have provided sources for all this before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is the Nevada convention where some out of control Sanders supporters made death threats against the Nevada Democratic chairperson, booed progressive Senator Barbara Boxer off the stage, and lifted (but didn't actually throw chairs) that's the problem?

 

And the instance where two DNC staffers dicuseed that *if Bernie Sanders atheism were raised as a campaign issue that is would hurt him. and then didn't act on that knowledge that's the issue?

 

Excuse me, but I'm laughing my ass off that these things constitute cheating.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used the words "corruption" and "collusion."

A distinction without a difference. You haven't cited anything to support that, either.

 

Another poster used the word "cheating." The emails discussing ways to lower Bernie's points in primaries, planning debates on nights when few actually watched, the purging of thousands of voters from the voter rolls, creating fake news stories that were reposted by order of the DNC's Communications Director, etc. I've posted many threads on it.

 

I didn't see anything about purging, but in any case, what was actually DONE?

 

I don't believe that every member of the DNC was in on it. But it does need to stop.

 

What does? People talking about things in private that they never act on?

 

If an organization states it is impartial, it should be impartial to all candidates.

 

What did "the organization" DO that was "partial"?

 

Again, I used the terms "corruption" and "collusion." See my sources in the link above. I've posted this stuff over and over. I'll dig up links to my other posts, too.

 

Repeating your accusations over and over doesn't prove anything. What you need to do is cite what ACTIONS the DNC took that were "corrupt". It is a very simple request. Can you cite any, or can't you?

 

Corruption and collusion within the Democratic party.

 

You mean, that corruption and collusion that you can never demonstrate.

 

The DNC's letter to Bernie stated they were going to work to make sure it didn't happen again.

 

Make sure WHAT didn't happen again?

 

We were discussing what should be done to ensure it won't happen again.

 

Make sure WHAT didn't happen again?

 

Longtime Democrats have been unregistering from the party because of it.

 

Well, cons have been trying as hard as possible to pretend that this is something more than it is. For example, screaming over and over about corruption and collusion, even though they are unable to cite one single actual ACT to support those accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A distinction without a difference. You haven't cited anything to support that, either.

 

Another poster used the word "cheating." The emails discussing ways to lower Bernie's points in primaries, planning debates on nights when few actually watched, the purging of thousands of voters from the voter rolls, creating fake news stories that were reposted by order of the DNC's Communications Director, etc. I've posted many threads on it.

 

I didn't see anything about purging, but in any case, what was actually DONE?

 

I don't believe that every member of the DNC was in on it. But it does need to stop.

 

What does? People talking about things in private that they never act on?

 

If an organization states it is impartial, it should be impartial to all candidates.

 

What did "the organization" DO that was "partial"?

 

Again, I used the terms "corruption" and "collusion." See my sources in the link above. I've posted this stuff over and over. I'll dig up links to my other posts, too.

 

Repeating your accusations over and over doesn't prove anything. What you need to do is cite what ACTIONS the DNC took that were "corrupt". It is a very simple request. Can you cite any, or can't you?

 

Corruption and collusion within the Democratic party.

 

You mean, that corruption and collusion that you can never demonstrate.

 

The DNC's letter to Bernie stated they were going to work to make sure it didn't happen again.

 

Make sure WHAT didn't happen again?

 

We were discussing what should be done to ensure it won't happen again.

 

Make sure WHAT didn't happen again?

 

Longtime Democrats have been unregistering from the party because of it.

 

Well, cons have been trying as hard as possible to pretend that this is something more than it is. For example, screaming over and over about corruption and collusion, even though they are unable to cite one single actual ACT to support those accusations.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, cons have been trying as hard as possible to pretend that this is something more than it is. For example, screaming over and over about corruption and collusion, even though they are unable to cite one single actual ACT to support those accusations.

I don't associate with conservatives. I'm not "screaming." I disagree that they were harmless.

 

As I've stated before, I come to the Liberals Only area of the forum to avoid aggressive debate. I come here to voice my opinions and discuss the issues with people whom I agree with on most subjects.

 

I posted a good half dozen threads the week of the convention, with tons of links on the WikiLeaks emails and what I believe to be corruption and collusion by some DNC members. I also posted several links in this thread. If that's not enough, then let's just agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't associate with conservatives. I'm not "screaming." I disagree that they were harmless.

 

As I've stated before, I come to the Liberals Only area of the forum to avoid aggressive debate. I come here to voice my opinions and discuss the issues with people whom I agree with on most subjects.

 

I posted a good half dozen threads the week of the convention, with tons of links on the WikiLeaks emails and what I believe to be corruption and collusion by some DNC members. I also posted several links in this thread. If that's not enough, then let's just agree to disagree.

 

I looked at the threads as they happened. I saw nothing there indicative of cheating, aside from Nevada and the "atheist outing" that never happened. So if that's all you've got. we'll need to agree to disagree.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't associate with conservatives. I'm not "screaming." I disagree that they were harmless.

I didn't say anything about them being "harmless". Another strawman? I told you that so far you have been unable to cite one single ACTION that was taken that would support your accusations.

 

As I've stated before, I come to the Liberals Only area of the forum to avoid aggressive debate. I come here to voice my opinions and discuss the issues with people whom I agree with on most subjects.

 

Good for you.

 

I posted a good half dozen threads the week of the convention, with tons of links on the WikiLeaks emails and what I believe to be corruption and collusion by some DNC members.

 

You posted the same accusations without being able to cite an actual ACT.

 

I also posted several links in this thread.

 

You posted the same accusations without being able to cite an actual ACT.

 

If that's not enough, then let's just agree to disagree.

 

Why would simply repeating your accusations without ever providing proof be "enough"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what we have is a few people who did not like the socialist slant of Bernie, and were pulling media strings to hurt him. I find this article explains it well, and we cannot dismiss what people said. Draw your own conclusion.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0

 

“Do you all think it’s worth highlighting for CNN that her term ends the day after the inauguration, when a new D.N.C. Chair is elected anyway?” Mr. Miranda asked. Ms. Wasserman Schultz responded by dismissing the senator’s chances. “This is a silly story,” she wrote. “He isn’t going to be president.”

 

It looks like Wasserman's term was set to expire. It looks like she had preconceived notions,...maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what we have is a few people who did not like the socialist slant of Bernie, and were pulling media strings to hurt him. I find this article explains it well, and we cannot dismiss what people said. Draw your own conclusion.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html?_r=0

 

Do you all think its worth highlighting for CNN that her term ends the day after the inauguration, when a new D.N.C. Chair is elected anyway? Mr. Miranda asked. Ms. Wasserman Schultz responded by dismissing the senators chances. This is a silly story, she wrote. He isnt going to be president.

Exactly right, shintao. This is about a few DNC executives who broke Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC's Charter and Bylaws which states:

 

In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.11.2009.pdf

 

_________________________________________________

 

 

Now, regarding "actions" taken against the Sanders campaign:

 

Luis Miranda, Communications Director at Democratic National Committee, instructed Walter Garcia, Western Regional Communications Director at the DNC, to spread an article written by Jon Ralston in May 2016 Link, according to the WikiLeaks files released Friday. This is pertinent because DNC officials are required to remain unbiased to all candidates during the primary season.

 

Garcia, according to the WikiLeaks release, sent Miranda the article written by Ralston, the same writer that the New York Times and the Associated Press reportedly trusted enough to report that chairs were thrown at the Democratic Convention in Nevada. Of course, no chairs were actually thrown Link at that convention. The story was fabricated (perhaps unintentionally) by a journalist, then tweeted about by Ralston, and perpetuated by the mainstream media, according to reports.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3338399/wikileaks-one-dnc-official-instructs-another-to-secretly-spread-ralston-article-slamming-bernie-sanders/

 

More (link directly above):

 

 

 

In response to the email from Garcia, Miranda wrote back instructing Garcia to make sure the Ralston article got attention.

 

Lets get this around without attribution, Miranda allegedly wrote.

DNC Communications Director Ordered Anti-Sanders Article Be Shared "Without Attribution."

 

Walter Garcia need to step down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NY Times article shows that there was no cheating.

 

Did DWS and some DNC staffers hope for an HRC win? Absolutely!

 

This is "outrageous" how?

 

A guy whose membership in the Democratic party is still unclear, never-the-less enjoyed the full resources of the Democratic party. Asking party insiders not to have personal preferences for the eventual nominee is an absurd idea.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nevada story was not fabricated. Some Busters acted like total ass-hats, booing the very progressive CA Senator Barbara Boxer to the point she left the stage. They made telephone death threats against the Nevada Democratic party chairperson.

In the chaos of this convention, a Bernie supporter picked up a chair, as if to thrown it, but evidently put it down rather than following through. So it was a case of "battery" rather than "assault and battery."

Not behavior to be proud of. Nor was the booing of Elijah Cummings (among others) at the DNC Convention something to be proud of.

The outrage should be rightly directed at bad actors associated with the Sanders' campaign. One element of the NV story may have been incorrect or exaggerated, but what went on there was shameful. There was even a leaked Sanders campaign email questioning what the heck they were going using these tactics for 1 or 2 delegates in a state Bernie lost?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NY Times article shows that there was no cheating.

 

Did DWS and some DNC staffers hope for an HRC win? Absolutely!

It is against the DNC rules to openly hope for an HRC win. All the stuff that came out in that email leak is against DNC rules. It's not even debatable, Bill. Whether you want to call it cheating, collusion, corruption, or simply "irresponsible emailing," it is against the DNC Charter and Bylaws.

 

This is "outrageous" how?

Some people consider favoritism (when it is against the party's own rules) to be outrageous. So sorry you find it insignificant. Unfortunately, there are thousands fewer Democrats than there were at the start of the primary season due to these WikiLeaks emails.

 

A guy whose membership in the Democratic party is still unclear, never-the-less enjoyed the full resources of the Democratic party. Asking party insiders not to have personal preferences for the eventual nominee is an absurd idea.

 

Bill

Here's a copy of the DNC's Charter and Bylaws:

 

http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.11.2009.pdf

 

Now please point out the section where it says "those candidates who have only been with the party for a short while may be subject to different treatment." Can't find it? That's because it's not there. Bernie switched to Democrat. He had raised money for and caucused with the Dems for years. He followed all the rules. The DNC Charter and Bylaws require he be treated the same as a candidate who has been with the party for three or four decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know who advised him that this [refering to chaos in NV] was the right route to take, but we are now actively destroying what Bernie worked so hard to build over the last year just to pick up two fucking delegates in a state he lost,” rapid response director Mike Casca complained to Weaver in an internal campaign email obtained by POLITICO.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't change the subject, Bill. We're talking about the DNC and their treatment of one of their candidates, (not behavior by individuals within the Bernie campaign).

 

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is against the DNC rules to openly hope for an HRC win. All the stuff that came out in that email leak is against DNC rules. It's not even debatable, Bill. Whether you want to call it cheating, collusion, corruption, or simply "irresponsible emailing," it is against the DNC Charter and Bylaws.

 

Some people consider favoritism (when it is against the party's own rules) to be outrageous. So sorry you find it insignificant. Unfortunately, there are thousands fewer Democrats than there were at the start of the primary season due to these WikiLeaks emails.

 

Here's a copy of the DNC's Charter and Bylaws:

 

http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.11.2009.pdf

 

Now please point out the section where it says "those candidates who have only been with the party for a short while may be subject to different treatment." Can't find it? That's because it's not there. Bernie switched to Democrat. He had raised money for and caucused with the Dems for years. He followed all the rules. The DNC Charter and Bylaws require he be treated the same as a candidate who has been with the party for three or four decades.

So we are at the crux of the issue. It wasn't cheating at all.

 

Some DNC insiders "favored" the long-term Democrat in the race, the person everyone in America would point to (rightly) as the overwhelmingly likely 2016 Democratic nominee, against a non-member (maybe recent convert?) to the party, and you believe that is "outrageous."

 

I'm sorry, you are being ridiculous.

 

Bill

 

Please don't change the subject, Bill. We're talking about the DNC and their treatment of one of their candidates, (not behavior by individuals within the Bernie campaign).

 

You're comparing apples to oranges.

You don't seem to wish to deal with the fact that (aside from one detail) the story on NV was factually correct, and represented outrageously bad behavior.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ScottMon, on 30 Jul 2016 - 5:59 PM, said:snapback.png

I'm pretty sure Bernie wasn't going to win but why wasn't he at least given fair treatment by the DNC.

 

At what point do we say this isn't fair or democratic?

 

I'm pretty mad about this.

 

I think the time to be mad is over now. Because of Bernie, the Democratic platform is the most progressive in history. And DWS, the main instigator in Bernie's unfair treatment has been taken down several notches

 

The corporate gravy train might be fed more fuel with Hillary at the wheel. If that happens, the middle class will shrink further. I deeply resent that I have to vote for Hillary but Trump would be a far worse catastrophe.

 

Trump is an extreme sociopath. His business record shows it. Judging by his past actions, Trump would be a career criminal today if he hadn't inherited a fortune.

 

- Trump U. scam.

- Mafia ties

- Unscrupulous business dealings

- Union busting while claiming to support labor

- Beauty pageant scandal. Insults, rape and abuse.

- Racial housing discrimination in NYC

- Tenant intimidation for eviction. Tore down walls. Cut off heat and hot water. Etc.

- The four bankruptcies.

- The undocumented Polish workers

- Alleged marital rape .... Ivana Trump.

- Breaking casino rules .... Was fined in several states.

- Anti-trust violations

- Has brought 3,500 lawsuits, many trivial .... Many thrown out .... Many against those who could not fight back, financially.

- Condo hotel shenanigans. New York, Florida, Mexico

- Corey Lewandowski

- Suing journalist Tim O'brien for libel because book criticized Trump. Suit was thrown out.

- Refusing to pay workers and contractors

- Keeping his tax information secret from the public

 

http://www.theatlant...candals/474726/

http://www.usatoday....ttles/84995854/

 

Like you say, Bernie probably would have lost despite the all-too-real rigging that took place; Because, compared to Hillary he had very little name recognition; Also, the fact that he's 74. But the Bernie campaign brought the income gap out of the shadows and forced the mainstream media to at least, mention it somewhat.

 

Now, as people continue to slide economically downhill, there will be more widespread recognition of the cause. So, if Hillary supports oligarchic policies, she will be attacked extensively from the left as well as the right .... And in that case, I doubt she'll make it to a second term .... If Hillary surprises and comes through with progressive polices, she will get eight years.

 

Both Trump and Hillary have high negatives and are exceptionally weak candidates. If Hillary becomes president, it will be for a trial run only.

If she disappoints, one of the Berniecrats will probably be ready to run in 2020.

http://berniecrats.net/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what we have is a few people who did not like the socialist slant of Bernie, and were pulling media strings to hurt him.

Can you name which "string" was pulled?

 

I find this article explains it well, and we cannot dismiss what people said.

 

No one is dismissing what was said.

 

Draw your own conclusion.

 

My conclusion is that in those THOUSANDS of emails, not one had someone saying "Well, I just DID THIS."

 

Not one.

Exactly right, shintao. This is about a few DNC executives who broke Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC's Charter and Bylaws which states:

Funny, I don't see: "Can't make comments in private conversations that are never acted on." in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ScottMon, on 30 Jul 2016 - 5:59 PM, said:snapback.png

 

I think the time to be mad is over now. Because of Bernie, the Democratic platform is the most progressive in history. And DWS, the main instigator in Bernie's unfair treatment has been taken down several notches

I'm really not convinced of any of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I don't see: "Can't make comments in private conversations that are never acted on." in there.

Now, regarding "actions" taken against the Sanders campaign:

 

One DNC official instructs another to secretly spread untrue article slamming Bernie's campaign:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3338399/wikileaks-one-dnc-official-instructs-another-to-secretly-spread-ralston-article-slamming-bernie-sanders/

 

More (link directly above):

DNC Communications Director Ordered Anti-Sanders Article Be Shared "Without Attribution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is against the DNC rules to openly hope for an HRC win.

So now you are moving away from CHEATING! and COLLUSION! and CORRUPTION! - to a claim that they "broke a bylaw".

 

All the stuff that came out in that email leak is against DNC rules. It's not even debatable, Bill. Whether you want to call it cheating, collusion, corruption, or simply "irresponsible emailing,"it is against the DNC Charter and Bylaws

 

It is not any of those things, despite your oddly fanatical attempt to make those stick.

 

Some people consider favoritism (when it is against the party's own rules) to be outrageous.

 

This bizarre attempt of your to claim that people having personal opinions that they share in private conversations is "outrageous" is ridiculous.

 

So sorry you find it insignificant.

 

Another strawman. What he said is that you can point to no ACTION that demonstrates "cheating". He's right - you can't.

 

Unfortunately, there are thousands fewer Democrats than there were at the start of the primary season due to these WikiLeaks emails.

 

How would what was said in private conversation affect voting?

 

Here's a copy of the DNC's Charter and Bylaws:

Now please point out the section where it says "those candidates who have only been with the party for a short while may be subject to different treatment."

 

Please point out where Sanders WAS subjected to different treatment.

 

Can't find it?

 

Can't find it?

 

That's because it's not there.

 

That's because there is no evidence of that.

 

Bernie switched to Democrat.

 

And yet he is an independent. He switched solely to improve his chances by being more visible on the national stage. You must find that sort of thing to be OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

 

He had raised money for and caucused with the Dems for years. He followed all the rules. The DNC Charter and Bylaws require he be treated the same as a candidate who has been with the party for three or four decades.

 

I assume from your repetition of "the BYLAWS!" that you have now abandoned your empty accusations of "cheating!" and "collusion!" and "corruption!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now you are moving away from CHEATING! and COLLUSION! and CORRUPTION! - to a claim that they "broke a bylaw".

 

All the stuff that came out in that email leak is against DNC rules. It's not even debatable, Bill. Whether you want to call it cheating, collusion, corruption, or simply "irresponsible emailing,"it is against the DNC Charter and Bylaws

 

It is not any of those things, despite your oddly fanatical attempt to make those stick.

 

Some people consider favoritism (when it is against the party's own rules) to be outrageous.

 

This bizarre attempt of your to claim that people having personal opinions tat they share in private conversations is "outrageous" is ridiculous.

 

So sorry you find it insignificant.

 

Another strawman. What he said is that you can point to no ACTION that demonstrates "cheating". He's right - you can't.

 

Unfortunately, there are thousands fewer Democrats than there were at the start of the primary season due to these WikiLeaks emails.

 

How would what was said in private conversation affect voting?

 

Here's a copy of the DNC's Charter and Bylaws:

Now please point out the section where it says "those candidates who have only been with the party for a short while may be subject to different treatment."

 

Please point out where Sanders WAS subjected to different treatment.

 

Can't find it?

 

Can't find it?

 

That's because it's not there.

 

That's because there is no evidence of that.

 

Bernie switched to Democrat.

 

And yet he is an independent. He switched solely to improve his chances by being more visible on the national stage. You must find that sort of thing to be OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

 

He had raised money for and caucused with the Dems for years. He followed all the rules. The DNC Charter and Bylaws require he be treated the same as a candidate who has been with the party for three or four decades.

 

I assume from your repetition of "the BYLAWS!" that you have now abandoned your empty accusations of "cheating!" and "collusion!" and "corruption!"

I still consider what the DNC did to be dirty pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still consider what the DNC did to be dirty pool.

Me, too, Scott....but I'm not going to continue to argue this with Isabel.

 

She wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not convinced of any of that.

 

What good will it do to nurse past hurts? Bernie, for one, is moving on. He sees how much more dangerous Trump would be than Hillary. There's time enough till after this election, to concentrate on the Democratic nomination process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously RR? Negative rep when your position doesn't hold water?

 

I'm hurt.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously RR? Negative rep when your position doesn't hold water?

 

I'm hurt.

 

Bill

No, I did the neg rep because I was frustrated that you seem to believe everything was 100% fair and balanced....and that no favoritism occurred. My position is the same as hundreds of thousands of Bernie supporters (not to mention many media outlets), so I know I'm not losing my shit.

 

Maybe I'm just lousy at expressing my opinion on this one, I don't know.

 

On the flip side, I gave you a + rep the other day that I didn't intend to. :D Call it even?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...