It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile

page: 2
80
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
This is a cute way to try to rationalize the suspension of democracy in the DNC primary last year.

Trump isn't a Republican but the RNC let the voters choose. Too bad the DNC didn't care what their voters wanted.

I agree with this (except it being a cute way...it's a cowardly way to rationalize this), but the reality is that the end result would have been the same. I don't think that Sanders would have won the primary by any stretch, but I'm kind of basing that on my eyes in viewing it at the time. With 20/20 hindsight and the opinion that Clinton really should have won with a landslide, maybe I'm underestimated the amount of those who would have voted for Bernie.

Regardless, the reality is that he should have been given a fair chance, and this is just another piece of the evidentiary puzzle that proves that these committees and primaries and debates are run by corrupt people and organizations.




posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Annee
Bernie had no business running as a Democrat. He's not a Democrat. He's never been a Democrat.

Why should Bernie get special treatment.



Yet the DNC allowed him to run as one.


didn't the republicans allow a failed reality tv star to run?



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Primary/Caucus results

Clinton; 2219 delegates
Sanders; 1865 delegates

Superdelegates

Clinton; 623
Sanders; 33

Clinton won with 54% based on the votes of Democrats in the Primaries/Caucuses; the Superdelegates are the way the Party leadership decided to vote.

Source

There is zero evidence that there were significant irregularities at the Primary or Caucus level.

That said, the DNC of 2016 has much to answer for, and should be held to account.

edit on 2-11-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


So the same way Hillary was cheated!


So... not at all?



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Xcathdra

I have a hard time believing DB about her own role but her piece on Politico reveals pretty concrete evidence that the DNC, under DWS's incompetent leadership, was financially tanking and essentially sold itself to the Clinton Campaign to keep the lights on.

The significant take away here for the TLDR crowd is that while it's normal for that level of integration between the de facto party leader's campaign (the incumbent President/party candidate in the GE) and the DNC (or for that matter RNC on the other side of the aisle), Hillary Clinton's campaign effectively had the DNC over a barrel only four months into the race, a year or more before she clinched the nomination.

Not illegal but certainly unethical.


In other words Clinton bought the DNC and in exchange the DNC "colluded" with Clinton to ensure she was the nominee.

The interesting part about that is Tim Kaine, her VP candidate. He was in charge of the DNC when Obama ran and where he got the nomination. The theory is in exchange for endorsing Obama they would ensure Clinton got the nomination when "her time came". In exchange Tm Kaine got the VP slot on the ticket since he had to step down when Obama appointed DWS as DNC chair.


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Xcathdra
Not illegal


I would wait until the chickens are hatched before counting them.

Using the state DNC orgs to launder contributions for a campaign puts some people on very thin ice.
edit on 2-11-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408


"When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity."


Inside Hillary's Secret Takeover of the DNC
edit on 2-11-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
I watched the democrat primaries with a lot of interest...
Cheering for Bernie...
He got a lot of votes...

But Hillary got more...

So how was he “cheated” exactly?


Because (referencing your avatar) elections are supposed to give candidates an equal opportunity to win. Candidates are supposed to be given the same box to stand on. Instead, Hillary was standing on all the boxes.
edit on 11/2/2017 by scojak because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think that sound we just heard was the bus barn emptying out in anticipation of the need for having enough available for the throwing under of no longer politically expedient persons.

Wasn't someone recently saying something about the GOP imploding?


Yup - the same Clinton staffers, including Clinton, and the media who said she would win.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Bernie had no business running as a Democrat. He's not a Democrat. He's never been a Democrat.

Why should Bernie get special treatment.



Trump is not a Republican...



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's election fraud, or a show election, duping the public into thinking it has a choice in the matter. This is pure corruption, something found only in dictatorial regimes.


It's not election fraud under the law. Arguably it was duping the public (Democrats) into thinking the DNC was impartial though. It is corruption but the "dictatorial regime" bit is pure hyperbole.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Primaries and caucuses are PARTY elections that are regulated/administered by State Elections Commissions.

It's not the way it should be, but it's the way it is and has been for well over a century.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: scojak

Because (referencing your avatar) elections are supposed to be about equality. Candidates are supposed to be given the same box to stand on. Instead Hillary was standing on all the boxes.


I feel a little sad for the left. They had zero choices of who they wanted to represent them. They were given/forced Hillary that outside of a small minority was as popular as a canker sore.


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: cinerama

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Annee
Bernie had no business running as a Democrat. He's not a Democrat. He's never been a Democrat.

Why should Bernie get special treatment.



Yet the DNC allowed him to run as one.


didn't the republicans allow a failed reality tv star to run?


Yup and he still beat Clinton. Thats gotta sting in Democratic circles.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Bernie had no business running as a Democrat. He's not a Democrat. He's never been a Democrat.

Why should Bernie get special treatment.


LOL nice attempt to over look the real story. The only one that got special treatment was Hillary.

Despite being successful in cheating Bernie out of the win for the Democrat party, Hillary and the DNC sucked so bad that they still lost in the end where it matters .

Like i have said before the DNC and Hillary are more responsible for trump winning , than trump himself or the mythological Russians.
edit on 181130America/ChicagoThu, 02 Nov 2017 12:18:41 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: cinerama

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Annee
Bernie had no business running as a Democrat. He's not a Democrat. He's never been a Democrat.

Why should Bernie get special treatment.



Yet the DNC allowed him to run as one.


didn't the republicans allow a failed reality tv star to run?


Failed? That is by far the most epic fail I've ever witnessed!?



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There is zero evidence that there were significant irregularities at the Primary or Caucus level.

Please tell us that you are joking...



originally posted by: Gryphon66
That said, the DNC of 2016 has much to answer for, and should be held to account.

They will be - in 2020.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

That is untrue.

Clinton won the vote in the Primaries and Caucuses by 54%.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You mean next year.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: MotherMayEye


So the same way Hillary was cheated!


So... not at all?


Correct.



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join