DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”

Critics have begun to ask why this undemocratic system exists. CNN’s Jake Tapper posed precisely this question to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Hillary Clinton who co-chaired her former presidential; campaign, in a Feb. 11 interview. She responded with shockingly blunt honesty.

“What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?” Tapper asked the DNC chair.

“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists,” Wasserman Schultz calmly explained.
Un -Democratic Party: DNC chair says superdelegates ensure elites don’t have to run “against grassroots activists”

Put that together with the following:

Republican National Committee member on nomination process: “This is the greatest hoax ever.”

There it is, all out in the open. I believe in the famous quote, "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." Well, now 'the devil' is just coming out and admitting, "Yeah, I exist and I control it all and there's nothing you can do about it."

Serious question: Why aren't the stories above even being reported on the websites of Alex Jones or Jeff Rense? What other proof do you need that they are controlled opposition who somehow frequently miss the most important conspiratorial-type stories.

Does Bernie Sanders have enough royal blood to be POTUS?

The Democrats and the Republicans are explaining now, out in the open, how what's described in the thread above is possible.

It's conspiracy fact, not conspiracy theory. And, it's admitted from the top.

To believe that the US federal government has a truly democratically elected leadership is nothing but delusion. I believe you're insane if you believe it anymore.

An some wonder why many have lost faith in a system that is absolutely corrupt. A couple of election cycles ago (Ron Paul was doing well in the polls) one of the news people had an election official who said Even Ronald Regan could not have been elected with the rule changes they have put into effect.. One day the people will recognize the whole process for the sham it has turned into, an demand it get sorted out.... Well we can dream can't we ?

a reply to: 727Sky

Isn't this quote we're discussing by none other than the DNC chair an admission that Hillary Clinton is an absolute lock to win the Democratic Party's nomination? I mean, if you read between the lines?

Here are the current betting odds:

www.oddschecker.com...

You can bet on Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party's nomination at -400 odds which means a $1,000 bet will win you $250. It's not a great payout but if we're talking about a lock, why pass it up?

I just checked and it's not legal to bet on this in Las Vegas. I believe online betting is legal in most of the world, the riverboat gambler in me says bet the farm on this.

a reply to: Profusion

The political boys and girls, who supposedly know, have been saying all along she had enough delegates to win the nomination.. The possible good news is Bernie has allot of young voters who just might cause such a stink that it will make them rethink the way the sham is conducted..

youtu.be...

a reply to: Profusion
Good for them... I do wonder if anything will change though ?

www.politico.com...

Bernie Sanders lost by a hair in Iowa and won by a landslide in New Hampshire. Yet Hillary Clinton has amassed an enormous 350-delegate advantage over the Vermont senator after just two states.

Outraged by that disconnect – which is fueled by Clinton’s huge advantage with Democratic superdelegates, who are not bound by voting results – Sanders supporters are fighting back.

Read more: www.politico.com...

thehill.com...

Hillary Clinton has already locked up half the Democratic superdelegates in Nevada and South Carolina before the first votes are cast in either state.

The former secretary of State has won public support from half of South Carolina’s six superdelegates and three of Nevada’s eight superdelegates. Bernie Sanders has secured only one, a Democratic national committeewoman from Nevada.

The role of superdelegates in the Democratic primary process is coming under new scrutiny after the early voting contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

The superdelegates are made up of Democratic lawmakers and party leaders who can cast a vote for the party’s nominee during the Democratic National Convention. They have the freedom to back whoever they want, and are not bound by the results in their states.

i know 0 Hillary supporters. It is bern nation around me almost exclusively. I vote for whoever isn't Clinton because I am not falling for the false race. When she gets the nomination dems what will you do? Do you vote for a corrupt system enabling and validating it?


Same with republican I suppose? I'm writing in if both sides pull that crap.

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
i know 0 Hillary supporters. It is bern nation around me almost exclusively. I vote for whoever isn't Clinton because I am not falling for the false race. When she gets the nomination dems what will you do? Do you vote for a corrupt system enabling and validating it?

Same with republican I suppose? I'm writing in if both sides pull that crap.

Yes, it's same on both sides. The states who have a caucus are part of the problem as well.

a reply to: Profusion

To believe that the US federal government has a truly democratically elected leadership is nothing but delusion. I believe you're insane if you believe it anymore.

Delusional, yes. However, The insane ones are the ones who see it for the tyranny it is, and refuse to do anything about it. The ones who hear the devil proclaiming "Yeah, I exist and I control it all and there's nothing you can do about it." and Believe it are the insane ones. The ones who sit idly by in the face of injustice, and content themselves to do nothing but #@%$ing TALK about it.

Talking is all well and fine, talk is necessary for a group of people to move to action. However, talk is horrendous, talk is worthless when no action comes after. Day after Day I see threads here on ATS revealing this or that scandal. 'Election system is a hoax' 'police brutality' 'they knew fluoride was bad' 'the military waged terrorist warfare, on numerous occasions under orders, on American citizens on American soil' need I go on? Day after #@%$ing Day these discussions go on, but nothing ever comes of them, that I can see.

I am aware this makes me a hypocrite, and well I loathe myself for it, but I cannot but label ATS the worst loony bin of them all. No, not the loony bin that we joke around at being, poking fun at the mainstreams conceptions of tinfoil hat wearing, loony nutjobs. Real people living under the mass delusion that somehow if they talk about this problem long enough, if they raise enough awareness, if they uncover enough facts- then somehow things will be allright. Will they? 15 Years and mountains of evidence later after 9/11 and still, nothing. 50 some odd years after the Project MK/Ultra hit the public notice. The evidence is damning, and sickening.

I ask, here to all ATS'ers for the third separate time. Are there any who are or are willing to do anything but Talk and talk and talk meaninglessly? Any who are ready to stand up for what they believe in? I hear so many people on and off ATS complain that the world is sick, evil and twisted... Thing is, we were born here in this time, so we're just as much responsible for the current state of the world as any evil malevolent TPTB might be.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denouncing talking. Just denouncing talking for merely talkings sake.


Anybody?

a reply to: 727Sky

Well we can dream can't we ?

Yes, but why should we ever be content with dreaming, and dreaming alone? Dreaming in and of itself will do nothing...

Something I've come to notice about people. when confronted by something like the government, each man typically loathes the governments actions in some form or other, yet stands by. Why? I believe the reasoning is thus: One, he is afraid. The government has helped him convince himself that the people serve it, not the other way around. Two, he believes that the government is powerful, and that he is not. The government, in the end, has but an illusion of power, an illusion that solidified into actual power when it convinced it citizens of the same. 'can they do that?! they just did!"

The common guy here has one point correct-by himself, he can do nothing. However, what the common man does not in this day and age realize is, that he is not alone. Hundreds of thousands across the country are seeing the evils of our world, and yet they shrug it off, saying' the world is the world, its not going to change for me' but this mindset is the very thing that is anathema to change! Do you suppose our ForeFathers, those revolutionaries thought themselves weak and powerless before the british king?

Might have helped a bit that there was an ocean between them and most of Britain, but I don't think they were. Not a one of them ever said, to himself or another, 'we cant do this, we cant win. The kings just too powerful. Maybe if we just lie down, he wont step on us too hard' bWell, if they did, thankfully somebody else was there to slap the $#!% outta them for that thought and put some reasoning into their heads...

I do wonder if anything will change though ?

ONLY IF WE MAKE THAT CHANGE. We simply CANNOT afford, in this day and age, to simply just dream, and wait for somebody else to step up. I'm here, I'm making MY effort. will anybody else?

I cant help but think, though that all of this this will as so many times before fall upon deaf ears...

Remember, people. Humanities greatest strength lies in numbers. It took three men to build an airplane, and countless more men for those three to build off of. It took a 50+ men to make a change, to form a new country built with the specific intent of being anti tyrannical in every way they could think of...
the evidence here, too, is too numerous to list.