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

a reply to: Xcathdra

yeah, thanks, we know, i guess water is wet too

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The DNC also cost themselves the Presidency, because Sanders would have defeated Trump.

I highly doubt that.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DJMSN

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.

That maybe...however...I feel as the DNC robbed themselves of the White House. I am an independent with a strong conservative bend and liked Bernie and was prepared to vote for him instead of Mr Trump as were many of my friends.

Research Bernie. I mean, seriously, research Bernie.

Both Trump supporters and Bernie supporters voted for an Idea/Ideology - - - with a candidate that is not qualified.

Was Hillary qualified, or just simply entitled?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are doing great in this thread!!! (I figure I better spell out that this is sarcasm for you)

Funny that you are asking for proof that the primary or caucuses were rigged.

Yet with Trump, we know that there is no proof that there was any vote rigging.

With him, you are concerned with info getting out possibly coming from him working with Russians.

But here, collusion and favoring one candidate is no big deal if no votes were altered.

Truly, you are a master of hypocrisy!

Lets not forget, the media was compcit in this cover up. They scolded any bernie supporter that thought he was getting the shaft.

And now we find out that once again, they were wrong.

And if the DNC was willing to do all of these unethical things against Bernie, I wonder what they did to trump.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DJMSN

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.

That maybe...however...I feel as the DNC robbed themselves of the White House. I am an independent with a strong conservative bend and liked Bernie and was prepared to vote for him instead of Mr Trump as were many of my friends.

Research Bernie. I mean, seriously, research Bernie.

Both Trump supporters and Bernie supporters voted for an Idea/Ideology - - - with a candidate that is not qualified.

How was he not qualified? He has a lifetime of working in the Senate.

Also, I'm going to preempt your "She was the most qualified candidate ever.." She did have qualifications, but she's also a neo-liberal Wall Street shill and a war monger. I don't want someone "qualified" who represents all of the wrong NON-progressive values.

And I will continue to state Hillary was and still is the most qualified person at this time for the office of POTUS.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The DNC also cost themselves the Presidency, because Sanders would have defeated Trump.

I highly doubt that.

So?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DJMSN

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.

That maybe...however...I feel as the DNC robbed themselves of the White House. I am an independent with a strong conservative bend and liked Bernie and was prepared to vote for him instead of Mr Trump as were many of my friends.

Research Bernie. I mean, seriously, research Bernie.

Both Trump supporters and Bernie supporters voted for an Idea/Ideology - - - with a candidate that is not qualified.

How was he not qualified? He has a lifetime of working in the Senate.

Also, I'm going to preempt your "She was the most qualified candidate ever.." She did have qualifications, but she's also a neo-liberal Wall Street shill and a war monger. I don't want someone "qualified" who represents all of the wrong NON-progressive values.

And I will continue to state Hillary was and still is the most qualified person at this time for the office of POTUS.

Again, she is corrupt, a wall street shill (means for the rich not you), and a war monger. Do you want an "effective" "qualified" person if they will use their skills and political connections for evil? You guys forget that fact when talking about her qualifications.

This is not an endorsement of Trump. I despise him.

For a good laugh, go back and look at threads from the primaries last year where some people were laughing at the suggestion of the dnc being rigged against Bernie.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DJMSN

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.

That maybe...however...I feel as the DNC robbed themselves of the White House. I am an independent with a strong conservative bend and liked Bernie and was prepared to vote for him instead of Mr Trump as were many of my friends.

Research Bernie. I mean, seriously, research Bernie.

Both Trump supporters and Bernie supporters voted for an Idea/Ideology - - - with a candidate that is not qualified.

How was he not qualified? He has a lifetime of working in the Senate.

Also, I'm going to preempt your "She was the most qualified candidate ever.." She did have qualifications, but she's also a neo-liberal Wall Street shill and a war monger. I don't want someone "qualified" who represents all of the wrong NON-progressive values.

And I will continue to state Hillary was and still is the most qualified person at this time for the office of POTUS.

Just like I'm sure Ted Bundy was really quite well qualified to help man a suicide hotline. I hear he did very well at that job. Why throw rocks at the guy, ya know?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Agree...leadership requires character. No one who ran had enough character to lead...especially Hillary and Trump.

originally posted by: Grambler
For a good laugh, go back and look at threads from the primaries last year where some people were laughing at the suggestion of the dnc being rigged against Bernie.

Right. I am glad that we are being vindicated now. That was treated as crazy talk back then.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And again ... zero evidence of anything wrong with the ballots, votes, etc.

Sanders was on the ballot in every State, Democrats voted for their choice; Sanders wasn't it. We can argue all day long about inconsistencies in voter registrations ... back door hacking etc. But there's ZERO evidence anything in that regard cheated Sanders.

You seem surprised that the DNC was duplicitous ... I expect it - they're politicians.

Yeah, I keep hearing about this "media bias" toward Hillary Clinton. What I remember is that every negative feeder story from the right-wing was repeated by every major outlet with glee. The Huffington Post, for example, was certainly in the tank for Sanders ... every time Comes burped about "the email scandal" it was front page news. What I remember is that there were a few individuals that emails suggested coordinated with the Clinton Campaign ... believe it or not, Campaigns have press agents for just that purpose.

Yep, you guys remember a completely different election season than I do.

Perhaps it's the Mandela Effect. That makes as much sense as anything else offered up here.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Agree...leadership requires character. No one who ran had enough character to lead...especially Hillary and Trump.

Right, and especially when both candidates had a history of corrupt behavior. At that point, it doesn't matter what their resume reads. In fact, more qualifications or skills might be even more dangerous if used for bad.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Show me evidence of Trump stealing ballots or votes.

If not you admit there is no big deal to anything he did.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And again ... zero evidence of anything wrong with the ballots, votes, etc.

Sanders was on the ballot in every State, Democrats voted for their choice; Sanders wasn't it. We can argue all day long about inconsistencies in voter registrations ... back door hacking etc. But there's ZERO evidence anything in that regard cheated Sanders.

You seem surprised that the DNC was duplicitous ... I expect it - they're politicians.

Yeah, I keep hearing about this "media bias" toward Hillary Clinton. What I remember is that every negative feeder story from the right-wing was repeated by every major outlet with glee. The Huffington Post, for example, was certainly in the tank for Sanders ... every time Comes burped about "the email scandal" it was front page news.

Perhaps it's the Mandela Effect.

You should still hold the DNC accountable for corrupt behavior and violating their own charter.

Also, I disagree wholeheartedly about the media. From what I read and watched, the majority of liberal outlets from CNN to even the Guardian had thinly veiled hack jobs on Sanders, and support for Clinton.

Also, this: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

dailycaller.com...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Who says I don't "hold the DNC responsible"? I stated above several times that those who violated ethics or laws should pay the price.

If they're guilty of ethical violations, they should be removed from the Party and prevented from ever running on a Democratic ticket again.

If they're guilty of legal violations, they should be charged, prosecuted and if found guilty, punished.

What else do I need to say? Unlike some here, I don't believe in ANY politician, every single one of them from local dog-catcher to President of the United States is a psychopathic lying power-freak in my book.

I used to think I was helping to preserve the validity of the ATS forums by fighting against lies and fallacies here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yet you spent all week telling anyone who wanted to look into anything shady from both sides as traitors.

originally posted by: Djarums

So here we have Sen. Warren saying that from now on we're going to let the people decide.

Honestly, it sounds as though you're quoting out of context, for what reason who knows. But what she really said, in your own video was "from now on, we're gonna let the people
speak. that's our job"....it's a reiteration of what it is they are responsible for when they're in the capacity of a governing body. The DNC is not a governing body, with that in mind what difference does it make what they do and do not admit to even were you not quoting out of context?

Why has this become such a debate?

Exactly my question, why has it?

Prominent members of the DNC are admitting that in 2016 (and maybe other elections, too) that people did not choose the nominee but that there was in fact another process at work in which the nominee was chosen - by the DNC, not the people.

It's real easy for someone to say "it was rigged" - it makes a great soundbyte for the sensationalists...without an indepth examination though, that's all it is.

Now, as far as the legality goes, I'll let others comment on that, but why even bother? The whole thing was a charade since only Clinton was being supported by the DNC to begin with which meant that all the attacks between Clinton and Sanders (which hurt both of them) was a COMPLETE waste of time.

Agreed. Hillary was the only basket they placed each and every one of their eggs into (stupidly, as she was a horrible candidate at best), the only thing they had going for them was even with her horrible shortcomings she was and still is a better choice than Donald Trump as he is proving to the world on a daily basis unfortunately.

People will look back on this time in history and say (as they did with Nixon but clearly not strongly enough) 'Never Again'.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

One of many sources that disagree with you on media coverage of Clinton during the campaign ...

The study, from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, examined print editions of the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and USA Today, the main newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as CNN’s The Situation Room and Fox’s Special Report.

The report should be required reading for political journalists trying to understand Trump’s victory. The study found that 62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of Trump was negative in tone. These numbers actually overstate the amount of positive press the candidates received. Most of the “positive” stories here were about new poll numbers. Each one of these horse race stories was “good press” for one candidate and “bad press” for the other.

Forbes