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.
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
You sure aren't sounding like one. You sound like a stereotypical mainline Democrat liberal.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
He is a she.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm still waiting for anyone to show one Primary or one Caucus that was "rigged" against Sanders.
This is repeated over and over and over. I know why the liars backing up the right-wing media narrative are doing it, but surely, moderates, liberals and Democrats here can show us which election was fraudulent. Right?
Or is that all just more of the ever popular "anti-Clinton" narrative? And before you waste time on stupid claims that I'm pro-Hillary Clinton again, she is and was a psychotic liar who likely has committed heinous criminal acts ... just not the silly fringe garbage that the RW media chamber echoes.
I think you are conflating two things. When people say the "primaries were rigged," They aren't referring literally to just the voting station, rolls, or caucuses. They are referring to the DNC affair, DNC email leaks, etc.
You are focusing in on a literal meaning to obscure what people are actually referring to.
Again, it isn't a fair race if the media and party are skewed towards Hillary.
Oh he knows this.
He knows that no one is claiming russia or trump changed any votes or ballots, and yet he has went post after post after post screaming about that.
But now that the DNC did this, if no ballots were changed, then the election was legit.
Hypocrisy at its finest!
Yeah, the mental gymnastics of many mainline Democrats in this case is a sight to behold. Well, basically the whole election cycle.
Wrong again.
I’m a man.
I’m an Independent.
Thanks for your opinion. You sound like you talk out of all sides of your mouth and ignore the facts when it’s convenient.
Which facts? So far we have the side of facts on our side re the DNC and Dem leadership colluding against Bernie. We also have wikileaks emails regarding media collusion. What do you have?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
You sure aren't sounding like one. You sound like a stereotypical mainline Democrat liberal.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
He is a she.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm still waiting for anyone to show one Primary or one Caucus that was "rigged" against Sanders.
This is repeated over and over and over. I know why the liars backing up the right-wing media narrative are doing it, but surely, moderates, liberals and Democrats here can show us which election was fraudulent. Right?
Or is that all just more of the ever popular "anti-Clinton" narrative? And before you waste time on stupid claims that I'm pro-Hillary Clinton again, she is and was a psychotic liar who likely has committed heinous criminal acts ... just not the silly fringe garbage that the RW media chamber echoes.
I think you are conflating two things. When people say the "primaries were rigged," They aren't referring literally to just the voting station, rolls, or caucuses. They are referring to the DNC affair, DNC email leaks, etc.
You are focusing in on a literal meaning to obscure what people are actually referring to.
Again, it isn't a fair race if the media and party are skewed towards Hillary.
Oh he knows this.
He knows that no one is claiming russia or trump changed any votes or ballots, and yet he has went post after post after post screaming about that.
But now that the DNC did this, if no ballots were changed, then the election was legit.
Hypocrisy at its finest!
Yeah, the mental gymnastics of many mainline Democrats in this case is a sight to behold. Well, basically the whole election cycle.
Wrong again.
I’m a man.
I’m an Independent.
Thanks for your opinion. You sound like you talk out of all sides of your mouth and ignore the facts when it’s convenient.
Which facts? So far we have the side of facts on our side re the DNC and Dem leadership colluding against Bernie. We also have wikileaks emails regarding media collusion. What do you have?
I have the fact that you cannot show one instance in which Sanders was not on the ballot or didn’t receive the votes of those who chose him.
Can you demonstrate that now?
Did the purge have an impact on Clinton or Sanders voters?
Apparently, yes. Equally. Maybe. Here's the deal: We know where Clinton and Sanders won. And we know how many Democrats were purged in each of those election districts. But we don't know who the purged voters would have voted for, and we can't be certain how many tried to vote.
All of that said, the Democrats were purged at similar rates in election districts where Clinton won (8.2 percent purged) and where Sanders won (8.4 percent). In raw numbers, 60,523 Democrats were purged in districts that went for Clinton, and 15,527 were purged where Sanders won.
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Your 'leadership' collusion and propping up a corrupt candidate handed Trump the election. Congratulations.
Also, please recite that study. Let's look at the source and break it down.
CAn you show me where the mainstream media was covering her war mongering and corruption, outside of Fox News or alt-right? Can you show me the 'extensive' coverage of the wikileaks emails? Can you show me the extensive coverage of the DNC lawsuit addressing these very issues? You can't. I had to tell most of my Dem friends about these things. Every time it was revelatory for them, even though they are even IN politics some of them.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
More info on the “Brooklyn purge” ...
Did the purge have an impact on Clinton or Sanders voters?
Apparently, yes. Equally. Maybe. Here's the deal: We know where Clinton and Sanders won. And we know how many Democrats were purged in each of those election districts. But we don't know who the purged voters would have voted for, and we can't be certain how many tried to vote.
All of that said, the Democrats were purged at similar rates in election districts where Clinton won (8.2 percent purged) and where Sanders won (8.4 percent). In raw numbers, 60,523 Democrats were purged in districts that went for Clinton, and 15,527 were purged where Sanders won.
WNYC
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Grambler
I know. But the whole truth needs to be addressed.
Brazile and Bernie are willing players pretending they were 'in the dark'.
That's really an important piece of the puzzle.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
You can either get a civil tone and stop with the “half a brain” crap or you can argue with yourself.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: thesaneone
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66
And before you waste time on stupid claims that I'm pro-Hillary Clinton again, she is and was a psychotic liar who likely has committed heinous criminal acts ...
Yea you keep repeating this whopper in just about every anti Hillary thread.
... and here you are with pointless off-topic snark from the sidelines again.
Please help me understand how does someone claim to not like Hillary, calls her a psychotic liar who has committed many heinous crimes but still try to cover for them?
What have you added other then liars, liars and liars?
Because in the real world not everyone is on one team or the other. If i choose to counter the stupid lies here that Sanders was “cheated” when there has been ZERO evidence of that presented, why does that bother you?
I have presented plenty of sources for any statements of fact I have made. What have you done?
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Gryphon66
More info on the “Brooklyn purge” ...
Did the purge have an impact on Clinton or Sanders voters?
Apparently, yes. Equally. Maybe. Here's the deal: We know where Clinton and Sanders won. And we know how many Democrats were purged in each of those election districts. But we don't know who the purged voters would have voted for, and we can't be certain how many tried to vote.
All of that said, the Democrats were purged at similar rates in election districts where Clinton won (8.2 percent purged) and where Sanders won (8.4 percent). In raw numbers, 60,523 Democrats were purged in districts that went for Clinton, and 15,527 were purged where Sanders won.
WNYC
The assertions at the time was that the purges seemed to target new democrats and new voters, who were more likely to be Sanders supporters than Clinton.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Your 'leadership' collusion and propping up a corrupt candidate handed Trump the election. Congratulations.
Also, please recite that study. Let's look at the source and break it down.
CAn you show me where the mainstream media was covering her war mongering and corruption, outside of Fox News or alt-right? Can you show me the 'extensive' coverage of the wikileaks emails? Can you show me the extensive coverage of the DNC lawsuit addressing these very issues? You can't. I had to tell most of my Dem friends about these things. Every time it was revelatory for them, even though they are even IN politics some of them.
LOL and those like you that didn’t vote or threw away your vote had nothing to do with the Trump win?
Yeah keep telling yourself that.
from NY post
Donna Brazile, former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Hillary Clinton gained control of the political party before she won the presidential nomination in an effort to squeeze out Bernie Sanders. She began investigating whether Clinton “rigged the nomination process” as emails hacked from the DNC and published by WikiLeaks last year had suggested, she said in an except of her new book coming out next week that appeared Thursday in Politico. Brazile said she eventually discovered that Clinton had entered into a secret agreement with the Hillary Victory Fund, Hillary for America and the cash-strapped DNC that in exchange for raising funds, Clinton “would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.”
not every one likes wikileaks but meh i posted it anyways
A cache of more than 19,000 emails from Democratic party officials, leaked in advance of Hillary Clinton’s nomination in Philadelphia, details the acrimonious split between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton’s former rival, Senator Bernie Sanders. Several emails posted by Wikileaks show DNC officials scoffing at Sanders and his supporters, and in one instance questioning his commitment to his Jewish religion. Some emails show DNC and White House officials mulling whether to invite guests with controversial backgrounds to Democratic party events. Democrats struggle for unity as protesters swarm Netroots convention Read more Earlier this year, Russian hackers stole material from the DNC’s email system, the party and an investigating cybersecurity firm acknowledged last month. Wikileaks did not reveal how it acquired the files, though a hacker who goes by “Guccifer 2.0” has also claimed to have breached the party’s system.
so theres this as well and it seems a lot of sources are all covering pretty much the same thing that something shady went down during the primaries and the process
Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call. I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie. So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations. Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks. By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
so if nothing occurred why would they change their policies to make sure something like that doesn't happen again?
Under normal circumstances it would be odd for DNC chair candidates to be discussing the intricacies of the presidential primary process when the contest is still at least 2½ years away. This DNC race comes months after not only a crushing election defeat but also a fractious Democratic primary replete with accusations of foul play hurled at the DNC and its then-chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). And while the seven contenders onstage were loath to admit it, that primary casts a giant shadow over the contest to lead the party. Every one of the changes Buckley and Ellison put forward at the debate is a direct response to a specific instance of real or perceived DNC interference. Clinton’s Democratic primary race rivals, including Sanders and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, accused the DNC of deliberately limiting the number of debates and scheduling several for the weekends to aid Clinton, as well as allowing illegally high campaign donations to Clinton through their joint fundraising apparatus. Leaked emails from DNC staffers indeed became headlines, as Ellison hinted, because they revealed party staffers’ suggestions of potential attacks on Sanders and mockery of his candidacy
i wonder if this is going to effect donna's future with the democrats or if she is entirely done with politics after this book deal ,later in the article it covers what her book does and does not say just didnt feel like quoting more with how many snippits ive posted thus far
“The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robby Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign counsel] Marc Elias— specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote in the story under the headline “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC.” Brazile added of the deal: “[Clinton’s] campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.” During the 2016 election, Sanders allies alleged that the DNC did not act as a neutral arbiter of the Democratic primary, favoring Clinton in its selection of debate times and fundraising. Their suspicions were only heightened when leaked emails published by WikiLeaks, and now reported to have been hacked by the Russians, appeared to show DNC staffers deriding Sanders and plotting ways to help Clinton. The accusations grew so heated that Wasserman Schultz resigned, which is when Brazile took over.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
You can either get a civil tone and stop with the “half a brain” crap or you can argue with yourself.