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: 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.
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.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Xcathdra
Not illegal
"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."
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
There is zero evidence that there were significant irregularities at the Primary or Caucus level.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
That said, the DNC of 2016 has much to answer for, and should be held to account.
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: MotherMayEye
So the same way Hillary was cheated!
So... not at all?