If the DNC election was "rigged" - how was it "rigged"?

[Seawytch]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"? Why wouldn't the Democratic National Committee promote the Democratic candidate over the independent candidate who would not register as a Democrat?

In many states you couldn't VOTE for either candidate unless you were registered as a Democrat, but Sanders didn't actually have to run as one? How does that make sense?

The DNC themselves say they are suppose to be neutral...

"On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not -- and will not -- tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates. Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again."

Democrats.org

Please give it a rest already. They rigged it for her and now she's the nominee. Doesn't make it right or fair but the world isn't fair.

Okay, that's a post apology. That doesn't change my question. Where is it written that the Democratic National Committee must be neutral? Also, doesn't change the FACT that Sanders is not a registered Democrat, unlike many of the people going out to vote in primaries HAD TO BE where he was a Democratic candidate despite that fact.

I just quoted that their values include remaining neutral. That's neutrality within the party. Which part is not making sense? And call Bernie what you want, he was running on the democratic ticket and invited to democrat debates. He deserved the respect of neutrality from the DNC which he did not receive.

Why? Why should a candidate who is NOT A DEMOCRAT "deserve" the support of the Democratic National Committee?

 

[RDD_1210]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Yeah, whoever heard of "favoritism" in politics... I'm shocked...

Neutral within the party. Don't be idiots.

Okay, but Sanders isn't "within the party" is he?

Then why was he on democrat ballots and democrat debates? Because he wasn't a part of the party?

Are you being difficult on purpose?

 

[RDD_1210]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"? Why wouldn't the Democratic National Committee promote the Democratic candidate over the independent candidate who would not register as a Democrat?

In many states you couldn't VOTE for either candidate unless you were registered as a Democrat, but Sanders didn't actually have to run as one? How does that make sense?

The DNC themselves say they are suppose to be neutral...

"On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not -- and will not -- tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates. Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again."

Democrats.org

Please give it a rest already. They rigged it for her and now she's the nominee. Doesn't make it right or fair but the world isn't fair.

Okay, that's a post apology. That doesn't change my question. Where is it written that the Democratic National Committee must be neutral? Also, doesn't change the FACT that Sanders is not a registered Democrat, unlike many of the people going out to vote in primaries HAD TO BE where he was a Democratic candidate despite that fact.

I just quoted that their values include remaining neutral. That's neutrality within the party. Which part is not making sense? And call Bernie what you want, he was running on the democratic ticket and invited to democrat debates. He deserved the respect of neutrality from the DNC which he did not receive.

Why? Why should a candidate who is NOT A DEMOCRAT "deserve" the support of the Democratic National Committee?

Blame the DNC then for letting him be on their ballots and at their debates.

 

[Seawytch]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Is this serious?

Yes, I'm seriously asking where it's written that the Democratic National Committee has to be "neutral". They don't allow Republicans to run for the Democratic nomination do they? Makes them anything but "neutral" doesn't it? If Sanders wanted the full throated support of the DNC, maybe he should have registered as a Democrat, yeah?

It's neutrality within the democratic party. They value being neutral towards all democrats, which they were not in this case.

Sanders isn't a Democrat. The DNC is not beholden to a man who shuns the very idea of them.

 

[RDD_1210]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Is this serious?

Yes, I'm seriously asking where it's written that the Democratic National Committee has to be "neutral". They don't allow Republicans to run for the Democratic nomination do they? Makes them anything but "neutral" doesn't it? If Sanders wanted the full throated support of the DNC, maybe he should have registered as a Democrat, yeah?

It's neutrality within the democratic party. They value being neutral towards all democrats, which they were not in this case.

Sanders isn't a Democrat. The DNC is not beholden to a man who shuns the very idea of them.

First you wanted proof that the DNC had to be neutral, I provided that.

So when that argument of yours was shot to shit, you now say well Sanders isnt a democrat, so when I show that he is embraced as a democrat both locally and nationally, what will you say then?

Elected Officials - Vermont Democrats lists Bernie Sanders. (Because he's not a democrat, right?)

 

[Lakhota]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Well, please explain exactly what was supposedly done to "knock down one of the candidates in favor of another". How was Bernie cheated? What was taken away from him?

"On May 5, DNC officials appeared to conspire to raise Sanders's faith as an issue and press on whether he was an atheist -- apparently in hopes of steering religious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia to Clinton. Sanders is Jewish but has previously indicated that he's not religious."

Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails

Again, the DNC led by Schultz decided to play favorites which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Make sense?

Funny. "Conspiring" doesn't mean shit unless it's acted on. Did anyone within the DNC actually use Bernie's Jewish religion against him during the election process? BTW, dumbass, everyone does opposition research on everyone in politics - even within their own parties. It's called politics...

 

[kwc57]

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

Seriously, you NaziCons aren't "REALLY" that dumb, are you?

You asked for proof and I provided it, and now you ignore it. Why is that? Just admit when you're wrong and move on.

You're just as bad as the turnip cons on this site at this point.

What so-called "proof" did you provide? I must have missed it...

That's easy to do when you continuously have your head firmly planted up your ass. Your view rarely changes. Step out for some fresh air and truth. The "party of choice" hand picked your candidate for you. Republicans had a diverse field of 17 candidates and the people rejected the party's picks. That's democracy in action whether you like the candidate or not. On the Democratic side, you got 3 old white candidates and the party pushed one from the beginning. With the super delegate system the Democratic party employees, they control who your candidate will be. Feel free to fact check things instead of relying on what the party elites and media tell you to believe.

 

[RDD_1210]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Well, please explain exactly what was supposedly done to "knock down one of the candidates in favor of another". How was Bernie cheated? What was taken away from him?

"On May 5, DNC officials appeared to conspire to raise Sanders's faith as an issue and press on whether he was an atheist -- apparently in hopes of steering religious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia to Clinton. Sanders is Jewish but has previously indicated that he's not religious."

Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails

Again, the DNC led by Schultz decided to play favorites which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Make sense?

Funny. "Conspiring" doesn't mean shit unless it's acted on. Did anyone within the DNC actually use Bernie's Jewish religion against him during the election process? BTW, dumbass, everyone does opposition research on everyone in politics - even within their own parties. It's called politics...

The DNC is not the opposition. They are the neutral body overseeing the process of selecting a democratic candidate. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

 

[Seawytch]

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Is this serious?

Yes, I'm seriously asking where it's written that the Democratic National Committee has to be "neutral". They don't allow Republicans to run for the Democratic nomination do they? Makes them anything but "neutral" doesn't it? If Sanders wanted the full throated support of the DNC, maybe he should have registered as a Democrat, yeah?

It's neutrality within the democratic party. They value being neutral towards all democrats, which they were not in this case.

Sanders isn't a Democrat. The DNC is not beholden to a man who shuns the very idea of them.

First you wanted proof that the DNC had to be neutral, I provided that.

So when that argument of yours was shot to shit, you now say well Sanders isnt a democrat, so when I show that he is embraced as a democrat both locally and nationally, what will you say then?

Elected Officials - Vermont Democrats lists Bernie Sanders. (Because he's not a democrat, right?)

No, you provided an after the fact apology. There is nothing "written" that says the DNC must support every candidate with neutrality. Yes, they should equally support Democratic Candidates that are registered Democrats, Sanders wasn't that. Sanders wold not declare himself a Democrat, why is the party obligated to support him?

 

[Lakhota]

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

Seriously, you NaziCons aren't "REALLY" that dumb, are you?

You asked for proof and I provided it, and now you ignore it. Why is that? Just admit when you're wrong and move on.

You're just as bad as the turnip cons on this site at this point.

What so-called "proof" did you provide? I must have missed it...

That's easy to do when you continuously have your head firmly planted up your ass. Your view rarely changes. Step out for some fresh air and truth. The "party of choice" hand picked your candidate for you. Republicans had a diverse field of 17 candidates and the people rejected the party's picks. That's democracy in action whether you like the candidate or not. On the Democratic side, you got 3 old white candidates and the party pushed one from the beginning. With the super delegate system the Democratic party employees, they control who your candidate will be. Feel free to fact check things instead of relying on what the party elites and media tell you to believe.

So what? The DNC oversaw a FAIR election. The candidate with the most votes won. No one was cheated. No laws and/or rules were broken. What's your problem?

 

[Seawytch]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Well, please explain exactly what was supposedly done to "knock down one of the candidates in favor of another". How was Bernie cheated? What was taken away from him?

"On May 5, DNC officials appeared to conspire to raise Sanders's faith as an issue and press on whether he was an atheist -- apparently in hopes of steering religious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia to Clinton. Sanders is Jewish but has previously indicated that he's not religious."

Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails

Again, the DNC led by Schultz decided to play favorites which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Make sense?

Funny. "Conspiring" doesn't mean shit unless it's acted on. Did anyone within the DNC actually use Bernie's Jewish religion against him during the election process? BTW, dumbass, everyone does opposition research on everyone in politics - even within their own parties. It's called politics...

The DNC is not the opposition. They are the neutral body overseeing the process of selecting a democratic candidate. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Right, the Democratic candidate. Sanders was not a Democratic candidate. He didn't' want to be. You can't say "I want no part of your party" and then say "you didn't support me".

 

[Lakhota]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Well, please explain exactly what was supposedly done to "knock down one of the candidates in favor of another". How was Bernie cheated? What was taken away from him?

"On May 5, DNC officials appeared to conspire to raise Sanders's faith as an issue and press on whether he was an atheist -- apparently in hopes of steering religious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia to Clinton. Sanders is Jewish but has previously indicated that he's not religious."

Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails

Again, the DNC led by Schultz decided to play favorites which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Make sense?

Funny. "Conspiring" doesn't mean shit unless it's acted on. Did anyone within the DNC actually use Bernie's Jewish religion against him during the election process? BTW, dumbass, everyone does opposition research on everyone in politics - even within their own parties. It's called politics...

The DNC is not the opposition. They are the neutral body overseeing the process of selecting a democratic candidate. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

How did the DNC hurt Bernie during the election process?

 

[kwc57]

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

Seriously, you NaziCons aren't "REALLY" that dumb, are you?

You asked for proof and I provided it, and now you ignore it. Why is that? Just admit when you're wrong and move on.

You're just as bad as the turnip cons on this site at this point.

What so-called "proof" did you provide? I must have missed it...

That's easy to do when you continuously have your head firmly planted up your ass. Your view rarely changes. Step out for some fresh air and truth. The "party of choice" hand picked your candidate for you. Republicans had a diverse field of 17 candidates and the people rejected the party's picks. That's democracy in action whether you like the candidate or not. On the Democratic side, you got 3 old white candidates and the party pushed one from the beginning. With the super delegate system the Democratic party employees, they control who your candidate will be. Feel free to fact check things instead of relying on what the party elites and media tell you to believe.

So what? The DNC oversaw a FAIR election. The candidate with the most votes won. No one was cheated. No laws and/or rules were broken. What's your problem?

My "problem" is arguing with a moron. Good day.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Please explain exactly how it was supposedly "rigged" - with "credible" sources that can be verified as fact. Just because the DNC may have "favored" Hillary over Bernie doesn't mean it was "rigged". The DNC "favored" Obama over Hillary in 2008. Bernie wasn't "cheated" out of anything. The DNC election process never changed from beginning to end. Even Bernie said publicly that Hillary won fair and square - which she did. So, stop with the "rigged" shit or explain to us with "credible" sources that can be verified as fact exactly how it was supposedly "rigged".

Read the emails. you fucking retard.

What laws and/or rules were broken? How was Bernie cheated?

Read the emails, retard.

This is what happens when someone believes something and they dont know why. Propaganda is too strong

 

[Lakhota]

Where are the RNC emails? I would love to see what internal discussions took place about Trump. Does anyone doubt that they were discussing ways to trash/undermine Trump for the good of the party? I don't...

 

[Lakhota]

Obama was favored by the DNC against Hillary in 2008. However, no laws and/or rules were broken. It's called politics...

 

[hunarcy]

Please explain exactly how it was supposedly "rigged" - with "credible" sources that can be verified as fact. Just because the DNC may have "favored" Hillary over Bernie doesn't mean it was "rigged". The DNC "favored" Obama over Hillary in 2008. Bernie wasn't "cheated" out of anything. The DNC election process never changed from beginning to end. Even Bernie said publicly that Hillary won fair and square - which she did. So, stop with the "rigged" shit or explain to us with "credible" sources that can be verified as fact exactly how it was supposedly "rigged".

So, you are claiming that having the DNC "superdelegats" in the bag for Hillary from the VERY beginning, that having the Democrats who were flipping coins call the caucuses in Iowa for Hillary EACH time there was a tie wasn't rigging the election, you're as big a liar as Hillary.

 

[RDD_1210]

Is this serious?

Yes, I'm seriously asking where it's written that the Democratic National Committee has to be "neutral". They don't allow Republicans to run for the Democratic nomination do they? Makes them anything but "neutral" doesn't it? If Sanders wanted the full throated support of the DNC, maybe he should have registered as a Democrat, yeah?

It's neutrality within the democratic party. They value being neutral towards all democrats, which they were not in this case.

Sanders isn't a Democrat. The DNC is not beholden to a man who shuns the very idea of them.

First you wanted proof that the DNC had to be neutral, I provided that.

So when that argument of yours was shot to shit, you now say well Sanders isnt a democrat, so when I show that he is embraced as a democrat both locally and nationally, what will you say then?

Elected Officials - Vermont Democrats lists Bernie Sanders. (Because he's not a democrat, right?)

No, you provided an after the fact apology. There is nothing "written" that says the DNC must support every candidate with neutrality. Yes, they should equally support Democratic Candidates that are registered Democrats, Sanders wasn't that. Sanders wold not declare himself a Democrat, why is the party obligated to support him?

So you're making the case that the DNC is lying that their values don't actually include neutrality and they made an apology to a non-democrat for values that they don't hold? This is your argument?

 

[RDD_1210]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Well, please explain exactly what was supposedly done to "knock down one of the candidates in favor of another". How was Bernie cheated? What was taken away from him?

"On May 5, DNC officials appeared to conspire to raise Sanders's faith as an issue and press on whether he was an atheist -- apparently in hopes of steering religious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia to Clinton. Sanders is Jewish but has previously indicated that he's not religious."

Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails

Again, the DNC led by Schultz decided to play favorites which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Make sense?

Funny. "Conspiring" doesn't mean shit unless it's acted on. Did anyone within the DNC actually use Bernie's Jewish religion against him during the election process? BTW, dumbass, everyone does opposition research on everyone in politics - even within their own parties. It's called politics...

The DNC is not the opposition. They are the neutral body overseeing the process of selecting a democratic candidate. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Right, the Democratic candidate. Sanders was not a Democratic candidate. He didn't' want to be. You can't say "I want no part of your party" and then say "you didn't support me".

Why did the democrats put him on the democratic ticket then?

 

[Lakhota]

Please explain exactly how it was supposedly "rigged" - with "credible" sources that can be verified as fact. Just because the DNC may have "favored" Hillary over Bernie doesn't mean it was "rigged". The DNC "favored" Obama over Hillary in 2008. Bernie wasn't "cheated" out of anything. The DNC election process never changed from beginning to end. Even Bernie said publicly that Hillary won fair and square - which she did. So, stop with the "rigged" shit or explain to us with "credible" sources that can be verified as fact exactly how it was supposedly "rigged".

So, you are claiming that having the DNC "superdelegats" in the bag for Hillary from the VERY beginning, that having the Democrats who were flipping coins call the caucuses in Iowa for Hillary EACH time there was a tie wasn't rigging the election, you're as big a liar as Hillary.

Delegates and super-delegates are all part of the DNC election process. They favored Hillary - which was their choice. Bernie knew that going in. There was nothing "rigged" about that. Remember Bernie talking about trying to persuade some of Hillary's super-delegates to switch over to him? No laws and/or rules were broken. It's called politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0