DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, repeatedly leaked debate questions to Clinton campaign

[sixstring2112]

the clinton campaign, by your own citation, was fed possible questions.

the clinton campaign studied for all possible questions, as did the sanders campaign.

this is not scandal or corruption in any way whatsoever. bernie and hillary both studied all the possible questions, just like you or i would and trump didn't.

the questions that come up in a debate are ridiculously predictable. you are being a fucking baby right now.

i dub thee PadawanNader.

can you not admit your girl is lieing and cheating to win? and is also breaking fed laws along the way lol

 

[Unclebaldrick]

The pivot to whether or not the verified cheating swayed the election enough to make a difference is irrelevant to the fact that it happened. You and @Fogdog were some of Clinton's biggest supporters in the 'DNC Email Leak' and 'What's More Important: Democracy or Winning' threads, and I should add @Unclebaldrick to that list as I'd like to get his opinion on this too

After everything that has come to light; Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigning in shame after pressure from the democratic base over unethical behavior during the democratic primary, then being hired to the Clinton campaign on the same day, evidence DWS and the Clinton campaign had direct contact with and influenced multiple mainstream journalists for their mutual benefit, evidence of Donna Brazile feeding multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of time in order to influence the outcome, do you still believe the 2016 democratic primary was, as Bill O'Reilly would say, fair and balanced? Do you honestly believe Hillary Clinton won fair and square?

So first when it was DWS, the argument you used was basically that the DNC bylaws were just guidelines, not actual laws, and that the leadership of the DNC breaking them wasn't actually illegal, so pretty much just get over it and accept Clinton as the nominee. But how can you claim Clinton won a fair election with all this evidence standing up against that idea? I mean, what do you say to the direct evidence of Clinton being fed multiple questions by Brazile, then being hired as the DNC chair after? Do you think that's just some giant coincidence?

This is disappointing

I think this, as well as the other evidence that has come out, points to direct corruption within the government. The evidence proves that the Clinton campaign colluded with multiple members of the mainstream media in order to both push a positive narrative and gain any and every advantage to winning the nomination against a candidate that was surging in popularity.

I think the big picture is that we're left with two candidates that no one really likes that we just have to basically put up with because we're made to believe the other one is so much worse, and if they get elected, the world as we know it will cease to exist. I Think probably more than anything this election has shown us how obsolete and outdated our executive electoral process has become, and how in dire a need of change it is. Or maybe how naive I actually was to believe that righteousness would win the day, all that has to happen is for good people to believe it.. I used to think all you had to do was convince people of the truth for them to accept it..

Oh, not again.

 

[schuylaar]

Oh, not again.

Is that how you feel when your kid competes but you already know the other kid is going to get it because the parents are also assisting in the cheat?

What do you tell your kid Baldrick? Cheating okay?

Some of us still live by a moral compass..

I for one am happy to see millennials call them out on their lies and cheating.

A cheat is a cheat is a cheat is a cheat is a cheat is a cheat is a cheat!

 

[Fogdog]

I said 'the standard millennial mindset', which the polling numbers attribute to in regards to a Hillary Clinton administration. I didn't say 'everybody'

I couldn't give an e-fuck less about his 'starting position', that's the name of the game, son. You're famous for 50 years before your campaign and I'm an up and comer trying to beat you, your advantage, no foul, no collusion, no cheating, fair game. It's my job to make myself a better viable candidate than you that the voters want to vote for. But that's not what happened.

Clinton started out with a gigantic advantage as her name recognition resonated with virtually the entire country. I AM 100% OK WITH THAT. The problem arises when the organization that is supposed to remain neutral [the DNC], doesn't. We have proof through Wikileaks that the DNC did not remain neutral as early as January, 2015, before Sanders even entered the race. I am honestly not sure why or how you can dispute this. We have evidence DWS colluded with MSNBC,then resigned as DNC chair in shame when it came to light. We have evidence Donna Brazile leaked multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign. We have evidence of the Clinton campaign inviting (and them attending) multiple mainstream journalists to dinner, a private event that skews all possible objectivity, and there's evidence of election fraud taking place in multiple counties in New York that would have likely voted Sanders, somewhere in the realm of 120,000 votes, who were disenfranchised by the democratic party, which has also led to two different people being fired for the disaster.

If you deny the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign, and both colluded with multiple members of the mainstream media specifically to ensure every advantage that collectively added up to Hillary Clinton being elected in 2016, you're simply not qualified to talk about American politics because you clearly do not understand them.

How is my assertion overblown when you admit she was the beneficiary of receiving debate questions?

Members of the mainstream media gave the Clinton campaign almost verbatim debate questions she would be required to answer during the debate with Sanders, she was able to prepare her answer ahead of time while Sanders wasn't.

It's like you're claiming red is blue.. You admit she cheated, but say it's 'overblown'. I sincerely do not understand


I'm not claiming Sanders lost because of media collusion because I obviously don't know if that's why he lost. I'm claiming that the organization that claims impartiality [the DNC] was not impartial during the 2016 democratic primary. This shows obvious corruption any democracy loving American should be aware and wary of. This proves Hillary Clinton did not win legitimately. You yourself have already acknowledged the impartiality of the DNC in favor of Clinton, you can't then reasonably claim the election was legitimate

What bothers me is that none of this bothers you.. democracy was subverted, those in control have further secured their control and Hillary Clinton supporters have shown their true colors; Principles don't matter, only winning matters because what I believe matters the most! This should truly come in handy the next time a republican takes office..

I really don't care. What I DO care about is that debate questions were leaked to the Clinton campaign. As should you, as should anybody who supports democracy.

Interesting claim, got any proof?

So, what, Wikileaks is all just bullshit? Some right-wing propaganda machine, "Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi!!!"? How can you possibly claim any of the claims I've made are 'baseless'? I've shown you direct evidence of every claim that I've made, none of which have even attempted to be refuted.

Total bullshit. Sanders didn't win the south because, obviously, even southern democrats are more moderate than liberals. Couple that with the Clinton campaign's half decade long power grab since 2008, including media collusion, and you have exactly what we saw take place; a popular candidate winning almost half the electoral vote despite all the bullshit tricks pulled against him.

You know what 46% means to me?

It means we're fucking winning.

46%, despite all the bullshit. Despite all the lying and cheating and manipulating and paying off and buying and blatant corruption. People are starting to see through it all

That was a long message. Can I boil it down to one major issue, also the major point of the thread?

That being "DNC media collusion".

I think we agree on the fact that the DNC was biased towards Clinton.
Also that there was collusion between members of the media and the members of the DNC.

Another fact that is critical to me is there is nothing in the e-mail collection that contains messages from Clinton directing any of these efforts.

You say: "This proves Hillary Clinton did not win legitimately."

This is where we part ways.
You say "DWS colluded with MSNBC" This is not a fact. Schultz did not collude with the entire MSNBC organization. Members of MSNBC did violate reporter's ethics to give information and plant stories for Schultz. The scope of the scandal doesn't include all of MSNBC, in fact only a few people were involved. I make this point to walk you back from this idea -- that all media are aligned with Clinton. Which is a pretty difficult pill to swallow given the amount of negative media reports produced against Clinton.

Harvard Study Confirms The Media Tore Down Clinton, Built Up Trump And Sanders

source: https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press

This is why I can't swallow your assertion that Hillary Clinton owned press coverage and stole an election from Sanders. There was no real effect on the coverage that Clinton has received. There is nothing to show that DNC's actions were even known to Clinton. This is why I don't agree when you say "not legitimate election result" because DNC media collusion.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Is that how you feel when your kid competes but you already know the other kid is going to get it because the parents are also assisting in the cheat?

What do you tell your kid Baldrick? Cheating okay?

Some of us still live by a moral compass..

I for one am happy to see millennials call them out on their lies and cheating.

A cheat is a cheat is a cheat is a cheat is a cheat is a cheat is a cheat!

That's reading a lot into my gif. My point has been made several times. Cheating is bad. Princess Democracy is still alive and well. Next. This type of shit has been going on forever - you just didn't get to read every fucking email somebody ever wrote.

 

[UncleBuck]

can you not admit your girl is lieing and cheating to win? and is also breaking fed laws along the way lol

trump lies about 74% of the time.

and being leaked info from the FBI as well, in violation of federal law.

his transition team manager is abotu to be impeached and headed to prison.

his favorite sheriff is headed to prison too.

might want to clean up your own house before you worry about cleaning up someone else's email inbox.

 

[schuylaar]

That's reading a lot into my gif. My point has been made several times. Cheating is bad. Princess Democracy is still alive and well. Next. This type of shit has been going on forever - you just didn't get to read every fucking email somebody ever wrote.

It's been going on forever? So that makes it okay?

You can't whitewash a satchel of shit because at the end of the day..?

Some of us still have a moral compass.

 

[Fogdog]

It's been going on forever? So that makes it okay?

You can't whitewash a satchel of shit because at the end of the day..?

Some of us still have a moral compass.

Bernie was the better candidate in my opinion
Clinton's AND Bernie's campaigns included dirty and unethical actions. Clinton's campaign more so than Bernie's.
Campaigns should be free of the kind of shit that is a part of today's politics. I fully support repealing Citizen's United decision by whatever means legally available and want to limit campaign contributions to a low dollar, fixed amount and only by individual people. Also eliminate PACs that are used to augment political campaigns for or against a candidate or political party.

But I do have confessions to make. My moral compass is suspect. Sometimes I intentionally drive 65 mph in a 55 mph zone. Also, on occasion, I don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. So there is that.

 

[UncleBuck]

But I do have confessions to make. My moral compass is suspect. Sometimes I intentionally drive 65 mph in a 55 mph zone. Also, on occasion, I don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. So there is that.

FOGDOG FOR PRISON!

 

[ttystikk]

That was a long message. Can I boil it down to one major issue, also the major point of the thread?

That being "DNC media collusion".

I think we agree on the fact that the DNC was biased towards Clinton.
Also that there was collusion between members of the media and the members of the DNC.

Another fact that is critical to me is there is nothing in the e-mail collection that contains messages from Clinton directing any of these efforts.

You say: "This proves Hillary Clinton did not win legitimately."

This is where we part ways.
You say "DWS colluded with MSNBC" This is not a fact. Schultz did not collude with the entire MSNBC organization. Members of MSNBC did violate reporter's ethics to give information and plant stories for Schultz. The scope of the scandal doesn't include all of MSNBC, in fact only a few people were involved. I make this point to walk you back from this idea -- that all media are aligned with Clinton. Which is a pretty difficult pill to swallow given the amount of negative media reports produced against Clinton.

Harvard Study Confirms The Media Tore Down Clinton, Built Up Trump And Sanders

source: https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press

This is why I can't swallow your assertion that Hillary Clinton owned press coverage and stole an election from Sanders. There was no real effect on the coverage that Clinton has received. There is nothing to show that DNC's actions were even known to Clinton. This is why I don't agree when you say "not legitimate election result" because DNC media collusion.

So a Harvard study refuting your position isn't enough to sway you? Fuck, it even gives the breakdown in coverage; somehow Mr Sanders got a LOT less coverage than Clinton. So you'll admit the coverage was biased- then turn around and say it doesn't matter?

Da fuk are you smoking? I want some!

You're losing a lot of credibility here.

 

[UncleBuck]

So a Harvard study refuting your position isn't enough to sway you? Fuck, it even gives the breakdown in coverage; somehow Mr Sanders got a LOT less coverage than Clinton. So you'll admit the coverage was biased- then turn around and say it doesn't matter?

Da fuk are you smoking? I want some!

You're losing a lot of credibility here.

coverage of clinton was 84% negative.

coverage of sanders was basically the inverse of that.

and that was unfair to bernie how, exactly?

 

[ttystikk]

Bernie was the better candidate in my opinion
Clinton's AND Bernie's campaigns included dirty and unethical actions. Clinton's campaign more so than Bernie's.
Campaigns should be free of the kind of shit that is a part of today's politics. I fully support repealing Citizen's United decision by whatever means legally available and want to limit campaign contributions to a low dollar, fixed amount and only by individual people. Also eliminate PACs that are used to augment political campaigns for or against a candidate or political party.

But I do have confessions to make. My moral compass is suspect. Sometimes I intentionally drive 65 mph in a 55 mph zone. Also, on occasion, I don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. So there is that.

Yet supporting the candidate who uses all the tactics you say you deplore is fine n dandy.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yet supporting the candidate who uses all the tactics you say you deplore is fine n dandy.

look, we're not trying to suck skittles out of a unicorn dick here.

we are trying to elect someone who will at least preserve 50 years of SCOTUS progress.

you can choose to sit on your hands because you didn't get your bernie pipe dream, but that doesn't help anything. this state is fairly close, and could possibly even be the firewall that stops trump.

if you want to make bernie happy, be an adult and join him in supporting clinton.

 

[ttystikk]

coverage of clinton was 84% negative.

coverage of sanders was basically the inverse of that.

and that was unfair to bernie how, exactly?

Uh, how about looking at the amount of coverage, in raw column inches, minutes of airtime and total number of stories?

But you know, keep distracting people with irrelevant statistics. Makes you look like a republican, cuz we all know they're above reproach!

 

[ttystikk]

look, we're not trying to suck skittles out of a unicorn dick here.

we are trying to elect someone who will at least preserve 50 years of SCOTUS progress.

you can choose to sit on your hands because you didn't get your bernie pipe dream, but that doesn't help anything. this state is fairly close, and could possibly even be the firewall that stops trump.

if you want to make bernie happy, be an adult and join him in supporting clinton.

I already told you that I'm voting for Mrs Clinton.

That does not change the facts on the ground, which are that the people's right to choose was systematically tampered with. Tampering with elections is supposed to be a high crime, even treason. Yet somehow it's okay when big corporations and the oligarchs who control them do it? Please. Your classism is showing.

Personally, I fear that your willingness to shrug at that and look the other way isn't uncommon- and the ultimate consequence of such an attitude is the death of our democracy.

 

[UncleBuck]

I already told you that I'm voting for Mrs Clinton.

 

[Fogdog]

So a Harvard study refuting your position isn't enough to sway you? Fuck, it even gives the breakdown in coverage; somehow Mr Sanders got a LOT less coverage than Clinton. So you'll admit the coverage was biased- then turn around and say it doesn't matter?

Da fuk are you smoking? I want some!

You're losing a lot of credibility here.

I don't think I have credibility with you on this anyway. I suppose I can go below zero. I'm pretty sure what I'm smoking doesn't compare to yours, tty. At my low rate of consumption, I harvested about 20 years worth of buds from my first attempt at growing my own. I'll be glad to share but be prepared to augment mine with your own.

I didn't say a Harvard study swayed my position. I said the study showed Clinton's negative coverage was yuuuuuuuge, which causes me to dispute the idea that Clinton had such yuuuuuuuge control of the media as to sway the election.

Here is the full report. http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/#_ftn22

I used graphics from an article that referred to the report.

Some other graphics are shown below. The intent of the report was to discuss the "invisible primary" -- the year before the primaries, during which, in the words of the author:

Of all the indicators of success in the invisible primary, media exposure is arguably the most important.

Because the primary season is compressed, an early strong start in the season is very important. This is why the invisible primary has an effect on results. It's an interesting read. Or was to me. I don't see bias in the article. I recommend you take a look and decide for yourself.

Unsurprisingly, the overall winner of the invisible primary season was Trump. On the Democratic Party's side, Clinton came out ahead but not by much. Which kind of describes the end result of the primaries.

Sander's name recognition at the beginning of the pre-primary year was the lowest of all the other candidates and Clinton had the best name recognition. Clinton received about 3 times more press coverage than Sanders did but a lot of it was really bad. As the candidate with the lowest name recognition at the beginning of the invisible primary, Sanders got the least coverage until the debates, when he started gaining traction with the press and very favorable tone in their reporting.

Overall, during the the pre-primary season Clinton received much worse press coverage compared to Sanders. It wasn't even close. Also, based upon the tone of press coverage, Sanders won the debates in spite of the Clinton getting questions in one of the debates ahead of time. So tell me, does this show that the DNC's attempt to influence coverage was particularly effective?

The following shows month-to month tone of coverage for Sanders.

a negative value indicates more negative coverage than positive coverage

The following shows month-to-month of tone of coverage for Clinton:
a negative value indicates more negative coverage than positive coverage

Overall, I agree with @Padawanbater2 in his view that Sander's climb from obscurity to contending for the candidacy was a win for the millennial voter and a movement in the right direction. I also contend that in order to win, Sanders needed to do more before the invisible primary started and his ground game in the south was weak when the primaries started. This is probably a funding issue but also shows how reliant candidates are upon free media coverage, probably more so than in elections held 30 years ago.

Social media is a new factor in elections that will take a larger role next election cycle. Who knows what that means?

The status quo for primaries should not stand. I support many measures to fix the problem that agree with yours. Or at least I think so.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

It's been going on forever? So that makes it okay?

You can't whitewash a satchel of shit because at the end of the day..?

Some of us still have a moral compass.

It has been going on forever because it is in our nature as humans - but democracy has survived.

I have said nothing that condones it.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Your plane is crashing and only one of two people say they can land it; the lying crook who has flight experience or the idiot liar psychopath pervert who says he has the flight experience?

She still is the better option.

She has been crashing the plane all along. And nice job stealing that analogy. You're starting to turn into Melania.

Just remember, you voted Hillary after months of saying that wasn't going to happen. You're a sell out.

Edit: you fell for the shit ass two party bullshit again. You could have written in Bernie or voted for one of the candidates not named Trump or Clinton.

 

[Big_Lou]

She has been crashing the plane all along. And nice job stealing that analogy. You're starting to turn into Melania.

Just remember, you voted Hillary after months of saying that wasn't going to happen. You're a sell out.

Member Since:
Mar 21, 2009
Messages:
2,167
Likes Received:
442
Trophy Points:
123

LOL!