For The Record..

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I knew that there was bias on the part of the DNC towards Clinton, and I knew that there was some collusion from the emails that were released, but I did not know that the Clinton campaign had literally taken over the DNC and every decision made by the DNC had to be green lighted by the Clinton camp. I also did not know that the Clinton camp was funneling money from state races to their own campaign.

Shady as fuck.
Shady? How about illegal?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
what excuses? It was a well written article. I thought you knew this already. It had been clear for a long time that the DNC was biased toward Clinton. The article provided more information on it but we knew this well before the convention.

Is it ok for me to agree with you that we need to get big money out of our campaigns or do I have to shout something obnoxious at you?
So much for a "fair primary"

It only took you a year, but at least you admit it now
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I knew that there was bias on the part of the DNC towards Clinton, and I knew that there was some collusion from the emails that were released, but I did not know that the Clinton campaign had literally taken over the DNC and every decision made by the DNC had to be green lighted by the Clinton camp. I also did not know that the Clinton camp was funneling money from state races to their own campaign.

Shady as fuck.
You do know that the DNC isn't a campaign office, don't you? In any case, can I agree with you that we have to get big money our of campaigns or do you just want to find disagreement?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
So much for a "fair primary"

It only took you a year, but at least you admit it now
Naive child. Cheating goes on in elections. It happens in every election by both sides. Clinton won the primary by a large number of votes. This stuff with the DNC -- do you claim it swung the election to Clinton? That's all that really matters.

Can we agree that we need to get big money out of campaigns going forward or do you just want to argue?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Cheating goes on in elections. It happens in every election by both sides.
Then why did you spend this entire last year denying it when we told you the primary wasn't held fairly?
Can we agree that we need to get big money out of campaigns going forward or do you just want to argue?
I've been pushing campaign finance reform as the number one issue for years. Again, glad you finally came around, better late than never..
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Then why did you spend this entire last year denying it when we told you the primary wasn't held fairly?

I've been pushing campaign finance reform as the number one issue for years. Again, glad you finally came around, better late than never..
I've said all along that the election results were too large for this kind of stupid back office crap to matter.

I'm glad to hear that you finally recognize my position that big donor campaign financing has to end. It's taken some time but I'm glad that you at least have come around. I don't expect you to remember this tomorrow. The beat goes on.
 

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
Should we not demand better?
we should. don't know the best way but i kinda liked your idea of paying them a more than above average wage. no speaking bonuses, no donations/trips from lobbyists, etc. absolute transparency on their finances or you get fired immediately.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I've said all along that the election results were too large for this kind of stupid back office crap to matter.
Whether or not it changed the outcome of the election is irrelevant. What matters is that the organization charged with electing the Democratic candidate breached their own bylaws by favoring one candidate over the others. Which is why I suggested early after the election that they should be legally binding, so that if it happens again, people will be held accountable.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Whether or not it changed the outcome of the election is irrelevant. What matters is that the organization charged with electing the Democratic candidate breached their own bylaws by favoring one candidate over the others. Which is why I suggested early after the election that they should be legally binding, so that if it happens again, people will be held accountable.
The outcome of an election doesn't matter.

Got it.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
The outcome of an election doesn't matter.

Got it.
That's not what I said. I said whether or not it changed the outcome of the election is irrelevant to the fact that it happened. It happened regardless of who won. You denied it for a year, now you finally admit it because you know in light of the evidence, it's undeniable at this point.
The "job" of the DNC was to pick who they thought would win. they did, she did win the popular vote by a large margin
If the DNC's job was to pick the candidate, why would we hold primary elections at all? Why would their own bylaws say they're required to remain neutral towards candidates and run a fair election?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Is Pada from the generation where everybody got a participation trophy cause his logic doesn't make any sense to me as an almost 50 yr old. The "job" of the DNC was to pick who they thought would win. they did, she did win the popular vote by a large margin
Up to the convention, the DNC is chartered with providing office and tech resources and to be impartial. After the convention it's job is to coordinate state party activities at the national level. There have been rules changes at the DNC that Sanders supporters wrote to avoid some of the stuff that went on in 2016. But we still have to listen to them cry over the loss last year.

According to Sanders supporters, it's not important that the majority chose Clinton, it's only important that the DNC violated its charter. They said the same thing before the convention when they tried to overturn election results and defeat the will of the majority using old time backroom tactics. They remind me of the kid in schoolyard basketball games who wasn't any good and kept fouling, all the while claiming other people were cheating.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
That's not what I said. I said whether or not it changed the outcome of the election is irrelevant to the fact that it happened. It happened regardless of who won. You denied it for a year, now you finally admit it because you know in light of the evidence, it's undeniable at this point.
You keep saying that election results are irrelevant. Clinton won because the majority voted for her and not the other guy. I'd say that's kind of important. If you believe Clinton would not have won without that back office crap then I'd say THAT is kind of important. I also would shoot that theory down pretty quickly because there is more than the whiff of racism behind that claim. Are saying she stole the election?

Of lower importance is this back office crap which I hope has ended going forward.

If the DNC's job was to pick the candidate, why would we hold primary elections at all? Why would their own bylaws say they're required to remain neutral towards candidates and run a fair election?
Screw your leading question. If you want to make a point, then make it.
 

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
You keep saying that election results are irrelevant. Clinton won because the majority voted for her and not the other guy. I'd say that's kind of important. If you believe Clinton would not have won without that back office crap then I'd say THAT is kind of important. I also would shoot that theory down pretty quickly because there is more than the whiff of racism behind that claim. Are saying she stole the election?

Of lower importance is this back office crap which I hope has ended going forward.



Screw your leading question. If you want to make a point, then make it.
Do you feel that Trumps win was fair and square? You have no issue with what transpired during the general election?
 
Top