The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
The (..."BoB", I guess we're calling them) crowd might not like it, but it's not like votes were fabricated. Nothing was "stolen." 57% of the primary votes voted for Hillary. That's why she's the nominee. No altered emails illegally obtained by a state-sponsored Russian hacker changes that.
Regardless of whether or not you think it would have an effect on the election, vindicating someone who hasn't committed a crime against you when other people are attacking that person is also the right thing to do.
Heck, Obama admitted that a lot of the bad flack that Hillary got in the 2008 primary was undeserved. This was after he was already elected president, when he had nothing to gain from it. Because it was the right thing to do.
I mean yeah, that was when it would do the least damage. Also the least good.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The (..."BoB", I guess we're calling them) crowd might not like it, but it's not like votes were fabricated. Nothing was "stolen." 57% of the primary votes voted for Hillary. That's why she's the nominee. No altered emails illegally obtained by a state-sponsored Russian hacker changes that.
Regardless of whether or not you think it would have an effect on the election, vindicating someone who hasn't committed a crime against you when other people are attacking that person is also the right thing to do.
Heck, Obama admitted that a lot of the bad flack that Hillary got in the 2008 primary was undeserved. This was after he was already elected president, when he had nothing to gain from it. Because it was the right thing to do.
Vindicating them of what?! False allegations that you're utterly unresponsible for? Bernie isn't responsible for Russian hackers, dude. Anything they produce is illegitimate in every sense of the word, and people who buy into them are not going to be assuaged by anything "the man" tells them about it.
They deserve no further mention than "The emails were illegally obtained and altered by Russian hackers. Discussing them is pointless, so we won't."
What does it matter who is among the claims? Bernie is a party to the claims, a third party sure, but a party none the less. In a particularly good place to refute them as well.
Vindicating them of what?! False allegations that you're utterly unresponsible for? Bernie isn't responsible for Russian hackers, dude.
No, he's the guy the Russian hackers are trying to pander to.
When a Malaria stricken country gives money to a Malaria charity run by Hillary Clinton, the response is that Hillary should refuse their donation even if it means millions of additional children getting sick.
When a criminal country does criminal acts to specifically to pander to the BoB crowd, there's no call for Bernie to refuse their "help"?
Anything they produce is illegitimate in every sense of the word, and people who buy into them are not going to be assuaged by anything "the man" tells them about it.
You can say the same thing about David Duke endorsing Donald Trump, and yet people rightfully criticized Donald Trump for not repudiating Duke soon enough.
They deserve no further mention than "The emails were illegally obtained and altered by Russian hackers. Discussing them is pointless, so we won't."
If a criminal breaks into Hillary Clinton's house and falsely claims he found evidence that Hillary murdered Bernie's dog, it's not enough for Bernie to simply say, "Burglary is wrong, I refuse to mention this matter further."
He also needs to mention something about the dog, because the dog is the entire reason these headlines are being spread in the first place.
And you think that they will stop playing that card if Bernie says anything?
It makes it easier to shut them down.
If people claim "The DNC leaks prove the primaries were stolen!", you need to get into several pages of discussion to prove them wrong. There's a basic asymmetry between the smear and the refutation, because the smear only needs a headline. Which means that the media only has time to cover the former.
If Bernie comes forward and says the election wasn't stolen, then the refutation can be condensed into a single line, "Bernie admitted that the election wasn't stolen and that Hillary simply ran a better campaign."
Can someone please explain why everyone here is so completely opposed to the idea of Bernie saying that the election wasn't stolen? It seems like basic courtesy when it's the actual truth.
You don't need to go into several pages of discussion; you just show the voting results. "More people voted for Hillary, so she got the nomination."
A general tip for getting people to come to consensus: don't throw in a dig while you're asking them to do something for you. And certainly don't use guilty language in your example like "admits," etc. It projects an assumption of culpability.
Bernie publicly pledged his support to Hillary at the convention. Publicly. Live on camera, in front of literally anyone who wanted to watch. Do these sound like the actions of some who thinks the election was stolen?
And you think that they will stop playing that card if Bernie says anything?
It makes it easier to shut them down.
If people claim "The DNC leaks prove the primaries were stolen!", you need to get into several pages of discussion to prove them wrong. There's a basic asymmetry between the smear and the refutation, because the smear only needs a headline. Which means that the media only has time to cover the former.
If Bernie comes forward and says the election wasn't stolen, then the refutation can be condensed into a single line, "Bernie admitted that the election wasn't stolen and that Hillary simply ran a better campaign."
Can someone please explain why everyone here is so completely opposed to the idea of Bernie saying that the election wasn't stolen? It seems like basic courtesy when it's the actual truth.
You don't need to go into several pages of discussion; you just show the voting results. "More people voted for Hillary, so she got the nomination."
A general tip for getting people to come to consensus: don't throw in a dig while you're asking them to do something for you. And certainly don't use guilty language in your example like "admits," etc. It projects an assumption of culpability.
Bernie publicly pledged his support to Hillary at the convention. Publicly. Live on camera, in front of literally anyone who wanted to watch. Do these sound like the actions of some who thinks the election was stolen?
So are you saying his implication things were rigged against him the last few weeks of the primary were him lying rather than something he actually believed?
What does it matter who is among the claims? Bernie is a party to the claims, a third party sure, but a party none the less. In a particularly good place to refute them as well.
He's in a particularly vulnerable place that would probably cause more harm than good of he chose to speak about this. But I think he's gone back to being tired of those emails.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The story in question is: DNC showed bias against Sanders.
I love how that's the damning thing that came out of the email hack.
Because all i get from that is ' SO WHAT?? "
LIke, OH THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT PREFERRED THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE OVER THE PERSON WHO RAN AS A INDEPENDENT HIS WHOLE LIFE AND ONLY SWITCHED TO 'DEMOCRACT' THIS PAST YEAR IN ORDER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. WOW COLOR ME SHOCKED
You wouldn't even need to hack the Republican Email Database to find out that the GOP Establishment preferred anyone over Trump and probably tried to help others win over him, because they've already been open about it, like it's not even a secret, yet no one seems to give a fuck about that because Trump won.
Wanna know what you specifically WONT find in the hack? Proof that they somehow changed votes, or manipulated results or did anything actually 'undemocratic' in order to influence the primaries. (AND NO FOLLOWING THEIR ESTABLISHED RULES REGARDING SUPER DELEGATES DOESN'T COUNT AS 'STEALING THE NOM.')
Like that's all there is. Fucking hot air and nothing else
The story in question is: DNC showed bias against Sanders.
I love how that's the damning thing that came out of the email hack.
Because all i get from that is ' SO WHAT?? "
LIke, OH THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT PREFERRED THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE OVER THE PERSON WHO RAN AS A INDEPENDENT HIS WHOLE LIFE AND ONLY SWITCHED TO 'DEMOCRACT' THIS PAST YEAR IN ORDER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. WOW COLOR ME SHOCKED
You wouldn't even need to hack the Republican Email Database to find out that the GOP Establishment preferred anyone over Trump and probably tried to help others win over him, because they've already been open about it, like it's not even a secret, yet no one seems to give a fuck about that because Trump won.
Wanna know what you specifically WONT find in the hack? Proof that they somehow changed votes, or manipulated results or did anything actually 'undemocratic' in order to influence the primaries. (AND NO FOLLOWING THEIR ESTABLISHED RULES REGARDING SUPER DELEGATES DOESN'T COUNT AS 'STEALING THE NOM.')
Like that's all there is. Fucking hot air and nothing else
There was a bit of dirty laundry in there regarding his religion, but you can't expect shop talk to be politically correct all the time
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You don't need to go into several pages of discussion; you just show the voting results. "More people voted for Hillary, so she got the nomination."
And the argument is that those voting results were "stolen" because of "bias."
An alleged victim will always have an easier time refuting an accusation compared to an alleged criminal.
Bernie publicly pledged his support to Hillary at the convention. Publicly. Live on camera, in front of literally anyone who wanted to watch. Do these sound like the actions of some who thinks the election was stolen?
Paul Ryan endorsed Donald Trump and says he'll do anything he can to get Donald Trump elected, on camera, publicly, for everyone to watch. Do these sound like the actions of someone who thinks Donald Trump is a hateful racist?
Heck, most of the RNC actually expected Ted Cruz to endorse Donald Trump even after Donald insulted Cruz's wife and father.
So yet, it's entirely possible for people to believe that Bernie would endorse someone who stole the election from him. And not simply believe that on a personal level, but also convince themselves that Bernie wants them to believe that as well.
Bernie might not be able to do much to fix the former. But he can address the latter. "Look, I can't change your mind if you think the election was stolen, but I want to make it clear that I don't think that."
You don't need to go into several pages of discussion; you just show the voting results. "More people voted for Hillary, so she got the nomination."
And the argument is that those voting results were "stolen" because of "bias."
An alleged victim will always have an easier time refuting an accusation compared to an alleged criminal.
Bernie publicly pledged his support to Hillary at the convention. Publicly. Live on camera, in front of literally anyone who wanted to watch. Do these sound like the actions of some who thinks the election was stolen?
Paul Ryan endorsed Donald Trump and says he'll do anything he can to get Donald Trump elected, on camera, publicly, for everyone to watch. Do these sound like the actions of someone who thinks Donald Trump is a hateful racist?
Heck, most of the RNC actually expected Ted Cruz to endorse Donald Trump even after Donald insulted Cruz's wife and father.
So yet, it's entirely possible for people to believe that Bernie would endorse someone who stole the election from him. And not simply believe that on a personal level, but also convince themselves that Bernie wants them to believe that as well.
Bernie might not be able to do much to fix the former. But he can address the latter. "Look, I can't change your mind if you think the election was stolen, but I want to make it clear that I don't think that."
He has done this before the hack was an issue (read the link I posted). If asked the question, he will say it again.
You don't need to go into several pages of discussion; you just show the voting results. "More people voted for Hillary, so she got the nomination."
And the argument is that those voting results were "stolen" because of "bias."
An alleged victim will always have an easier time refuting an accusation compared to an alleged criminal.
Bernie publicly pledged his support to Hillary at the convention. Publicly. Live on camera, in front of literally anyone who wanted to watch. Do these sound like the actions of some who thinks the election was stolen?
Paul Ryan endorsed Donald Trump and says he'll do anything he can to get Donald Trump elected, on camera, publicly, for everyone to watch. Do these sound like the actions of someone who thinks Donald Trump is a hateful racist?
Heck, most of the RNC actually expected Ted Cruz to endorse Donald Trump even after Donald insulted Cruz's wife and father.
So yet, it's entirely possible for people to believe that Bernie would endorse someone who stole the election from him. And not simply believe that on a personal level, but also convince themselves that Bernie wants them to believe that as well.
Bernie might not be able to do much to fix the former. But he can address the latter. "Look, I can't change your mind if you think the election was stolen, but I want to make it clear that I don't think that."
It's a little more complicated than that, because he wants changes to happen in the primary process and the DNC as well. Try pushing for both those things at the same time.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You don't need to go into several pages of discussion; you just show the voting results. "More people voted for Hillary, so she got the nomination."
And the argument is that those voting results were "stolen" because of "bias."
An alleged victim will always have an easier time refuting an accusation compared to an alleged criminal.
Bernie publicly pledged his support to Hillary at the convention. Publicly. Live on camera, in front of literally anyone who wanted to watch. Do these sound like the actions of some who thinks the election was stolen?
Paul Ryan endorsed Donald Trump and says he'll do anything he can to get Donald Trump elected, on camera, publicly, for everyone to watch. Do these sound like the actions of someone who thinks Donald Trump is a hateful racist?
Heck, most of the RNC actually expected Ted Cruz to endorse Donald Trump even after Donald insulted Cruz's wife and father.
So yet, it's entirely possible for people to believe that Bernie would endorse someone who stole the election from him. And not simply believe that on a personal level, but also convince themselves that Bernie wants them to believe that as well.
Bernie might not be able to do much to fix the former. But he can address the latter. "Look, I can't change your mind if you think the election was stolen, but I want to make it clear that I don't think that."
I'm not a fan of Bernie, but pointing to the Republicans and being like "If they can do it, Bernie can do it" is exactly the kind of thing that Bernie is against. The system has fundamental issues that appear unsolvable from within, such as having to get behind a candidate you don't agree with to avoid a candidate you disagree with even more.
PHILADELPHIA — Hacked internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks on Saturday showed that some staffers at the party hoped to undermine the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during the bitterly contested Democratic primary. The scandal that followed led to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., last Sunday, the eve of the party’s nominating convention. Now Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, says he believes the initial leaks haven’t exposed everything the DNC did to sabotage Sanders’ effort to win.
....
WikiLeaks has not revealed the source of the messages. Clinton’s campaign has said, based on the analysis of multiple online security firms, that the leaks came from Russian hackers. Weaver said this could be a concern but does not change the contents of the messages and the need for a continued strong response to the DNC’s actions.
“It matters on one level — obviously you don’t want foreign governments interfering in our elections,” Weaver said of a potential Russian role in the leak. “But on the other hand, the substance of the emails are the substance of the emails. And I think the response has been strong and I think forceful. … I think there’ll be further responses and, you know, I support that response.”
So Bernie's Sander's campaign manager, as of yesterday, is still complaining that the entire primary was sabotaged and that there needs to be a "response" to this.
How does Bernie Sanders feel about these comments from his own campaign manager?
The idea of proving any specific individual or moment as the cause of Trump presidency is kind silly.
On the same note, how can anyone prove that no damage was done by Sanders campaign?
That said, i do wish Bernie would come out and admit that election was not stolen, rigged, or somehow unfair (beyond the fact that Hillary had spent more than a decade preparing, and he jumped in at the last minute, which showed).
May 27, 2016.
“What has upset me, and what I think is – I wouldn’t use the word rigged, because we knew what the words were – but what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York state, where three million people who are Democrats or Republicans could not participate, where you have situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton’s campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast.
“That’s not rigged. I think it’s just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign.”
PHILADELPHIA — Hacked internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks on Saturday showed that some staffers at the party hoped to undermine the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during the bitterly contested Democratic primary. The scandal that followed led to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., last Sunday, the eve of the party’s nominating convention. Now Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, says he believes the initial leaks haven’t exposed everything the DNC did to sabotage Sanders’ effort to win.
....
WikiLeaks has not revealed the source of the messages. Clinton’s campaign has said, based on the analysis of multiple online security firms, that the leaks came from Russian hackers. Weaver said this could be a concern but does not change the contents of the messages and the need for a continued strong response to the DNC’s actions.
“It matters on one level — obviously you don’t want foreign governments interfering in our elections,” Weaver said of a potential Russian role in the leak. “But on the other hand, the substance of the emails are the substance of the emails. And I think the response has been strong and I think forceful. … I think there’ll be further responses and, you know, I support that response.”
So Bernie's Sander's campaign manager, as of yesterday, is still complaining that the entire primary was sabotaged and that there needs to be a "response" to this.
How does Bernie Sanders feel about these comments from his own campaign manager?
He probably agrees with the ones that say we need to move forward to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump, but hes probably mostly wondering what to do with Mr. Weaver now that the campaign is over
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's a little more complicated than that, because he wants changes to happen in the primary process and the DNC as well. Try pushing for both those things at the same time.
It's not hard to say, "The primaries weren't rigged, but they're still messed up and in heavy need of reform."
I thought he specifically said he didn't want to use the word rigged. Are you putting words in his mouth?
So it's okay as long as he dogwhistles his theory about it being rigged rather than actually using the word.
Right, so you're not saying something he actually said, you're working off of assumption and inference.
He spent weeks inferring the process was rigged by railing against the process and how it disadvantaged his campaign. Every time something went wrong it was always someone else's fault, be it the DNC (when they accessed Hillary's data) or the state's primary process (New York for example). The wording "rigged" didn't appear from thin air, it came from his campaign staff and his followers and he sat by and did nothing to fight against it until the primary was already over (the "he didn't want to use the word rigged" came from an interview at the end of May). It was picked up on by Trump and used clumsily by him to try and drive a wedge between Sanders' followers and Hillary. The DNC leak was only a big story because it "confirmed" the rigging narrative and if there wasn't such a narrative in place then they would have been nothing.
It's a little more complicated than that, because he wants changes to happen in the primary process and the DNC as well. Try pushing for both those things at the same time.
It's not hard to say, "The primaries weren't rigged, but they're still messed up and in heavy need of reform."
Ever notice how every news headline saying Bernie Sanders said the primary was rigged had to put it in quotes? I didn't, but it's really obvious in retrospect
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I thought he specifically said he didn't want to use the word rigged. Are you putting words in his mouth?
So it's okay as long as he dogwhistles his theory about it being rigged rather than actually using the word.
Right, so you're not saying something he actually said, you're working off of assumption and inference.
He spent weeks inferring the process was rigged by railing against the process and how it disadvantaged his campaign. Every time something went wrong it was always someone else's fault, be it the DNC (when they accessed Hillary's data) or the state's primary process (New York for example). The wording "rigged" didn't appear from thin air, it came from his campaign staff and his followers and he sat by and did nothing to fight against it until the primary was already over (the "he didn't want to use the word rigged" came from an interview at the end of May). It was picked up on by Trump and used clumsily by him to try and drive a wedge between Sanders' followers and Hillary. The DNC leak was only a big story because it "confirmed" the rigging narrative and if there wasn't such a narrative in place then they would have been nothing.
If Russia hacked the DNC in 2008 and revealed similar bias regarding Hillary or Obama, no one would on either side would give a shit.
I thought he specifically said he didn't want to use the word rigged. Are you putting words in his mouth?
So it's okay as long as he dogwhistles his theory about it being rigged rather than actually using the word.
Right, so you're not saying something he actually said, you're working off of assumption and inference.
He spent weeks inferring the process was rigged by railing against the process and how it disadvantaged his campaign. Every time something went wrong it was always someone else's fault, be it the DNC (when they accessed Hillary's data) or the state's primary process (New York for example). The wording "rigged" didn't appear from thin air, it came from his campaign staff and his followers and he sat by and did nothing to fight against it until the primary was already over (the "he didn't want to use the word rigged" came from an interview at the end of May). It was picked up on by Trump and used clumsily by him to try and drive a wedge between Sanders' followers and Hillary. The DNC leak was only a big story because it "confirmed" the rigging narrative and if there wasn't such a narrative in place then they would have been nothing.
If Russia hacked the DNC in 2008 and revealed similar bias regarding Hillary or Obama, no one would on either side would give a shit.
Republicans would have definitely gone all for it, as they have for every single accusation against Hillary Clinton, with or without merit.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I thought he specifically said he didn't want to use the word rigged. Are you putting words in his mouth?
So it's okay as long as he dogwhistles his theory about it being rigged rather than actually using the word.
Right, so you're not saying something he actually said, you're working off of assumption and inference.
He spent weeks inferring the process was rigged by railing against the process and how it disadvantaged his campaign. Every time something went wrong it was always someone else's fault, be it the DNC (when they accessed Hillary's data) or the state's primary process (New York for example). The wording "rigged" didn't appear from thin air, it came from his campaign staff and his followers and he sat by and did nothing to fight against it until the primary was already over (the "he didn't want to use the word rigged" came from an interview at the end of May). It was picked up on by Trump and used clumsily by him to try and drive a wedge between Sanders' followers and Hillary. The DNC leak was only a big story because it "confirmed" the rigging narrative and if there wasn't such a narrative in place then they would have been nothing.
If Russia hacked the DNC in 2008 and revealed similar bias regarding Hillary or Obama, no one would on either side would give a shit.
Republicans would have definitely gone all for it, as they have for every single accusation against Hillary Clinton, with or without merit.
Doubtful.
The only reason this "scandal" has any meat is the appearance of a victim. And neither Hillary nor Obama would have been willing to play that role.
Either of them would have immediately shut down any implication that this had any effect on the primary.
Heck, look at all the reports of RNC bias against Trump leading up to the RNC race. I can't think of anyone on the left who even questioned the idea of whether or not the RNC should have bias. Instead, the response was, "Wow, incompetent rubes have lost control of their own party."
Mind you, the only reason this line of attack was even available to the GOP is because of hackers. And the only reason hackers bothered to leak their info is because of the existing narrative. Otherwise, they would have been far better off keeping their hack secret in the hopes of staying undetected in the long run.
If there wasn't an existing "Bernie as victim" narrative, republicans would have simply fallen back on discussing Benghazi.
I thought he specifically said he didn't want to use the word rigged. Are you putting words in his mouth?
So it's okay as long as he dogwhistles his theory about it being rigged rather than actually using the word.
Right, so you're not saying something he actually said, you're working off of assumption and inference.
He spent weeks inferring the process was rigged by railing against the process and how it disadvantaged his campaign. Every time something went wrong it was always someone else's fault, be it the DNC (when they accessed Hillary's data) or the state's primary process (New York for example). The wording "rigged" didn't appear from thin air, it came from his campaign staff and his followers and he sat by and did nothing to fight against it until the primary was already over (the "he didn't want to use the word rigged" came from an interview at the end of May). It was picked up on by Trump and used clumsily by him to try and drive a wedge between Sanders' followers and Hillary. The DNC leak was only a big story because it "confirmed" the rigging narrative and if there wasn't such a narrative in place then they would have been nothing.
So he spent weeks talking about how it was rigged without saying it was rigged. Being disadvantaged is categorically different than the the Primary being rigged.
Saying his campaign was disadvantaged is true. He was disadvantaged by numerous factors, not all of which pertain to how the Democratic Primary was run.
Superdelegates put him at an illusion of a great disadvantage against Clinton, especially early on, which I'm sure had some effect on his perceived chance of victory and standing and changed minds about whether it was worth voting for him, or voting at all if he was a first choice. I do not believe this would have changed the Primary outcome at all however.
PHILADELPHIA — Hacked internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks on Saturday showed that some staffers at the party hoped to undermine the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during the bitterly contested Democratic primary. The scandal that followed led to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., last Sunday, the eve of the party’s nominating convention. Now Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, says he believes the initial leaks haven’t exposed everything the DNC did to sabotage Sanders’ effort to win.
....
WikiLeaks has not revealed the source of the messages. Clinton’s campaign has said, based on the analysis of multiple online security firms, that the leaks came from Russian hackers. Weaver said this could be a concern but does not change the contents of the messages and the need for a continued strong response to the DNC’s actions.
“It matters on one level — obviously you don’t want foreign governments interfering in our elections,” Weaver said of a potential Russian role in the leak. “But on the other hand, the substance of the emails are the substance of the emails. And I think the response has been strong and I think forceful. … I think there’ll be further responses and, you know, I support that response.”
So Bernie's Sander's campaign manager, as of yesterday, is still complaining that the entire primary was sabotaged and that there needs to be a "response" to this.
How does Bernie Sanders feel about these comments from his own campaign manager?
He probably agrees with the ones that say we need to move forward to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump, but hes probably mostly wondering what to do with Mr. Weaver now that the campaign is over
PHILADELPHIA — Hacked internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks on Saturday showed that some staffers at the party hoped to undermine the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during the bitterly contested Democratic primary. The scandal that followed led to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., last Sunday, the eve of the party’s nominating convention. Now Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, says he believes the initial leaks haven’t exposed everything the DNC did to sabotage Sanders’ effort to win.
....
WikiLeaks has not revealed the source of the messages. Clinton’s campaign has said, based on the analysis of multiple online security firms, that the leaks came from Russian hackers. Weaver said this could be a concern but does not change the contents of the messages and the need for a continued strong response to the DNC’s actions.
“It matters on one level — obviously you don’t want foreign governments interfering in our elections,” Weaver said of a potential Russian role in the leak. “But on the other hand, the substance of the emails are the substance of the emails. And I think the response has been strong and I think forceful. … I think there’ll be further responses and, you know, I support that response.”
So Bernie's Sander's campaign manager, as of yesterday, is still complaining that the entire primary was sabotaged and that there needs to be a "response" to this.
How does Bernie Sanders feel about these comments from his own campaign manager?
He probably agrees with the ones that say we need to move forward to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump, but hes probably mostly wondering what to do with Mr. Weaver now that the campaign is over
PHILADELPHIA — Hacked internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks on Saturday showed that some staffers at the party hoped to undermine the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during the bitterly contested Democratic primary. The scandal that followed led to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., last Sunday, the eve of the party’s nominating convention. Now Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, says he believes the initial leaks haven’t exposed everything the DNC did to sabotage Sanders’ effort to win.
....
WikiLeaks has not revealed the source of the messages. Clinton’s campaign has said, based on the analysis of multiple online security firms, that the leaks came from Russian hackers. Weaver said this could be a concern but does not change the contents of the messages and the need for a continued strong response to the DNC’s actions.
“It matters on one level — obviously you don’t want foreign governments interfering in our elections,” Weaver said of a potential Russian role in the leak. “But on the other hand, the substance of the emails are the substance of the emails. And I think the response has been strong and I think forceful. … I think there’ll be further responses and, you know, I support that response.”
So Bernie's Sander's campaign manager, as of yesterday, is still complaining that the entire primary was sabotaged and that there needs to be a "response" to this.
How does Bernie Sanders feel about these comments from his own campaign manager?
He probably agrees with the ones that say we need to move forward to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump, but hes probably mostly wondering what to do with Mr. Weaver now that the campaign is over
Fuck him. Fuck Jeff Weaver.
Is Bernie in an open marriage? Would Jane be okay with that?
I thought he specifically said he didn't want to use the word rigged. Are you putting words in his mouth?
So it's okay as long as he dogwhistles his theory about it being rigged rather than actually using the word.
Right, so you're not saying something he actually said, you're working off of assumption and inference.
He spent weeks inferring the process was rigged by railing against the process and how it disadvantaged his campaign. Every time something went wrong it was always someone else's fault, be it the DNC (when they accessed Hillary's data) or the state's primary process (New York for example). The wording "rigged" didn't appear from thin air, it came from his campaign staff and his followers and he sat by and did nothing to fight against it until the primary was already over (the "he didn't want to use the word rigged" came from an interview at the end of May). It was picked up on by Trump and used clumsily by him to try and drive a wedge between Sanders' followers and Hillary. The DNC leak was only a big story because it "confirmed" the rigging narrative and if there wasn't such a narrative in place then they would have been nothing.
If Russia hacked the DNC in 2008 and revealed similar bias regarding Hillary or Obama, no one would on either side would give a shit.
Republicans would have definitely gone all for it, as they have for every single accusation against Hillary Clinton, with or without merit.
Doubtful.
The only reason this "scandal" has any meat is the appearance of a victim. And neither Hillary nor Obama would have been willing to play that role.
Either of them would have immediately shut down any implication that this had any effect on the primary.
Heck, look at all the reports of RNC bias against Trump leading up to the RNC race. I can't think of anyone on the left who even questioned the idea of whether or not the RNC should have bias. Instead, the response was, "Wow, incompetent rubes have lost control of their own party."
Mind you, the only reason this line of attack was even available to the GOP is because of hackers. And the only reason hackers bothered to leak their info is because of the existing narrative. Otherwise, they would have been far better off keeping their hack secret in the hopes of staying undetected in the long run.
If there wasn't an existing "Bernie as victim" narrative, republicans would have simply fallen back on discussing Benghazi.
Republicans have a history of trying to hack the DNC without provocation and manufacturing narratives where there are none, and hackers have a history of revealing sensitive information to the public instead of actually using it for leverage. The mere fact that Bernie Sanders was a prominent and surviving runner in the primary provides enough narrative for people to argue that the DNC is bought and sold, something that Trump was able to do without Sanders' help because of his own rejection of SuperPACs. The cooperation of Bernie Sanders is not needed to sustain the narrative, which can be twisted in any direction regardless of his opinion.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Lewis did not acknowledge the protesters, but he said he expected he would cry over the nomination of Clinton, just as he had when Obama was nominated and won his first presidential election.
“Never Hillary!” someone yelled.
Later, Lewis said her nomination would inspire young men and women around the world.
“Bulls**t!” a man yelled out.
Lewis chuckled briefly upon hearing that.
Throughout the interview, broken shouts about Clinton stealing the nomination continued as Hall and Lewis spoke.
Explain to me again why it's so hard for Bernie to even try to convince his base that the election wasn't stolen.
I thought he specifically said he didn't want to use the word rigged. Are you putting words in his mouth?
So it's okay as long as he dogwhistles his theory about it being rigged rather than actually using the word.
Right, so you're not saying something he actually said, you're working off of assumption and inference.
He spent weeks inferring the process was rigged by railing against the process and how it disadvantaged his campaign. Every time something went wrong it was always someone else's fault, be it the DNC (when they accessed Hillary's data) or the state's primary process (New York for example). The wording "rigged" didn't appear from thin air, it came from his campaign staff and his followers and he sat by and did nothing to fight against it until the primary was already over (the "he didn't want to use the word rigged" came from an interview at the end of May). It was picked up on by Trump and used clumsily by him to try and drive a wedge between Sanders' followers and Hillary. The DNC leak was only a big story because it "confirmed" the rigging narrative and if there wasn't such a narrative in place then they would have been nothing.
If Russia hacked the DNC in 2008 and revealed similar bias regarding Hillary or Obama, no one would on either side would give a shit.
Republicans would have definitely gone all for it, as they have for every single accusation against Hillary Clinton, with or without merit.
ironically the obama camp wound up creating essentially an entire parallel type of structure so that they wouldn't have to deal with the DNC (though they probably weren't able to completely tell'em to fuck off circa 2008)
the not-so-hidden joke in all of this is people believing the DNC higher-ups were competent enough to successfully rig an election
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Lewis did not acknowledge the protesters, but he said he expected he would cry over the nomination of Clinton, just as he had when Obama was nominated and won his first presidential election.
“Never Hillary!” someone yelled.
Later, Lewis said her nomination would inspire young men and women around the world.
“Bulls**t!” a man yelled out.
Lewis chuckled briefly upon hearing that.
Throughout the interview, broken shouts about Clinton stealing the nomination continued as Hall and Lewis spoke.
Explain to me again why it's so hard for Bernie to even try to convince his base that the election wasn't stolen.
Once they buy into the conspiracy theory Bernie started, any evidence to the contrary is just more evidence of the conspiracy.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Lewis did not acknowledge the protesters, but he said he expected he would cry over the nomination of Clinton, just as he had when Obama was nominated and won his first presidential election.
“Never Hillary!” someone yelled.
Later, Lewis said her nomination would inspire young men and women around the world.
“Bulls**t!” a man yelled out.
Lewis chuckled briefly upon hearing that.
Throughout the interview, broken shouts about Clinton stealing the nomination continued as Hall and Lewis spoke.
Explain to me again why it's so hard for Bernie to even try to convince his base that the election wasn't stolen.
If publicly pledging his support to Hillary doesn't convince them, nothing will. And no more time nor effort needs to be spent on it.
Posts
I mean yeah, that was when it would do the least damage. Also the least good.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They deserve no further mention than "The emails were illegally obtained and altered by Russian hackers. Discussing them is pointless, so we won't."
I don't see how Bernie Sanders is responsible for Donald Trump asking the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's communications.
No, he's the guy the Russian hackers are trying to pander to.
When a Malaria stricken country gives money to a Malaria charity run by Hillary Clinton, the response is that Hillary should refuse their donation even if it means millions of additional children getting sick.
When a criminal country does criminal acts to specifically to pander to the BoB crowd, there's no call for Bernie to refuse their "help"?
You can say the same thing about David Duke endorsing Donald Trump, and yet people rightfully criticized Donald Trump for not repudiating Duke soon enough.
If a criminal breaks into Hillary Clinton's house and falsely claims he found evidence that Hillary murdered Bernie's dog, it's not enough for Bernie to simply say, "Burglary is wrong, I refuse to mention this matter further."
He also needs to mention something about the dog, because the dog is the entire reason these headlines are being spread in the first place.
A general tip for getting people to come to consensus: don't throw in a dig while you're asking them to do something for you. And certainly don't use guilty language in your example like "admits," etc. It projects an assumption of culpability.
Bernie publicly pledged his support to Hillary at the convention. Publicly. Live on camera, in front of literally anyone who wanted to watch. Do these sound like the actions of some who thinks the election was stolen?
So are you saying his implication things were rigged against him the last few weeks of the primary were him lying rather than something he actually believed?
He's in a particularly vulnerable place that would probably cause more harm than good of he chose to speak about this. But I think he's gone back to being tired of those emails.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I love how that's the damning thing that came out of the email hack.
Because all i get from that is ' SO WHAT?? "
LIke, OH THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT PREFERRED THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE OVER THE PERSON WHO RAN AS A INDEPENDENT HIS WHOLE LIFE AND ONLY SWITCHED TO 'DEMOCRACT' THIS PAST YEAR IN ORDER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. WOW COLOR ME SHOCKED
You wouldn't even need to hack the Republican Email Database to find out that the GOP Establishment preferred anyone over Trump and probably tried to help others win over him, because they've already been open about it, like it's not even a secret, yet no one seems to give a fuck about that because Trump won.
Wanna know what you specifically WONT find in the hack? Proof that they somehow changed votes, or manipulated results or did anything actually 'undemocratic' in order to influence the primaries. (AND NO FOLLOWING THEIR ESTABLISHED RULES REGARDING SUPER DELEGATES DOESN'T COUNT AS 'STEALING THE NOM.')
Like that's all there is. Fucking hot air and nothing else
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
So it's okay as long as he dogwhistles his theory about it being rigged rather than actually using the word.
There was a bit of dirty laundry in there regarding his religion, but you can't expect shop talk to be politically correct all the time
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Depends on when you're talking about
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/02/sanders_there_will_be_a_contested_convention_system_is_rigged.html
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bernie-sanders-agrees-democratic-process-not-rigged
Right, so you're not saying something he actually said, you're working off of assumption and inference.
And the argument is that those voting results were "stolen" because of "bias."
An alleged victim will always have an easier time refuting an accusation compared to an alleged criminal.
Paul Ryan endorsed Donald Trump and says he'll do anything he can to get Donald Trump elected, on camera, publicly, for everyone to watch. Do these sound like the actions of someone who thinks Donald Trump is a hateful racist?
Heck, most of the RNC actually expected Ted Cruz to endorse Donald Trump even after Donald insulted Cruz's wife and father.
So yet, it's entirely possible for people to believe that Bernie would endorse someone who stole the election from him. And not simply believe that on a personal level, but also convince themselves that Bernie wants them to believe that as well.
Bernie might not be able to do much to fix the former. But he can address the latter. "Look, I can't change your mind if you think the election was stolen, but I want to make it clear that I don't think that."
He has done this before the hack was an issue (read the link I posted). If asked the question, he will say it again.
It's a little more complicated than that, because he wants changes to happen in the primary process and the DNC as well. Try pushing for both those things at the same time.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm not a fan of Bernie, but pointing to the Republicans and being like "If they can do it, Bernie can do it" is exactly the kind of thing that Bernie is against. The system has fundamental issues that appear unsolvable from within, such as having to get behind a candidate you don't agree with to avoid a candidate you disagree with even more.
So Bernie's Sander's campaign manager, as of yesterday, is still complaining that the entire primary was sabotaged and that there needs to be a "response" to this.
How does Bernie Sanders feel about these comments from his own campaign manager?
May 27, 2016.
He probably agrees with the ones that say we need to move forward to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump, but hes probably mostly wondering what to do with Mr. Weaver now that the campaign is over
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's not hard to say, "The primaries weren't rigged, but they're still messed up and in heavy need of reform."
Here...
That was before his campaign manager started talking to the press about there was proof of sabotage. Which happened yesterday.
He spent weeks inferring the process was rigged by railing against the process and how it disadvantaged his campaign. Every time something went wrong it was always someone else's fault, be it the DNC (when they accessed Hillary's data) or the state's primary process (New York for example). The wording "rigged" didn't appear from thin air, it came from his campaign staff and his followers and he sat by and did nothing to fight against it until the primary was already over (the "he didn't want to use the word rigged" came from an interview at the end of May). It was picked up on by Trump and used clumsily by him to try and drive a wedge between Sanders' followers and Hillary. The DNC leak was only a big story because it "confirmed" the rigging narrative and if there wasn't such a narrative in place then they would have been nothing.
Ever notice how every news headline saying Bernie Sanders said the primary was rigged had to put it in quotes? I didn't, but it's really obvious in retrospect
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If Russia hacked the DNC in 2008 and revealed similar bias regarding Hillary or Obama, no one would on either side would give a shit.
Republicans would have definitely gone all for it, as they have for every single accusation against Hillary Clinton, with or without merit.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Doubtful.
The only reason this "scandal" has any meat is the appearance of a victim. And neither Hillary nor Obama would have been willing to play that role.
Either of them would have immediately shut down any implication that this had any effect on the primary.
Heck, look at all the reports of RNC bias against Trump leading up to the RNC race. I can't think of anyone on the left who even questioned the idea of whether or not the RNC should have bias. Instead, the response was, "Wow, incompetent rubes have lost control of their own party."
Mind you, the only reason this line of attack was even available to the GOP is because of hackers. And the only reason hackers bothered to leak their info is because of the existing narrative. Otherwise, they would have been far better off keeping their hack secret in the hopes of staying undetected in the long run.
If there wasn't an existing "Bernie as victim" narrative, republicans would have simply fallen back on discussing Benghazi.
So he spent weeks talking about how it was rigged without saying it was rigged. Being disadvantaged is categorically different than the the Primary being rigged.
Saying his campaign was disadvantaged is true. He was disadvantaged by numerous factors, not all of which pertain to how the Democratic Primary was run.
Superdelegates put him at an illusion of a great disadvantage against Clinton, especially early on, which I'm sure had some effect on his perceived chance of victory and standing and changed minds about whether it was worth voting for him, or voting at all if he was a first choice. I do not believe this would have changed the Primary outcome at all however.
Fuck him. Fuck Jeff Weaver.
May I recommend the comic book business?
Is Bernie in an open marriage? Would Jane be okay with that?
Republicans have a history of trying to hack the DNC without provocation and manufacturing narratives where there are none, and hackers have a history of revealing sensitive information to the public instead of actually using it for leverage. The mere fact that Bernie Sanders was a prominent and surviving runner in the primary provides enough narrative for people to argue that the DNC is bought and sold, something that Trump was able to do without Sanders' help because of his own rejection of SuperPACs. The cooperation of Bernie Sanders is not needed to sustain the narrative, which can be twisted in any direction regardless of his opinion.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Explain to me again why it's so hard for Bernie to even try to convince his base that the election wasn't stolen.
ironically the obama camp wound up creating essentially an entire parallel type of structure so that they wouldn't have to deal with the DNC (though they probably weren't able to completely tell'em to fuck off circa 2008)
the not-so-hidden joke in all of this is people believing the DNC higher-ups were competent enough to successfully rig an election
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Once they buy into the conspiracy theory Bernie started, any evidence to the contrary is just more evidence of the conspiracy.