+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? (/showthread.php?tid=193190)
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - $tevie - 07-23-2016
RgrF wrote::agree:
Debbie is a POS and needs to be removed from office.
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - vision63 - 07-23-2016
Ted King wrote:
[quote=samintx]
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/
Is this going to cause a ruckus in the Democratic party? Will Hillary have to explain?
There was already a fair amount of evidence that the leadership at the DNC was favoring Clinton - which they had no business doing. I'm not sure about the ruckus factor but I'll bet that Sanders made the pragmatic decision a while back to put his valid outrage about the shenanigans at the DNC aside for now until Trump is defeated, so to the degree that his "followers" take their lead from him I don't think there will be too much of a ruckus about it - at least not until after the election.
The Democratic Party is obligated to present what it believes is it's best candidate to face the opposition. There is no requirement to anything other that this. They are a private organization. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat. He ran and he lost 100% fair and square. If you don't believe this to be true, demonstrate how it wasn't.
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - Ted King - 07-23-2016
vision63 wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=samintx]
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/
Is this going to cause a ruckus in the Democratic party? Will Hillary have to explain?
There was already a fair amount of evidence that the leadership at the DNC was favoring Clinton - which they had no business doing. I'm not sure about the ruckus factor but I'll bet that Sanders made the pragmatic decision a while back to put his valid outrage about the shenanigans at the DNC aside for now until Trump is defeated, so to the degree that his "followers" take their lead from him I don't think there will be too much of a ruckus about it - at least not until after the election.
The Democratic Party is obligated to present what it believes is it's best candidate to face the opposition. There is no requirement to anything other that this. They are a private organization. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat. He ran and he lost 100% fair and square. If you don't believe this to be true, demonstrate how it wasn't.
I think without any bias from the DNC that Sanders probably would have lost - maybe by a lesser margin, but probably lost anyway.
As to my assertion "which they had no business doing" is one that you can rightfully disagree with. You present a legal argument and I concede the legal argument - as a private organization, the DNC can legally show bias toward and against candidates that run on their ticket. I intended my assertion not to be about legality but of fairness. What is the point of a primary where candidates try to get the majority or plurality of the votes if the results reflect what party leadership wants rather than what the voters would have preferred without the leadership bias? What candidate wants to be known for winning a primary by getting a majority of the votes only because the party rigged it so that they would? It's not only not fair, I don't think it is even desirable if you want the party to be successful.
When I get some time, I'll try to look into the party rules to see what they have to say about this.
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - RgrF - 07-23-2016
When a candidate declares him or herself a Democrat, they are from that point on a Democrat. There's no entrance exam. Once a private political party accepts funds from a diverse membership base, it's tasked with administrating the function of that party to the benefit of the entire party, not a single candidate.
You may volunteer and work for the party Vision, you don't own it.
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - (vikm) - 07-23-2016
It is clear from the last couple of weeks reading posts here who's been sincerely following all of the information related to the leaks and all of the other info around the country regarding the election fraud from the last couple of months. People are so blinded by their hatred of Trump (and I'm no fan) that they come off as having no desire to know the truth. I'm amazed at the number of Hillary supporters that will continue to make excuse after excuse for every single issue. It's not even debatable that the DNC was going to make Hillary their candidate come hell or high water.
For those that haven't followed it as closely as others, Sanders was required to endorse her. He would have been stripped of delegates and certainly wouldn't get the speaking gig he's got lined up at the convention. I can't imagine how furious he's been after all of the evidence that's come out. They will be lucky if that building is still standing after he speaks. All I'm saying, and believe what you want, is don't be surprised when November rolls around and Bernie is no longer endorsing her.
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - DeusxMac - 07-23-2016
vision63 wrote:
They are a private organization.
Might not the receipt of Federal matching funds impose some rules, requirements or limitations on their actions?
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - samintx - 07-23-2016
RgrF wrote:
Debbie is a POS and needs to be removed from office.
I thought HIllary said last year Debbie is OUT as far as she is concerned. Didn't think she liked her so……
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - Ted King - 07-23-2016
I got around to seeing what the DNC rules are with respect to impartiality:
The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - max - 07-23-2016
Ted King wrote:
I got around to seeing what the DNC rules are with respect to impartiality:
The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.
Good luck with that.
First you would have to root out the entire corrupt host that is the Democratic Party......
Re: DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything? - vision63 - 07-24-2016
RgrF wrote:
When a candidate declares him or herself a Democrat, they are from that point on a Democrat. There's no entrance exam. Once a private political party accepts funds from a diverse membership base, it's tasked with administrating the function of that party to the benefit of the entire party, not a single candidate.
You may volunteer and work for the party Vision, you don't own it.
Who said I did? But that doesn't mean I have to like you. Especially when all you (Sanders) did was cry like a baby the entire time.
Truth be told, it was Sanders that more greatly benefitted from the DNC rules by far. He primarily won low voter turnout caucuses that hardly represented the existing electorate. Am I lying?
Sanders won the Washington State and Nebraska Caucuses by decent margins. When those two states held non binding primaries in which many many more people voted Hillary dusted him off by good margins. He gamed low voter caucuses for delegates. So who benefitted? He should have never been in it. For real. This election wasn't close. She trounced him.
During the platform battles, the two things he desperately wanted more than anything was to eliminate super delegates and open primaries. The CBC wrote strongly worded letters in no uncertain terms dictating that doing so was not going to happen and that is wasn't even negotiable. He dropped it right away. Cuz he knew.
My question remains how was the process not fair? Vkim, give it a rest.