So Much for "Unity" at the DNC: Corporate Democrats Purge Bernie Backers
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't follow what the response to me is supposed to mean.
Klinker said:
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't think there's much of an argument that the whole primary and caucus process was so "tainted" that all the votes for Hillary should have been ignored.
Perhaps not but I don't think there is much ground for HRC supporters to be crowing about "democracy" either.
Perhaps we need some details on how the rigging went down. Please enlighten me on how this was a democratic process. Also, more details about how paid consultants were getting rich and bankrupting the undemocratic party.
Revealed: Clinton DNC Takeover Started With Paid Consultants
"Perhaps we need some details on how the rigging went down."
My point exactly. There aren't details, not even a good theory about how so many votes were "rigged". The "rigging" claim is Trump-like that way.
"Please enlighten me on how this was a democratic process."
The person who won the most contests, the most votes, and most elected delegates was nominated.
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't follow what the response to me is supposed to mean.
Klinker said:
South_Mountaineer said:
I don't think there's much of an argument that the whole primary and caucus process was so "tainted" that all the votes for Hillary should have been ignored.
Perhaps not but I don't think there is much ground for HRC supporters to be crowing about "democracy" either.
Perhaps we need some details on how the rigging went down. Please enlighten me on how this was a democratic process. Also, more details about how paid consultants were getting rich and bankrupting the undemocratic party.
Revealed: Clinton DNC Takeover Started With Paid Consultants
And the above is the problem. Many are happy to hear the other side but receipts of things said must be shown. It isn't enough to type, "that the whole primary and caucus were tainted..." How were both "tainted"? By whom? And sad as it may be, sans the Russian interference, the election was STILL a "democratic process" from beginning to end. We just have too many Americans who choose to get their news from FB and Hannity instead of other sources.
does anyone else see the irony in declaring something to be "top secret", and then going on to describe it?
nan said:
The DNC finances are top secret and even more corrupt than their policies. Much of the money goes to hugely overpaid consultants who are rehired even when they produce zero results. This starves the state and local parties and makes it hard to get Democrats elected. Here is a rant about that by Naomi Konst, on the Unity Commission. The new recommendations will make the process more open.
Nomiki Konst spitting fire on the DNC Unity Reform commission, her efforts were victorious
Sigh. I don't need to explain this stuff to you (its all out there starting with the Clinton's retaliation campaign after 2008) and I seriously doubt that any amount of evidence could convince you.
What would be great is if we could get past the countless perceived wrongs that caused your candidate to lose to the most beatable man in the history of Presidential elections and on to correcting the glaringly obvious flaws in the process.
Would you have been happy if Bernie had won the nomination using Superdelegates to offset HRC's "earned" delegates? No? Then why aren't you fighting to get rid of the system that made that a possibility?
Hillary Clinton was:
First Lady
Senator
Secretary of State.
Who was better qualified? Who was better qualified and interested in running?
Trump was clearly not "the most beatable man in the history of Presidential elections". After all, he won. Just because we all think he's a piece of garbage doesn't mean that that was the view throughout the Country.
LOST said:
Who was better qualified? Who was better qualified and interested in running?
Clearly, there was a difference of opinion over this question. Do we really have to rehash the election to move forward with reforming the system? I doubt that I will be able to convince you that Bernie was the better candidate and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me that HRC was the better choice.
Like so many Bernie supporters I held my nose and voted for HRC during the general. I honestly don't understand why it is so important for the HRC crowd to convince us that our stand for liberal and progressive principles was wrong. I hate to break it to you folks, it ain't going to happen.
Instead of rehashing what we cannot change, let's begin to face facts. Like @LOST said, Trump won because many view him differently than others. For all of our "America's the greatest country" rhetoric, we sure are adopting the political ways of other countries. For example, we snub our noses at Muslims for well, being Muslims, yet, we cast a vote based on whether someone is Christian or not. We gag at foreign men dating, molesting and marrying young girls, yet Roy Moore is probably going to win Alabama. We guffaw when countries vote party line, disregarding facts but yet our votes are becoming more tribal by the decade. When I heard a man in Alabama say that yes, Moore's past bothered him but he was still going to vote for him simply because he's a Republican, I knew our country was in serious, serious trouble.
LOST said:
Hillary Clinton was:
First Lady
Senator
Secretary of State.
Who was better qualified? Who was better qualified and interested in running?
Trump was clearly not "the most beatable man in the history of Presidential elections". After all, he won. Just because we all think he's a piece of garbage doesn't mean that that was the view throughout the Country.
First Lady because of the man she married
Senator as a carpetbagger who moved to New York State when a Senate Seat came open.Do you think had she been named Hillary Jones she would have gotten the nomination
Secretary of State.........will not touch that one
Qualified...........there is a word for that which starts with an N
Interested in running? from the time she lost her braces and I think she is not done yet
author said:First Lady because of the man she married
Senator as a carpetbagger who moved to New York State when a Senate Seat came open.Do you think had she been named Hillary Jones she would have gotten the nomination
Secretary of State.........will not touch that one
Qualified...........there is a word for that which starts with an N
Interested in running? from the time she lost her braces and I think she is not done yet
Last one first. I meant was there someone else interested in running? There were only Bernie and Martin O'Malley. The latter's campaign went nowhere.
As to the first, there is a long joke about that that ends with Hillary saying to Bill "You don't understand. If I had married that guy he would be President today.
Precedent was set by Bobby Kennedy. A few years later James Buckley, a resident of Connecticut was elected NY Senator. He was registered to vote in NY from his Manhattan office.
She was Sect'y of State. The Right attacks her for what she did or didn't do in that position. What is your criticism? Should Obama have fired her?
Klinker said:
LOST said:
Who was better qualified? Who was better qualified and interested in running?
Clearly, there was a difference of opinion over this question. Do we really have to rehash the election to move forward with reforming the system? I doubt that I will be able to convince you that Bernie was the better candidate and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me that HRC was the better choice.
Like so many Bernie supporters I held my nose and voted for HRC during the general. I honestly don't understand why it is so important for the HRC crowd to convince us that our stand for liberal and progressive principles was wrong. I hate to break it to you folks, it ain't going to happen.
Of course there was a difference of opinion. I voted for Bernie in the Primary. And you are the one who was rehashing. I just replied.
Nothing wrong with your stand for "liberal and progressive principles". Hillary has been standing for those all her life.
Some of us, including Bernie, favor Socialist principles.
LOST said:
author said:
First Lady because of the man she married
Senator as a carpetbagger who moved to New York State when a Senate Seat came open.Do you think had she been named Hillary Jones she would have gotten the nomination
Secretary of State.........will not touch that one
Qualified...........there is a word for that which starts with an N
Interested in running? from the time she lost her braces and I think she is not done yet
Last one first. I meant was there someone else interested in running? There were only Bernie and Martin O'Malley. The latter's campaign went nowhere.
As to the first, there is a long joke about that that ends with Hillary saying to Bill "You don't understand. If I had married that guy he would be President today.
Precedent was set by Bobby Kennedy. A few years later James Buckley, a resident of Connecticut was elected NY Senator. He was registered to vote in NY from his Manhattan office.
She was Sect'y of State. The Right attacks her for what she did or didn't do in that position. What is your criticism? Should Obama have fired her?
Klinker said:
LOST said:
Who was better qualified? Who was better qualified and interested in running?
Clearly, there was a difference of opinion over this question. Do we really have to rehash the election to move forward with reforming the system? I doubt that I will be able to convince you that Bernie was the better candidate and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me that HRC was the better choice.
Like so many Bernie supporters I held my nose and voted for HRC during the general. I honestly don't understand why it is so important for the HRC crowd to convince us that our stand for liberal and progressive principles was wrong. I hate to break it to you folks, it ain't going to happen.
Of course there was a difference of opinion. I voted for Bernie in the Primary. And you are the one who was rehashing. I just replied.
Nothing wrong with your stand for "liberal and progressive principles". Hillary has been standing for those all her life.
Some of us, including Bernie, favor Socialist principles.
Ah Hillary.....the gift that keeps on giving.
Her stewardship as Secretary of State........can anyone think of a previous Secretary who charged visitors for face time with them. Documented that over 40%of her visitors were made to donate to the Clinton Foundation to speak with her in person....shameful
The private email server she used. Again documented that she had been warned repeatedly by State not to continue doing that. But she did, arrogance and "the rules don't apply to me" attitude
Carpetbag campaign........... remember well when Bobby made the move. Many of us went "Neat and Clean for Gene" I would not give up my Jeans for khakis. They exiled me to the mimeo graph room. Good thing I was not wearing Khakis. Many of us liked Bobby, but resented the fact that he did not decide to run till LBJ dropped out of the race
Carpetbagging should not be allowed by the Bobby Kennedy's of the world or the Hillary Jone's
I still feel the burn
LOST said:
Nothing wrong with your stand for "liberal and progressive principles". Hillary has been standing for those all her life.
Hmmmm.... The Clintons have spent decades moving the Democrat Party to the center and then to the new center and so and so forth until the center is way over where the right use to be. You can't spend your life on that mission and then claim to be progressive when it suddenly becomes politically convenient.
Klinker said:
LOST said:
Nothing wrong with your stand for "liberal and progressive principles". Hillary has been standing for those all her life.
Hmmmm.... The Clintons have spent decades moving the Democrat Party to the center and then to the new center and so and so forth until the center is way over where the right use to be. You can't spend your life on that mission and then claim to be progressive when it suddenly becomes politically convenient.
"Things fall apart:the center will not hold:
William Butler Yeats
And yet I've met Republicans who consider Hillary Clinton to be a "socialist". In fact part of the reason she lost is that many Americans consider her to be too far to the Left.
But let's not re-hash this.
Happy Chanukah.
It was rigged and undemocratic because Hillary bought the nomination a year before the primary. She signed a secret deal. I don't see how anyone who is a Democrat is OK with this.
drummerboy said:
does anyone else see the irony in declaring something to be "top secret", and then going on to describe it?
nan said:
The DNC finances are top secret and even more corrupt than their policies. Much of the money goes to hugely overpaid consultants who are rehired even when they produce zero results. This starves the state and local parties and makes it hard to get Democrats elected. Here is a rant about that by Naomi Konst, on the Unity Commission. The new recommendations will make the process more open.
Nomiki Konst spitting fire on the DNC Unity Reform commission, her efforts were victorious
Should be self-evident, but I'll try to help you understand. The budget of the DNC is only shared with The Chair and the Treasurer, excluding even the executive committee. What other business does this! If you watch the interview with Donna Brazille that I posted, one of the things that pissed her off the most is that when she was the head of the DNC they were generating checks without her signature. So, even The Chair is sometimes left in the dark. So, it is secret in that almost no one can see the books--they tell people to just go look at the FCC filings (that's what Nomiki refers to in the video). They also hire consulting firms with no-bid contracts at very high rates. It's a huge bureaucratic mess with questionable spending practices. Anyone who donates money to the DNC should be concerned with their way of doing business, politics aside.
Some people even think that when they purged the progressives it was about the money, not the politics. They did not want Nomiki screaming and demanding a more open process which, as you can see from the video of her doing that, happened:
Tom Perez’s great DNC purge of Sanders supporters isn’t about politics…They are hiding the budget.
The whole "It was rigged!!!!" thing and the DNC reorg has been discussed. No sense rehashing, we can just read the older thread.
nohero said:
The whole "It was rigged!!!!" thing and the DNC reorg has been discussed. No sense rehashing, we can just read the older thread.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/-inside-hillary-clinton-s-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc?page=next&limit=
Call it what you want, but Hillary Clinton was allowed, in secret, to buy the nomination. Do you think that was OK? Are you fine that the DNC has a budget only two people can see? Please justify spending millions of dollars on five consultants while local parties get nothing and Democrats are wiped out? I know your comment is on the rigging, but I have yet to hear you do anything but defend everything the DNC does, no matter how corrupt.
I'm glad someone is standing up to this crap. The good news is that Hillary is now gone and some people around the DNC are finally feeling like they can come out and sing "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead" This is actually what they are singing there. There is some new hope for reform. The Nomiki Konst video I posted above went viral, and people are now becoming aware about how much money was wasted on consultants, at the expense of local races. Turns out, as you can hear in the interview with Nomiki below, that only allowing two people to see the budget was not actually in the rules. It is important for the public to be aware of how horrible the DNC was run, because that makes it more likely these changes will pass the rules and bylaws committee and actually be put in place.
nan said:
nohero said:
The whole "It was rigged!!!!" thing and the DNC reorg has been discussed. No sense rehashing, we can just read the older thread.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/-inside-hillary-clinton-s-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc?page=next&limit=
Call it what you want, but Hillary Clinton was allowed, in secret, to buy the nomination. Do you think that was OK? Are you fine that the DNC has a budget only two people can see? Please justify spending millions of dollars on five consultants while local parties get nothing and Democrats are wiped out? I know your comment is on the rigging, but I have yet to hear you do anything but defend everything the DNC does, no matter how corrupt.
I'm glad someone is standing up to this crap. The good news is that Hillary is now gone and some people around the DNC are finally feeling like they can come out and sing "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead" This is actually what they are singing there. There is some new hope for reform. The Nomiki Konst video I posted above went viral, and people are now becoming aware about how much money was wasted on consultants, at the expense of local races. Turns out, as you can hear in the interview with Nomiki below, that only allowing two people to see the budget was not actually in the rules. It is important for the public to be aware of how horrible the DNC was run, because that makes it more likely these changes will pass the rules and bylaws committee and actually be put in place.
Not so fast. Remember when Nixon "bowed out of politics" with his "you won't have Dick to kick around" speech....after losing the California Governorship race. He then traveled around the country making speeches for the GOP. He built up his political IOU's till he ran again for the Presidency and won.
Anyone hear HRC declare she was definitely through with politics. Don't put it past her to run for the big prize one more time
nan said:
nohero said:Call it what you want, but Hillary Clinton was allowed, in secret, to buy the nomination. Do you think that was OK? ...
The whole "It was rigged!!!!" thing and the DNC reorg has been discussed. No sense rehashing, we can just read the older thread.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/-inside-hillary-clinton-s-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc?page=next&limit=
That's a "when did you stop beating your wife" question. As I said in what you quoted, there's already a discussion of what Donna Brazile's "big reveal" actually was. So, same comment. Do I think people in politics jockey for position and use their fundraising and connections? Of course they do. "Politics ain't beanbag", as the old saying goes.
Your position is that "Hillary Clinton was allowed, in secret, to buy the nomination." It's not really a "secret" that more people voted for her in the primaries, among other things. "How Clinton Won: How Hillary Clinton Overcame the Challenge From Sen. Bernie Sanders" is something you could read. She won more Democrats, also, and that must have been expensive to purchase all those votes.
She did extraordinarily well among African-American voters, especially African-American women (cite: "Black Women Voters: By the Numbers"). Those African-American women in Alabama, who are everyone's heroes this week for showing up to vote for Doug Jones (even in the face of the notorious voter-suppression efforts there)? They overwhelmingly supported Clinton. For that, they were dissed by the "Bernie Bros". Even Senator Sanders himself had a slur against the African-American voters in the Deep South -
“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South, no question about it,” Bernie Sanders said during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn. “That is the most conservative part of this great country,” he continued. “But you know what, we’re out of the Deep South now. And we’re moving up.”
Cite: "Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party". Please read a further discussion of that at the link.
Now, if those voters were "bought", what did it take to buy them? In your theory, were African-Americans (especially in the Deep South) less expensive to purchase? What about the other types of voters and interest groups represented by her support (you can see a breakout of the numbers in this article detailing Democratic primary voter demographics. The "buy the nomination" claim should have more details, if that's what is going to be said.
One more thing. I'm just not going to pay attention to any arguments from Jimmy Dore in his "Jimmy Dore Show" video. I mentioned voter suppression being an obstacle faced by African-Americans in the Alabama special election. Jimmy Dore made his choice, that protecting voting rights was not a priority for him with respect to the 2016 presidential election. So on voting, he's in the same basket as the likes of Richard Spencer or Roy Moore himself. I wouldn't waste time on something the latter two produced on voting, either.
Cherry picked examples do not prove your point that the ends justify the means. Getting votes does not negate rigging, especially since the end was a huge wipeout of Democrats on every level. Also, I notice you don't comment on the mess of the DNC finances. Are you fine with those? Are you resentful that a Progressive is demanding that more than two people be able to see the budget or for more transparent hiring of super expensive consultants hired on no-bid contracts? Is there anything about the Democrats you would not just accept and vote for? I know from another thread, that you don't consider voting 80 billion for the military a deal breaker.
I can't force you to watch JImmy Dore, but I will continue to post his videos when they are appropriate to the topic, as here.
OK, good overview of the unity reforms (by a guy who endorsed Clinton, since that matters to some of our MOL posters)
This page has gotta hit a record for dum dum posts. So much non-factual, conspiratorial nonsense.
It's embarrassing to read.
drummerboy said:
This page has gotta hit a record for dum dum posts. So much non-factual, conspiratorial nonsense.
It's embarrassing to read.
Big personal attack there, without any examples. Typical MO for you. Troll-like.
nan, I could take any one of your posts and write a treatise on it. I've stopped posting because you never respond. All you do is dance around any argument presented to you, and post videos.
And author - he's even more of a lost cause. He keeps ion prattling on about email servers, and he couldn't explain at all what the actual facts are in that case. Or what apparent harm was ever done.
Trump is building an alt-america - a land of fantasy and gullibility for his followers. But you guys are no better. Completely fact-resistant.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
This page has gotta hit a record for dum dum posts. So much non-factual, conspiratorial nonsense.
It's embarrassing to read.
Big personal attack there, without any examples. Typical MO for you. Troll-like.
drummerboy,
You live in an alternative universe. I respond to every one of your posts in detail. I write and also post videos as further evidence. All you do is call me names, and try to discredit me. You don't even seem to understand what I post and don't watch the videos and then act as though you are an expert, despite getting all of your news from CNN (and bragging about it).
drummerboy said:
nan, I could take any one of your posts and write a treatise on it. I've stopped posting because you never respond. All you do is dance around any argument presented to you, and post videos.
And author - he's even more of a lost cause. He keeps ion prattling on about email servers, and he couldn't explain at all what the actual facts are in that case. Or what apparent harm was ever done.
Trump is building an alt-america - a land of fantasy and gullibility for his followers. But you guys are no better. Completely fact-resistant.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
This page has gotta hit a record for dum dum posts. So much non-factual, conspiratorial nonsense.
It's embarrassing to read.
Big personal attack there, without any examples. Typical MO for you. Troll-like.
Wow.....I guess I should be flatterd that I am part of the club that the little drummer boy dislikes so much
Nan you can be President of the group as your psts are so incisive and to the point. I am happy ro remain among the masses. Maybe I can get at least a distinctive name tag
I suppose pounding on those tin drums dulled his senses as I many pages ago chose to sit out the controversial threads. I am a sensitive soul and all the bickering and counter attacks lead no where. A kinder,gentler Author has emerged from the chrysalis of the earlier one..............dedicated to dealing with kitties in trees,
The weather and bringing the Euro to Albania. I see the foolishness of attacking Hillary and her Magic Servers-as clearly she can do no wrong
I might even change my pen name to Arthur...........terribly tempting to precede that name though with King
Life is full of decisions............fortunately I prefer violins to drums
there is no life without rhythm
author said:
...
Life is full of decisions............fortunately I prefer violins to drums
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I don't follow what the response to me is supposed to mean.