If the DNC election was "rigged" - how was it "rigged"?

[RDD_1210]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"? Why wouldn't the Democratic National Committee promote the Democratic candidate over the independent candidate who would not register as a Democrat?

In many states you couldn't VOTE for either candidate unless you were registered as a Democrat, but Sanders didn't actually have to run as one? How does that make sense?

The DNC themselves say they are suppose to be neutral...

"On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not -- and will not -- tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates. Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again."

Democrats.org

Please give it a rest already. They rigged it for her and now she's the nominee. Doesn't make it right or fair but the world isn't fair.

 

[Wyatt earp]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

So you are admitting that hillary was bought and paid for.

 

[RDD_1210]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Yeah, whoever heard of "favoritism" in politics... I'm shocked...

Neutral within the party. Don't be idiots.

 

[Lakhota]

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

 

[AntonToo]

The DNC themselves say they are suppose to be neutral...

And if they were Bernie would still lose. Because guess what, DNC can't MAKE people vote for Clinton.

 

[RDD_1210]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Is this serious?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

 

[RDD_1210]

The DNC themselves say they are suppose to be neutral...

And if they were Bernie would still lose. Because guess what, DNC can't MAKE people vote for Clinton.

You're right, he would have still lost. Doesn't make it ok for the DNC to play favorites, which is what they did.

 

[Lakhota]

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

Seriously, you NaziCons aren't "REALLY" that dumb, are you?

 

[AntonToo]

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

No I mean the personal emails of them conspiring weren't yet released. Maybe they will be if Trump will start trashing Putin out of political necessity.

 

[RDD_1210]

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

Seriously, you NaziCons aren't "REALLY" that dumb, are you?

You asked for proof and I provided it, and now you ignore it. Why is that? Just admit when you're wrong and move on.

You're just as bad as the turnip cons on this site at this point.

 

[kaz]

Susan Sarandon Blasts ‘Disgusting’ DNC Plot to Undermine Bernie

“That’s so disgusting,” Sarandon said of revelations that DNC staffers were actively working to undermine Sanders’ insurgent candidacy in the Democratic primary against establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. Some DNC officials even suggested a campaign to raise doubts about Sanders’ Jewish faith.

“I think we have to really ask what’s happened to us in terms of what we’re willing to sacrifice to get our person in,” Sarandon said in an interview with The Young Turks, a progressive online news network.

The actress also (sort of) compared the DNC situation to the killing of unarmed civilians by police officers. “What does this really say about us if all of this goes by unattended?” she said. “Just like what does it say, you know, when someone’s killed by the police and they get off?”

Sarandon, who has suggested that Donald Trump might be “more dangerous” as president than Hillary Clinton, said voters are flocking to outsider candidates such as Trump and Sanders because they feel “disenfranchised” and are “sick with politics the way it is.”

Funny. So now you NaziCons are citing a Bernie parasite like Susan Sarandon? Hilarious... Now, back to the thread topic.

The discussion is about Bernie, and you don't get quoting a Bernie supporter, Tonto?

 

[Lakhota]

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

Seriously, you NaziCons aren't "REALLY" that dumb, are you?

You asked for proof and I provided it, and now you ignore it. Why is that? Just admit when you're wrong and move on.

You're just as bad as the turnip cons on this site at this point.

What so-called "proof" did you provide? I must have missed it...

 

[Seawytch]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"? Why wouldn't the Democratic National Committee promote the Democratic candidate over the independent candidate who would not register as a Democrat?

In many states you couldn't VOTE for either candidate unless you were registered as a Democrat, but Sanders didn't actually have to run as one? How does that make sense?

The DNC themselves say they are suppose to be neutral...

"On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not -- and will not -- tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates. Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again."

Democrats.org

Please give it a rest already. They rigged it for her and now she's the nominee. Doesn't make it right or fair but the world isn't fair.

Okay, that's a post apology. That doesn't change my question. Where is it written that the Democratic National Committee must be neutral? Also, doesn't change the FACT that Sanders is not a registered Democrat, unlike many of the people going out to vote in primaries HAD TO BE where he was a Democratic candidate despite that fact.

 

[RDD_1210]

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

Seriously, you NaziCons aren't "REALLY" that dumb, are you?

You asked for proof and I provided it, and now you ignore it. Why is that? Just admit when you're wrong and move on.

You're just as bad as the turnip cons on this site at this point.

What so-called "proof" did you provide? I must have missed it...

Page 2, post #14 of this thread. The post you skipped right over apparently.

If the DNC election was "rigged" - how was it "rigged"?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Are you actually saying that perhaps RNC could have also been conspiring against Trump?

You so crazy, that is impossible.

Oh, you mean the RNC didn't conspire against Trump? Funny...

Trump won..

Do you see the difference now?

Seriously, you NaziCons aren't "REALLY" that dumb, are you?

You asked for proof and I provided it, and now you ignore it. Why is that? Just admit when you're wrong and move on.

You're just as bad as the turnip cons on this site at this point.

What so-called "proof" did you provide? I must have missed it...

Do you really think anyone will trust the DNC again? Hell half the nation thought Obama was a manufactured canidate, now everyone knows hillary is.

 

[Seawytch]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Is this serious?

Yes, I'm seriously asking where it's written that the Democratic National Committee has to be "neutral". They don't allow Republicans to run for the Democratic nomination do they? Makes them anything but "neutral" doesn't it? If Sanders wanted the full throated support of the DNC, maybe he should have registered as a Democrat, yeah?

 

[RDD_1210]

When the DNC who are supposed to be neutral actively put together a strategy to knock down one of the candidates in favor of another, that's rigging the election.

Who says the DNC is "supposed to be neutral"? Why wouldn't the Democratic National Committee promote the Democratic candidate over the independent candidate who would not register as a Democrat?

In many states you couldn't VOTE for either candidate unless you were registered as a Democrat, but Sanders didn't actually have to run as one? How does that make sense?

The DNC themselves say they are suppose to be neutral...

"On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email. These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not -- and will not -- tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates. Individual staffers have also rightfully apologized for their comments, and the DNC is taking appropriate action to ensure it never happens again."

Democrats.org

Please give it a rest already. They rigged it for her and now she's the nominee. Doesn't make it right or fair but the world isn't fair.

Okay, that's a post apology. That doesn't change my question. Where is it written that the Democratic National Committee must be neutral? Also, doesn't change the FACT that Sanders is not a registered Democrat, unlike many of the people going out to vote in primaries HAD TO BE where he was a Democratic candidate despite that fact.

I just quoted that their values include remaining neutral. That's neutrality within the party. Which part is not making sense? And call Bernie what you want, he was running on the democratic ticket and invited to democrat debates. He deserved the respect of neutrality from the DNC which he did not receive.

 

[Seawytch]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Yeah, whoever heard of "favoritism" in politics... I'm shocked...

Neutral within the party. Don't be idiots.

Okay, but Sanders isn't "within the party" is he?

 

[RDD_1210]

which is a no-no for what is supposed to be a neutral organization.

Says who? They are the Democratic National Committee. It's right in the name that they aren't "neutral".

Is this serious?

Yes, I'm seriously asking where it's written that the Democratic National Committee has to be "neutral". They don't allow Republicans to run for the Democratic nomination do they? Makes them anything but "neutral" doesn't it? If Sanders wanted the full throated support of the DNC, maybe he should have registered as a Democrat, yeah?

It's neutrality within the democratic party. They value being neutral towards all democrats, which they were not in this case.