"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC"
nan said:
Fair enough, but your link had a twitter from Peter Dauo (sp?) who is a total Clintn shill and idiot. There are lots of articles with the same information.
ridski said:
nan said:
Yes Bernie Sanders is the most popular:
http://observer.com/2017/10/sanders-is-most-popular-us-politician-and-trump-is-least-popular/
FWIW, the site link I posted isn't owned by the President's daughter's husband's sister's husband.
You’ve got me there, nan. I have to admit I didn’t read much further than the confirmation of your statement. Never heard of this Daou guy, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a big voice as Newsweek are quoting him.
He's famous for being stupid on Twitter and blaming all critisism of Hillary on sexism, no matter how absurd. There was a Twitter parody account on of him called "Peter Douche"
unfortunately the gaslit don't know they are.
ahem
nan said:
The DNC insiders continue to gasslight the rigged primary:
Those Russian propaganda ads were a whole lotta nothing. Hillary signing a secret deal with the DNC was much worse. Joy Reid would say anything to defend the DNC. I doubt she has any shocking blockbuster book coming out, although I never thought Donna Brazille would have either. You never know what's beneith the BS.
that's funny.
sophisticated propaganda, clearly made to favor Trump, affecting millions of people, is a whole lot of nothing.
Some agreement, for which you STILL can't find any concrete evidence of harm, is a horror show.
nan said:
Those Russian propaganda ads were a whole lotta nothing. Hillary signing a secret deal with the DNC was much worse. Joy Reid would say anything to defend the DNC. I doubt she has any shocking blockbuster book coming out, although I never thought Donna Brazille would have either. You never know what's beneith the BS.
There is concrete evidence of harm: Donald Trump got elected. Had the primary not been rigged, no doubt we would have had a different outcome.
drummerboy said:
that's funny.
sophisticated propaganda, clearly made to favor Trump, affecting millions of people, is a whole lot of nothing.
Some agreement, for which you STILL can't find any concrete evidence of harm, is a horror show.
nan said:
Those Russian propaganda ads were a whole lotta nothing. Hillary signing a secret deal with the DNC was much worse. Joy Reid would say anything to defend the DNC. I doubt she has any shocking blockbuster book coming out, although I never thought Donna Brazille would have either. You never know what's beneith the BS.
LOST said:
I take your point with respect to the popular vote but crucial States have swung back and forth.
In any event I do not see any benefit to continuing this "discussion" about the 2016 campaign for the Democratic Nomination.
That went well.
Mr. Surovell has again taken a statement out of context. What I wrote was about "the chanting Bernie Bros at the convention " who "protested her nomination". Since that was going on from Day One of the convention, the meaning should have been obvious -
Almost as soon as the gavel echoed, ardent supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hijacked the opening moments of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia Monday, repeatedly booing mentions of Hillary Clinton, chanting Sanders’ name and turning what was supposed to be a celebration of party unity into an ugly family feud.
It was a disastrous start to a four-day televised event that was supposed to showcase Democratic unity. Inside the arena, Sanders supporters repeatedly disrupted the proceedings on stage, drowning out a series of black elected officials at the podium. Outside the arena, some Sanders supporters tried to block buses carrying delegates from entering the secured complex.
From the opening prayer, in which Rev. Dr. Cynthia Hale invoked Clinton’s name, almost every reference of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s drew boos from hundreds of vocal Sanders delegates and supporters. Some delegates borrowed a chant from last week’s Republican convention in Cleveland, shouting, “Lock her up!”
...
So Sanders’ supporters booed and jeered Clinton, while Democratic officials watched as any patina of party unity seemed to go by the wayside. If Democrats are to defeat Republican Donald Trump, they will need to muster far greater cooperation than was on display as the activists and insiders began their every-four-years summit.
They chanted "Lock her up" throughout the convention. They even booed the prayer.
I have no respect for the Sanders supporters who did that, and no respect for any excuses for their actions to turn the convention into a commercial for Donald Trump.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:One of the defining moments of the Hillary campaign was at the convention during General Allen's speech when Bernie supporters began to chant "No More War, No More War . . " and the Hillary supporters (under the direction of their leaders) tried to down them out with "USA, USA . . ." We saw this play out in the recent vote, supported by establishment Dems, opposed by Bernie, to increase military spending by $80 billion, $26 billion more than what Trump asked for. The Resistance at work.
. . . the chanting Bernie Bros at the convention . . .
So it wasn't "one of the defining moments", except maybe for people looking for anti-Hillary talking points. But let's assume you're right about that. This was a speech on the last night of the convention. Secretary Clinton was already the Democratic nominee. On stage, a large group of veterans, supporting her candidacy against Donald Trump. General Allen's speech was a powerful endorsement, not of war, but against the type of foreign and military policy which would come about if Trump were elected -
My fellow Americans, I stand with you tonight as a retired four-star general of the United States Marine Corps, and I am joined by my fellow generals and admirals, and with these magnificent young veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. They went there and risked their lives because they love this country. They are here before you because this is the most consequential race for the Presidency in memory.
The stakes are enormous. We must not, we could not stand on the sidelines. This election can carry us to a future of unity and hope, or to a dark place of discord and fear. We must choose hope.
Every American, in uniform or out, in the White House or at home, must be a force for unity in America, for a vision that includes all of us: every man and woman, every race, every ethnicity, every faith and creed, every gender orientation – all of us together pursuing our common values.
...
But I also know that with her as our Commander-in-Chief, our international relations will NOT be reduced to a business transaction. Our armed forces will NOT become an instrument of torture, and they will NOT be ordered to engage in murder or carry out other illegal activities.
The Democrats were obviously trying to "steal a march" on the GOP to undercut the traditional arguments used against Democratic candidates. They put on the full spectacle with flags all over the arena and "USA" signs and chants of "USA" as a direct push-back against the GOP. Like I said, a convention is a commercial for the party and the nominee.
And a small group of people protested the general's speech and people on stage. Mr. Surovell states "the Hillary supporters (under the direction of their leaders) tried to down them out with 'USA, USA . . .' " I suppose those supporters also ran around the arena at that point distributing flags and signs that said "USA". Mr. Surovell's claim is a "fake news" version of what took place. The Bernie supporters decided that they were going to insert their own "commercial" into the DNC's commercial for the nominee. I already indicated my opinion of something like that.
So, if the protest described by Mr. Surovell was a "defining moment", then it was for those people who argued that if one was truly anti-war, the right choice was NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton (if not vote for Donald Trump). The word "stupid" is a mild word to describe that argument.
Nobody has ever explained how the thing used to claim "rigging" made all those people vote for Hillary in the primaries, and more of those voters picked her. In any event, if Donald Trump getting elected is "concrete evidence of harm", that was obvious before the election. That's why I criticize people like the guy Ms. Nan keeps citing, who claimed before the election that it was better if Hillary lost.
nan said:
There is concrete evidence of harm: Donald Trump got elected. Had the primary not been rigged, no doubt we would have had a different outcome.
nan said:
There is concrete evidence of harm: Donald Trump got elected. Had the primary not been rigged, no doubt we would have had a different outcome.
I suspect a harm that helped get Trump elected was the Russian propaganda.
Whereas, no one knows the outcome if Bernie got nominated. After all is said and done, Bernie couldn't even get a majority of the Democrats to vote for him in the primaries. Besides losing the electoral college he could also have lost the popular vote.
Not knowing, your "concrete evidence" means squat, zero, zip, nothing.
nohero said:
Nobody has ever explained how the thing used to claim "rigging" made all those people vote for Hillary in the primaries, and more of those voters picked her. In any event, if Donald Trump getting elected is "concrete evidence of harm", that was obvious before the election. That's why I criticize people like the guy Ms. Nan keeps citing, who claimed before the election that it was better if Hillary lost.
nan said:
There is concrete evidence of harm: Donald Trump got elected. Had the primary not been rigged, no doubt we would have had a different outcome.
You ignore so much to make these claims. Hillary signed a secret document to run the DNC. She should not have been the "chosen one." There were many other better candidates, but she had the cash. Why do you give her a pass for rigging the election? This included controlling much of the media (Wikileaks shows how this was done). Lies about Bernie supporters throwing chairs helped produce a "Manufactured Consent." Hillary had debate questions ahead of time, etc. There is also evidence of election fraud at the poles. And there was the super delegate system and how independents were prevented from voting. Hillary is not responsible for those, but since the DNC is not changing these things, where is your outrage? As usual, you beat up on voters, instead of the party that allowed a unelectable candidate to buy the nomination.
nan said:
You ignore so much to make these claims. Hillary signed a secret document to run the DNC. She should not have been the "chosen one."
Oh, you mean the Joint Fundraising Agreement agreed to and approved by the DNC.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo%20(002).pdf
But secret document does sound so much more exciting, mysterious and evil. 
Nan,
your posts aren't even worth reading anymore. They're just repetitive collections of far-left talking points with nothing to back them up. You presume that it's sufficient to toss out phrases like "secret document" and "chosen one" to make your arguments for you.
That may work for people whose faculty for critical reasoning has been erased, but it's not enough for the rest of us.
The thread has been an education though, because it's pointed out, at least to me, the breadth of the FoxNews-like disinformation network that lurks behind all of this nonsense.
The gasslighting ends here. The document Hillary Clinton signed with the DNC was secret. This is a fact. That's why Donna Brazille's admission about it was such a bombshell. There has been much confusion about this because of DNC spin, but IT IS A FACT that the document was secret until recently revealed.
I have to keep repeating myself because a bunch of you don't have a good grasp of the obvious.
drummerboy said:
Nan,
your posts aren't even worth reading anymore. They're just repetitive collections of far-left talking points with nothing to back them up. You presume that it's sufficient to toss out phrases like "secret document" and "chosen one" to make your arguments for you.
That may work for people whose faculty for critical reasoning has been erased, but it's not enough for the rest of us.
The thread has been an education though, because it's pointed out, at least to me, the breadth of the FoxNews-like disinformation network that lurks behind all of this nonsense.
have you noticed that mere repetition doesn't work for most of us? We need supporting evidence to prove that the things you think are bad, are actually as bad as you claim.
nan said:
I have to keep repeating myself because a bunch of you don't have a good grasp of the obvious.
drummerboy said:
Nan,
your posts aren't even worth reading anymore. They're just repetitive collections of far-left talking points with nothing to back them up. You presume that it's sufficient to toss out phrases like "secret document" and "chosen one" to make your arguments for you.
That may work for people whose faculty for critical reasoning has been erased, but it's not enough for the rest of us.
The thread has been an education though, because it's pointed out, at least to me, the breadth of the FoxNews-like disinformation network that lurks behind all of this nonsense.
nan said:
The gasslighting ends here. The document Hillary Clinton signed with the DNC was secret. This is a fact.
Just to make sure, we're not talking about the Joint Fundraising Agreement, right? This was a different secret document that no one else knew about.
Got it:
A book and some leaked emails revealing corruption: super important.
Corruption itself: Not.
nan said:
See #1 and #2 from my link above.
I’ve read that a few times, but it doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying that the secret document Hillary signed is the Joint Fundraising Agreement?
nan said:
There is also evidence of election fraud at the poles.
That would meet my definition of "Rigging". The rest would not. Therefore can you point me to evidence of fraud at the poles in the Democratic Primaries?
cramer said:
LOST said:
I take your point with respect to the popular vote but crucial States have swung back and forth.
In any event I do not see any benefit to continuing this "discussion" about the 2016 campaign for the Democratic Nomination.
That went well.
Yeah, but what can I do except to attempt to engage in a meaningful way?
There is a signed contract handing the DNC over to Hillary Clinton during the Primary. How many times do I have to say this? It is super imprtant if you care about Democracy.
brealer said:
Got it:
A book and some leaked emails revealing corruption: super important.
Corruption itself: Not.
Nan,
You'll have to refresh our memory here.
Can you link to the best expose of this "signed contract handing the DNC over to Hillary Clinton during the Primary"? Much of it seems to have disappeared amidst all of Brazile's backtracking. We don't even know what you're talking about anymore. At least I don't.
And I believe we talked about the Uranium deal in this thread before, so I hope this isn't too much of a tangent, but this short piece by Shep Smith is the best exposition of this issue that I've yet seen from the MSM.
Don't know if this link will work:
Fox's Shep Smith takes apart the Uranium One conspiracy his Fox News colleagues have been relentlessly hyping pic.twitter.com/HZBlBtFvo4
— Media Matters (@mmfa) November" class="redactor-linkify-object">https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/930551622849118208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2017
If not, try this one
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/11/14/shep-smith-explains-uranium-one/
NPR, finally, had a decent report today, except they forgot to mention the essential point that none of this uranium can be exported.
btw, if you want to see how absurd is the assertion that the NYT is in the tank for Hillary, read this (related to Uranium One story)
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/11/clinton-rules-still-apply
nohero said:
Mr. Surovell has again taken a statement out of context. What I wrote was about "the chanting Bernie Bros at the convention " who "protested her nomination". Since that was going on from Day One of the convention, the meaning should have been obvious -
Almost as soon as the gavel echoed, ardent supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hijacked the opening moments of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia Monday, repeatedly booing mentions of Hillary Clinton, chanting Sanders’ name and turning what was supposed to be a celebration of party unity into an ugly family feud.
It was a disastrous start to a four-day televised event that was supposed to showcase Democratic unity. Inside the arena, Sanders supporters repeatedly disrupted the proceedings on stage, drowning out a series of black elected officials at the podium. Outside the arena, some Sanders supporters tried to block buses carrying delegates from entering the secured complex.
From the opening prayer, in which Rev. Dr. Cynthia Hale invoked Clinton’s name, almost every reference of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s drew boos from hundreds of vocal Sanders delegates and supporters. Some delegates borrowed a chant from last week’s Republican convention in Cleveland, shouting, “Lock her up!”
...
So Sanders’ supporters booed and jeered Clinton, while Democratic officials watched as any patina of party unity seemed to go by the wayside. If Democrats are to defeat Republican Donald Trump, they will need to muster far greater cooperation than was on display as the activists and insiders began their every-four-years summit.
They chanted "Lock her up" throughout the convention. They even booed the prayer.
I have no respect for the Sanders supporters who did that, and no respect for any excuses for their actions to turn the convention into a commercial for Donald Trump.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:One of the defining moments of the Hillary campaign was at the convention during General Allen's speech when Bernie supporters began to chant "No More War, No More War . . " and the Hillary supporters (under the direction of their leaders) tried to down them out with "USA, USA . . ." We saw this play out in the recent vote, supported by establishment Dems, opposed by Bernie, to increase military spending by $80 billion, $26 billion more than what Trump asked for. The Resistance at work.
. . . the chanting Bernie Bros at the convention . . .
So it wasn't "one of the defining moments", except maybe for people looking for anti-Hillary talking points. But let's assume you're right about that. This was a speech on the last night of the convention. Secretary Clinton was already the Democratic nominee. On stage, a large group of veterans, supporting her candidacy against Donald Trump. General Allen's speech was a powerful endorsement, not of war, but against the type of foreign and military policy which would come about if Trump were elected -
My fellow Americans, I stand with you tonight as a retired four-star general of the United States Marine Corps, and I am joined by my fellow generals and admirals, and with these magnificent young veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. They went there and risked their lives because they love this country. They are here before you because this is the most consequential race for the Presidency in memory.
The stakes are enormous. We must not, we could not stand on the sidelines. This election can carry us to a future of unity and hope, or to a dark place of discord and fear. We must choose hope.
Every American, in uniform or out, in the White House or at home, must be a force for unity in America, for a vision that includes all of us: every man and woman, every race, every ethnicity, every faith and creed, every gender orientation – all of us together pursuing our common values.
...
But I also know that with her as our Commander-in-Chief, our international relations will NOT be reduced to a business transaction. Our armed forces will NOT become an instrument of torture, and they will NOT be ordered to engage in murder or carry out other illegal activities.
The Democrats were obviously trying to "steal a march" on the GOP to undercut the traditional arguments used against Democratic candidates. They put on the full spectacle with flags all over the arena and "USA" signs and chants of "USA" as a direct push-back against the GOP. Like I said, a convention is a commercial for the party and the nominee.
And a small group of people protested the general's speech and people on stage. Mr. Surovell states "the Hillary supporters (under the direction of their leaders) tried to down them out with 'USA, USA . . .' " I suppose those supporters also ran around the arena at that point distributing flags and signs that said "USA". Mr. Surovell's claim is a "fake news" version of what took place. The Bernie supporters decided that they were going to insert their own "commercial" into the DNC's commercial for the nominee. I already indicated my opinion of something like that.
So, if the protest described by Mr. Surovell was a "defining moment", then it was for those people who argued that if one was truly anti-war, the right choice was NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton (if not vote for Donald Trump). The word "stupid" is a mild word to describe that argument.
What is your evidence that Bernie supporters chanted "Lock her up?"
And what is your opinion of the vote by nearly all Democratic senators for an $80 billion increase in military spending, $26 billion more than Trump asked for? Were they supporting Trump?
nan said:
There is a signed contract handing the DNC over to Hillary Clinton during the Primary. How many times do I have to say this? It is super imprtant if you care about Democracy.
brealer said:
Got it:
A book and some leaked emails revealing corruption: super important.
Corruption itself: Not.
Again, is this signed contract the Joint Funding Agreement? It’s a simple yes or no question?
I feel like I’m grilling Jeff fricking Sessions here.
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
Rentals
Advertisement
Fair enough, but your link had a twitter from Peter Dauo (sp?) who is a total Clintn shill and idiot. There are lots of articles with the same information.