nan said:

He is just printing some facts related to the misreprentation, so no proof of journalist vs. non-jouralist is needed.

That’s an interesting takeaway from a piece that’s headlined “Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists” and that states in its opening paragraph that American journalists are degrading democracy.

yes, I realize my quandary.

It's why conservatives/disinformation always win these games.

The "rigged" game was lost long ago - the moment the anti-Hillary forces glommed onto it for the primaries.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Is there some other way?

That’s my question whenever someone calls for an explanation of how you “rig” an election, after suggesting that the word “rigged” stop being used.

Donna Brazile says that the primary wasn't rigged. 

Elizabeth Warren says that it was. 

Nan says that even though Donna Brazile said it wasn't rigged, it was. 

No wonder the Democrats can't get their shite together. 

Recommended reading: https://www.thedailybeast.com/donna-braziles-bombshell-isnt-that-hillary-clinton-rigged-the-race-but-that-the-democratic-party-blew-it?source=via

Do you think her purchase of the DNC might have motivated an idealistic staffer to commit a leak?  

nan said:

Democrats would be in the street.  And all over MOL too.

BG9 said:

nan said:

If you read the memo, the primary was clearly rigged.  Donna Brazille's comments don't change that.  They gave one person control over the DNC in 2015 in SECRET.  Everything, including hiring and strategy went through that person.  We did not have a free and fair election.  There was no Democracy.  

Imagine if it came out that Trump had signed a secret agreement with the RNC a year before the primary to have total control?  People would be in the streets.  

No. Republicans wouldn't be in the street. They would focus on the hope that Trump will get their agendas implemented. And they would vote for him again.

So what? The Republicans won't care. They're united and that's what counts.

Don't unite, blame each other, don't vote or vote third party because you're offended and, as I wrote earlier, enjoy your deserved dystopian future.

And don't forget the Russians.  Republicans and Russians.

If you are OK with a rigged primary than you should be fine with a facist president.

 (meme I saw on FB)

If the RNC had "rigged" the Primary we wouldn't be in the disaster we are in now. Only in America do we expect Political Parties to be operated so "democratically" that a non-member of that Party can be chosen to take it over and be its candidate for the highest office. Only in America do we allow non-members of a Political Party to vote in its leadership election.

In fact we don't really have members of our Political Parties in the ordinary sense of the word. 

I hope she didn't pay with oligarch cash.

cramer said:

Former DNC chair Donna Brazile: Democratic primaries not 'rigged'

But Brazile told Stephanopoulos she "found no evidence" the primary was "rigged."

"I said I would get to the bottom of everything, and that's what I did," Brazile said. "I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process ... I found no evidence, none whatsoever." 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-chair-donna-brazile-democratic-primaries-rigged/story?id=50942644

Interesting.  I suppose it all depends on the definition of the word "rigged".  The following excerpt is from Brazile's book:

"I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity."

Personally, it is a challenge for me to read the above and conclude the primary process was "fair". Others may disagree, of course.

again, explain how the primaries were unfair. Was anybody blocked from voting their conscience or were their votes stolen away? That's really all that matters.

Again - people are really giving the DNC far more power than they actually have. And apart from very minor signs of favoritism towards Hillary, there's just nothing there.

Norman_Bates said:

cramer said:

Former DNC chair Donna Brazile: Democratic primaries not 'rigged'

But Brazile told Stephanopoulos she "found no evidence" the primary was "rigged."

"I said I would get to the bottom of everything, and that's what I did," Brazile said. "I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process ... I found no evidence, none whatsoever." 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-chair-donna-brazile-democratic-primaries-rigged/story?id=50942644

Interesting.  I suppose it all depends on the definition of the word "rigged".  The following excerpt is from Brazile's book:

"I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity."

Personally, it is a challenge for me to read the above and conclude the primary process was "fair". Others may disagree, of course.

nan said:
 (meme I saw on FB)

Excellent source.

DaveSchmidt said:

I didn’t spot in Greenwald’s piece, or in the links he provided, any examples of journalists spreading falsehoods. Did I miss them? There was a news article that contained information that Greenwald said was later “walked back” (Viral Falsehood #1). There were examples of “Democrats in the media” — a term that Greenwald may be conflating with “journalists” — who ran with their spins (Viral Falsehood #3). There was the claim that  “countless journalists” misrepresented the AP report about Guccifer but only a tweet by a London academic to support it (Viral Falsehood #4). There was a case where journalists actually refuted a viral falsehood (#2).

Maybe Greenwald’s definition of a journalist is looser than mine. From that piece, however, I couldn’t really tell, because the evidence was so oblique.

Greenwald cites 4 1/2 journalists. First he cites journalist Alex Seitz-Wald for spreading Falsehood #1.

Next, he writes . . .

This post documents how quickly this claim was endorsed on Twitter by journalists and Democratic operatives, and how far and wide it therefore spread.

. . . and the post which he links cites the spreading of falsehood #1 by The Hill publication, Chris Hayes and Keith Olbermann. Chris Hayes's tweet is linked to Bloomberg journalist Steven Dennis's tweet of the Seitz-Wald piece. Olbermann's tweet is linked to Howard Dean's tweet of falsehood #1.  I'm not arguing that Dean is a journalist, but his constant presence on MSNBC should count for something.

dave23 said:

nan said:
 (meme I saw on FB)

Excellent source.

Yes, it is for getting memes.  That's where you find them.

drummerboy said:

again, explain how the primaries were unfair. Was anybody blocked from voting their conscience or were their votes stolen away? That's really all that matters.

Again - people are really giving the DNC far more power than they actually have. And apart from very minor signs of favoritism towards Hillary, there's just nothing there.

Does spreading anti-Sanders information by the Hillary-appointed DNC dir of communications count?

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9423

wow. if that's your smoking gun you have a helluva problem with anyone taking you seriously.

also, it's kind of hard (nay, impossible!) for information coming out in the middle of May, 2016, AFTER Sanders had been mathematically eliminated, to have much of a detrimental effect on his chances.

This was a silly example.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

again, explain how the primaries were unfair. Was anybody blocked from voting their conscience or were their votes stolen away? That's really all that matters.

Again - people are really giving the DNC far more power than they actually have. And apart from very minor signs of favoritism towards Hillary, there's just nothing there.

Does spreading anti-Sanders information by the Hillary-appointed DNC dir of communications count?


https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9423

Wikileaks documented how the Hillary's campaign sabotaged Bernie's.  Donna Brazille was in on that because she gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time. They were also going to plant stories about his religion. They made up that story about thrown chairs. Of course in public, Debbie Waserman Schultz was saying it was all neutral.

horsepoop about wikileaks. It doesn't document a damn thing.

In another thread, paul linked to a wikileaks memo that was apparently his best example of how the DNC sabotaged Bernie.

Problem is that the memo was dated in May of 2016 - AFTER Bernie had been mathematically eliminated. So, you know, that's some pretty weak tea.

I bet you can't provide anything more damning from wikileaks, which means your contention is horsepoop.

Regardless, there's no amount of partisanship that the DNC could have engaged in that would have helped Bernie in the primaries - he got creamed.

And of course, neither you nor paul or anyone from your part of the left has EVER provided evidence that Bernie lost even one primary, much less the whole shebang, as a result of DNC machinations. Yet you continue to contend the opposite.

That people believe this stuff is quite embarrassing. And, of course, completely damaging to any attempt to move towards a more progressive agenda, which is ostensibly their aim. Your side sound like a bunch of unhinged conspiracy theorists.

nan said:

Wikileaks documented how the Hillary's campaign sabotaged Bernie's.  Donna Brazille was in on that because she gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time. They were also going to plant stories about his religion. They made up that story about thrown chairs. Of course in public, Debbie Waserman Schultz was saying it was all neutral.

paulsurovell said:

Greenwald cites 4 1/2 journalists. First he cites journalist Alex Seitz-Wald for spreading Falsehood #1.

Next, he writes . . .

This post documents how quickly this claim was endorsed on Twitter by journalists and Democratic operatives, and how far and wide it therefore spread.

. . . and the post which he links cites the spreading of falsehood #1 by The Hill publication, Chris Hayes and Keith Olbermann. Chris Hayes's tweet is linked to Bloomberg journalist Steven Dennis's tweet of the Seitz-Wald piece. Olbermann's tweet is linked to Howard Dean's tweet of falsehood #1.  I'm not arguing that Dean is a journalist, but his constant presence on MSNBC should count for something.

Your definition of journalist, even excluding Dean, appears to be looser than mine as well. So does your definition of falsehood, which, despite Greenwald’s fault-finding, I would not apply to the NBC article.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Greenwald cites 4 1/2 journalists. First he cites journalist Alex Seitz-Wald for spreading Falsehood #1.

Next, he writes . . .

This post documents how quickly this claim was endorsed on Twitter by journalists and Democratic operatives, and how far and wide it therefore spread.

. . . and the post which he links cites the spreading of falsehood #1 by The Hill publication, Chris Hayes and Keith Olbermann. Chris Hayes's tweet is linked to Bloomberg journalist Steven Dennis's tweet of the Seitz-Wald piece. Olbermann's tweet is linked to Howard Dean's tweet of falsehood #1.  I'm not arguing that Dean is a journalist, but his constant presence on MSNBC should count for something.

Your definition of journalist, even excluding Dean, appears to be looser than mine as well. So does your definition of falsehood, which, despite Greenwald’s fault-finding, I would not apply to the NBC article.

I thought your point was that Greenwald didn't cite journalists.  Just curious -- why do you not consider

Alex Seitz-Wald, Chris Hayes, Keith Olbermann and Steven Dennis to be journalists?

drummerboy said:

wow. if that's your smoking gun you have a helluva problem with anyone taking you seriously.

also, it's kind of hard (nay, impossible!) for information coming out in the middle of May, 2016, AFTER Sanders had been mathematically eliminated, to have much of a detrimental effect on his chances.

This was a silly example.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

again, explain how the primaries were unfair. Was anybody blocked from voting their conscience or were their votes stolen away? That's really all that matters.

Again - people are really giving the DNC far more power than they actually have. And apart from very minor signs of favoritism towards Hillary, there's just nothing there.

Does spreading anti-Sanders information by the Hillary-appointed DNC dir of communications count?

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9423

So you don't think it was unfair for the DNC to spread anti-Sanders information (it should be noted that this was premised on the lie that Sanders supporters had a "penchant for violence.")

And you think that because we have evidence of nefarious activity in May we can assume that it was a one-off event, no reason to suspect anything more.

You also forget that Superdelegates were free to change their votes at any time so regardless of the pledged count, it was not mathematically impossible for Sanders to win in May.

A smoking gun is not the end of the story, but the beginning. In fact, at the beginning, there was the rigged debate schedule (Martin O'Malley's term):

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-tucker/the-rigged-primary-debate_b_11290064.html

On the Democratic side, candidate Martin O’Malley called the primary debate schedule “rigged,” pointing the finger at Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who previously served as co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

While Democrats held 25 debates in 2008, Wasserman-Schultz scheduled just six in 2016 (three more were later added), and three of those were on weekends when viewership is lower. Observers pointed out that, as the frontrunner, it was to Clinton’s advantage to hold fewer debates with fewer viewers. “This is totally unprecedented in our party’s history,” said O’Malley, who’s now eyeing the DNC chairmanship.

The position is open following Wasserman-Schultz’s sudden resignation in the wake of Wikileaks publishing internal DNC emails showing the organization’s bias against Bernie Sanders. (Immediately after stepping down, Clinton gave Wasserman-Schultz a top position in her campaign.)

During the primary season, with few Democratic debates scheduled, Sanders considered debating Republicans. Wasserman-Schultz responded by threatening to ban Sanders from Democratic debates if he participated in a non-DNC sanctioned debate.

This election cycle “was the first time a major party has ever threatened to punish a candidate for participating in a primary debate,” wrote Farah.

When Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a DNC vice chair, objected to Wasserman-Schultz’s “policy of retribution,” as well as her “unilateral decision” to limit debates, the response was swift. Wasserman-Schultz disinvited Gabbard from the first Democratic debate.

It should be added, that when Hillary backed out of the DNC's scheduled debate in CA there wasn't a peep from the DNC.

In October 2015:

paulsurovell said:

I thought your point was that Greenwald didn't cite journalists.  Just curious -- why do you not consider Alex Seitz-Wald, Chris Hayes, Keith Olbermann and Steven Dennis to be journalists?

I do consider Seitz-Wald and Dennis journalists. I don’t consider the former’s story a falsehood, and I don’t have a problem with journalists retweeting one another’s stories. Yes, sometimes they’ll get things wrong, as journalists always have. That does not, in my opinion, degrade democracy.

Now, when pundits and talking heads like Hayes and Olbermann get ahold of something and regurgitate it in their own terms and for their own purposes and the spin spreads like wildfire, Greenwald may have a point. But to lay the blame on journalists, as if the practice of gathering and assessing information and striving to present it as accurately as one can — whatever the flaws that Greenwald (or you) might perceive — were a threat to democracy? Methinks he doth, etc.

paulsurovell said:

You also forget that Superdelegates were free to change their votes at any time so regardless of the pledged count, it was not mathematically impossible for Sanders to win in May.

Hold on -- want to make sure I'm getting this right. You're suggesting that if the superdelegates had switched, and picked Sanders, even after a majority of non-superdelegate votes had chosen Clinton, you'd be fine with that? And at the same time, you're complaining about the primary being rigged? 

Following.

paul,

there's sort of a huge difference between "not being fair" and stealing an election. You should learn that difference.

LOST said:

If the RNC had "rigged" the Primary we wouldn't be in the disaster we are in now.

In fact we don't really have members of our Political Parties in the ordinary sense of the word. 

Most irresponsible political act in modern history - greed trumps patriotism. Thanks, fellas. 

May your tax cut fail spectacularly, you greedy bastards.

And of course the market's going gangbusters - no more rules! No more annoying EPA! Wall Street in the White House! Yay!

drummerboy said:

paul,

there's sort of a huge difference between "not being fair" and stealing an election. You should learn that difference.

Moving the goalposts again? I was responding to your language: "explain how the primaries were unfair."

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

You also forget that Superdelegates were free to change their votes at any time so regardless of the pledged count, it was not mathematically impossible for Sanders to win in May.

Hold on -- want to make sure I'm getting this right. You're suggesting that if the superdelegates had switched, and picked Sanders, even after a majority of non-superdelegate votes had chosen Clinton, you'd be fine with that? And at the same time, you're complaining about the primary being rigged? 

The only reason "people like" drummerboy say Sanders mathematically could not have won the election in May 2016 is because they are counting Hillary's superdelegates.

Greenwald hates Clinton. He is as biased as any other journalist. Just saying....