Henry Munoz, DNC Finance Chairman, simultaneously organized fundraisers for Hilary.
A discussion of how to use Sanders’s religion, or lack of it, to cost him primary votes:
“discussed how” but didnt act on it.
"musing about " but never acted.
Show me the actual act. Not talk, not discussion, not 'musing" but one time when they acted against Sanders.
I will tell you now- *there is nothing. *
“Held Fundraisers …”
Technically speaking, you may have a point. But considering that it was clear from day one that Bernie Sanders was not running as a true member of the democratic party but as an independent who was using the democratic party’s apparatus to further his causes and his positions, maybe it’s fair to point out that they had a legitimate reason to bend the rules a little to ensure that the wrong candidate didn’t win the nomination. As I’ve said before, Donald Trump is a textbook example of why political parties should leave open the option of torpedoing a candidate who inflict damage to the party’s long-term interests.
Then I don’t understand your definition of corruption either. What do YOU think Schultz and the DNC did that was corrupt, if violating their own bylaws to favor one candidate over another isn’t it?
But they didnt. So far, you got nuttin.
Yes, they showed some bias, but that’s because they are human. You have failed to show they acting on that bias in any significant way.
In politics, talking IS action. Unless they are elected officials enacting legislation, talking is all they do.
So if particular DNC staffers talk about possibly creating ads to highlight Sanders’ religious views, but don’t actually create any ads, the existence of their conversations–not made public until long after the primaries–affects votes?
How? By magic?
You know, they even *discussed *not inviting a avid Sanders supporter to a meeting. But they did anyway, in the end. The shame! The horror! :dubious:
Yeah. These folks are having to work hard to maintain their Outrage. Apparently they find the work worth doing, but you have to wonder.
The fundraiser that Munoz helped organize was on June 8th. The primary was effectively over at that point. It had been over since March.
Almost everything being pointed to as DNC wrongdoing occurred after Bernie had no chance. The DNC taking small steps to move on to the next phase of the campaign is not them favoring Clinton over Sanders it is their recognition of the fact that democratic primary voters favored Clinton over Sanders.
But…but…SANDERS LOST! There MUST have been corruption! /BernItDowner
First off you misestimate kids who steal a candy bar. I had done it once myself. I sure as heck knew it was wrong. Who knows what else I was capable of?
This is a group of political operative that have a demonstrated bias with no evidence whatsoever that they ever did more than talk amongst themselves about things they could do (but never did). You can suspect anything you want. Suspect and look for evidence. When you find none then acting as if your suspicion is probable truth is silly. Someone has an argument with her husband and you can suspect she has hired a hitman. If the husband however is alive and there is no evidence of her having made that hire, it is silly to keep floating the idea as likely truth, but sure you can suspect.
Let’s be very clear: having bias is not only not a crime, not corruption, not evidence of acting on that bias, it is unavoidable. Believing that it would not exist is naive. The unseemly part is that they ideally should have identified their bias as an item to be aware of in order to control for it and that they failed to meet that ideal by a wide margin. Nevertheless the only thing we can say they had normal bias, fantasized some about things that we know they did not do, and failed to live up to the ethical standard I would place, which is not a crime.
Yes Sanders lost because of bias. Sanders lost because the vast majority of voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses were biased against him.
Reasonable suspicion not just some random paranoia that comes out of nowhere.
And judges manage to do it all the time. When they fail we frequently do the trial over again.
Who said anything about a crime? You can do a lot of shitty things without committing a crime.
Clinton won the popular vote in the Democratic primary 15 million to 12 million. Thats a majority but the margin is embarassingly thin for someone running against a guy with a face made for radio and a voice made for print.
Judges have personal biases. This is unavoidable. There’s only a problem when they act on those biases.
Members of the DNC have personal biases. This is unavoidable. There’s only a problem when they act on those biases.
Well then yes … you can be paranoid. Staffers having bias is not a rational reason to have reasonable suspicion of corruption.
If you think getting 25% more votes is “thin” then I have a job for you at a swim suit store: a lot of folks who will love your feedback!
Meanwhile since you bumped this an update on her toasting status: up 10% in the most recent poll.
If we discovered a judge sent emails like this the defendant would get a retrial if they wanted one.
I said considering who she is running against, it is embarrassingly thin.
You, OTOH, seem to think that 55% constitutes a vast majority.
I never said she wouldn’t win or couldn’t win. Just wagging my finger at partisan Democrats who not only don’t think there is nothing wrong with this sort of bias, they think its a good thing. A feature, not a bug.
I’m willing to believe you. Show, don’t tell.
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison though. The DNC doesn’t really decide or direct much in the primaries aside from general rules that were mostly decided before Sanders was even a Democrat. I guess you could point to how strongly they reacted to the data breach early on as a biased move on their part but that initial reaction isn’t indefensible and they did relent.