Actually, no, I think my analogy of a cold, calculating machine that gives the impression of a fair contest while stacking the odds heavily towards a preferred outcome is pretty spot on.
Oh, yes, heavily stacked by [checks notes] forcing millions to not vote for Bernie, I see.
No, the DNC wasn’t on Clinton’s side. Clinton was the DNC. She was given final say over senior staffing decisions while she was running in the primary. She was acting as the nominee when she was supposed to be a candidate. Her nomination was a forgone conclusion.
“The DNC was treating the whole situation as though Clinton already won. That means that the elections were rigged.”
???
Brazile walked back her claims a bit, saying she never specifically used the word, “rigged,” but she also described Clinton’s control over the party as a, “cancer,” so make of it what you will.
I make of it what any sane person would - that Clinton’s control over the party was deeply damaging, shady, unethical, and unwise to allow, at minimum.
That doesn’t change the essential problem that we failed in 2016 because not enough voters were on our side, and the DNC playing dipshit games with their own funding and staffing does not fundamentally alter that.
I’m sorry that there’s not a small cabal of villains for you to oppose and overthrow to fix everything. I’m sorry that the roots of our problems go much deeper, and that there’s no easy solution that, if only we had control of the party apparatus, if only we got to set the party platform and ensure the party went along with it, we could fix and ride into power on a landslide electoral victory. But playing make-believe games about rigged primaries and party elites does nothing but set you shadow boxing - or against scummy wind vanes, at best - instead of addressing the actual problems.
Wtf dude, is she like there with you rn or something? 🤣😂 Or is this just a really awkward propaganda messaging test run? If so, I’m not sure whether it’s brilliant or the dumbest goddamn thing I’ve ever seen
Pro-Clinton propaganda is when you think Clinton is an incompetent scumbag, but the cause of Bernie losing the primary was a balance of almost 4 million voters not turning out for the superior option because the American electorate is dumb as shit?
Oh, yes, heavily stacked by [checks notes] forcing millions to not vote for Bernie, I see.
The DNC exerts tremendous control over their elections. They decide if there will be debates and who gets to participate. They decide what order states will vote in and who gets on the ballot. Hell, we’re just coming off them getting a geriatric man that the majority of the party didn’t want running elected as the candidate. To pretend that the DNC doesn’t rig these contests towards their preferred outcome, you’d have to be either spectacularly ignorant or willfully obtuse.
“The DNC was treating the whole situation as though Clinton already won. That means that the elections were rigged.”
???
Do you really need someone to explain to you how allowing Clinton to decide who gets to be the Executive Director, Communications Director, Finance Director, etc., would give her an advantage? You seriously don’t understand how giving Clinton approval over the most senior leadership positions of the DNC would give her influence over the institution? Is that really what you’re saying?
I make of it what any sane person would - that Clinton’s control over the party was deeply damaging, shady, unethical, and unwise to allow, at minimum.
That doesn’t change the essential problem that we failed in 2016 because not enough voters were on our side
It’s funny how, whenever you talk about Bernie’s loss, there just weren’t enough voters, but whenever you talk about Harris’ loss, you can’t find enough people to blame. Three days ago you were calling Arab Americans, “fascist enablers,” for not being supportive enough of Harris. Why do you believe that grassroots campaigns have influence over the electorate, but not that a massive political institution has influence over its own primaries? It sounds like, when it comes to Harris’ campaign, you’re playing make-believe games about a small cabal of villains instead of addressing the actual problems.
I don’t think there’s anything left to say here. It is very clear that the DNC rigged the election in Clinton’s favor, and we even know what levers they pulled to do it. If you don’t understand it, then you don’t want to.
The DNC exerts tremendous control over their elections. They decide if there will be debates and who gets to participate. They decide what order states will vote in and who gets on the ballot.
Okay, so surely you can point to them excluding Bernie from the debates, or stacking the order of the states’ primaries against him, or excluding him from the ballot?
No? You’re just bringing these things up as red herrings of things that everyone would agree that would be rigging, had the DNC done it, and that the DNC has the power to do, but that the DNC didn’t actually do?
Do you really need someone to explain to you how allowing Clinton to decide who gets to be the Executive Director, Communications Director, Finance Director, etc., would give her an advantage? You seriously don’t understand how giving Clinton approval over the most senior leadership positions of the DNC would give her influence over the institution? Is that really what you’re saying?
Again, please, inform me how Clinton and the DNC playing incestous nepotism games with each other was what caused Bernie to fail to snatch the nomination against Clinton by almost 4 million votes.
“Are you saying Clinton didn’t have influence over the DNC???”, they ask, for the seventh time, after I’ve repeatedly and explicitly said that the DNC was deeply influenced by the Clinton campaign.
Poor reading comprehension, or bad-faith?
It’s funny how, whenever you talk about Bernie’s loss, there just weren’t enough voters, but whenever you talk about Harris’ loss, you can’t find enough people to blame.
… what the ever-loving fuck do you think voters are, if not people.
Three days ago you were calling Arab Americans, “fascist enablers,” for not being supportive enough of Harris.
What I actually said:
If you saw a literal fascist openly declaring fascist things, and your response to the milquetoast opposition is “Well, you’re not seperated enough, stylistically”, you’re not much more than a fascist enabler.
Please tell me more about how letting fascists win is not being a fascist enabler, or how this is blaming Arab-Americans as a demographic.
Why do you believe that grassroots campaigns have influence over the electorate, but not that a massive political institution has influence over its own primaries?
It’s funny how we jump between ‘rigged’ and ‘influenced’. Classic motte-and-bailey.
It sounds like, when it comes to Harris’ campaign, you’re playing make-believe games about a small cabal of villains instead of addressing the actual problems.
The problem is that most Americans are either fascists or don’t care if fascists get into power. Like, literally 2/3s of the vote, right there. That is the essential problem. The issue in both cases is the electorate, and pretending “Well, if the DNC had been more FAIR, then Bernie would’ve pulled another 4 million votes out of his ass” was the issue is dumb as shit.
I don’t think there’s anything left to say here. It is very clear that the DNC rigged the election in Clinton’s favor, and we even know what levers they pulled to do it. If you don’t understand it, then you don’t want to.
Ah yes, the classic “We all KNOW what they did” excuse, now that it’s apparent that “They linked their campaign funding and coordination with the Clinton campaign”, while scummy, is not actually the bloody hand on the scale you were hoping to imply it was.
Oh, yes, heavily stacked by [checks notes] forcing millions to not vote for Bernie, I see.
“The DNC was treating the whole situation as though Clinton already won. That means that the elections were rigged.”
???
I make of it what any sane person would - that Clinton’s control over the party was deeply damaging, shady, unethical, and unwise to allow, at minimum.
That doesn’t change the essential problem that we failed in 2016 because not enough voters were on our side, and the DNC playing dipshit games with their own funding and staffing does not fundamentally alter that.
I’m sorry that there’s not a small cabal of villains for you to oppose and overthrow to fix everything. I’m sorry that the roots of our problems go much deeper, and that there’s no easy solution that, if only we had control of the party apparatus, if only we got to set the party platform and ensure the party went along with it, we could fix and ride into power on a landslide electoral victory. But playing make-believe games about rigged primaries and party elites does nothing but set you shadow boxing - or against scummy wind vanes, at best - instead of addressing the actual problems.
Wtf dude, is she like there with you rn or something? 🤣😂 Or is this just a really awkward propaganda messaging test run? If so, I’m not sure whether it’s brilliant or the dumbest goddamn thing I’ve ever seen
Pro-Clinton propaganda is when you think Clinton is an incompetent scumbag, but the cause of Bernie losing the primary was a balance of almost 4 million voters not turning out for the superior option because the American electorate is dumb as shit?
That’s an interesting take.
The DNC exerts tremendous control over their elections. They decide if there will be debates and who gets to participate. They decide what order states will vote in and who gets on the ballot. Hell, we’re just coming off them getting a geriatric man that the majority of the party didn’t want running elected as the candidate. To pretend that the DNC doesn’t rig these contests towards their preferred outcome, you’d have to be either spectacularly ignorant or willfully obtuse.
Do you really need someone to explain to you how allowing Clinton to decide who gets to be the Executive Director, Communications Director, Finance Director, etc., would give her an advantage? You seriously don’t understand how giving Clinton approval over the most senior leadership positions of the DNC would give her influence over the institution? Is that really what you’re saying?
It’s funny how, whenever you talk about Bernie’s loss, there just weren’t enough voters, but whenever you talk about Harris’ loss, you can’t find enough people to blame. Three days ago you were calling Arab Americans, “fascist enablers,” for not being supportive enough of Harris. Why do you believe that grassroots campaigns have influence over the electorate, but not that a massive political institution has influence over its own primaries? It sounds like, when it comes to Harris’ campaign, you’re playing make-believe games about a small cabal of villains instead of addressing the actual problems.
I don’t think there’s anything left to say here. It is very clear that the DNC rigged the election in Clinton’s favor, and we even know what levers they pulled to do it. If you don’t understand it, then you don’t want to.
Okay, so surely you can point to them excluding Bernie from the debates, or stacking the order of the states’ primaries against him, or excluding him from the ballot?
No? You’re just bringing these things up as red herrings of things that everyone would agree that would be rigging, had the DNC done it, and that the DNC has the power to do, but that the DNC didn’t actually do?
Again, please, inform me how Clinton and the DNC playing incestous nepotism games with each other was what caused Bernie to fail to snatch the nomination against Clinton by almost 4 million votes.
“Are you saying Clinton didn’t have influence over the DNC???”, they ask, for the seventh time, after I’ve repeatedly and explicitly said that the DNC was deeply influenced by the Clinton campaign.
Poor reading comprehension, or bad-faith?
… what the ever-loving fuck do you think voters are, if not people.
What I actually said:
Please tell me more about how letting fascists win is not being a fascist enabler, or how this is blaming Arab-Americans as a demographic.
It’s funny how we jump between ‘rigged’ and ‘influenced’. Classic motte-and-bailey.
The problem is that most Americans are either fascists or don’t care if fascists get into power. Like, literally 2/3s of the vote, right there. That is the essential problem. The issue in both cases is the electorate, and pretending “Well, if the DNC had been more FAIR, then Bernie would’ve pulled another 4 million votes out of his ass” was the issue is dumb as shit.
Ah yes, the classic “We all KNOW what they did” excuse, now that it’s apparent that “They linked their campaign funding and coordination with the Clinton campaign”, while scummy, is not actually the bloody hand on the scale you were hoping to imply it was.