In that case you knew it at least a year and a half ago.SDHornet wrote:houndawg wrote:
Oh bullshit....like I told you all last year, early last year, the Democrats begged Bernie to run as a Democrat..... and now we all know why.
Yo JSO - what did I tell you about living by the rigged primary and dying by the rigged general election?
You know leftists have reached full tilt when CS leftists start eating their own. Get 'em houndy.
It's actually this simple, kids.SDHornet wrote:JSO missing the boat again while sucking hillary cock.
Obama put the DNC in a $24M hole. DNC turned to Hillary to fundraise them out of debt in exchange for full control of the DNC and the nomination. It's really not hard to understand.
Not in New Hampshire they didn't.JohnStOnge wrote:I said it during the primary season and I'll say it again:
The Democratic Party Primaries were not "rigged" beyond the fact that the Democratic Party has super delegates.
Donna Brazille has responded to Trump tweeting that she said the primaries were rigged by starting a hashtag "NotwhatI said."
The DNC favored Hillary Clinton. Shocker. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Sanders is not. That's not the same as "rigging" the primaries.
As I said during the primaries: The only instances in which the polls showed Democratic primary voters favored one candidate but the other candidate won were instances in which the polls showed Hillary favored but Sanders won.
The Democratic primaries were not "rigged."Clinton won because more people of Democrat persuasion favored her.
So you don't understand the corruption that can occur when one candidate is in control of the party before and during the nomination process?JohnStOnge wrote:I said it during the primary season and I'll say it again:
The Democratic Party Primaries were not "rigged" beyond the fact that the Democratic Party has super delegates.
Donna Brazille has responded to Trump tweeting that she said the primaries were rigged by starting a hashtag "NotwhatI said."
The DNC favored Hillary Clinton. Shocker. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Sanders is not. That's not the same as "rigging" the primaries.
As I said during the primaries: The only instances in which the polls showed Democratic primary voters favored one candidate but the other candidate won were instances in which the polls showed Hillary favored but Sanders won.
The Democratic primaries were not "rigged." Clinton won because more people of Democrat persuasion favored her.
He's still adjusting to not being a Republican.Ibanez wrote:So you don't understand the corruption that can occur when one candidate is in control of the party before and during the nomination process?JohnStOnge wrote:I said it during the primary season and I'll say it again:
The Democratic Party Primaries were not "rigged" beyond the fact that the Democratic Party has super delegates.
Donna Brazille has responded to Trump tweeting that she said the primaries were rigged by starting a hashtag "NotwhatI said."
The DNC favored Hillary Clinton. Shocker. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Sanders is not. That's not the same as "rigging" the primaries.
As I said during the primaries: The only instances in which the polls showed Democratic primary voters favored one candidate but the other candidate won were instances in which the polls showed Hillary favored but Sanders won.
The Democratic primaries were not "rigged." Clinton won because more people of Democrat persuasion favored her.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clint ... le/2639664Dozens of members of Hillary Clinton's campaign reacted Saturday to former DNC head Donna Brazile's bombshell allegations and insights concerning the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic primary during the 2016 campaign.
The latest reveal from Brazile, courtesy of a preview of her upcoming memoir published by the Washington Post, accused the Clinton camp of treating her like a "slave," expressed concerns about Russian interference, also detailed her consideration of replacing Clinton with then-Vice President Joe Biden as the party's presidential nominee after a health scare. The news Saturday followed another big claim revealed in Brazile's memoir, as reported by Politico this week, that Clinton struck a deal with the DNC which looked like an "unethical" takeover.
"We were shocked to learn the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning the will of the Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees," the open letter began. "It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate’s health.
No, she said that she confirmed (and had proof) that Bernie's assertions were correct.JohnStOnge wrote:Donna Brazille herself has said she did not say the primaries were "rigged."
This is hardly "news", everybody knew the primary was rigged from day one. Why else would they have to go outside the party to find somebody else to run in the primary?Col Hogan wrote:
And the left-on-left fighting is stepping up...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clint ... le/2639664Dozens of members of Hillary Clinton's campaign reacted Saturday to former DNC head Donna Brazile's bombshell allegations and insights concerning the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic primary during the 2016 campaign.
The latest reveal from Brazile, courtesy of a preview of her upcoming memoir published by the Washington Post, accused the Clinton camp of treating her like a "slave," expressed concerns about Russian interference, also detailed her consideration of replacing Clinton with then-Vice President Joe Biden as the party's presidential nominee after a health scare. The news Saturday followed another big claim revealed in Brazile's memoir, as reported by Politico this week, that Clinton struck a deal with the DNC which looked like an "unethical" takeover.
"We were shocked to learn the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning the will of the Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees," the open letter began. "It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate’s health.
I’m shocked...SHOCKED...
But...but...I always turn to Jon for my news of what’s going on inside the Democrat party...he says everything was fair and square in the party...the best candidate won the nomination...houndawg wrote:This is hardly "news", everybody knew the primary was rigged from day one. Why else would they have to go outside the party to find somebody else to run in the primary?Col Hogan wrote:
And the left-on-left fighting is stepping up...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clint ... le/2639664
I’m shocked...SHOCKED...
Cid, unless the report I saw yesterday was incorrect she explcitly said she did not say the primaries were "rigged." The report referenced the #notwhatIsaid thing on Twitter. Unfortunately I can't get to the original Donna Brazille tweet. Maybe you can do it. The #notwhatIsaid thing is at https://twitter.com/hashtag/Notwhatisaid?src=hash.CID1990 wrote:No, she said that she confirmed (and had proof) that Bernie's assertions were correct.JohnStOnge wrote:Donna Brazille herself has said she did not say the primaries were "rigged."
And what did Bernie say?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This a silly semantic game you and your friend Donna are playingJohnStOnge wrote:Cid, unless the report I saw yesterday was incorrect she explcitly said she did not say the primaries were "rigged." The report referenced the #notwhatIsaid thing on Twitter. Unfortunately I can't get to the original Donna Brazille tweet. Maybe you can do it. The #notwhatIsaid thing is at https://twitter.com/hashtag/Notwhatisaid?src=hash.CID1990 wrote:
No, she said that she confirmed (and had proof) that Bernie's assertions were correct.
And what did Bernie say?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a difference between saying the primaries were "rigged" and saying the DNC favored Hillary. "Rigged," to me, means there is no way Sanders could've won regardless of how strong his actual support was.
That was not the case. In fact, it was clear throughout that a solid majority of people who planned to vote in Democrat primaries favored Hillary. Sanders never had a chance to win the majority of Democratic primary votes because minority voters overwhelmingly favored Hillary. There was never a situation where Sanders threatened to have the support of the majority of Democrat partisans but had to worry about losing anyway because of a "rigged" system.
CID1990 wrote:This a silly semantic game you and your friend Donna are playingJohnStOnge wrote:
Cid, unless the report I saw yesterday was incorrect she explcitly said she did not say the primaries were "rigged." The report referenced the #notwhatIsaid thing on Twitter. Unfortunately I can't get to the original Donna Brazille tweet. Maybe you can do it. The #notwhatIsaid thing is at https://twitter.com/hashtag/Notwhatisaid?src=hash.
There is a difference between saying the primaries were "rigged" and saying the DNC favored Hillary. "Rigged," to me, means there is no way Sanders could've won regardless of how strong his actual support was.
That was not the case. In fact, it was clear throughout that a solid majority of people who planned to vote in Democrat primaries favored Hillary. Sanders never had a chance to win the majority of Democratic primary votes because minority voters overwhelmingly favored Hillary. There was never a situation where Sanders threatened to have the support of the majority of Democrat partisans but had to worry about losing anyway because of a "rigged" system.
The DNC was taking the majority of its financial instructions from "I'mWithHer"
Call it what you like
Sic transit gloria.....JohnStOnge wrote:Cid, unless the report I saw yesterday was incorrect she explcitly said she did not say the primaries were "rigged." The report referenced the #notwhatIsaid thing on Twitter. Unfortunately I can't get to the original Donna Brazille tweet. Maybe you can do it. The #notwhatIsaid thing is at https://twitter.com/hashtag/Notwhatisaid?src=hash.CID1990 wrote:
No, she said that she confirmed (and had proof) that Bernie's assertions were correct.
And what did Bernie say?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a difference between saying the primaries were "rigged" and saying the DNC favored Hillary. "Rigged," to me, means there is no way Sanders could've won regardless of how strong his actual support was.
That was not the case. In fact, it was clear throughout that a solid majority of people who planned to vote in Democrat primaries favored Hillary. Sanders never had a chance to win the majority of Democratic primary votes because minority voters overwhelmingly favored Hillary. There was never a situation where Sanders threatened to have the support of the majority of Democrat partisans but had to worry about losing anyway because of a "rigged" system.
If it weren't rigged they would have been able to find a second Democrat to run against HRC in the primary.kalm wrote:CID1990 wrote:
This a silly semantic game you and your friend Donna are playing
The DNC was taking the majority of its financial instructions from "I'mWithHer"
Call it what you like
They literally had a written agreement that her campaign controlled the DNC in exchange for paying down the DNC's debt. But nah...it wasn't rigged.
John you're playing semantics. She didn't use the word rigged. She just said the Clinton campaign had an unethical agreement with the DNC that they (Clinton) would make all decisions. Read between the lines.JohnStOnge wrote:Cid, unless the report I saw yesterday was incorrect she explcitly said she did not say the primaries were "rigged." The report referenced the #notwhatIsaid thing on Twitter. Unfortunately I can't get to the original Donna Brazille tweet. Maybe you can do it. The #notwhatIsaid thing is at https://twitter.com/hashtag/Notwhatisaid?src=hash.CID1990 wrote:
No, she said that she confirmed (and had proof) that Bernie's assertions were correct.
And what did Bernie say?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a difference between saying the primaries were "rigged" and saying the DNC favored Hillary. "Rigged," to me, means there is no way Sanders could've won regardless of how strong his actual support was.
That was not the case. In fact, it was clear throughout that a solid majority of people who planned to vote in Democrat primaries favored Hillary. Sanders never had a chance to win the majority of Democratic primary votes because minority voters overwhelmingly favored Hillary. There was never a situation where Sanders threatened to have the support of the majority of Democrat partisans but had to worry about losing anyway because of a "rigged" system.
Yeah..but they didn't say rigged.kalm wrote:CID1990 wrote:
This a silly semantic game you and your friend Donna are playing
The DNC was taking the majority of its financial instructions from "I'mWithHer"
Call it what you like
They literally had a written agreement that her campaign controlled the DNC in exchange for paying down the DNC's debt. But nah...it wasn't rigged.
Thanks DbackStOnge.Ibanez wrote:Yeah..but they didn't say rigged.kalm wrote:
They literally had a written agreement that her campaign controlled the DNC in exchange for paying down the DNC's debt. But nah...it wasn't rigged.
kalm wrote:Thanks DbackStOnge.Ibanez wrote:
Yeah..but they didn't say rigged.
They didn't say rigged so it wasn't rigged. There was just an unethical use of influence and power. 
CAA Flagship wrote:
