5 ms·

>The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself One could argue that the documented effort to override pu

by chroem- 10y ago

>The results of that attack (which weren't particular interesting) are secondary to the attack itself One could argue that the documented effort to override public opinion in the primary election is quite interesting by itself. I suppose you could also claim that it's uninteresting, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

etchalon 10y ago
That documentation does not exist. You could argue it is "hinted at" in the emails made public, but cannot argue it is documented or proven.
- chroem- 10y ago
  Well, it was apparently convincing enough for the former DNC chair to lose her job, and for the subsequent DNC chair to be fired from her position at CNN. If you choose to ignore what happened, then that's your own perogative.
  - etchalon 10y ago
    First, the former DNC chairwoman was going to lose her job anyway. The DNC chair position alternates every four years. She was "fired" early to make peace with Sanders, who believed (correctly) that DWS favored Clinton. It was a move to give unity to the party, and possibly to get Sanders endorsement. It's hard to say for certain what would have happened if they hadn't. Donna Brazile forwarded a single question to Podesto. The optics looked bad, but, as the email chain showed, it was a question they already had an answer to. Believing this "proves!" anything is ignoring the facts.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      Do you believe the DNC tried to slow down the momentum of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries?
      - etchalon 10y ago
        No, I believe they did not specifically help him. I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him. The most "damning" thing you could point to would be the debate schedule, which was scheduled before anyone knew Sanders would be a nominee.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        >"I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him." Here's one example to start... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-democratic-officials-plotted-to-expose-bernie-sanders-as-an-atheist-a7151476.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-de...
        etchalon 10y ago
        The link below showed something which was talked about, but never executed. It can be chalked up to proof that the DNC preferred Clinton (they absolutely did) but not that they actively did something to harm them. As I noted above, you can argue the emails "hinted at" the potential they did, but you cannot prove they actually did.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Here's another... https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 >"Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters"
        etchalon 10y ago
        I'm not sure what the context of that is, and I hadn't seen that before. I'll do some reading. Still, a Super PAC is not the DNC. I'm sure pro-Hillary Super PACs were doing (or at least considered doing) quite a few worst things than that.
    - chroem- 10y ago
      That is a post-hoc rationalization and you know it. DWS was forced to step down amid a firestorm, not voluntarily "to give unity to the party." The same goes for Brazile. The claim that "they could have figured out the answer anyway" doesn't make up for the dishonesty in cheating during the debates.
      - etchalon 10y ago
        It's hardly post-hoc. There was no evidence revealed in the emails that revealed anything more damning than that DWS, and the DNC, preferred Clinton (the Democrat) to Sanders (not a Democrat). She stepped down early, and was replaced with DB, an even bigger Clinton fan. By July 22nd, the entire party was in unity mode, and Sanders was actively being courted for his endorsement. DWS resigned as a sacrifice play. As for the email question, it wasn't making an excuse for it, so much as it was pointing out it had no effect on the proceedings. Either way, I believe this thread shows how little the DNC hack revealed.
  - mejari 10y ago
    If your "evidence" is that people in public positions are removed from public positions because of public backlash, then that is no evidence at all. Public opinion often rules out over actual facts in such cases.

by chroem- 10y ago

etchalon 10y ago

That documentation does not exist. You could argue it is "hinted at" in the emails made public, but cannot argue it is documented or proven.

chroem- 10y ago
Well, it was apparently convincing enough for the former DNC chair to lose her job, and for the subsequent DNC chair to be fired from her position at CNN. If you choose to ignore what happened, then that's your own perogative.
- etchalon 10y ago
  First, the former DNC chairwoman was going to lose her job anyway. The DNC chair position alternates every four years. She was "fired" early to make peace with Sanders, who believed (correctly) that DWS favored Clinton. It was a move to give unity to the party, and possibly to get Sanders endorsement. It's hard to say for certain what would have happened if they hadn't. Donna Brazile forwarded a single question to Podesto. The optics looked bad, but, as the email chain showed, it was a question they already had an answer to. Believing this "proves!" anything is ignoring the facts.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Do you believe the DNC tried to slow down the momentum of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries?
    - etchalon 10y ago
      No, I believe they did not specifically help him. I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him. The most "damning" thing you could point to would be the debate schedule, which was scheduled before anyone knew Sanders would be a nominee.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        >"I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him." Here's one example to start... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-democratic-officials-plotted-to-expose-bernie-sanders-as-an-atheist-a7151476.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-de...
      - etchalon 10y ago
        The link below showed something which was talked about, but never executed. It can be chalked up to proof that the DNC preferred Clinton (they absolutely did) but not that they actively did something to harm them. As I noted above, you can argue the emails "hinted at" the potential they did, but you cannot prove they actually did.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Here's another... https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 >"Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters"
        etchalon 10y ago
        I'm not sure what the context of that is, and I hadn't seen that before. I'll do some reading. Still, a Super PAC is not the DNC. I'm sure pro-Hillary Super PACs were doing (or at least considered doing) quite a few worst things than that.
  - chroem- 10y ago
    That is a post-hoc rationalization and you know it. DWS was forced to step down amid a firestorm, not voluntarily "to give unity to the party." The same goes for Brazile. The claim that "they could have figured out the answer anyway" doesn't make up for the dishonesty in cheating during the debates.
    - etchalon 10y ago
      It's hardly post-hoc. There was no evidence revealed in the emails that revealed anything more damning than that DWS, and the DNC, preferred Clinton (the Democrat) to Sanders (not a Democrat). She stepped down early, and was replaced with DB, an even bigger Clinton fan. By July 22nd, the entire party was in unity mode, and Sanders was actively being courted for his endorsement. DWS resigned as a sacrifice play. As for the email question, it wasn't making an excuse for it, so much as it was pointing out it had no effect on the proceedings. Either way, I believe this thread shows how little the DNC hack revealed.
- mejari 10y ago
  If your "evidence" is that people in public positions are removed from public positions because of public backlash, then that is no evidence at all. Public opinion often rules out over actual facts in such cases.