5 ms·

> But they didn't do any of that either. They most certainly did. DWS and company actively worked internally to disparage and scuttle the Sanders campaign and

> But they didn't do any of that either. They most certainly did. DWS and company actively worked internally to disparage and scuttle the Sanders campaign and push HRC, ultimately resulting in DWS resigning in shame. The DNC leadership's bias was obvious, and the leaked emails that came out before the convention provided sufficient evidence that Sanders' supporters had been right about the DNC not playing fair with the candidates (though still not rigging the primaries). I don't think the narrative about the DNC's pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders bias and internal activity ever got out of control. Seems it stayed pretty level, and it's ultimately a separate matter from the current issue as far as I'm concerned anyway.

hackinthebochs 10y ago
This is absurd. It's clear that people at the DNC preferred Clinton. But the real question is what actions were taken to make Sanders less likely to become nominee? Absolutely none.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Oh, come on. You appear to either be unaware of the DNC's leaked emails before the convention, or are refusing to accept the information that is available and understand what I'm saying. There is a host of internal communication leaked specifically covering the internal conversations of DNC leadership focused on plans to scuttle Sanders campaign and candidacy throughout the primaries. The leaks were then added to the lawsuit that was being brought against the DNC and DWS on the eve of the convention. You can easily look this information up. It's neither absurd nor an out-of-control narrative. The actions people care about on this issue (which are separate from the election leaks people are currently talking about) are the ones that occurred within the DNC.
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    I've seen the information, none of it represents anything they took action on. It's grasping at straws.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      I'm not sure how to make my statements any clearer. I've even added emphasis to attempt to do so. The actions known about and discussed by which people are upset were actions within the DNC. Given that an action is something a person does, the content of the pre-convention leaked emails, and the act of writing and discussing the contents of those emails, constitutes actions within the DNC. You're attempting to dismiss this as non-action because there perhaps were not actions observable or taken outside the DNC. That's not what people are arguing in this case.
      - hackinthebochs 10y ago
        >the content of the pre-convention leaked emails Such as? Further, one person leaking emails is a far cry from "the DNC" being against him. You cannot blame the organization for actions of individuals. >act of writing and discussing the contents of those emails But it is absurd to be upset by internal discussions that resulted in no action against the Sander's campaign. When I ask for what action the DNC took as an organization, it is in this manner that I am asking the question. Internal emails does not constitute "actively working against the Sanders campaign". Such a characterization is blatant dishonesty.

hackinthebochs 10y ago

This is absurd. It's clear that people at the DNC preferred Clinton. But the real question is what actions were taken to make Sanders less likely to become nominee? Absolutely none.

bobwaycott 10y ago
Oh, come on. You appear to either be unaware of the DNC's leaked emails before the convention, or are refusing to accept the information that is available and understand what I'm saying. There is a host of internal communication leaked specifically covering the internal conversations of DNC leadership focused on plans to scuttle Sanders campaign and candidacy throughout the primaries. The leaks were then added to the lawsuit that was being brought against the DNC and DWS on the eve of the convention. You can easily look this information up. It's neither absurd nor an out-of-control narrative. The actions people care about on this issue (which are separate from the election leaks people are currently talking about) are the ones that occurred within the DNC.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  I've seen the information, none of it represents anything they took action on. It's grasping at straws.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    I'm not sure how to make my statements any clearer. I've even added emphasis to attempt to do so. The actions known about and discussed by which people are upset were actions within the DNC. Given that an action is something a person does, the content of the pre-convention leaked emails, and the act of writing and discussing the contents of those emails, constitutes actions within the DNC. You're attempting to dismiss this as non-action because there perhaps were not actions observable or taken outside the DNC. That's not what people are arguing in this case.
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      >the content of the pre-convention leaked emails Such as? Further, one person leaking emails is a far cry from "the DNC" being against him. You cannot blame the organization for actions of individuals. >act of writing and discussing the contents of those emails But it is absurd to be upset by internal discussions that resulted in no action against the Sander's campaign. When I ask for what action the DNC took as an organization, it is in this manner that I am asking the question. Internal emails does not constitute "actively working against the Sanders campaign". Such a characterization is blatant dishonesty.