4 ms·

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 u

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

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.