https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
The RNC had a similar anti-Trump preference. There's similarly no evidence they rigged anything against him.
While there may not be proof that the DNC rigged it against Sanders, that doesn't prove it wasn't rigged. It only proves that no evidence has come to light that it was rigged.
And yet Trump has accused the RNC process of being rigged many times. Strange how the current narrative seems to be that only the DNC is exceptionally corrupt, to the point of rigging an election, and possibly having Seth Rich killed as if the Democratic party was literally a crime syndicate.
There really isn't proof of anything, either way, other than "rigged elections" being the current political accusation du jour.
That's simply false. The accusations against the DNC of "rigging" primarily revolve around bias (revealed in the email dumps), not actual electoral fraud. The RNC was almost certainly biased in a similar (likely more intense) manner against Trump.
It's also entirely possible to rig an election unsuccessfully.
That is all that anyone is really arguing here, contrary to this assertion:
>..just when Wikileaks released info that the DNC primaries were rigged
That's not evidence of election rigging.
It's very reasonable for the DNC to work with the media to defend itself against nonsense allegations.
This e-mail in particular is clear discussion of acting on promoting a narrative (i.e. shopping it to news organizations) to discredit Bernie's campaign: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056
I'm sure you'll find a way to explain that away though.
The religion, "Bernie's campaign is disorganized" talking points, and Hillary Victory Fund e-mails are the most odious in my opinion.
I'm not surprised to see DNC discussing narratives for the point when the primary is over.
This is no evidence that the primary was rigged.
So strange that they forgot to mention to shop this story around after the primary. How did you pick up on this intent of theirs without them saying it?
As others mentioned, there was coordination on talking points as well to discredit his campaign.
Sanders didn't lose because the DNC said mean things in their internal email system. He likely lost because he never made much of a dent in the heavily black Democratic voting population in the South.
Also see: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056
I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"!
That would seem to deflate your point a bit. Surely the DNC isn't violating its neutrality promise if the candidate has effectively been already chosen?
> I'm sure you'll be back to "correct the record"!
I've seen this thrown around several times in this thread. Is it an accusation I'm being paid by the Hillary campaign? If so, LOL.
The candidate had not been chosen, but the DNC lackeys (edit: sorry, top officials) were coordinating media coverage against him.
> The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world." Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial. Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a big political issue," but also termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it." Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information.
> Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery." Krugman notes that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt."
> Lokey, a former paid Zero Hedge writer who left the website in 2016 over disagreements in editorial direction, characterizes the site's political content as "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."
You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.
You can argue with me on it, but what matters is that MANY people now believe this, for example nearly all Trump supporters (and there's a lot of them).
In my opinion, this is the single biggest issue in our new political climate. There is a large, and growing base of people who no longer trust either politicians or the media reporting on them. Conspiracy theories flourish in environments like this, and when enough people believe conspiracy theories are true... sometimes they take actions.
These things have been happening for a long time. Businesses, governments and other entities all have the ability to manipulate the media. I view it as a power struggle that sometimes bubbles up in public.
Oh, and social media is a part of it. Just it's slightly more difficult to control without people noticing.
Only if you believe it is pro-US to abolish the right to bear arms, the right to free speech (hate speech laws) and to impose Socialism on US citizens.
You'll excuse me wanting a slightly better source.