DNC Officials Sabotaged Bernie Sanders' Campaign

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yes, I know that if you are going for a professional hit when you don't want it known as a hit you generally don't make it look like a hit. You also don't make it suspicious such that you'd draw attention too it, like two shots in the back. You make it look like an accident or suicide - Say he fell asleep at the wheel. It stops any kind of investigation instead of just a plain old murder investigation. Like a murder inquiry is a poor version of not fishy. 

 

The Russian remarks - Russia has given asylum to a notable leaker of US interests in the past (Snowden), and Snowden went to Russia on Assange's advice. So there's some level of trust there. However, I will withdraw that remark because I got his and Snowden's asylum status mixed up. So Russia probably isn't a relevant reasoning, although they would benefit heavily from what Assange is doing if it put Trump in power so there's an implication there. 

 

Seth dying before the DNC brings the idea of it as a hit even more into question surely? Why, if you know about the leak in advance (Assuming he was in fact hit for the leak) did they have such an awful response to it? Why even hit him before anything happened?

 

Just until Assange verifies that this guy was in fact the source of the leak, or something suspect is discovered about the guys death this speculation is just weird to me. Especially the timing - Why not drop it as the leaks are happening? Say 'These leaks were brought to us by a guy who was killed by the Clinton adminstration' and just wreck her. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes, I know that if you are going for a professional hit when you don't want it known as a hit you generally don't make it look like a hit. You also don't make it suspicious such that you'd draw attention too it, like two shots in the back. You make it look like an accident or suicide - Say he fell asleep at the wheel. It stops any kind of investigation instead of just a plain old murder investigation. Like a murder inquiry is a poor version of not fishy. 

 

The Russian remarks - Russia has given asylum to a notable leaker of US interests in the past (Snowden), and Snowden went to Russia on Assange's advice. So there's some level of trust there. However, I will withdraw that remark because I got his and Snowden's asylum status mixed up. So Russia probably isn't a relevant reasoning, although they would benefit heavily from what Assange is doing if it put Trump in power so there's an implication there. 

 

Seth dying before the DNC brings the idea of it as a hit even more into question surely? Why, if you know about the leak in advance (Assuming he was in fact hit for the leak) did they have such an awful response to it? Why even hit him before anything happened?

 

Just until Assange verifies that this guy was in fact the source of the leak, or something suspect is discovered about the guys death this speculation is just weird to me. Especially the timing - Why not drop it as the leaks are happening? Say 'These leaks were brought to us by a guy who was killed by the Clinton adminstration' and just wreck her. 

Well that can't actually. 

 

 

They don't reveal sources anymore. Why would you hit him? Well if a guy you catch a guy leaking incriminating documents, like the pay-for-play ones that just got leaked a few days ago, why wouldn't you make it look like he was a robbery to shut down any further leaks

 

Look, the FBI wanted to investigate Clinton AGAIN, and the gov shut them down. If that's not fishy, I'm not sure what is.

 

Trump isn't any more pro-russian than a avg us president should be. Crimea beyond a doubt wants to be part of Russia, and that's really the only major concession Trump "gave" to russia (his words were we'll look into it)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/28/obama-administration-knew-of-irs-scandal-2-years-before-congress-but-did-nothing/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tds-tw

 

Not really a DNC leak, but more corruption exposed I guess. Source is meh, but the documents are right there

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/powell-fires-back-to-hillarys-fbi-interview-i-used-secured-state-computer-to-access-classified-emails/

 

Plot Thickens

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=%22podesta.com%22&exact_phrase=&any_of=&exclude_words=&document_date_start=&document_date_end=&released_date_start=&released_date_end=&new_search=True&order_by=most_relevant#results

 

114 emails from #Podesta Group to Stratfor showing foreign government lobbying in action, in this case for Georgia. It's not just Manafort

 

FBI recovers 14,900 deleted emails.

 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

 

[Tentacruel]

The problem is that the only people that actually care are people who wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway.  People vote for their party/side regardless of who's standing in it. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

The problem is that the only people that actually care are people who wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway.  People vote for their party/side regardless of who's standing in it. 

This.

 

Unless there's a monumental fuckup on her end, I'm voting for her. Well, I'm not voting for her as much as I'm voting against Trump, but still. The presidency is not a reward. It's not a gold star we give politicians for good behavior. It's a job interview, and I'd rather a shady employee who can actually do the job right than a similarly corrupt employee who I have reason to believe could endanger the entire country and ruin the progress we've made.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This.

 

Unless there's a monumental fuckup on her end, I'm voting for her. Well, I'm not voting for her as much as I'm voting against Trump, but still. The presidency is not a reward. It's not a gold star we give politicians for good behavior. It's a job interview, and I'd rather a shady employee who can actually do the job right than a similarly corrupt employee who I have reason to believe could endanger the entire country and ruin the progress we've made.

Where do you draw the line...you're voting for someone who sold uranium to Russia...that's treason...

 

Like seriously, give me credible reasons why Trump is a bigger threat to national security than Hillary. Hillary is under 3 investigations right now, and the 4th one basically said, if it were anyone else we would indite.

 

I get Trump is an jabroni, but some people are seriously blind. If it were Bernie vs Trump, then sure, but you're willing to elect a felon basically

[Dad]

Where do you draw the line...you're voting for someone who sold uranium to Russia...that's treason...

 

Like seriously, give me credible reasons why Trump is a bigger threat to national security than Hillary. Hillary is under 3 investigations right now, and the 4th one basically said, if it were anyone else we would indite.

 

I get Trump is an jabroni, but some people are seriously blind. If it were Bernie vs Trump, then sure, but you're willing to elect a felon basically

 

Hol' up.

 

There were 9 government agencies involved in selling that company with uranium ties (to be clear).  Plus most of the donations to Clinton's Foundation occurred before she was even close to secretary of state.  So you're grasping at straws.

 

I'd give you anything else.  But this is bullshit.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Where do you draw the line...you're voting for someone who sold uranium to Russia...that's treason...

 

Like seriously, give me credible reasons why Trump is a bigger threat to national security than Hillary. Hillary is under 3 investigations right now, and the 4th one basically said, if it were anyone else we would indite.

 

I get Trump is an a******, but some people are seriously blind. If it were Bernie vs Trump, then sure, but you're willing to elect a felon basically

I'd support Hillary being indicted so literally anyone else could become president.

 

But I'd also rather have a felon who'd uphold the status quo than an economically-inept tangerine with a diagnosable personality disorder who runs a campaign based on fear and ignorance.

 

It's not a difficult decision to make, especially with something as important as supreme court justices on the line. Picking the wrong ones could undo decades of social and political progress, and that's far too dangerous of a prospect to ignore.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

I'd support Hillary being indicted so literally anyone else could become president.

 

But I'd also rather have a felon who'd uphold the status quo than an economically-inept tangerine with a diagnosable personality disorder who runs a campaign based on fear and ignorance.

 

It's not a difficult decision to make, especially with something as important as supreme court justices on the line. Picking the wrong ones could undo decades of social and political progress, and that's far too dangerous of a prospect to ignore.

What status quo? What exactly has she upheld? She destroyed the quo and created the mess we know as Daesh today. She funked up what were improving relationships with Russia. If you're gonna reset, do it properly.

 

The only thing she's kept in quo are the things she promised to change. Ever been to upstate NY? She promised hundreds of thousands of jobs there. Nada.

 

Tell me how Trump is economically inept, or how he's socially backwards. He's moderate on abortion, pro entitlement. Moderate on LGBT. Against big money.

 

You're voting for everything you just said you were repulsed by.

 

Except for the tangerine

 

 

Hol' up.

 

There were 9 government agencies involved in selling that company with uranium ties (to be clear). Plus most of the donations to Clinton's Foundation occurred before she was even close to secretary of state. So you're grasping at straws.

 

I'd give you anything else. But this is bullshit.

That's how quid pro quo works. One person typically does the favor first, but we'll get to that in the end.

 

Oh no, she wasn't SOS. But she was a senator. Her husband was a former president with clout.

 

Why're you trying to smokescreen using the other admins, just look at Iran to see what our current admin is like, and no, I'm not saying this cause Obama is Black.

 

First no relationship between payments, then strong relationship between payments, then an EXTRA 1.3 Billion in payments (Recent like last 2 days)

 

For the most transparent admin, they're really no doing so hot.

 

"A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One"

 

Ok, so am I grasping at straws here? Want me to bring up the arms to terrorist thing confirmed by the JD declassified document? or is that straws too?

 

Hillary is selling this country to the highest bidder.

[Dad]

That's how quid pro quo works. One person typically does the favor first, but we'll get to that in the end.

 

Oh no, she wasn't SOS. But she was a senator. Her husband was a former president with clout. 

 

Why're you trying to smokescreen using the other admins, just look at Iran to see what our current admin is like, and no, I'm not saying this cause Obama is Black.

 

First no relationship between payments, then strong relationship between payments, then an EXTRA 1.3 Billion in payments (Recent like last 2 days)

 

For the most transparent admin, they're really no doing so hot. 

 

"A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One"

 

Ok, so am I grasping at straws here? Want me to bring up the arms to terrorist thing confirmed by the JD declassified document? or is that straws too?

Hillary is selling this country to the highest bidder.

 

That entire statement was and still is questionable.  Because of the people who were linked to the donations, there as no evidence that any of them were tied to the company before or after it sold.

 

And since we're talking about arming our enemies, weren't you all "Go Trump Go" a few weeks ago when he invited them to hack into US servers for the "sake of the campaign"?  Don't you want good relationships with Russia?  Or is selling out only something you can relate to when it comes to Clinton?  And yes, he is economically inept.  He can barely manage his own campaign, let alone his own debt.  You really think I'm interested in letting a bankrupt pumpkin or a mentally deficient mop run this country?  

 

Pls.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Tell me how Trump is economically inept, or how he's socially backwards. He's moderate on abortion, pro entitlement. Moderate on LGBT. Against big money.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

Four bankruptcies.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/donald-trump-abortion/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/10/donald-trump-oreilly-factor-best-way-you-can-protect-sanctity-life-vote-me-share-email

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/donald-trump-government-shutdown-planned-parenthood/

Not moderate on abortion.

 

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/03/22/trump-unlikely-to-undo-marriage-equality-before-supreme-court/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/17/how-conservatives-are-keeping-the-gay-marriage-issue-alive-on-capitol-hill/

Not moderate on LGBT rights.

 

Big money encompasses such a wide range of issues that I'm not sure how to look into it, but believing that global warming is a hoax is a gigantic red flag in that respect.

 

He's pro entitlement. That's good. But that's just one position, and one that he seems to be rather vague about.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That entire statement was and still is questionable.  Because of the people who were linked to the donations, there as no evidence that any of them were tied to the company before or after it sold.

 

And since we're talking about arming our enemies, weren't you all "Go Trump Go" a few weeks ago when he invited them to hack into US servers for the "sake of the campaign"?  Don't you want good relationships with Russia?  Or is selling out only something you can relate to when it comes to Clinton?  And yes, he is economically inept.  He can barely manage his own campaign, let alone his own debt.  You really think I'm interested in letting a bankrupt pumpkin or a mentally deficient mop run this country?  

 

Pls.

OFC I want a good relationship with Russia. I think Russia can be our #2 closest Allie after the UK

 

I don't like, getting close to them, trying to step on their toes, and backstabbing them. And at the end of the day calling that a "reset"

 

Well a couple things about that 1) He never said hack the US Server, he said if you have them release them. And second, I thought Hillary said those 30K emails were all personal. Is Chelsey's Wedding and Yoda Classes nat security now? What's the uranium exchange rate for yoga classes?

 

Dude, he's spent less than half of what she has and is statistically tied. Why wouldn't you want a man who can get results for less money

[Dad]

OFC I want a good relationship with Russia. I think Russia can be our #2 closest Allie after the UK

 

I don't like, getting close to them, trying to step on their toes, and backstabbing them. And at the end of the day calling that a "reset"

 

Well a couple things about that 1) He never said hack the US Server, he said if you have them release them. And second, I thought Hillary said those 30K emails were all personal. Is Chelsey's Wedding and Yoda Classes nat security now? What's the uranium exchange rate for yoga classes?

 

Dude, he's spent less than half of what she has and is statistically tied. Why wouldn't you want a man who can get results for less money

 

He's also been bankrupt 4 times and he's borrowing out of his own companies putting himself further in debt.  I'd call that a wash.  Hell, I'd put them even.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

Four bankruptcies.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/donald-trump-abortion/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/10/donald-trump-oreilly-factor-best-way-you-can-protect-sanctity-life-vote-me-share-email

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/donald-trump-government-shutdown-planned-parenthood/

Not moderate on abortion.

 

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/03/22/trump-unlikely-to-undo-marriage-equality-before-supreme-court/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/17/how-conservatives-are-keeping-the-gay-marriage-issue-alive-on-capitol-hill/

Not moderate on LGBT rights.

 

Big money encompasses such a wide range of issues that I'm not sure how to look into it, but believing that global warming is a hoax is a gigantic red flag in that respect.

 

He's pro entitlement. That's good. But that's just one position, and one that he seems to be rather vague about.

Sure, lets get into that. 

 

Bankruptcy as a business ploy is clever last I remember...especially since he came out richer each time...punts have have uses too...sitting on a sinking ship instead of salvaging it is the stupid thing to do

 

 

Planned Parenthood-surrounded by Cruz and Carson, he defended PP for everything but abortion. And has said, exceptions for 1) Mother's Health 2) Incest/Child's Health 3) Rape

 

Cruz/Rubio Pro-Life= no abortions

 

Pro-Choice under Hillary= partial birth abortion

 

seems like a middle ground to me.

 

About penalty. If abortion is illegal, which was the premise of the Chris Mathew's question. What should be the penalty for a willing participant of murder (which is the premise again)....logically a punishment. 

 

Man also supported Trans rights in NC, and further stated that anyone can use w/e rights they want. Said LGBT should be up to the states, which is the moderation. Not banned, not 5-4 judges picking. I'm bi dude, don't you think I'm concerned if he wanted to persecute against me?

 

Clinton on the other hand takes millions from countries that stone and burn people like me alive. Kinda a contrast. Good luck overturning marriage equality when the popular opinion of the people is for LGB rights (T is complicated). Abortion on the other hand is actually 50/50. There are a lot of studies that show the court is more of a affirmer of the will of the people rather than a law maker. So no, LGB equality isn't gonna be overturned. 

 

Climate change, well ok, you get this one I guess. But our economy will suffer if we go for any energy not called nuclear. Its a trade off that's not really a trade when considering china undos any positive changes we make 

He's also been bankrupt 4 times and he's borrowing out of his own companies putting himself further in debt.  I'd call that a wash.  Hell, I'd put them even.

He's actually profited out of his bankruptcy in multiple cases. Go down with your ship and save nothing, or salvage what you can and come out better than before?

 

Scummy? Sure. Never said Trump was a cuddly teddybear

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The problem is that the only people that actually care are people who wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway.  People vote for their party/side regardless of who's standing in it. 

Not true actually. Undecided white women and undecided Hispanics are what will sway this election. 

 

That's why I think it was brilliant of him not to commit to deporting all 11-16 million illegals (inhumane in the case of good people with families and long time roots here and logistically impossible too, but that aside)

 

He's getting above romney in Hispanics, if he can keep his 34-36 range going he'll get the WH. If he can get his Florida Hispanic numbers nationwide the race is over even without White Women

 

If Republicans would consolidate around him like Dems do w/ Hillary he would win (He has high 70's with reps, she has low 90's)

 

And hell, the polls sample 15% more dems at times, Idk if I trust any of them outside of the LA times anymore tbh

[Dad]

Not true actually. Undecided white women and undecided Hispanics are what will sway this election. 

 

That's why I think it was brilliant of him not to commit to deporting all 11-16 million illegals (inhumane in the case of good people with families and long time roots here and logistically impossible too, but that aside)

 

He's getting above romney in Hispanics, if he can keep his 34-36 range going he'll get the WH. If he can get his Florida Hispanic numbers nationwide the race is over even without White Women

 

If Republicans would consolidate around him like Dems do w/ Hillary he would win (He has high 70's with reps, she has low 90's)

 

And hell, the polls sample 15% more dems at times, Idk if I trust any of them outside of the LA times anymore tbh

 

I will say this.  Him backing on deportation was a super tactical move.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I will say this.  Him backing on deportation was a super tactical move.

I like it, for an economic standpoint, even if we had 0% unemployment, losing 11 million workers would put us in a recession. We'll have to see if he loses any less...economically motivated...supporters

 

Then again he's playing it coy af now. No deportation, 100% wall, 100% no citizenship unless you re-immigrate legally. He's toeing a fine line

 

 

@Jesse about money in politics

 

Some numbers

 

Sanders

 

99% from campaign donations

 

59 for small donations

42 for large donations

 

1% Super Pac

 

Trump

 

45% Donations

 

30/15 split for small and large

 

53% Self finance

 

2% Super Pac

 

Hillary

 

72% Donations

 

28% super pacs

 

You tell me who wants money out and who wants it in

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yeah, it's a bit bias, but I wouldn't trust the polls. All citations are in the video

 

Jinxed it

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-mixed-signals-on-immigration-cause-a-flap-1472169148

 

Not everyone is as happy as me about his Immigration moderation

[Tentacruel]

It was a very sound move.  Deporting everyone is a ridiculous concept anyway, and it's not like he's gonna lose any votes over it. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

It wasn't wise. He immediately alienated the most extreme portions of his base. He'll need to adjust his angle a lot more to make up for that.

 

Also I guess I just interpret the data differently, Winter. You see someone who will sell the country to the highest bidder, I see someone who will toe the party line and will probably not accomplish anything of value. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that Hillary will be the status quo candidate who will shy away from any decisions that'd make her party look worse. Who she accepted money from won't change that perspective, because it's founded by what she's done every time she was in public office or running for it, not what she did behind closed doors.

 

Trump, on the other hand, is an unknown. He's never had public office. His positions either don't line up with mine or are sufficiently vague that I'm not sure whether they do or they don't, and he says stupid, irresponsible things on the regular.

 

She's not a good person, but at least I have an idea of what she'll do. Which is, at worst, nothing but continue on the path Obama was going, who I've grown quite fond of as president. And given his reaction to the ACA and schizophrenic opinions on the alternatives, I don't think Trump will do the same.

 

I simply trust Hillary more than Trump.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It wasn't wise. He immediately alienated the most extreme portions of his base. He'll need to adjust his angle a lot more to make up for that.

 

Also I guess I just interpret the data differently, Winter. You see someone who will sell the country to the highest bidder, I see someone who will toe the party line and will probably not accomplish anything of value. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that Hillary will be the status quo candidate who will shy away from any decisions that'd make her party look worse. Who she accepted money from won't change that perspective, because it's founded by what she's done every time she was in public office or running for it, not what she did behind closed doors.

 

Trump, on the other hand, is an unknown. He's never had public office. His positions either don't line up with mine or are sufficiently vague that I'm not sure whether they do or they don't, and he says stupid, irresponsible things on the regular.

 

She's not a good person, but at least I have an idea of what she'll do. Which is, at worst, nothing but continue on the path Obama was going, who I've grown quite fond of as president. And given his reaction to the ACA and schizophrenic opinions on the alternatives, I don't think Trump will do the same.

 

I simply trust Hillary more than Trump.

You're underestimating the loyalty most of us have to his vision. Sure people aren't thrilled, but it's better than Hillary's open borders

 

Well the ACA is breaking up as we speak right now. If you go with the Trump plan of letting companies insure across state borders, then you wont have people kneeling over in cali while insurance is dirt cheap in Louisiana

 

All Hillary will do is tick off the Russians, and let the ME turn into more of sheet show, then ask for four more years to fix it. Meanwhile the status quo will stand for the inner cities. Poor Blacks and Hispanics will be shoved deeper into a pit of Blackvotesmatter, Blacklivesdon't

 

Why go for the more regulatory failing method when capitalism offers a clear solution

 

 

These a couple I found why I don't trust her, there's probs more, but I'm lazy

 

I mean at the end of the day, I'm not going to tell you vote Trump, I think you should strongly reconsider, or atleast keep an open mind. But you do you

Jesus Christ, this is the stupidest topic I've ever seen on YCM.

How so, this country is failing because we don't have more open discussion. I think it's wonderful a discussion doesn't devolve into accusations of bigotry and such

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554022/-Election-Justice-USA-Study-Finds-that-Without-Election-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/293970-clinton-treat-cyberattacks-like-any-other-attack

 

Oh boy

 

 

Let's go to war with Russia!

[Tentacruel]

It wasn't wise. He immediately alienated the most extreme portions of his base. He'll need to adjust his angle a lot more to make up for that.

 

Do you think the extreme portions of his base would ever consider voting for Clinton?  Of course they wouldn't.  He doesn't need to be as right wing as possible now, he just needs to be more conservative than Hillary and he's got a lot of guaranteed votes from that area.