GatewayRedbirds.com

Cheddar Tom wrote:

M1IRONMIKE wrote:There is however evidence that the DNC conspired to keep Sanders out.

What is the evidence?

The leaked emails

M1IRONMIKE wrote:

Cheddar Tom wrote:

M1IRONMIKE wrote:There is however evidence that the DNC conspired to keep Sanders out.

What is the evidence?

The leaked emails

Yeah....but what is the evidence in the email that they conspired to keep Sanders "out"...?

The DNC emails bother me mostly because of the DNC chair and her apparent ego, along with a couple other staff members that were quoted. I think Bernie seems to be treated a little dismissively too.

But there's no conspiracy shown there. Almost all of the articles claiming that seem to be intentionally eliminating context. There's a lot of spitballing on those emails that people seem to think the DNC actually followed through on, though they didn't. There's a satirical Craiglist style ad against Trump that people are suggesting was going to be planted as a real job advertisement by Trump. There is some pretty typical back and forth between the media and the DNC that is being portrayed as if it's conspiratorial. Etc, etc... It takes about 15 minutes of effort to recognize that just by reading them and even less now that a bunch of articles have pointed that out.

ghostrunner wrote:The DNC emails bother me mostly because of the DNC chair and her apparent ego, along with a couple other staff members that were quoted. I think Bernie seems to be treated a little dismissively too.

But there's no conspiracy shown there. Almost all of the articles claiming that seem to be intentionally eliminating context. There's a lot of spitballing on those emails that people seem to think the DNC actually followed through on, though they didn't. There's a satirical Craiglist style ad against Trump that people are suggesting was going to be planted as a real job advertisement by Trump. There is some pretty typical back and forth between the media and the DNC that is being portrayed as if it's conspiratorial. Etc, etc... It takes about 15 minutes of effort to recognize that just by reading them and even less now that a bunch of articles have pointed that out.

It doesn't matter if they followed thru or not. The DNC is supposed to be neutral. Clearly they were not. Who knows what they may or may not have done or if the crossed the line on legal or not. It does not matter. It shows Sanders was never going to be their candidate. He never really got close enough to force them to do something because the super delegate [expletive] had him up against it from the beginning. Still is shows that no matter what they were going to get their way despite voters

I don't think the lack of support from the DNC is why Bernie lost. As a Bernie supporter I wish it were that simple but he simply got outvoted. Hillary got like 3.7 million more votes. His biggest problem was he was never able to connect with minorities.

Obama faced a very similar uphill climb vs Hillary in 2008. She had a very similar "insider" advantage in superdelegates that time around, too, and Obama was pretty new to the national scene. Obama in 2008 appealed to young voters, similar to Bernie in 2016. However, Bernie did not come close to winning minorities like Obama did. And even with those vote advantages, Obama barely beat Hillary in 2008. The estimate is Obama beat Hillary by less than 200,000 votes. For whatever reason, more minorities chose Hillary this time around. People were not duped by the DNC into voting for Hillary in 2008 or 2016.

M1IRONMIKE wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote:

M1IRONMIKE wrote:

heyzeus wrote:

Radbird wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:

Radbird wrote:What does Trump owe Putin for the DNC email hack? Estonia?

Well, we know who Putin DOESNT want to be President. Who wants to vote for the candidate Vladimir Putin endorses? Not me.

IIRC, Berlusconi and Putin were pals too.

Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s top adviser, and his ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine

It's not just Manafort, it's Trump himself with the frightening ties to the Putin and his Russian underworld supporters. As banks have gradually refused to lend to Trump (probably due to the bankruptcies), he has turned to shadowy pro-Putin Russian sources for his financing. It's unsurprising that Trump is now praising Putin as a great leader, talking about not defending NATO allies that Russia has its eyes on, and benefiting from a Russian hack of the DNC servers. That's just how demagogue dictators do favors for eachother.

No big deal though, this is just our democratic republic going down the tubes here.

Here we go.....the left gets caught conspiring to get Hilary nominated and now they blame trump . Not upset with their corruption but upset they were caught red handed....the demo mantra.....deflect....go for cover....then create another diversion....this week ought to be good

OR IS IT BOTH??

Jim, jump in here. Is mike saying he's good with Trump's Russian connection or just ignoring in favor of going after Hillary?
My bias is I am in favor of a Bernie Sanders revolution.

what I am saying is there is absolutely no evidence "Russia is pulling the strings and Trump is their puppet" .

In order for there to be a conflict of interest, you don't need evidence that he acted on behalf of Russia. You just need the appearance that some of his actions could have happened that way.

Judges have to recuse themselves from cases where they have a financial stake. If they rule in a way that benefits themselves, then it looks corrupt. If they rule in a way that doesn't benefit themselves, then did they just do that to "appear" good? Maybe they ruled in a totally honest way and were able to put aside their own interests. We'll never know for sure. All we have are the appearances, and their word. Trump's ties to Russia are a perfect example of terrible appearances, even if it never actually affects a single decision he makes.

M1IRONMIKE wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:The DNC emails bother me mostly because of the DNC chair and her apparent ego, along with a couple other staff members that were quoted. I think Bernie seems to be treated a little dismissively too.

But there's no conspiracy shown there. Almost all of the articles claiming that seem to be intentionally eliminating context. There's a lot of spitballing on those emails that people seem to think the DNC actually followed through on, though they didn't. There's a satirical Craiglist style ad against Trump that people are suggesting was going to be planted as a real job advertisement by Trump. There is some pretty typical back and forth between the media and the DNC that is being portrayed as if it's conspiratorial. Etc, etc... It takes about 15 minutes of effort to recognize that just by reading them and even less now that a bunch of articles have pointed that out.

It doesn't matter if they followed thru or not. The DNC is supposed to be neutral. Clearly they were not. Who knows what they may or may not have done or if the crossed the line on legal or not. It does not matter. It shows Sanders was never going to be their candidate. He never really got close enough to force them to do something because the super delegate [expletive] had him up against it from the beginning. Still is shows that no matter what they were going to get their way despite voters

It really doesn't. A couple employees tossing ideas around doesn't show anything. People were expecting Sanders to maybe win a couple states and he won 22. Had the order been a little different it might have gone his way. The superdelegate system was known to everyone going in and it was clear who that favored. For a guy calling himself a socialist he did unbelievably well.

The worst example I've seen is one employee who suggests bringing up Sanders' possible atheism, and the response he receives is not to do that.

M1IRONMIKE wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote:

M1IRONMIKE wrote:

heyzeus wrote:

Radbird wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:

Radbird wrote:What does Trump owe Putin for the DNC email hack? Estonia?

Well, we know who Putin DOESNT want to be President. Who wants to vote for the candidate Vladimir Putin endorses? Not me.

IIRC, Berlusconi and Putin were pals too.

Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s top adviser, and his ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine

It's not just Manafort, it's Trump himself with the frightening ties to the Putin and his Russian underworld supporters. As banks have gradually refused to lend to Trump (probably due to the bankruptcies), he has turned to shadowy pro-Putin Russian sources for his financing. It's unsurprising that Trump is now praising Putin as a great leader, talking about not defending NATO allies that Russia has its eyes on, and benefiting from a Russian hack of the DNC servers. That's just how demagogue dictators do favors for eachother.

No big deal though, this is just our democratic republic going down the tubes here.

Here we go.....the left gets caught conspiring to get Hilary nominated and now they blame trump . Not upset with their corruption but upset they were caught red handed....the demo mantra.....deflect....go for cover....then create another diversion....this week ought to be good

OR IS IT BOTH??

Jim, jump in here. Is mike saying he's good with Trump's Russian connection or just ignoring in favor of going after Hillary?
My bias is I am in favor of a Bernie Sanders revolution.

what I am saying is there is absolutely no evidence "Russia is pulling the strings and Trump is their puppet" . There is however evidence that the DNC conspired to keep Sanders out. If you need something clarified about what I said you can ask me instead of the passive aggressive [expletive] asking jim what i meant 4 minutes after I post something. don't be a [expletive]

Maybe you should ask jim to quit stepping in as your surrogate.

You have no interest in taking a critical look at Trump. That's cool but you should man up and admit it.

I don't see a lot of honest looks at either party by its supporters.