Warren Agrees 2016 Democratic Primary Was Rigged For Clinton

originally posted by: rickymouse
I can't understand why our intelligence agencies allowed Hillary's campaign to do that. They had to know it was going on. They act all concerned about a fair election without support from other countries yet they allowed this kind of action to occur. Also the money she got from foreign countries and foreign corporations and individuals interfered with the election, it gave her way more money to give to MSM as a bribe. See, these big MSM corporations get a large amount of cash from campaigns. Their allegence is effected by who spends the most.

Easy answer, the intelligence agencies are part of the deep state, establishment, Military industrial complex... They are FOR the secret powers. Hillary is a minion of the same. Get it now?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pavil

C’mon Pavil ... Its Donna Brasílle who was dumb enough to pass debate questions to Clinton.

Her claim that the primaries were “rigged” means nothing ...

Again ... was Bernie on the ballot? Were the votes counted? Did Clinton get more delegates than Sanders ... or not?

I love how you turn on your own for Clinton. It's amazing you seem to think she was the best candidate and the process worked fairly.

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I’ll ask again ... how were the Primaries and Caucuses rigged? Clinton and Sanders were on the ballot in every State.

Democrats voted; Sanders lost, even before superdelegates were counted.

The State governments administer the Primaries and regulate the Caucuses.

WHERE WAS THIS RIGGING DONE?

It takes a special kind of stupid to continue espousing those talking points!

Touche sir or madame!

Hint, the answer was in the emails!

Yeah, I've heard that I'm the stupid one ... but I'm the one asking very simple questions.

The Wikileaks emails did not suggest that any Primary or Caucus was fraudulent did they? Did any prove voter fraud or election fraud?

If I'm the stupid one here, why can't any of you prove such a simple matter?

Sanders was on the Ballots, Clinton was on the Ballots.

Democrats voted.

Sanders lost; Clinton won.

Now, can anyone state anything factual that opposes those very straightforward statements?

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pavil

C’mon Pavil ... Its Donna Brasílle who was dumb enough to pass debate questions to Clinton.

Her claim that the primaries were “rigged” means nothing ...

Again ... was Bernie on the ballot? Were the votes counted? Did Clinton get more delegates than Sanders ... or not?

I love how you turn on your own for Clinton. It's amazing you seem to think she was the best candidate and the process worked fairly.

I'm amazed that no matter how many times I say exactly what I think about Hillary Clinton, that I said the same things last year, up to and including the Election, I still get this same BS from folks like you.

So, just to truly tickle your fancy, I'll give you my favorite response: "what difference does it make?"

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: rickymouse
I can't understand why our intelligence agencies allowed Hillary's campaign to do that. They had to know it was going on. They act all concerned about a fair election without support from other countries yet they allowed this kind of action to occur. Also the money she got from foreign countries and foreign corporations and individuals interfered with the election, it gave her way more money to give to MSM as a bribe. See, these big MSM corporations get a large amount of cash from campaigns. Their allegence is effected by who spends the most.

Easy answer, the intelligence agencies are part of the deep state, establishment, Military industrial complex... They are FOR the secret powers. Hillary is a minion of the same. Get it now?

Yeah, you sound like a progressive, liberal kind of guy.... straight out of Infowars.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
No more generalizations guys.

I feel your pain.

I'm a pro-legalization, for gay marriage, see no problem with trans in the military and think we should have some sort of amnesty for illegals.


And I'm an alt-right Nazi because I voted for Trump.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are playing a desperate game of semantics, the DNC conspired against Sanders.

This is what the emails proved and this is what Warren is referring to when she states the primaries were rigged for Clinton.

I look forward to your continued attempts to maintain the official narrative of your camp, this week has shown the kind of mental gymnastics you are capable of and the fun has only begun!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: rickymouse
I can't understand why our intelligence agencies allowed Hillary's campaign to do that. They had to know it was going on. They act all concerned about a fair election without support from other countries yet they allowed this kind of action to occur. Also the money she got from foreign countries and foreign corporations and individuals interfered with the election, it gave her way more money to give to MSM as a bribe. See, these big MSM corporations get a large amount of cash from campaigns. Their allegence is effected by who spends the most.

Easy answer, the intelligence agencies are part of the deep state, establishment, Military industrial complex... They are FOR the secret powers. Hillary is a minion of the same. Get it now?

Yeah, you sound like a progressive, liberal kind of guy.... straight out of Infowars.

Except real leftists have been saying this since the 60's. And only in the last 20 odd years have the right wing been appropriating it, excepting a few lone voices out there on the right. There even was a guardian article about Steve Bannon appropriating anti-establishment left ideas.

You do realize that hippies and leftists were saying stuff like this since the 60's, don't you....?

You sound like a low information, mainstream Democrat who doesn't even know the history of counter-culture, anti-establishment ideas, anti war, anti military industrial complex activism... what the left used to be..

This is yet another reason mainstream democrats aren't even progressive or left. You guys support the same old neo-imperialism, constant wars, CIA atrocities abroad (if you are even educated in it, which is doubtful), etc. It sounds like you aren't very informed on what the intelligence agencies have done.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are playing a desperate game of semantics, the DNC conspired against Sanders.

This is what the emails proved and this is what Warren is referring to when she states the primaries were rigged for Clinton.

I look forward to your continued attempts to maintain the official narrative of your camp, this week has shown the kind of mental gymnastics you are capable of and the fun has only begun!

It's not desperate and not semantics. Some of you are so obsessed that you can't or won't see what I am saying.

There is ZERO statements in "the emails" about voter fraud, election fraud, fake Primaries, false Caucuses or anything else.

How do you think a candidate is NOMINATED in the Party Convention? Why do you think we have Primaries and Caucuses?

These elect delegates based on the popular vote totals. Clinton won, Sanders lost.

You can wail and cry about what Donna Brasille said and what Elizabeth Warren said all you want. Indeed, I have stated at least three times in this very thread that the DNC and anyone in politics are psychotic liars not worthy of trust.

Yet, none of that matters to those of you who cannot move beyond "but they said it was rigged."

Frankly, as I'm sure you share the converse feeling for what I'm saying, who cares what you think?

The facts are clear.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes, I'm aware of the history of the 60s and 70s.

I'm also well aware that "There's a conspiracy maaan, the government is out to get us free love/free the weed types" is not the same as the screed that you're hawking from Alex Jones.

Thanks for the convo.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No proof of even one vote changed by trump or Russia = He worked with Russia to rig the election!

No proof of a vote changed by dnc = proof what they did wasn't that big of a deal.

We got ya.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes, I'm aware of the history of the 60s and 70s.

I'm also well aware that "There's a conspiracy maaan, the government is out to get us free love/free the weed types" is not the same as the screed that you're hawking from Alex Jones.

Thanks for the convo.

Bull, and your little straw man is absurd there. If you knew the history, you would know leftists have been talking about how horrible the CIA and FBI are for decades. They've also been speaking against the military industrial complex, which is a corrupt cabal which includes corporations, the military, politicians, and media at the top levels. You seem to forget that the FBI targeted these leftists FOR such activism back then,with the cointelpro program. When people now refer to the Deep State, it's just another name for the MIC.

You know who didn't talk about it back then? The conservatives for the most part. Also, you know who doesn't talk about it now? Mainstream Democrats and Republicans. You guys seem oblivious. This isn't a partisan issue. It's whether our government has become highly corrupt or not.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes, I'm aware of the history of the 60s and 70s.

I'm also well aware that "There's a conspiracy maaan, the government is out to get us free love/free the weed types" is not the same as the screed that you're hawking from Alex Jones.

Thanks for the convo.

Bull, and your little straw man is absurd there. If you knew the history, you would know leftists have been talking about how horrible the CIA and FBI are for decades. They've also been speaking against the military industrial complex, which is a corrupt cabal which includes corporations, the military, politicians, and media at the top levels. You seem to forget that the FBI targeted these leftists FOR such activism back then,with the cointelpro program. When people now refer to the Deep State, it's just another name for the MIC.

I do know the history. I do know that leftists, such as we have in America, have always questioned the government as they should.

What you're pattering from Alex Jones is some phantom menace over and above all the real issues that we know about.

The CIA is a known agency and we are well aware of their depredations on humanity. The same to a lesser extent with the FBI. And gosh, the person who coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" was Dwight Eisenhower ... he warned us against it too.

I'm sure he was also a "leftist" in your book then, right?

LOL

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes, I'm aware of the history of the 60s and 70s.

I'm also well aware that "There's a conspiracy maaan, the government is out to get us free love/free the weed types" is not the same as the screed that you're hawking from Alex Jones.

Thanks for the convo.

Bull, and your little straw man is absurd there. If you knew the history, you would know leftists have been talking about how horrible the CIA and FBI are for decades. They've also been speaking against the military industrial complex, which is a corrupt cabal which includes corporations, the military, politicians, and media at the top levels. You seem to forget that the FBI targeted these leftists FOR such activism back then,with the cointelpro program. When people now refer to the Deep State, it's just another name for the MIC.

I do know the history. I do know that leftists, such as we have in America, have always questioned the government as they should.

What you're pattering from Alex Jones is some phantom menace over and above all the real issues that we know about.

The CIA is a known agency and we are well aware of their depredations on humanity. The same to a lesser extent with the FBI. And gosh, the person who coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" was Dwight Eisenhower ... he warned us against it too.

I'm sure he was also a "leftist" in your book then, right?

LOL

So are you saying that the leftists didn't rail against the military industrial complex in the 60s? I know full well where the phrase started. Do you even know what it means? Because you seem to be calling it "Alex Jones" material.

And your view isn't even shared by a lot of mainstream liberals. I had to spend a day convincing my democrat politico roommate that the right wing had ever been talking about the deep state or related names prior to very recently. He had the opposite view of you.

You are woefully misinformed if you think that only Alex Jones and his ilk talk about these kinds of issues. I grew up in northern CA. The hippies and alternative types there were 95% counter-culture liberal, and hated Republicans. They talked all about this kind of stuff. That's where I first was exposed to it all.

The CIA IS in cahoots with the politicians, corporations, and media. Many of the regime changes it carried out such as in Guatemala or Iran were on the behalf of powerful western corporate interests... Factually.. You know, like United Fruit Company, or oil interests. Then we have Operation Mockingbird, which was a known program to infiltrate the media with CIA operatives. Still want to play dumb?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok...look up super delegates...they vote in their state for the party candidate, it's about money. Hillary had them all in her purse, so it didn't matter how many more votes Bernie won, she had the most delegates.

Hum, kinda reminds me of the electoral college....

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok...look up super delegates...they vote in their state for the party candidate, it's about money. Hillary had them all in her purse, so it didn't matter how many more votes Bernie won, she had the most delegates.

Hum, kinda reminds me of the electoral college....

I’ve addressed that. Clinton won on delegates from the Primaries and Caucuses before superdelegates were applied.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I’ll ask again ... how were the Primaries and Caucuses rigged? Clinton and Sanders were on the ballot in every State.

Democrats voted; Sanders lost, even before superdelegates were counted.

The State governments administer the Primaries and regulate the Caucuses.

WHERE WAS THIS RIGGING DONE?

It takes a special kind of stupid to continue espousing those talking points!

Touche sir or madame!

Hint, the answer was in the emails!

Yeah, I've heard that I'm the stupid one ... but I'm the one asking very simple questions.

The Wikileaks emails did not suggest that any Primary or Caucus was fraudulent did they? Did any prove voter fraud or election fraud?

If I'm the stupid one here, why can't any of you prove such a simple matter?

Sanders was on the Ballots, Clinton was on the Ballots.

Democrats voted.

Sanders lost; Clinton won.

Now, can anyone state anything factual that opposes those very straightforward statements?

look at this quote from the article Donna Brazille wrote.

www.politico.com...

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

She had total control over the DNC including who was hired for key positions. Do you really think they were making decisions that kept Bernie on equal footing during the primaries?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Lol.

How did Clinton rig the Primaries?

it’s not a hard question. Answer it.

Warren knows, she is privy to the Party and it's operation at the national level and now she is telling you so. Take your head out of the sand long enough to listen to your heroes when they say things you don't like.

a reply to: Khaleesi

No don't you get it.

Hillary controlling everything the dnc did including how to use all of its money isn't rigging the election.

Now Russia having Facebook posts and Pokemon go?

Thaats some nefarious election rigging.

a reply to: butcherguy

Hmmm yeah, its like rats jumping ship. They all backed and helped Clinton with her corruption filled campaign and even backed her post-campaign...until they suddenly didnt this week. Interesting timing.