Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Clinton

[kgnu_fan]

Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic primaries through democratic means

http://observer.com/2016/06/guccifer-2-0-leak-reveals-how-dnc-rigged-primaries-for-clinton/#.V2WQfqrhi7R.twitter

The Democratic primaries exhibited a stark disregard for the values endemic to democracy, nearly solidifying an oligarchy in which corporations and wealthy donors use the government as a means to perpetuate their own agendas. These interests circumvented democracy to help Hillary Clinton out-raise Bernie Sanders by over $80 million from Super-PACs. These are the companies who offshore thousands of American jobs, who pushed for a Wall Street bailout when their greed and recklessness delivered our country into the worst recession since the Great Depression, and who have destabilized foreign regions around the world through unnecessary military intervention. Hillary Clinton represents an extension of disastrous policies, and her coronation by Establishment Democrats ensures corruption and dirty politics will continue as the status quo for years to come.

[Botany]

1. 6/20/16 can't come fast enoughto DU

n/t

[wyldwolf]

4. you can do that right now. Why wait?

[kayakjohnny]

13. Causing I'd rather stick with my buds til the end.

You know, kind of like Bernie is doing.

[Scurrilous]

16. ....

[kayakjohnny]

21. Plus I'd rather harp and belittle like you guys do, just to be an irritant like you guys are.

Besides, it's storming out and I have nothing better to do.

[Squinch]

39. I think he just did. Such erudition! Such pathos!

[Botany]

6. I voted for and supported Bernie in OH

but please keep your bitter feelings going if it makes you feel better

[kayakjohnny]

15. It does make me feel better, knowing I will be on the right side of history.

Kind of like Bernie has been for his whole life.

[brush]

28. Yep, making history being the runner-up to the first woman nominee of the Dem party.

[tex-wyo-dem]

65. Being "the first woman" is all that matters...

Right?

Policies and trustworthiness be damned.

[brush]

67. It wasn't that close — 57% - 43%.

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary's lost to Obama in 2008 was razor thin (she actual had more votes, he more delegates), yet she conceded before the convention, campaigned for him pre-convention, and at the convention called for suspension of the first ballot and asked that Obama be declared the nominee by acclamation.

There was no holding out for "policies and trustworthiness", she accepted her loss, a much, much closer loss than Sanders has suffered, graciously and moved forward to help the party defeat the repug opponent.

That's how it's done. Defeating Trump now is way more important than anything else at this point. It's not too late for Sanders to pitch in. It will be soon though as he risks permanently damaging his legacy if he continues with his refusal to even acknowledge Clinton's win and fails to endorse her.

[randome]

29. The asterisk next to his name will be on the right: Bernie Sanders *.

* Primarily known for losing the Democratic nomination in 2016 against Hillary Clinton yet continuing his campaign until the convention, at which point he was outvoted by 3000 delegates, the largest margin of loss in DNC history.

[bjo59]

57. Go ahead and ignore the well document election fraud. That doesn't change reality.

[tex-wyo-dem]

66. Yet he will get the policies he cares about on the...

Big stage and part of the platform...

Win for Bernie!

[BreakfastClub]

51. Bernie will be long-forgotten, and already is forgotten by most Americans. What

will be remembered is that America voted for the first woman president in 2016. THAT is history in the making--not some guy who lost the primary by yuuuge margins. He won't be remembered. Sorry.

[SirBrockington]

7. after the 50+ recs

Say something negative about Clinton and wait for em flood in.

[DesertRat]

20. Two more days

[-none]

55. You do realize Bernie Sanders is still in the race and is still a candidate?

The new rules impart say:

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

[DesertRat]

56. Why are you posting this to me?

I fully understand and follow the rules.

[-none]

59. Then why the Reply title, "Two more Days?"

Many Hillary supporters seem to think Bernie and his supporters will be fair game come Monday, because Bernie ".... is not a Democrat." Never mind is running as one.
I think some people will be disappointed when Bernie bashing still will not allowed.

[DesertRat]

62. Again, you posted to the wrong person

Two more days until the bashing of Democrats is over on DU.

[greiner3]

70. That's what he just said

Reading comprehension is your friend

[randome]

3. Holy crap. You guys really are trolling us now, aren't you?

The things is, you were trolled yourselves when you bought into these fake 'Guccifer 2.0' documents. Go read the 6 or 7 other threads on this then come back and laugh with us at how gullible people are.

[TheFarseer]

11. It's your prerogative to not care about corruption

But don't think the rest of us are crazy for caring who the president owes a favor to.

[randome]

12. Do you listen to yourselves? Ever? The documents are either fake or completely disproven!

Read all the other threads on this!

{Ow. My head hurts.}

[TheFarseer]

19. I've never even heard of these documents before this thread

But I know about millions and millions in donations from corporations and foreign governments. I don't like the idea of a president that owes a favor to Saudi Arabia, China, Monsanto, Citigroup and big Pharma. But hey, nobody gives a f#!&k so why do I bother.

[randome]

23. But no one is saying that isn't important.

But these documents are such incredible bullshit, it makes me wonder whether or not evolution is starting to take a side street. What is wrong with people who post such clear and compelling nonsense over and over again?

The so-called memo was written TO the DNC, not FROM them. All super-PACS work with the DNC. Even Sanders' campaign does! So what could possibly be the point of suggesting they indicate collusion?

{Really, I'm getting a headache now.}

[Squinch]

41. Your purity is dazzling. But, to use your argument tactic, when did you stop beating your wife?

[TheFarseer]

45. How is that analogous to what we are talking about?

I think you just heard that expression and wanted to throw it in somewhere.

[Squinch]

46. Well, read through your own post again a few times. You'll see it. Eventually.

[TheFarseer]

48. I guess I just don't think of domestic violence as a joke.

If Hillary was your first choice, you can obviously rationalize money influencing politics. Is that even debatable?

[Squinch]

49. And again, when did you stop beating your wife?

[TheFarseer]

50. Lol

And it's come full circle.

[emulatorloo]

60. See this: "Loaded Question". It is a logical fallacy.

Squinch is implying this post of yours is a version of the loaded question fallacy:

"It's your prerogative to not care about corruption.
But don't think the rest of us are crazy for caring who the president owes a favor to."

This site lists and explains logical fallacies. It is a pretty good education site .

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Loaded Question

Form:

A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

Exposition:

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

"Have you ever beaten your wife?"
"If so, are you still doing so?"
In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

Exposure:

Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an actual buyer.

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

I agree with Squich that your post was a version of the Loaded Question fallacy.

[Squinch]

68. Wow! Thank you for this. I just didn't have the patience!

[sheshe2]

64. Ouch

On Sun Jun 19, 2016, 01:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

And again, when did you stop beating your wife?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2203443

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Spam, spam, spam

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 19, 2016, 01:49 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Primaries are over.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: spam?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Fact Fact Fact! Leave it the hell alone.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Hey~

[Squinch]

69. Heh! Thanks for the information.

[stonecutter357]

8. did we really land on the moon?

[Squinch]

42. Nope. It was Trenton.

[99th_Monkey]

9. I'm waiting for Guccifer to release Hillary's TPP emails

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017386452

[brooklynite]

10. Tell us why you voted for someone as dumb as Bernie Sanders?

...because, if you find this "evidence" compelling, how do you explain why Sanders hasn't lodged a single complaint about the integrity of the vote?

[bkkyosemite]

26. Bernie Sanders is not dumb

[brooklynite]

30. Well, then, you better deliver this "evidence" to him right quick...

He'll do the right thing, won't he?

[oberliner]

14. How is OK to use Donald Trump's son-in-law's newspaper as a source?

It is just mind-boggling to see people actually posting articles from The Observer here.

[apcalc]

17. Guccifer?

OMG. Total Fraud.

[Botany]

24. Guccifer?

Well maybe Alex Jones or Glen Beck were not available.

Guccifer
That guy seems like such a good guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer

[emulatorloo]

58. This is Guccifer2, not the same hacker as Guccifer.

This one seems even more fraudulent to me.

[Scurrilous]

18. Raging anti-semitic illuminati loon says what?

[Juicy_Bellows]

22. Don't you see? It's all nonsense...until it isn't.

When that happens another spin cycle will kick-off and there will be something else wrong with it. There will be no proof good enough for a lot of people to even consider it.

[obamanut2012]

25. YOU NEVER REALLY LOVED HER!!!

[bkkyosemite]

27. Any thing re: HRC that is said on this forum is severely attacked by those with H's and Arrows

in their avatars....yep.......But Bernie is still is still running for President tick tick tick talk.....................

[MFM008]

31. MONDAY

.........

[BainsBane]

32. None of that establishes any "rigging"

The revelation: The Democratic Party preferred a Democrat win the nomination. Wow. Truly earth shattering.

What this does reveal is the unyielding contempt the self-entitled continue to have for the equal voting rights of those who dare to vote differently from them. It proves how their concern for the people is limited to themselves to the exclusion of the overwhelming majority of voters. It also shows a complete inability to believe that anyone but themselves could possibly have the right to legitimate views or political decisions. It is a stunning demonstration of self-entitlement, the kind of self-entitlement that led them to spend the primary election cycle insulting the subaltern rather than trying to engage in persuasion, that prompted them to refuse to work for voter turnout but insist they were somehow owed power and the right to rule over the majority, and that any result that deprived them of that was somehow illegitimate. That this movement is overwhelmingly white and male and seeks to dismiss the votes of people of color, women, and the elderly makes clear what they ultimate goal is.

It also ignores the point that Bernie outspent Hillary 2-1, but lost in spite of that. Part of that reason was that he refused to devote adequate resources to organizing, which is why his CA campaign directly quit less than a month before that primary. Bernie chose to spend money on rallies and advertising, showing this "revolution" was far more focused on corporate media that organizing people to bring about change. That the same people insist polls generated by corporate media should take precedence over the votes of mere citizens exposes their rhetoric to be entirely self-serving.

[redstateblues]

34. Nailed it! K&R

[politicaljunkie41910]

35. I sent an alert on the OP because the heading that the DNC 'rigged' the Primary for HRC

was not supported by the information in the thread itself or the link and that there has to be some standard for such accusations other than just posting malicious statements without any proof. I immediately received a DU email stating that I was alerting on a post that had already been alerted to, but so far, I haven't seen any further response from DU as to the results of review of any alert. There was a post further down that has hidden but that was not the OP post that I was alerting to. This is irresponsible. I hope the revised rules will up the standards for people making claims of 'rigging' which hasn't been proven or even alledged by someone from a credible source. If you tell a lie enough, it becomes the truth to many and DU should not allow itself to be used as a tool for spreading such unsubstantiated BS.

[redstateblues]

36. I alerted on another post using the same

unsubstantiated crap. The lies are coming out fast and furious these last two days.

[stuffmatters]

33. Eliz Warren vs Scott Brown - a race sans PACS nobody ever mentions

I'm sure Brown regrets to this day that he went along with Warren's agenda, but that certainly made for a much more "democratic" race. And that was Dem vs Repub...with big money salivating on the sidelines to contribute for Brown

There was no reason in this Democratic primary that PACS needed to be allowed. If both candidates stand, supposedly, Against Citizens United, then why aren't both eager to run against each other without the perversion of (often anonymous and TAXFREE) BIG SLUSH.

There was no need for for the Democratic Primary to be undemocratic. I never understood why the knee jerk excuse for HIllary's Super PAC against Bernie was that "she had to do it because ...the Repugs, that's the way it's done, everybody does it, etc.


Allowing BIG SLUSH into her Primary campaign, Hillary brought a Hummer to a bicycle race.

And no, Unions(like the Nurses) are not PACS,

[pdsimdars]

37. As if we needed him to tell us they were rigged. . .. .

[Lord Magus]

38. This bullshit doesn't in fact "reveal" anything about primaries being "rigged."

Take it to Alex Jones if you like the tinfoil hat trash.

[JoePhilly]

40. Most celebrity masturbatory fantasies are more realistic than this nonsense.

[randome]

43. A circle of clowns.

[JoePhilly]

44. If I ...

... ever do that "Electoral Fantasies" blog ... I'll need you to supply the music!!

[emulatorloo]

61. Guccifer 2.0 stuff is pretty obviously manipulated to me. Why is the name of the SENDER cut off?

To: DNC

But no From:? Seriously?

Hard for me to imagine that people can't see thru it. The 'observer' article spin takes the cake, and smells a bit fishy.

[NCTraveler]

47. .

[Beacool]

52. You know why Hillary won? Because more Democrats voted for her than for Sanders.

It's not that difficult and it didn't require a conspiracy.

[riversedge]

53. ha ha . Its the observer website. Waiting for H. A. Goodman next!

[okieinpain]

54. Ok so I must be stupid, because the

Article says she cheated because she used the rules to her advantage. Lol, funniest thing I've read in a while.

[Hekate]

63. This ranks right up there with Birtherism for sheer CT nuttiness

Are you in the right place?