Today Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) goes on then record about the Brazile excerpts!

[Omaha Steve]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-express-outrage-over-allegations-of-early-control-for-clinton-in-2016/2017/11/02/84e949da-c000-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.913dd8ce0547

Snip: In response to the report Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a CNN interview that she believed the primary contest between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders had been rigged. “This is a real problem,” she said. “We have to hold this party accountable.”

[bettyellen]

1. Sad to see this divisive bullshit. No respect for the voters. Disgusted.

[JCanete]

11. what? And the voters voted in the GE too, but nobody here is holding their tongues about Russian

influence in our elections... eh??? Clearly no respect for the voters....

Clinton was pretty much anointed by the party. Not out of the blue. She created those coalitions, but it wasn't a simple matter of her being who the voters wanted all along. Money always talks in elections, and she had a hell of a warchest, and apparently, given that she bailed the DNC out of the red, she had an inordinate amount of influence at the level of democratic leadership and it showed in the tepid way that the DNC approached the primary.

None of that is surprising or unexpected. Nor is it fair to say that influence Clinton had wasn't earned by hard work over the decades, but it is putting a thumb on the scales...it is trying to pretend the Democratic process in our party is truly democratic while it functions as anything but. This certainly doesn't add up to "had things been done differently Sanders would have won the primary." Nor does it add up to Clinton doing anything that was itself nefarious. She struck a hard bargain and got a good deal. But people have legitimate reasons for having a problem with this arrangement.

[Demsrule86]

22. Clinton was not anointed...there were votes involved. The primary and the election are over and

thank God for that-whe should move on...now I think the lesson learned is never allow Independents to run in a Democratic primary.

[JCanete]

24. lesson learned by who? Some of us democrats absolutely disagree. Who would be the one making that

decision if not all of us collectively? How would that not alienate a good portion of the base if the leadership made those decisions rather than at least putting up the pretension of a democratic process? All that would confirm is that its a small club and that the bouncers are working for those select few who own it, not the rest of us.

[Demsrule86]

28. No independents should run in Democratic primaries...period. It harms the party.

Now, votes are cast in a primary, votes are counted in a primary. One candidate wins and others lose. It is all about voting...and the Brazille bullshit doesn't change that. The primary was fair...and as another poster pointed out, there were two agreements...one before the nomination was decided and one after...not that it would have made one bit of difference if what Brazille said was true (she is a liar trying to make a new career in rightie or our revolution media) because it is all about the votes. And if you don't vote for Democrats then you get Trump and the GOP...so choose wisely.

[JCanete]

29. then how, as my original question asked, does russian propaganda change anything? 1 vote is 1 vote?

I know propaganda works...I know marketing and message framing does as well, but you can't have it both ways.

It would harm the party to ban people who members of the party are perfectly happy to welcome in. How could you possibly argue that that wouldn't do harm?

[Demsrule86]

30. Oh it has influence...mostly because naive and people who hate Democrats believe it.

I saw the same propaganda and recognized it for what it was...I saw it on DU and in other forums...there are poster who made their last post on election eve and then were gone...I am sure they will be back in time for the next election. We are not banning anyone...but you got to join the party. We are a big tent...but to sit out and refuse to join sends a message and frankly not a message of unity. You either join or support the Democratic Party or you don't.

[JCanete]

42. well now we're getting silly though. Sanders did join and ran as a Dem in the primary. Obviously

an independent doesn't run against a dem in the primary. 2 dems run. If in the future he were to run in our primary, that would be the same of course.

Refusing to allow the voters in your party a choice to pick that candidate is not in the service of unity. We are doing a lot of talking past each other here. Sure, I accept that you think Sanders is a divisive force. I disagree with that...I think the root of that is elsewhere. but I accept that that is your argument. Please acknowledge that if our leadership put some sort of litmus test that prevented people like Sanders from running and getting as far as the support from our party members might take him, would itself be an incredibly divisive response. Such an action would only exacerbate any rift you see existing. Now, you can disagree with that. You can present a counter argument, but you can't just keep saying "independents shouldn't be allowed to run in our primary period" without at least addressing the concerns I brought up.

[Demsrule86]

60. In a Democratic primary, you pick a Democrat. Sen. Sanders despite reassurance to

the contrary went back to being an independent. I am absolutely against independents running on the Democratic ticket going forward.

[bettyellen]

35. I think we both know there were plenty of fake or temporary party members around....

If you're always ripping them down and deny the will of the party's voters- that's a clue. If you use them for your own ends and spread lies about them when you don't get what you want- that's another clue.

[Demsrule86]

61. It influences how people vote...and there was a horrific amount of it...that basically destroyed

Hillary Clinton's candidacy. And they would have done the same to any Democratic candidate because Trump colluded with them. The Russians should not be allowed to influence our elections...but voters still could have recognized it for what it was...many of of us did...in the end it is votes that matter... in terms of the election process-including the primary-2016 was a typical year. People voted...votes were counted. But our elections were under assault by foreign propaganda...and that can never be tolerated.

[Cobalt Violet]

18. I'm one of her voter and I find it respectful.

I find slick, focused group tested responses disrespectful.

[bettyellen]

47. I find the faked outrage and constant finger pointing to be disingenuous sore loser bullshit.

Voters were emotionally manipulated into constant outrage and it seems many got addicted. Leads to fuzzy thinking.

[Demsrule86]

23. I agree.

[emulatorloo]

2. A DU'er I trust says Warren never said Primary was "rigged". Spin by the dishonest "The Hill."

I have learned to never take "interpretations" of Dem statements by dishonest organizations like the Hill or Politico at face value. Saying DNC needs to be accountable is not the same as buying Bullshit "rigged!" Memes.

[eggman67]

3. Video of the interview in question

[link:http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html|]

Tapper: "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?"

Warren: "Yes."

[emulatorloo]

7. Sadly No time to view now. Will say any candidate who promotes false "rigged" meme

unlikely to get my vote in 2020 primary. Nor will candidates who hide their tax returns. Bernie supporter in Primary 2016. Afraid those are my litmus tests in 2020, as I expect policy differences will be minimal, as they were in 2016.

[Demit]

57. That video cuts off after Warren says Yes. You can tell she was going to say more.

Perhaps to qualify/clarify what she meant. I find CNN's truncating of her statement dishonest.

[Kirk Lover]

6. No she didn't say it but Jake Tapper did. He needs to retract that bullshit NOW.

[emulatorloo]

9. Thanks for info.

Even though people are trying to tell me the opposite, yr assessment sounds about right given what I know about the people involved

[bluepen]

4. Oh.

?w=300&h=183

[grossproffit]

5. Someone's a busy bee.

[BannonsLiver]

8. Back for more eh?

[emulatorloo]

10. While your cohorts vilified Warren and threw her under the bus, we stood beside her

When your cohorts smeared Bernie for endorsing HRC as he promised he would do, we stood by him too.

While the Hill misrepresents Democrats and stirs the pot, we'll continue to stand by Warren etc.

[Omaha Steve]

12. What cohorts?

Warren was my first choice before she said she wasn't running. Still is for 2020 too.

OS

[emulatorloo]

14. Let's not play games Steve.

Warren was villified here, at JPR, and in the fetid bowels of Reddit for her full throated support of HRC.

She was an incredible surrogate and amazing at getting under Trump's skin.

For that, she was villified as a "sell out" and worse by those ideologues. Just as Bernie was smeared and thrown under the bus by the same people.

You know as well as I do that all that happened. Those ideologues and GOP operatives posing as progressives trashed her and I will not forget that. I won't sit here and pretend that didn't happen.

It's probably irrelevant I guess, but I do not want to see Warren used and abused again by folks who want to divide Democrats. They got away with it last time but not anymore. I am super protective of Dems like Warren.

[Omaha Steve]

15. FULL THROATED..She didn't back HRC until it was over 6-9-16

POLITICS JUN 9 2016, 10:26 PM ET
Elizabeth Warren Endorses Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow Show: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/elizabeth-warren-endorse-clinton-rachel-maddow-show-n589236

You really need to watch the video of Warren saying YES to the was it rigged question at the end: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358514-warren-says-she-agrees-that-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged-for-clinton

OS

[emulatorloo]

17. yes that's when your buds started villifying her

I'll watch the vid tomorrow. If Warren did indeed promote the false rigged meme, it is highly unlikely I'll support her for President if she runs. I won't support anyone who promotes false "rigged" meme or any one won't release their tax returns. I guess those are my two litmus tests right now

Night Steve. Take care.

[Demsrule86]

20. that is what I say...

I do hope it isn't true.

[Demsrule86]

21. I won't vote for her is she said what was in that article...

[BannonsLiver]

51. I'm glad someone remembers it the way I do

Earlier I was told by a Sanders supporter Sanders supporters never had any animus at all toward Warren whatsoever. Quite laughable.

[emulatorloo]

62. Yeah I get told lots of things "never happened" that I remember very well

I've got a very low tolerance for revisionist history

[BannonsLiver]

64. Yes, and it could also be considered gaslighting

[emulatorloo]

65. Indeed n/t

[R B Garr]

13. What a laughable trap. Jake called them notions.

Notions don’t require much verification.

[VOX]

16. Please, no more.

Let’s save the fireworks for the monsters who are destroying the country.

Cheers—

[Demsrule86]

19. Well Senator thanks for your opinion. In my book you have disqualified yourself to be the Democratic

candidate in 20.

[wyldwolf]

25. yeah, yeah, I agree, sadly

It's one thing to fight for influence and control of a political party. It's entirely different to trash your party and essentially ignore the will of 16,914,722 voters who saw two (or three) names on the ballot and chose the one they preferred. Unless Warren and Brazile are accusing the DNC of vote tampering, their "rigged" accusation is inconsequential to the primary outcome.

[Demsrule86]

26. Exactly votes are votes...some have to believe in 'rigged' because they cannot accept

that it is and was all about votes.

[BannonsLiver]

53. She's disqualified herself in my own personal primary

I absolutely will not support her in the primary. It's going to be a big field anyway. Lots of new, and more interesting candidates.

[Sienna86]

27. It's factual at this point.

I appreciate Senator Warren going on record. We have to hold our party to high standards and not let this happen again. Winning seats is too important.

[Cobalt Violet]

38. yup.

So many here don't want facts.

[bettyellen]

48. What facts? Have you seen either of her two agreements or Bernie's?

[LittleBlue]

63. It was obvious too

Some would prefer to be blind, though.

[still_one]

31. Stop the bullshit. It was NOT rigged. 2008, Obama was the outsider. Hillary was still Hillary

and was the favored candidate of the DNC. The RULES were the same. Hillary lost because Hillary got less votes in 2008.

2016. Bernie lost because Bernie got less votes in 2016. No one lost for any other reason. There was no rigging. If Sanders had gotten more votes he would have won, he DIDN'T

MOVE ON!!!

[Omaha Steve]

33. Throwing Warren under the bus then?

[still_one]

37. Let me understand this. By YOUR logic, you are implying that if I disagree with someone, that means

that I am throwing them under the bus

What an asinine thing to imply

[Omaha Steve]

41. It was a question, not a comment

Note it ended with a question mark.

What an asinine thing to imply!

OS

[still_one]

46. It was the proverbial leading question, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

[bettyellen]

49. Again- more divisive bullshit.

[Cobalt Violet]

36. No I won't move on.

I stand with Elizabeth. The party needs to be held accountable. It's time to make it more democratic. Why it okay to bash Elizabeth Warren?

[still_one]

39. So your logic is saying if I disagree with someone, that means I am bashing them. So because I

disagree with someone, I am not only throwing them under the bus, but bashing them.

Interesting perspective.

I guess I must be bashing you also because I am disagree with you

[Cobalt Violet]

40. nope, that's your logic.

No one is allowed to say anything about Hillary that isn't all roses here. It's always considered bashing, even if it's true. I bet she could shoot someone on 5th ave and we'd be scolded here if we said anything about it. Such a double standard.

[still_one]

44. Are you kidding me? There are posts where Hillary has been criticized here for years here, and

likewise there are post defending her, and criticizing others

Were you here during 2016? Hillary and President Obama were called every foul name in the book. It was only after that had gone on for so long that they finally changed the TOS rules.

The double standard you are referring to is a double edged sword, and it slices both ways.

You believe that it is only occurring one way, then you are being selective in your perusal, because it is rampant from all perspectives

[MrsCoffee]

52. Well said.

[dem4decades]

32. Sorry but this is depressing to me.

[mercuryblues]

34. I'll say the same thing I said in your other thread about this

The DNC was heavily in debt and in disarray due to the mismanagement if DWS, Clinton bailed them out. In exchange they wanted some on involvement in how it was run, to make sure it wasn't run back into the ground.

Besides raising money for her campaign, Clinton also raised money for the DNC. What did Bernie do to help fund the DNC? He sued them. He wanted all the benefits, but none of the work.

In right to work states, you don't have to join a union. But if you have a grievance with your employer the union, by law, has to represent you.

Why is one ok, but not the other.

[Oneironaut]

43. Im sorry, but we shouldnt ignore these troubling allegations.

I know that real life is complicated, but I wouldn’t want a party where the highest donors are given preferential treatment as candidates vs. other potential candidates.

This leads to:
- Horrific corruption
- Inferior candidates who are less likely to win


I’m not saying this happened in 2016 (I thought for sure Hillary would win and believe she won the nomination fairly), but we should be worried about it happening in future elections. I wouldn’t want Democratic candidates to need to “pay-to-play” before they get the blessing of the DNC. Please talk me off the ledge if I’m not understanding this correctly.

[NCTraveler]

45. For transparency.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9783413

I also hope people notice the deceptive editing of the headline on that op that makes the book title appear to be something it is not. This here is deceptive as well and is parroting Trumps twitter account. It’s food for those who are still extremely desperate to refight the primary.

The story is Clinton saving the party.

[MrsCoffee]

54. No surprises there.

They don't even hide it anymore.

[Rene]

50. DNC owed non-Democrat Sanders NOTHING.

[MrScorpio]

55. Rigged, how?

[Omaha Steve]

58. Call Warren's office and ask

Post her reply. Simple.

[seaglass]

66. She's my Senator. I just called her office to ask what evidence she has and the person answering

the phone said they had no more information. It was simple. Guess she was just going with a "feeling." Very disappointed in her non-fact based assertions.

[Omaha Steve]

68. Thanks for going the extra mile

[highplainsdem]

56. And Trump, RW media and the deplorables are thrilled that she made that mistake,

compounding Brazile's mistake.

Sigh...

[bigtree]

59. "the party"

...has better things to do than chase contrived threads from Brazille's book.

[mfcorey1]

67. Well, Liz, you just lost any chance of me voting for you.

Last edited Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:35 PM - Edit history (2)

[pnwmom]

70. Rarely has Elizabeth Warren been so uninformed and thoughtless.

She shouldn't have spoken out till she had the facts.

Well, I guess everyone's entitled to some mistakes.