What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

OP/ED: GEKKO WAS WRONG, 2016 POTUS Results Were Clearly Not The Product Of A "Free And Fair" Election (10/6/22 02:43 PST) (1 Viewer)

GordonGekko

Footballguy
Direct Headline: Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile both now agree the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged

Aaron Blake November 2, 2017

Donna Brazile's op-ed in Politico .... — based on leaked DNC emails — that the committee wasn't as neutral in the primary as it was supposed to be.

In the op-ed, Brazile says:

- Clinton's campaign took care of the party's debt and “put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which [Clinton] expected to wield control of its operations.” She described Clinton's control of the DNC as a “cancer.”
- Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Clinton's campaign, told her the DNC was (these are Brazile's words) “fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp.”
- She “couldn’t write a news release without passing it by Brooklyn.”
- Then-Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose pressured resignation after the leaked emails left Brazile in charge as interim chairwoman, “let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired” because she didn't want to tell the party's leaders how dire the DNC's financial situation was. Brazile says Wasserman Schultz arranged a $2 million loan from the Clinton campaign without the consent of party officers like herself, contrary to party rules.

There were also those emails from the DNC hack released by WikiLeaks that showed some at the DNC were hardly studiously neutral. One email chain discussed bringing Sanders's Jewish religion into the campaign, others spoke of him derisively, and in one a lawyer who worked for both Clinton and the DNC advised the committee on how to respond to questions about the Clinton joint fundraising committee. The emails even cast plenty of doubt on Brazile's neutrality, given she shared with the Clinton campaign details of questions to be asked at a pair of CNN forums for the Democratic candidates in March 2016, before she was interim chair but when she was still a DNC official. Brazile, who was a CNN pundit at the time, lost her CNN job over that....


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...acked-dnc-during-primary-with-bernie-sanders/




Direct Headline: Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails

By Aaron Blake July 25, 2016

Thousands of leaked emails have sealed the fate of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's uneven five-plus-year tenure as DNC chair....Wasserman Schultz's resignation announcement Sunday afternoon comes as a bad situation just keeps getting worse -- and appears as though it might continue to do so. That's because WikiLeaks has so far released nearly 20,000 emails, new details are still being discovered, and there is still the prospect of additional, damaging emails coming to light.....Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign.

1) Targeting Sanders's religion?

On May 5, DNC officials appeared to conspire to raise Sanders's faith as an issue and press on whether he was an atheist -- apparently in hopes of steering religious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia to Clinton. Sanders is Jewish but has previously indicated that he's not religious....One email from DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall read: “It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

4) A Clinton lawyer gives DNC strategy advice on Sanders

When the Sanders campaign alleged that the Clinton campaign was improperly using its joint fundraising committee with the DNC to benefit itself, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias offered the DNC guidance on how to respond...."My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true," Elias said May 3 in response to an email about the issue sent by communications director Luis Miranda to other DNC stuff that copied Elias and another lawyer at his firm, Perkins Coie....Elias's guidance isn't perhaps all that shocking; he's Clinton's lawyer, after all. But the fact that he was talking to the DNC about how to respond would appear to suggest coordination between the DNC and Clinton campaign against Sanders ...

5) Plotting a narrative about how Sanders's campaign failed

On May 21, DNC national press secretary Mark Pautenbach suggested pushing a narrative that Sanders "never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess."... But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates....

7) Wishing Sanders would just end it

On May 1, in response to Sanders again saying he would push for a contested convention, Wasserman Schultz said, "So much for a traditional presumptive nominee."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m_term=.15bbeee12b4b&itid=lk_inline_manual_20



Direct Headline: Clinton Campaign Had Additional Signed Agreement With DNC In 2015

Scott Detrow November 3, 2017

What, exactly, did the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign agree to in 2015, before any votes had been cast in the Democratic primary?...Brazile took over the DNC as interim chair following Debbie Wasserman Schultz's sudden resignation during the Democratic National Convention. Once she was at the party's helm, Brazile wrote that she discovered an agreement that "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."

....That document was signed on Aug. 26, 2015....Read the full memo, obtained by NPR from a Democratic source:

"This Memorandum is intended to memorialize our agreement regarding the creation and operation of Hillary Victory Fund (Victory Fund), a joint fundraising committee of Hillary for America (HFA) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). HFA is prepared to raise and invest funds into the DNC via the Victory. In return for this financial support, HFA requires the appropriate influence over the financial, strategic, and operational use of these JFA-raised funds."

"Commencing on September 1, 2015 HFA agrees to raise funds for the Victory Fund sufficient to fund the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations. Specifically, HFA will agree to raise and to instruct the Victory Fund Treasurer...to transfer from the Victory Fund a minimum of ... ($1,200,000.00) to the DNC from its share of the net proceeds under the allocation formula on the first day of every month (beginning October 1, 2015) for these activities (the "Base Amount")....

"HFA's obligations under this agreement, and the release of the Base Amounts each month are conditioned on the following:

- With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.

- With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA.
- Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate."

"Once HFA has raised the first $1,200,000 and it has been distributed to the DNC, HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates)....In addition, HFA will also raise funds for the Victory Fund that will distributed to the DNC in excess of the $1,200,000 monthly base amount (Excess Amount). The Excess Amount raised by HFA that is distributed to the DNC will be spent on the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations as directed by HFA (Special Projects). Although the DNC will remain responsible for the day to day execution of those Special Projects, HFA will determine (in consultation with the DNC) the Special Project's scope, strategy, staffing, budget, and manner of execution."...

"If this memorandum correctly summarizes our agreement, please reply by email with the text – 'Agreed by DNC'."


https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/5619...-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
 
Last edited:
Direct Headline: Here's How Many Bernie Sanders Supporters Ultimately Voted For Trump

Danielle Kurtzleben August 24, 2017

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — a massive election survey of around 50,000 people. (For perspective, a run-of-the-mill survey measuring Trump's job approval right now has a sample of 800 to 1,500.)...Schaffner's numbers show that after a bitter Democratic primary, more than 1 in 10 of those who voted in the primaries for the very progressive Sanders ended up voting for the Republican in the general election, rather than for the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton....

...Specifically, if the Sanders-Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton, or even stayed home on Election Day, those states would have swung to Clinton, and she would have won 46 more electoral votes, putting her at 278 — enough to win, in other words...


https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/5458...voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds


**********


"Even a perception of impropriety — whether real or not — is detrimental to the DNC as an institution" - Former DNC Chairman Tom Perez


"Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly... Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance." - Interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile


"I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee."
- Interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile


I was wrong.

Before when I discussed the 2016 general election, if someone asked me if there was a "stolen election" aka not a free and fair election, I disagreed. I have always believed that BOTH parties cheat as much as they can, but I did not assess the 2016 general election as "stolen"

But it's become apparent over time and some introspection that 2016 was absolutely not a free and fair election.

But we will all never know if Bernie Sanders would have won 2016 POTUS or not. Clearly the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as discussed above in the articles, were completely compromised. And Hillary Clinton and her campaign had full control of the DNC before the primaries. She had control of financial distributions to the rest of the Party apparatus, it's marketing, it's research, it's analytics, it's media optics, it's staffing. Everything, top to bottom, by contract. And WikiLeaks shows the DNC, then full of Clinton loyalists either stalwarts or installed by said contract, had a heavy toxic vengeful bias against Sanders.

Many of those Sanders voters ended up voting for Trump in retaliation for what they felt was a stolen primary election.

Now if some here want to argue about "Russian interference" to expose the DNC and Clinton's dirty laundry, that's a topic for a different thread. But clearly the problem I'm discussing is an in-house problem for the Democratic Party and the DNC. While there is a lot I don't like about the GOP and the Republican Party, the conflict between Clinton, Sanders , the DNC , the money problems/debt and the Joint Finance Agreements is a problem that is ENTIRELY within the realm of Team Blue, and has no reflection on Trump or Conservatives or Republicans. Again, this side of the issue is AN IN-HOUSE PROBLEM.

I cannot assess 2016 POTUS as a "free and fair" election because Sanders might have won if he got the nomination. And that he didn't get the nomination was completely tainted.

And what if Sanders had won? Maybe, and most likely, there would be no J6, no two impeachments, no J6 hearings, no mean tweets, no exhausting tribalism over Orange/Man/Bad non stop, no psychotic corruption deep into Big Social Media, no Afghanistan, no screwed up COVID19 response, no Border Crisis, and on and on and on. Personally I think Sanders is an idiot who only went into politics to avoid dealing with a real job in life. Though that doesn't change the possibility that he could have really done something to help everyday working class people as President. But just because I think he's an idiot does not mean I believe what happened to him in 2015/2016 was fair.

What happened to Bernie Sanders was not just an attack on all Americans, but specifically, it was most punishing to Democrats. Every day rank and file Democrats suffered the most here. And that has ZERO to do with Donald Trump.

So 2016 POTUS is really a problem of TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS ABOUT A "STOLEN ELECTION"

The first being the battle for the DNC ticket in 2015 during the primaries

The second being the general election.

We hear a ton of about the 2nd, but very very very little about the 1st, and I don't believe anyone can even begin to discuss the 2nd until they are willing to confront the 1st, and what that says about their own Party. Liberals need to start to asking honest questions about Team Blue first and foremost.

So for the radical leftists here in the PSF. The next time you want to shout about being robbed in 2016, ask yourself if you were robbed long before the general election. Don't blame Republicans for your own in-house dirty laundry.

I'll leave this here for others to discuss.
 
So for the radical leftists here in the PSF. The next time you want to shout about being robbed in 2016, ask yourself if you were robbed long before the general election. Don't blame Republicans for your own in-house dirty laundry.
I don't think there are enough radical leftists in the PSF to have a full discussion. Even if there were, I doubt they would react favorably to being scolded.

Not really a great segue to a meaningful discussion, IMO.
 
So for the radical leftists here in the PSF. The next time you want to shout about being robbed in 2016, ask yourself if you were robbed long before the general election. Don't blame Republicans for your own in-house dirty laundry.
I don't think there are enough radical leftists in the PSF to have a full discussion. Even if there were, I doubt they would react favorably to being scolded.

Not really a great segue to a meaningful discussion, IMO.
It’s cool. I can speak for them

“Too many words, I’m not reading this”

“I recommend you add him to your ignore list”

“Right wing talking points”

“sources!!”

“Trump’s fault”

I am sure I am probably missing a few other comebacks.
 
Only MAGA disputes any election. Haven't we already heard this? The democrats are always on the up-and-up. they are here to do good things
 
So for the radical leftists here in the PSF. The next time you want to shout about being robbed in 2016, ask yourself if you were robbed long before the general election. Don't blame Republicans for your own in-house dirty laundry.
I don't think there are enough radical leftists in the PSF to have a full discussion. Even if there were, I doubt they would react favorably to being scolded.

Not really a great segue to a meaningful discussion, IMO.
It’s cool. I can speak for them

“Too many words, I’m not reading this”

“I recommend you add him to your ignore list”

“Right wing talking points”

“sources!!”

“Trump’s fault”

I am sure I am probably missing a few other comebacks.
Yep, none of them can stand up to GG’s arguments. They all resort to excuses or storm off flustered.
 
Every article I saw was dated 2017 or earlier - so i am guessing about 2026 when you admit you are wrong on the 1/6 insurrection :lmao: .
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top