Hacker News Reader

Comment by cuckcuckspruce | Hacker News Reader

The Democratic primary, ironically, appears to have been rigged against Bernie Sanders though.

Let's please not go for these generic political tangents with no hope of new insight.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Kinda hard to take allegations of vote rigging seriously in the Democratic "primary" when so many of the state delegates are assigned by caucus, a process which is expressly designed to exclude most voters.

And I'm sure you will provide ample evidence of this "vote rigging."

I don't know what you broadly or narrowly classify as "vote rigging", but apparently Elizabeth Warren said the race was rigged [1], and another article [2] explains some of what happened, which "was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity".

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

[2] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...

My understanding is Hillary's nomination came about because she had many of the delegates that don't represent voters, whereas Bernie Sanders had the majority of the votes from those who do represent voters. So, the nomination of Hillary over Sanders was not democratic.

> My understanding is Hillary's nomination came about because she had many of the delegates that don't represent voters, whereas Bernie Sanders had the majority of the votes from those who do represent voters.

This is incorrect. Clinton had a majority of the pledged (primary/caucus-determined) delegates, though not an absolute majority of all delegates based on super delegates alone.

The early huge advantage in unpledged “superdelegates” played a role in media coverage and the perception of inevitability, and no doubt helped her win, but she got more of the delegates selected by voters than Sanders did.

She also had the financial fate of the DNC in her hands, and, as early as 2015, had a secret agreement giving her power of the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Additionally, as per Donna Brazile: "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."

This is the rigging that took place.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you not familiar with the leaked DNC e-mails where they discuss this?

Of course, ironically, the hack and leak of the DNC emails was part of the effort to "rig" the election for Trump.

What's sad is that you believe this, without any actual evidence, based on pure speculation and rumor.

Have you followed the news at all? This is not even up for debate.

The DNC was hacked and the emails released to hurt Hillary Clinton and to aid the Trump campaign. It is not yet known if the Trump campaign was involved, but it is a fact that the emails were released to aid his campaign. Here are some links:

Guccifer 2.0 is the hacker involved in the DNC emails.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/guccifer-2-0-democra...

Guccifer 2.0 linked to Russian government.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/dnc-lone-hacker-...

CIA director calls WikiLeaks Russia-aided "non-state hostile intelligence service"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-director-calls-wikileaks-a-...

Wikileaks telling Trump campaign they should give them tax returns so that they don't look so biased for Russia

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...

DNC emails released one hour after Access Hollywood tapes

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/politics/one-year-access-holl...

Russia's hate of Clinton is due to the Magnitsky Act, which targets oligarchs in Russia.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8qbbdx/why-putin-hates-cl...

why don't you read the commentary by Wikileaks itself on why these emails were leaked: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks...

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but what the purpose was is irrelevant for what the content shows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com