Senator Warren agrees the DNC was rigged against Sanders

This is a few years old, but curious your thoughts.Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) says she agrees with Donna Brazile's claim that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders by Hillary Clinton's campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...n-dnc-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-lead.cnn

You're just figuring this out now? Wow, nothing gets by you, even if it takes three years.

And.... so?

I agree with her sentiments, also, that people need to have faith that the DNC is pushing what people want, and not just what the party wants. I'm not a Democrat, but since the U.S. is entrenched in its two party system, I have to do what I can to get my voice heard by people who will stand for what I also believe is necessary. In this case, that's Bernie and Elizabeth. I love Bernie's passion, his zeal, the man's been involved in civil rights for decades, fighting tirelessly. His recent heart issue and his determination to jump right back in just makes me love the man.

Elizabeth Warren is fast on her feet, she's studious, she's frustrated with the system as it is, and many of her policies echo Bernie's, or are her own branded ideas on how to knock down some of the stumbling blocks that prevent people from having the same opportunities, to have some of their burdens removed because those burdens are unjust and undeserved simply because of where or into what economic situation they were born. People like her, like Bernie, like AOC, and Tlaib, among others now pushing their way into our lopsided representative system that has kind of sat on its ass for years and years, serving the wealthy and spurning the disadvantaged, these people give me hope that maybe not all is lost as yet. That we still have a chance to turn things around, that maybe the U.S. doesn't have to rot from the inside out, and can recover some of its former idealism and ethic.

I think it is somewhat a problem of the system that two candidates who really compliment each other have to fight against each other from the start instead of forming an alliance which they could amiably iron out showing how well they could work together. Yes, I get that having different candidates with different views gives people diversity, but these two campaigning against each other is only helping to split voters with very similar views and promoting a bunch of them being bothered their person will not be on the ticket even though their ideas are. This also leads to artificially strengthen biden who is really trailing with the overwhelming progressive vote. It also will strengthen twitler in the general election because it is going to put some people off.

If they just formed together now they would solidify the progressive vote, crush biden like the neck breathing DINO he is, and bring both the bernie people and the warren people together against the evil that is trump.

I think it doesn't matter. The DNC is essentially a private organization. They nominate whomever they want to nominate. It's a huge mistake to rig the process because you disenfranchise your voters, but there's nothing illegal about it.

yet you were willing to try to elect her knowing she rigged the shit? Fucking typical liberal hypocrisy at work - why am I surprised?

They're just mad that our liar won.

When the opponent is trump, yes. For all of her faults she was experienced, had an idea about what a president can do, and has stayed on the right side of legal.

Was there a reason you would want people to vote of a russian puppet who committed multiple crimes over a woman who merely rigged her party's nomination?

At least now they admit it was rigged.

"Our?"

No, your liar lost.

[Plus she cheated. And was backed by the "vast left wing conspiracy." So it was crushing.]

No, you misunderstand. You said "our" liar won. Yeah, I get it "hurr, Hillary's a liar," but you're calling Trump your liar. You.

No I didn't, that was a joke.

But do you have oldfella on ignore or something? Isn't it obvious in context to whom I was addressing the Q?

Trump defense doesn't work here. You claimed Trump as your own.

I have no one on ignore.

Here goes the problem. Trump is your liar. It is not a joke when @Tuttle is claiming hillary is the other liar. The republican liar would be trump. You guys are republicans and do support trump.

Where is the joke part?

Are you claiming trump does not lie?

Of course it was. We established this truth back in 2016.

Sounds like she was setting up to get those butthurt Bernie Bros in her corner ahead of time

I know you're taking the piss here, but while there will always be "MY WAY OR ELSE!" supporters, most of the Bernie supporters I've conversed with consider Warren the next best choice if Bernie doesn't make the cut. It's not something they feel great in doing, and I understand that because we like our candidates for a reason, but there is the constant presence of mind that Trump has to be kicked out of the White House, and so if Warren gets the primary nod, so be it.

Trump says hold my beer.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-touts-republican-rule-192002840.html

It does not even look like there is a challenge, but that is not good enough for the most corrupt president in history. This makes hillary's primary actions looks like fairplay.

That’s really what this is. And even if she really thought it was rigged, that doesn’t make it so. The facts are what they are and it’s farfetched to say Sanders didn’t have a fair shot.

Ehhhhhh... that's debatable. A large percentage of people who might/would have voted for him didnt, not because it was rigged (and if it was, this certainly didnt help), but because he's nearly 80 years old and the combination of that and his down to earth nature and highly liberal views make him look weak, even if you might agree with him. And if you don't he just looks like a naive grandpa.

I wouldn't really call that a "fair" shot.

I honestly love Warren.

Even if she did lie about her ethnicity trying to get into Harvard.

Maybe that makes me an idiot, but shes a much better strong intelligent female voice than Hillary.

I'm not fucking with this irrelevant thread except to say that, IIRC, there's a more complex follow-up to that initial answer and it's not as cut and dried as the bit in the OP would imply.

She didn't lie.

What she said was mostly inaccurate (in that the reported ancestor was much further back than she'd been told) but she made the "mistake" of believing unquestioningly the family narrative her parents and grandparents told her, and repeating that story (or, specifically, acting in accordance with believing it to be true) when it wasn't actually accurate.

If the worst offense you can be charged with is you trusted your mama too much then you're pretty much ready for sainthood, instead of settling for president.

Gotta distract from the Trumpster fire somehow.

This. The Native American thing doesn't bother me. Nearly every family in the U.S. has someone who believes they descended from some Native American princess or Chief of some kind of tribe. My grandmother claimed her father was Cherokee, or possibly Blackfoot. The one picture she had did show a dark complected man with high cheekbones, and raven black hair. If you took it at face value, especially as a child and young adult, you would easily believe it. You pass it down through family history, and of course it's just part of the family lineage. Was my great grandfather Native American? Possibly. These days, though, I take it with a grain of salt. If you would have asked me 20 years ago, I'd have said yes, unquestionably. It's funny how people mock her over that, but they forget their own family tales that seem so very real.

"Jokes on her! Let's call her Pocahontas!"
"Hey Frank, didn't you say you had an Indian great great grandfather?"
"Well yeah."
"Then how is it different?"
"Because I actually do! My great aunt told me about my great grandfather, who was a Sioux indian chief!"
"How do you know it's real?"
"Why would my great aunt lie?"

So, you know, sauce for the goose and all of that.

OK... here's what happened.

In 2015, the DNC was in bad shape and running out of money. Clinton rolled up her sleeves and started work for the DNC and put people in place to work there and she raised money for the organization... no doubt because she wanted the nomination in 2016. Bernie, who was not a Democrat, did not. No other democrat did the work she did to save the organization.

So now it's 2016 and the primary is underway. Sure, a lot of delgates wanted Clinton as the nominee, and a few delgates in states that Bernie won voted for Hillary (West Virginia, IIRC)... But in the end, 4 million more democrats voted for Hillary than they did for Bernie. They didn't change votes, hack into any machines or engage in Facebook smears via foriegn adversaries.

I'm willing to admit that given how closely she worked with the DNC, she was not the ideal nominee, but in the end, the voters chose her over Bernie.