2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Bernie Sanders would have joined the Democratic Party back when he first...
Ran for the Senate, he would have had a say in who was to become the chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.
So complaining about it now is much like closing the barn door after the horse gets out.
Leftyforever
(317 posts)not serious... lol
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I care about what you have to say.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)What a world - LOL
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Gross negligence by the vendor and continued incompetence by the DNC staff.
The firewall was down for everyone not just Sanders. Common protocol is to lock everyone out when a firewall is compromised.
Your local elementary school does it with their data. The DNC was incapable after multiple incidences.
Why does such incompetence not bother you whether you're for Hillary, Bernie or Martin?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That tells me I don't care what they said.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)career. By being a caucus member, he was able to have a say.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was pretty sure non-party members have zero say in what occurs within the party.
Perhaps, you should look into it a bit farther.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If you are not a Democrat, you cannot be a member of the DNC. While in the Senate he voted for majority/minority leaders and whips.
He has never been in the Democratic Party until recently, thus he could not be a member of the DNC.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)He serves as the top member of the Democratic Caucus, serving on the Budget Committee. Bernie is an Independent that caucuses with the Democrats. But Caucus in with the Democrats does not allow non-party members a say in the Democratic Party's internal operation.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)That's the only caucus he needs.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)it's time to play the "I marched with Martin" card!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I would think that poster responded like that because of my screen name!
You think?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)"a member".
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Only Democrats have a say. Independents who caucus with the party have no say beyond the leadership votes in the legislative body.
While in the House, he had a say in the Speaker, majority/minority leaders, whips, etc. but he had no say in the DNC chair because he was not a member of the DNC.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)We want change. We want a lot of things. And Hillary will offer nothing but Wall St and War Machine corruption. You will never change your mind. Good luck with that.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You took the time to post in a thread about his choices and lack of say in internal DNC politics.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)To me it sounds like camp Weathervane is gloating over their ability to play foul.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What foul play?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)after the Sanders campaign have alerted on the security breach for two months.
The DNC let the breach continue as long as the Cinton campaign could benefit from it, and took an action that disadvantaged the Sanders campaign when it suited the Clinton campaign most.
The fact that the DNC didn't dare to let Sanders take it to court only shows how little basis DWS and the rest of the coronation committee had for such a biased action.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He refused to cooperate.
It's his own damned fault he lost access temporarily. The whole thing could have been settled within a couple of hours of the breach, but he refused to cooperate.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)This whole thing stinks of DWS bias. Anything to secure the nomination for her opreferred candidate; democracy be "damned".
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Comes from Sanders, his campaign, and his supporters.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Your post is a prime example of that truth.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)that are evidence of your axiom
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Good luck with the last 20th century campaign in USA history.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)we're never Democrats and would never vote Democratic to begin with, so no loss there.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I am appalled by your cognitive dissonance.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)In 2010 and 2014, the issue is compounded by higher than usual turnout by Republicans who were motivated by hatred for Obama.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)an analysis of what they admitted occurred?
Really?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)They had to prove a non-existence. How is one to meet such an onus of proof? Impossible.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)They had to ASSURE the DNC that the data had all been deleted and would not be used in strategy. That's it, simply state in writing they have no copies and no matter what, the breached data will not be used by their campaign in decision making.
They had to further cooperate with with an independent audit.
My guess is, they knew damned well and good to they could not make such an assurance and scrambled to be certain that no data existed on their equipment before cooperating.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)You cannot prove that data has been deleted if it hasn't been established that the data was downloaded in the first place. All we know for sure is that the data had been accessed.
Prove to me that you have stopped hitting your wife.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I suggest you use dictionary.com
Omaha Steve
(99,663 posts)Since I haven't read that in anything so far. Help me out here.
OS
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The reporting indicates specific files were downloaded and shared among 4 people, over a specific period. All they had to do is provide access to those 4 accounts.
If the files weren't there, Camp Bernie would be vindicated ... on the other hand, if the files WERE there ... well ...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Are you suggesting accessing the proprietary data of an opposing candidate is to be ... excused? ... ignored? ... because they notified the DNC?
Does that even make sense?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Which is why the DNC was alerted in October - and then they did nothing? How does that make sense?
Only when the Sanders campaign wanted to collect proof / ascertain whether Clinton had accessed their data, did the DNC suddenly shut them out of the data. And only them, even though there was every reason to suspect that the Clinton campaign had potentially accessed proprietary data (not their own) too, but without reporting it for two months.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)So you tell a bank that their security system is flawed, and they do nothing to fix the flaw ... so, per your argument, you are free to exploit the flaw and help yourself to the vault ... right?
Your second paragraph does not comport with the facts, as reported by multiple sources.
I know ... I know ... the media is in on it, too.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)should not result in just you being denied access to online banking. It should result in EVERYBODY being denied access, because everybody can potentially access each other's accounts.
Shutting you out while your neighbour can still access their account and YOURS doesn't make sense - unless the bank want to disadvantage you and only you, or if they want to enable one of your neighbours in particular.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Showing the bank you can access your neighbor's account shows them you are a thief.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Knowing damn well she couldn't go through with fighting an injunction on the eve of a damn Democratic debate.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Kmowing damned well that would have been the end of it and he would not have come off as an unprincipled dishonest politician.
Instead, he chose to blame the victim.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Sanders didn't have any knowledge of it until DWS called him up and told him.
Weaver and the rest of the data guys were waffling the entire fucking time, throwing out so many excuses, making up so many outs. And of course a lot of idiots are buying in to it.
Now Sanders has the prospect of his campaign being hurt because it's suing the DNC over a non-issue that would've never happened if DWS got off her high horse and had a meeting with Sanders personally.
They need to drop the suit and fire Weaver if he can't get it together. This is the wrong ball game to play. Right now it can blow over quietly.
But DWS needs to fucking go, she endangered the whole party.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)DWS falls on her sword and Sanders steps up and acknowledges his people's misdeeds and fires a few more. Works for me....
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Lawsuit is proceeding. That's where facts come out...not your erroneous smearing. Clinton could have read all Sanders data without downloading. Sanders warned them in October. The CEO of the data firm worked for Clinton just like Schultz did. Please don't pollute the discussion with falsehoods.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Didn't she release the data?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And I'm not sure what that has to do with fighting the injunction. The DNC cannot fight an injunction the eve of a Democratic debate. It can't fight an injunction against a leading campaigner throughout the primaries, for that matter. It's political suicide and DWS should have known better.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)BS' list of the files.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Access to the database.
I would suspect Camp HRC had something to do with that.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I think the Clinton camp and other top Democrats realized what a clusterfuck was about to happen. If DWS, by pulling the trigger, wound up fighting the injunction in court, she would have won.
The DNC was well within its rights to stop the data flow due to the "all necessary measures" clause over protecting confidential information in the contract.
edit: To clarify, if the DNC did not provide access to the database they would have had to file a motion fighting the injunction, and the lawyers would have made the argument about the "all necessary measures" clause, escalating the issue further; because at that point the Sanders campaign could not get access to the data without an independent audit or something crazy.
She simply jumped the gun without thinking about the ramifications for the entire party and needs to go.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think it came down to a pissing match, with neither DWS or Camp Bernie willing to back down.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The corruption machine exposed itself! Absolute power corrupted absolutely! This whole thing is a huge public service to real Democrats. Can see what their party has turned into - a corrupt anti-democratic power unto itself.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The guy with all the integrity? You expect anyone to believe your lies? Mind-boggling. And I thought republicans lived in a bubble.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Who the hell cares. She's awful regardless of who picked her. No debates practically? Letting Trump take all the airtime? She should be in jail in my opinion. Watch people leave the party. Real smart. Repugnant.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The only people who belong in jail in this scandal are four Sanders staffers.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Clintin could've been observing all that data and transcribing by hand over last three months. That's doable. Someone may have "downloaded" to show proof that the data company refuses to fix the problem that allowed BOTH sides to see the others rolls. Sanders had two million donations. His roladex is infinitely larger and more relevant than Clintons. They backed down because they knew a lawsuit would bring the actual facts to light of which you don't have a complete version now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Dems like Howard Dean (when head of the DNC) and Schumer (when head of the DSCC) called him an asset to the Democratic Party.
But, sure, let's keep posting sh*t that is against voters' self interest in clean politics and clean politicians. And to make it really, really ironic, let's do that while we condemn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens' United and donate to Hillary's super PACS.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)with the 2 political parties. If the Democrats needed another vote, they could give Bernie some important position on a committee to encourage him to vote with them for example etc... Bernie Sanders is an egotistical phony who's just using the Democratic Party for his own purposes.
merrily
(45,251 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It comes from decades of work with the democrats.
Perfect point you make.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)his network within the party would have rivaled Clinton's easily.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Debbie got shown to be a hack, period. Are you really trying to sell the idea that if Hillary wanted Debbie, Sanders would not have been outright ignored?
Come now, all the use of smilies cannot cover for the fact people are not buying what DWS is selling.
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)Running as an outsider, literally and figuratively, against a lifetime party stalwart like HRC with her crony atop the DNC is a recipe for unfairness. It's too bad, but that's life and, as such, to be expected.
I thought Bernie's campaign fought well and won the day yesterday. I also think in the larger picture Bernie's choice to remain independent all these years hasn't helped him one iota in this primary.
As someone who's much more invested in winning next November than in this or that candidate, this saga makes me wince. The DNC looks incestuous and inept, and, when Bernie loses, which he will, his supporters will have one more reason to feel less enthused about the winner.