• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are DNC Leaks Proof of Corruption?

Are DNC Leaks Proof of Corruption?


  • Total voters
    78
I am afraid of what might be in the dumps. On one hand I would just love for her to get hammered, on the other hand, we don't know what is in the emails she deleted. Now, if they were emails form the Clinton Foundation (also hacked) or the DCCC (also hacked) I would set myself on fire and run around through the trees screaming for joy (figuratively). It is getting hard to keep up with all the servers that have been hacked.

You know you could actually set yourself on fire if you wanted to.

You just gotta get one of those fire-proof suits first. ^-^
 
true, but what I find the worst is Democrats pandering to class envy when those who do the pandering use the votes of the sheeple to become filthy rich

Yup. The Clinton's have enriched themselves and their cronies while claiming to care about the people who vote for them. Be interesting to see if Obama does the same when he becomes and ex-president.
 
Yup. The Clinton's have enriched themselves and their cronies while claiming to care about the people who vote for them. Be interesting to see if Obama does the same when he becomes and ex-president.

well we know how his wife got big raises when her husband became politically powerful. Odds are they are going to milk it for every dollar they can. One of the things Bush, Gore, Kerry and Trump have going for them is that I never believed they were running to get rich(er)
 
yes the rules are 100% proof of a rigged system... rules that has it if you got money to buy off delegates then you can stop the voters outcome

and the emails also are proof of a rigged system for clinton

The BIG thing in Trumps Corner... is we NOW have 100% PROOF that the main america thing its ELECTION of the govt.... we have 100% proof of a totally RIGGED SYSTEM.. what did we see when CRUZ insane greed got him RAT TRAPPED ? we saw america waking up quickly when suddenly trump started soaring and cruz falling like a rock... a system rigged so that ones with money could buy off delegates to STOP THE VOTERS

Next we saw sanders screaming rigged system and saw how it is so RIGGED that he then tells his voters to work for the RIGGERS
Then we have emails showing that INDEED that democrat race WAS RIGGED for hillary

all trump has to do is work these 2 issues and then maybe show people how the MEDIA is also rigging the system
 
The concept that caused the Founders to set up the electoral college is even MORE valid nowadays than it was back then, given the advancements in communications that we have. The idea that votes in some states have more weight than votes in other states is even more necessary.

Unless, of course, you want to ignore the votes of low population areas in favor of high population areas. Perhaps you see a change to your one person/one vote sacred principle as a means to be able to stifle opposition. Perhaps you wish to use the malleability of large groups (high population areas) to make it easier to enact your agenda. You know, perhaps you want to do the things that the Founders wanted to guard against.

he has not taught the constitituion becuase, he has stated the constitituion was ratified in sept of 1788, which is wrong.

he also said once that the bill of rights was ratified in march of 1792 which is also wrong
 
I love how this is even a question; the sheer denial and indomitable apologism of hard core Hillary shills/partisans never fails to astound.

Let me break it down for you:

#1: The DNC has clear and specific rules against bias towards any nominee candidate.

#2: The DNC denied that it was biased towards any candidate.

#3: The leaked e-mails discussed in this thread clearly demonstrate that such a bias existed in the DNC that both actively supported Hillary and opposed Bernie, and that it was systemic despite these rules.

#4: The only logical conclusion based upon these findings is that there was systemic corruption in the DNC in contravention of its own rules in favour of Hillary, and moreover that the DNC was aware of this violation and actively attempted to conceal it.

Yes, all this is very clear...... that america's number 1 thing its ELECTION is totally RIGGED and now TRUMP can hammer this and win in a landslide since he also hammered the republican side Trying to RIG the election for the Rich by buying off delegates to stop the will of the voters

TRUMP is all set now.....Hillary being the nominee for the democrats makes this much easier for TRUMP
 
If anyone has proof that they're proof of anything they should post it.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

:lol:

A hundred years from now we'll look back on this and laugh.
 
If anyone has proof that they're proof of anything they should post it.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

:lol:

A hundred years from now we'll look back on this and laugh.

A hundred years? I don't think I will give as much for your grasp of reality as I have been doing. In a hundred years not one of us will be looking back. ;)
 
Utter nonsense. Electoral votes per state are based on the number of a states congressional districts and population. There is nothing unfair about that. California for instance gets more then 5 times the delegates my state gets. But then California is gigantic compared to my state.



All other offices do not rule the entire nation.



Yet presidential candidates do campaign in Wyoming and South Dakoka unless local party offiicals tell them....we have it secured, here...direct the money elsewhere. My state only gets 9 electoral votes, yet both Hillary and Trump have been here at least twice.



And how well did that work out for Al Gore in 2000? In a close race, any politician will tell you that every state matters. Even the tiny states.



Perhaps someday you will get over the 2000 race.

Not one thing you said there even beignets refute the hard cold facts in this piece of evidence I have presented several times

Another glaring problem with this process is the way in which people living in small states are inherently favored. Each state has the same number of electoral votes as it does members of Congress. Since congressional apportionment in the Senate favors the small states, the electoral college favors the small states. To see how large an impact this has, consider this: California, with 29,760,021 residents, has 54 electoral votes, or about 551,000 people per elector. Wyoming, with 453,588 people, has three electoral votes, or about 152,000 people per elector. This means that a Wyoming resident has 3.6 times the voting power of a Californian. Sixty-five Wyomings could fit in California, meaning that a California scaled in such a way would contribute 195 votes to the electoral college! (Of course, few Californians are willing to move to Wyoming just to have 260 percent more voting power once every four years.)

The EC system produces this glaring inequality and rapes the principle of one person / one vote.
 
Which I refuse to read unless a link is provided.

and it was in post #168 - see the above post for the data which you have been impotent to deny. Its hard cold arithmetic.
 
Last edited:
The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that it isn't a math problem. There are legit considerations that go far beyond making the numbers equal out.

The math demonstrates beyond any doubt or argument that voters in some states have three times the power compared to voters in other states in producing electoral votes. That is a basic violation of the principle of one person / one vote.

Another glaring problem with this process is the way in which people living in small states are inherently favored. Each state has the same number of electoral votes as it does members of Congress. Since congressional apportionment in the Senate favors the small states, the electoral college favors the small states. To see how large an impact this has, consider this: California, with 29,760,021 residents, has 54 electoral votes, or about 551,000 people per elector. Wyoming, with 453,588 people, has three electoral votes, or about 152,000 people per elector. This means that a Wyoming resident has 3.6 times the voting power of a Californian. Sixty-five Wyomings could fit in California, meaning that a California scaled in such a way would contribute 195 votes to the electoral college! (Of course, few Californians are willing to move to Wyoming just to have 260 percent more voting power once every four years.)

The math further proves that it takes only the ELEVEN largest states to produce the 270 EC votes necessary to win the office. The other 39 states are not even necessary.

In fact, a candidate could win those eleven states by a single voters vote in each of them and not even be on the ballot or receive a single persons vote in the other 39 states and still win the election via the EC system.

The idea floated by some that the poller vote system would render smaller states irrelevant completely and utterly ignores throatily that smaller states already have been rendered irrelevent by the EC system today.
 
Last edited:
Not one thing you said there even beignets refute the hard cold facts in this piece of evidence I have presented several times



The EC system produces this glaring inequality and rapes the principle of one person / one vote.

However you attempt to spin it, my bet is that you have just not yet gotten over the results of the 2000 race and want to put your hands over your ears anytime the reasons for the electoral college are explained to you. You simply do not care whether the smaller states have any influence at all in who is elected to lead this nation.
 
and it was in post #168 - see the above post for the data which you have been impotent to deny. Its hard cold arithmetic.

Sorry....I do not go back to previous links directed at other posters. If you would like me to read it, post a link to it where you are responding to me, and I will gladly read it and give you my take on it.
 
However you attempt to spin it, my bet is that you have just not yet gotten over the results of the 2000 race and want to put your hands over your ears anytime the reasons for the electoral college are explained to you. You simply do not care whether the smaller states have any influence at all in who is elected to lead this nation.

You are wrong. Nobody can change the past and 16 years ago is now gone with the wind.

Small states today have no relevance in influencing the election as ti takes only the eleven largest states to elect the President and the other 39 - especially the smaller one of that remaining 39 - are irrelevant under the EC system we have today.

In fact, if a candidate got just one single persons vote more than his opposition in each of those eleven largest states and was NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT in the other 39 states - they would be elected President of the USA. The other candidate could get 20 million or so more votes than the other person and they would still lose if the other candidate got just eleven more votes as I described in just those other states and did not get a single persons vote in the other 39.
 
Sorry....I do not go back to previous links directed at other posters. If you would like me to read it, post a link to it where you are responding to me, and I will gladly read it and give you my take on it.

As an intelligent person who has been here a while I take it you can find a numbers post right here in this very thread? As I said - see post 168 for the specific link you requested - even though the relevant information has since been reposted several times already.
 
Lots of people say it proves corruption but do the emails really reveal that? I say no. What say you?

It's all there in B&W.

But for some, this isn't corruption. And well... I only ask them to look at it this way...

Your son or daughter, brother, sister, husband or wife is vying for a job, and this type of corruption occurs. Will you call it corruption then, or what do you call it?

Which is a good question. If it's not corruption, what is it?

Can't wait for the next batch... The ones about Obama and Hillary gun running in Libya... Where the our Diplomatic mission as attacked and four brave Americans died.
 
As an intelligent person who has been here a while I take it you can find a numbers post right here in this very thread? As I said - see post 168 for the specific link you requested - even though the relevant information has since been reposted several times already.

However you went through the trouble of cutting and pasting the material you wanted me to read, therefore you should have posted the link to go with it. I don't care if it's been posted a million times. If you provide material from a link, provide the link and I will read it.
 
However you went through the trouble of cutting and pasting the material you wanted me to read, therefore you should have posted the link to go with it. I don't care if it's been posted a million times. If you provide material from a link, provide the link and I will read it.

So you are so inept you cannot even find a numbered post in the very thread you are now in!?!?!?!?!?!?

WOW!!!!!!!

You are living proof of the old adage THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS HE WHO WILL NOT SEE.

Again - its right there for you in post #168 right here in this very thread. A link takes you to a different place. You are already in the right place - you just need to go to a different page and I provided that for you.
 
So you are so inept you cannot even find a numbered post in the very thread you are now in!?!?!?!?!?!?

WOW!!!!!!!

You are living proof of the old adage THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS HE WHO WILL NOT SEE.

Again - its right there for you in post #168 right here in this very thread. A link takes you to a different place. You are already in the right place - you just need to go to a different page and I provided that for you.

So provide it again or move on. Either way, have a nice weekend.
 
So provide it again or move on. Either way, have a nice weekend.

It was provided in post 168. Would you like my assistance in helping you find it since you seem impotent to do so?
 
Lots of people say it proves corruption but do the emails really reveal that? I say no. What say you?

Yep they sure are. Both sides are just corrupt as hell and have been for generations now. That's what's wrong with American politics.
 
yes.. the dnc leaks are PROOF of election fraud.. and also PROOF they do not change the fraud UNLESS CAUGHT... which means their whole mind set is to CHEAT.... having a couple people resign will not work to stop this

This shows the whole mind set is to cheat the voters.. and with that not a couple people resigning BUT the whole party ITSELF must be STOPPED...
 
Back
Top Bottom