I've read the emails and honestly it seemed like it was routine campaigning. The statement gentleman Smedley said is quite over the top, really. The gouverment doesn't neither undirectly nor directly control the media. Each media outlet has its own bias and sponsors. There's no proof of gouverment spending on news net work corruption. The emails only proved a sign of conspiring within the Democratic party to ensure Mrs. Clinton's position and showed the impermissible position of the dnc that was supposed to be neutral. That's it. No gouverment intervention here. You're going nuts again, don't you? And while liberal media get funded by rich elite democrats it doesn't come to a surprise that conservative media get funded by rich elite republicans. For the average joe it's just another day living in corporate America. Corporatists dominate the media and their bias by money. Enough said. Crony capitalism is alive and will.
The Democratic Party was writing articles for several news sources, reviewing them, etc. That's not "normal campaigning", that's corporatism and the government controlling the media.
In America the Democrats control the government. If you can't understand that the party in control of the government is effectively the government, then you shouldn't be involved in politics.
I see you're a retard who doesn't understand politics and thinks that the party in control of the government cooperating with a business isn't the government cooperating with that business.
High ranked democratic party leaders do strictly not represent the gouverment. Only yet when they are put in that position which is limited to only appointed party members in political carreer. Since Chinese laws differ hugely from American laws these countries can't be compared to each other in terms of gouverment speaking. Even the dnc delegation in this case did not represent the gouverment. More information about China is that (I need to reasearch this later) but the main party leaders appearently can also speak for a whole country.
yet not all democrats represent the gouverment and yet not all democrats represent the democrats. I was telling you that you used a fallacy. The only gouverment related to democrats are the ones that were being appointed thus the ones that represent the gouverment. The dnc delegation didn't speak for the gouverment but they did for their party and yet you try to imply the dnc delegation has responsiblity over the gouverment but they don't.
And if you want to continue to live up your claim that democrats (the question quickly rises: which ones?, I claim it's the appointed ones, still waiting what you try to imply here) show responsbility of the gouverment's actions then you also'll have to accept that there also republican appointed gouverment officials and various more party officials. The thing is that it doesn't simply limit to the leading party because this gouverment can vary from local,state,county,congress and senate level. Not only the official level.
The Democratic Party has dozens of agents in the government, controls most of it and controls most of it's power. If you removed the democratic politicians from the system at once, it would collapse. The Democratic Party is therefore intertwined with the government.
The "gouverment" is a broad-term not only a term to refer to the secretaries of state and their president. If you still want to believe your own claim then I redirect you to wikipedia and search for "federal goverment of the united states". Democrats do not control it and that's a ridicilous thing to say since gouverment is controlled by many,many appointed officials each belonging to a different party or independent.
