Hillary Clinton Email Probe Is Part Of A Criminal Investigation, Admits Justice Department — Revelat
112 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50259378]Even if every district that had screw-ups had supported Sanders 100% he couldn't have recouped the lead Clinton had on him. That is also forgoing the fact that a lot of those districts were places Clinton was projected to win anyway.[/QUOTE]
It's not just the screwups. The media coverage saying he had lost states when less than 5% had reported in, the refusals to debate, the way she conducted her campaign. IT all screamed that the DNC had declared it 'her turn', and that if things had been run justly she would have lost. All Sanders needed was his fair share of time on camera and some fair primaries and he would have pulled up enough momentum that, by now, he'da clenched it.
Oh, and go ahead and stuff that 'Bernie Bro' label you're fishing out right back into your pocket. You don't need it, it doesn't apply to me. I'm, politically speaking, dead. I, for the most part, actively avoid politics. I hold no party affiliations, I don't watch the news, I don't subscribe to any political sites or blogs or subreddits. I distance myself from the matter as much as is feasible in this digital age, see it as nothing more than overgrown three year olds throwing tantrums because the other guy wants something they don't.
I only started paying attention when I heard of a candidate that actually seems to care about the average joe. In the end it doesn't matter who wins in November anyway, the President has little power to give us the reforms we need and Congress is all too happy to cockblock every move they make. I didn't vote in 2008, I didn't vote in 2012, I'm probably not gonna vote in 2016. It doesn't matter who we get, the status quo will hold, because it's not the President that does what needs done. It's Congress. Bernie stands more of a chance of changing the country by losing the presidential election than he does by winning it, by virtue of remaining a senator if he loses. There, he can submit bills and at least try to stop bad ones before they ever reach the oval office.
[QUOTE=Pennywise;50259926]"I don't think very many people actually pay much attention to the nuances of politics."
"Why do you hate black people so much?"
Fucking [i]really?[/i][/QUOTE]
Putting aside the fact that you blatantly put words in this mouth
I believe he is referencing the penchant for Bernie supporters to blame "southern blacks" for Clinton winning the big in Southern states, completely discounting the fact that generally the south tends towards more moderate Democrat candidates literally every every election. Instead (white) people believe black people in the South owe Sanders their vote because he fought for their civil rights where as Clinton didn't, never believing for a second that maybe the people voting for Clinton are doing it based on something more than their collective ethnicity.
When a poster who has specifically blamed black people before goes on to say that the only people who vote Clinton are uninformed voters, it's hard not to see a trend, and it's genuinely one of the ugliest things to come out of this election; the idea amongst predominately white Bernie supporters who feel like "southern blacks" or any black person "owes" their vote to Bernie and don't really know what they want.
[QUOTE=srobins;50259994]It's genuinely sad that Clinton's manufactured rhetoric "Bernie Bros" is actually being used unironically by people online. Congratulations for playing into the ridiculous propaganda machine and making sure that Clinton's millions of dollars funneled into PACs whose sole purpose is to discredit Sanders through online subversion don't go to waste.[/QUOTE]
Were I a Bernie supporter I'd just own that shit. Honestly I only use it in because it's shorter than typing out supporter. I'd just like to point out that I haven't once made a post discrediting Sanders on this message board and am not currently nor have I been financially compensated for my online activities.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50260235]It's not just the screwups. The media coverage saying he had lost states when less than 5% had reported in, the refusals to debate, the way she conducted her campaign. IT all screamed that the DNC had declared it 'her turn', and that if things had been run justly she would have lost. All Sanders needed was his fair share of time on camera and some fair primaries and he would have pulled up enough momentum that, by now, he'da clenched it.
[/QUOTE]
Thats how the media reports literally every single election for a long time. It's based on exit polls and news agencies wanting to be the first with the scoop. I'm happy that some of you guys who cared absolutely nothing about politics before this election have started caring a little bit, maybe Sanders or someone like Sanders can win in 2020, but you are seriously grasping at straws with this one.
I'll agree that outsiders don't get enough media attention and the debates were clearly one sided but which primaries, exactly, were unfair?
[editline]5th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=TestECull;50260235]
Oh, and go ahead and stuff that 'Bernie Bro' label you're fishing out right back into your pocket. You don't need it, it doesn't apply to me. I'm, politically speaking, dead. I, for the most part, actively avoid politics. I hold no party affiliations, I don't watch the news, I don't subscribe to any political sites or blogs or subreddits. I distance myself from the matter as much as is feasible in this digital age, see it as nothing more than overgrown three year olds throwing tantrums because the other guy wants something they don't.
I only started paying attention when I heard of a candidate that actually seems to care about the average joe. In the end it doesn't matter who wins in November anyway, the President has little power to give us the reforms we need and Congress is all too happy to cockblock every move they make. I didn't vote in 2008, I didn't vote in 2012, I'm probably not gonna vote in 2016.[/QUOTE]
You say you aren't a Sanders supporter so don't take this the wrong way but if I could sum up the average Sanders supporter, this would be it.
Two paragraphs lamenting the impossibility of fixing a broken system while readily admitting that they only became interested in that system in the closing months of 2015. If you think Sanders would make a good president and he doesn't win the nomination, go write him in.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50256852]I wonder- can a president pardon themselves?[/QUOTE]
Nixon didn't do it even though he could have so no.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50256852]I wonder- can a president pardon themselves?[/QUOTE]
No, they cant. If they could, they would officially become above the law. The next in office can pardon whomever they like (for instance, Nixon was pardoned by Ford)
[quote] southern blacks [/quote]
Actually MSNBC and CNN both did exit polls independent of each other and the black voters who voted democrat ALL voted for Clinton. As in 100% for CNN and 93% for MSNBC, so you saying "well that's probably a incorrect generalization" is actually incorrect. Minorities have voted for Clinton in record numbers, that's not up for debate or "refactoring".
Most "voters of color" (what a stupid phrase) whom have voted for Democrats have not voted for Sanders, Killer Mike or no, and they have not voted for him because they have no idea he was involved in the Civil Rights movement since day one. They just assume he's just another old white dude trying to play nice with demographic pandering, and this is PARTICULARLY true in the eastern south. Bernie only had strong minority turnouts in the far Northeast and Northwest.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50260888]What are the reasons American minorities' dislike of Bernie, and/or support of Hillary?
All I heard has been "vajayjay" and I cant help bit think, theres gotta be more than this to warrant such support.[/QUOTE]
Vajayjay and name recognition, plus Clinton's insane wealth and political influence means the media and political establishment are giving Sanders the Ron Paul treatment to further hinder any chances he has. American fear-mongering over the misinterpretation of the word "socialism" doesn't help his case either. If anything it's amazing that Sanders is doing as well as he is with all the odds stacked against him.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50260888]What are the reasons American minorities' dislike of Bernie, and/or support of Hillary?
All I heard has been "vajayjay" and I cant help bit think, theres gotta be more than this to warrant such support.[/QUOTE]
Bernie is an old white guy (much like most other presidential candidates, so same old same old), whereas Hillary, although also white, is a woman. Many minorities, and of course women, can sympathise with Hillary because Hillary as a woman has had to face discrimination over something she has no control over (her sex), much like how ethnic minorities also face discrimination. She is also the wife of the first 'black' President Bill Clinton.
It's all a matter of that women and ethnic minorities can relate to Hillary more than they can relate to Bernie.
[QUOTE=sb27;50260929]She is also the wife of the first [b]'black'[/b] President Bill Clinton.[/QUOTE]
uh
[QUOTE=lavacano;50260936]uh[/QUOTE]
[quote]African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President’s body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and body-searched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear: “No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and—who knows?—maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us.”
In part, "the first black president" reflects the fact that Bill Clinton, although white-skinned, has lived a life similar to that of many black men in America. But it's also largely a name that reflects the fact that he, as a successful white man, is nevertheless facing an environment similar to that faced by successful black men, where there is a systemic environmental tendency to demean their accomplishments and latch onto any of their failures, no matter how small. In the case of black men who rise out of poverty or troubled households, it's the system of employers or the business community or law enforcement, who all always treated black men as somehow being more worthy of suspicion or scrutiny; in the case of Clinton it's the system of Congress and (especially) the press, who both relentlessly dogged him for his perceived personal failings in a way no prior president had been dogged. [/quote]
[url]https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bill-Clinton-fondly-referred-to-as-the-First-Black-President[/url]
How are you American and have not heard of Bill being the first 'black' (note the inverted commas) President?
[QUOTE=sb27;50260947]How are you American and have not heard of Bill being the first 'black' (note the inverted commas) President?[/QUOTE]
Because literally nobody says that here, at least not in the Seattle area.
Pretty sure they used to say it, Def Comedy Jam was the number 2 program on HBO for a while after the Chris Rock show, and both used the phrase rather extensively, I daresay Chris Rock might be the guy who came up with it.
hillary is a rich upper class career politician
the idea that because she's a woman she knows what it's like to be oppressed is laughably absurd and highlights everything stupid about identity politics
why can't we just fucking judge people by the content of their character and not their genitals or skin color or nationality or sexuality or gender
fuck's sake is it really that hard
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50256134]and then she gets pardoned by Obama[/QUOTE]
Why do people keep saying this? What does Obama have to gain by doing such a thing?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50261425]Why do people keep saying this? What does Obama have to gain by doing such a thing?[/QUOTE]
People think there would be no repercussions for anyone if he did for some reason.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50261425]Why do people keep saying this? What does Obama have to gain by doing such a thing?[/QUOTE]
He would be seen as wildly hypocritical for the stance he took against Snowden if he wanted to pardon her.
Possession of secret government information on a system not vetted by National Security and consequently was breached is a-okay, but telling the truth about government's illegal surveillance programs is not?
It would come back to bite him HARD by letting her off the hook.
[QUOTE=Eva-1337;50257042]We all knew what this was day 1.
Honestly can't believe we live in the day and age where someone running to be the leader of our country is running while being investigated for criminal activity and is [i]winning[/i]. I guess people care more about her words than her actions.[/QUOTE]
George Carlin said it best.
Think of how stupid the average person is, then realize half of them are dumber than that
[QUOTE=TheTalon;50262445]George Carlin said it best.
Think of how stupid the average person is, then realize half of them are dumber than that[/QUOTE]
...yeah, we're screwed.
[editline]5th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50261425]Why do people keep saying this? What does Obama have to gain by doing such a thing?[/QUOTE]
What does he have to lose as an ex-president?
[QUOTE=adamsz;50263398]...yeah, we're screwed.
[editline]5th May 2016[/editline]
What does he have to lose as an ex-president?[/QUOTE]
Besides hurting the Democratic Party, hitting himself, hurting any future political prospects of his
For those who want to understand why African-Americans overwhelmingly side with Clinton rather than Sanders, I offer you [url=http://blackagendareport.com/victor_of_fear_blacks_and_dems]this article[/url] by Glen Ford. To sum up:
[quote]Blacks in the South will probably not vote for Bernie Sanders, although they most resemble the “Scandinavian social democrats” of Sanders dreams. However, Black voters don’t express their politics through the ballot. Rather, “Blacks are drawn into the jaws of the Democratic Party, not by ideological affinity, but [I]in search of protection from the Republicans[/I].” It is the politics of fear.[/quote]
It's not that surprising when you think about it. Since the beginning, the DNC has maintained the illusion that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to go up against the GOP. They've maintained this illusion through fear, not facts.
[QUOTE=mcharest;50263841]For those who want to understand why African-Americans overwhelmingly side with Clinton rather than Sanders, I offer you [URL="http://blackagendareport.com/victor_of_fear_blacks_and_dems"]this article[/URL] by Glen Ford. To sum up:
It's not that surprising when you think about it. Since the beginning, the DNC has maintained the illusion that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to go up against the GOP. They've maintained this illusion through fear, not facts.[/QUOTE]
What a source
How has the DNC intimidated African-Americans into voting for Clinton
I never thought I'd see the day someone posts a source calling the Republican Party the "White Man Party" who's "organizing principle is White Supremacy."
[QUOTE=plunger435;50263867]What a source[/QUOTE]
Can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic...Care to clarify?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50263867]How has the DNC intimidated African-Americans into voting for Clinton?[/QUOTE]
Not being an African-American voter myself, I wouldn't want to speak on anyone's behalf. But I have a feeling it has something to do with the way the Democratic Party has embraced liberal social policy as a distraction from its moderate-to-conservative economic policy, which disproportionately affects minorities.
But it's also not that hard when you're dealing with a bunch of racists on the other side of the aisle.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;50262445]George Carlin said it best.
Think of how stupid the average person is, then realize half of them are dumber than that[/QUOTE]
Then realize you should've used the median if you want to be precise.
[QUOTE=mcharest;50263935]Can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic...Care to clarify?
Not being an African-American voter myself, I wouldn't want to speak on anyone's behalf. But I have a feeling it has something to do with the way the Democratic Party has embraced liberal social policy as a distraction from its moderate-to-conservative economic policy, which disproportionately affects minorities.
But it's also not that hard when you're dealing with a bunch of racists on the other side of the aisle.[/QUOTE]
That's not intimidating them into voting for Clinton that's making it more appealing to vote for democrats as a whole over republicans.
Have you actually read your entire source by the way? It's a fear mongering blog post that slanders the entire Republican Party as a white supremacist movement.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50263946]Then realize you should've used the median if you want to be precise.[/QUOTE]
People bring this up all the time. No one cares. Its a saying. You dont say median American when you think of the middle class, you say the average American.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50263972]That's not intimidating them into voting for Clinton that's making it more appealing to vote for democrats as a whole over republicans.
Have you actually read your entire source by the way? It's a fear mongering blog post that slanders the entire Republican Party as a white supremacist movement.[/QUOTE]
Republicans have done enough gerrymandering and voter ID laws that they have in fact disenfranchised voters.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50263991]People bring this up all the time. No one cares. Its a saying. You dont say median American when you think of the middle class, you say the average American.[/QUOTE]
Dude it was a joke, I hadn't even heard the saying before.
[QUOTE=mcharest;50263935]Can't quite tell if you're being sarcastic...Care to clarify?[/QUOTE]
Your source is a black nationalist conspiracy blog.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50263992]Republicans have done enough gerrymandering and voter ID laws that they have in fact disenfranchised voters.[/QUOTE]
That's not even close to what his source is saying. I'm not making a hyperbole, it actually accuses the Republican Party of being a white supremacist movement. How can you defend that?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50264019]That's not even close to what his source is saying. I'm not making a hyperbole, it actually accuses the Republican Party of being a white supremacist movement. How can you defend that?[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending that.
I didn't say "I agree with this articles summary of the republican party". I just said, what I said. It's a related statement explaining why someone might feel that the republican party attacks minorities.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50264031]I'm not defending that.
I didn't say "I agree with this articles summary of the republican party". I just said, what I said. It's a related statement explaining why someone might feel that the republican party attacks minorities.[/QUOTE]
We're not talking about the Republican Party intimidating African Americans. He's claiming the DNC is the one doing that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.