• DWS now out as chair of the DNC, Marcia Fudge takes over
    87 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Amid furor over an email leak that revealed a bias against Bernie Sanders inside the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is out as chair of the convention. In an email to NPR, the office of Rep. Marcia Fudge said she "has been named permanent chair of the Democratic National Convention."[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock[/url]
I like how the Chair of the DNC resigns over her email leaks but not their presidential nominee
Now arrest her as well
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50767201]I like how the Chair of the DNC resigns over her email leaks but not their presidential nominee[/QUOTE] If you think these emails are gonna make her resign, you're sadly mistaken.
I mean, Clinton never had an e-mail leak in which she tried to plot against Sanders in an unsavory way. It was bad that Clinton did the whole private server thing, but the emails themselves never revealed anything terrible about Clinton, nothing like "oh Bernie's a Jew how can we use that against him?"
[QUOTE=Killer900;50767222]Now arrest her as well[/QUOTE] is being a scumbag illegal now?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50767238]is being a scumbag illegal now?[/QUOTE] Not sure. Is collusion with the media illegal?
[quote]email leak that revealed a bias against Bernie Sanders inside the Democratic National Committee[/quote] Is it honestly surprising that a party didn't like an outsider trying to come in and win their nomination[url=http://inthesetimes.com/images/articles/trump_flicker_face_yess.jpg]?[/url]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50767238]is being a scumbag illegal now?[/QUOTE] No, but with all the evidence here there's solid proof of collusion between the DNC, Hillary, and the media at large.
[QUOTE=Killer900;50767251]Not sure. Is collusion with the media illegal?[/QUOTE] if you're a private group, yeah I'm pretty sure it is like if you can point me to an example of DWS actually doing something illegal then I'm all ears
[QUOTE=person11;50767228]I mean, Clinton never had an e-mail leak in which she tried to plot against Sanders in an unsavory way. It was bad that Clinton did the whole private server thing, but the emails themselves never revealed anything terrible about Clinton, nothing like "oh Bernie's a Jew how can we use that against him?"[/QUOTE] Wasserman-Schultz didn't say anything about him being a Jew. The CFO of the DNC, Brad Marshall did. He wrote about raising questions about his belief because he was primarily seen more as an atheist than as a Jew.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50767259]No, but with all the evidence here there's solid proof of collusion between the DNC, Hillary, and the media at large.[/QUOTE] where is that evidence again? did I miss the email where hillary emailed DWS saying "we need to waste that kike" and DWS came back with "we've got your back h-dog"
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50767256]Is it honestly surprising that a party didn't like an outsider trying to come in and win their nomination[url=http://inthesetimes.com/images/articles/trump_flicker_face_yess.jpg]?[/url][/QUOTE] Bernie's been caucusing with the Democrats since the late cretaceous period though, and his policies more closely reflect actual Democratic Party values than Clinton's ever will. Hearing her or anyone else call out Bernie for being an "outsider" is mad disingenuous, especially when a growing portion of the Democratic base favor his policies. Back on topic though, I'm hella glad that DWS is resigning the chair. Now it's time to boot her out of office entirely, methinks.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767267]Wasserman-Schultz didn't say anything about him being a Jew. The CFO of the DNC, Brad Marshall did. He wrote about raising questions about his belief because he was primarily seen more as an atheist than as a Jew.[/QUOTE] he was asking because americans fucking hate atheists and that would drastically impact his chances in a general election it's a completely normal thing for a political party to be interested in
[QUOTE=mcharest;50767276]Bernie's been caucusing with the Democrats since the late cretaceous period, and his policies more closely reflect actual Democratic Party values than Clinton's. Hearing her or anyone else call out Bernie for being an "outsider" is mad disingenuous, especially when a growing portion of the Democratic base favor his policies.[/QUOTE] If anything is to be taken away frombthis election, its that Bernie is NOT a democrat, and his followers don't align themselves on party lines
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767282]If anything is to be taken away frombthis election, its that Bernie is NOT a democrat, and his followers don't align themselves on party lines[/QUOTE] Sometimes I wonder if you're one of those paid shills for Hillary's campaign
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50767273]where is that evidence again? did I miss the email where hillary emailed DWS saying "we need to waste that kike" and DWS came back with "we've got your back h-dog"[/QUOTE] There is proof, there's emails of them talking about coaching Clinton on debate issues, the DNC trying to use Bernie's Jewish ancestry as a political tool, or specifically with DWS, she spoke to the head of MSNBC when Joe Scarborough started talking about how the Democrat's primary system felt rigged. I can forget about the coaching one because honestly it's not that terrible, compared to trying to leverage a man's religion and ancestry, or making media bow to their narrative.
[QUOTE=Killer900;50767294]Sometimes I wonder if you're one of those paid shills for Hillary's campaign[/QUOTE] How is this even controversial? Bernie and his voterbase have spent more time talking about the corruption in the DNC than talking about Republicans or Donald trump. Even now, there are plenty of Bernie supporters who say they will vote third party or even vote trump before they vote Clinton. They're obviously not loyal to the party and they're definitely outsiders
[QUOTE=Killer900;50767294]Sometimes I wonder if you're one of those paid shills for Hillary's campaign[/QUOTE] How did you get that idea? That's an accurate observation. Bernie literally isn't a democrat. He's an independent senator. He's a complete outsider to the DNC. Washington is cliquey as hell.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50767306]There is proof, there's emails of them talking about coaching Clinton on debate issues, the DNC trying to use Bernie's Jewish ancestry as a political tool, or specifically with DWS, she spoke to the head of MSNBC when Joe Scarborough started talking about how the Democrat's primary system felt rigged. I can forget about the coaching one because honestly it's not that terrible, compared to trying to leverage a man's religion and ancestry, or making media bow to their narrative.[/QUOTE] actual links to the emails would be helpful Because that email about him being atheist or not seemed pretty innocuous. That's kind of an important thing to know about someone who could be your nominee.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767282]If anything is to be taken away frombthis election, its that Bernie is NOT a democrat, and his followers don't align themselves on party lines[/QUOTE] That's not necessarily because Sanders supporters are inherently disloyal to the party. His favorability among independents aside, the vast majority of Sanders supporters I've met are disillusioned Democrats, which is kind of understandable when take into account all the neoliberal backpeddling of the last three decades. I think Sanders supporters would be more "loyal" to the Democrats if they felt that loyalty was in any way being returned. It generally isn't, which is why the Democrats don't understand that by "welcoming" thousands of new millennial voters into the fold without addressing their policy concerns will cost them in the long term. Again, just the usual shortsightedness.
[QUOTE=Killer900;50767294]Sometimes I wonder if you're one of those paid shills for Hillary's campaign[/QUOTE] I think it's pretty clear that if Bernie could, he would've run as a third party. Bernie [I]is[/I] an outsider, which is great in my opinion.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767310]How is this even controversial? Bernie and his voterbase have spent more time talking about the corruption in the DNC than talking about Republicans or Donald trump[/QUOTE] You are quite right. Everyone knows that a democrat is a democrat because they simply run against republicans.
[QUOTE=mcharest;50767323]That's not necessarily because Sanders supporters are inherently disloyal to the party. His favorability among independents aside, the vast majority of Sanders supporters I've met are disillusioned Democrats, which is kind of understandable when take into account all the neoliberal backpeddling of the last three decades. I think Sanders supporters would be more "loyal" to the Democrats if they felt that loyalty was in any way being returned. It generally isn't, which is why the Democrats don't understand that by "welcoming" thousands of new millennial voters into the fold without addressing their policy concerns will cost them in the long term. Again, just the usual shortsightedness.[/QUOTE] Of course this is anecdotal, but I feel that the Bernie supporters I've met have never voted before, so they're not exactly disillusioned democrats since they've never had a democrat to vote for since they were 12-13 when Obama was elected. I think theyre too young to develop a party affiliation, and so can't be considered democrats.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50767320]actual links to the emails would be helpful Because that email about him being atheist or not seemed pretty innocuous. That's kind of an important thing to know about someone who could be your nominee.[/QUOTE] Wii60 in the other thread on the DNC leak posted quite a few email links, with the last post being a large collection of emails per subject. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1527827&p=50757431&viewfull=1#post50757431[/url] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1527827&p=50757448&viewfull=1#post50757448[/url] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1527827&p=50761048&viewfull=1#post50761048[/url]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767310]How is this even controversial? Bernie and his voterbase have spent more time talking about the corruption in the DNC than talking about Republicans or Donald trump. Even now, there are plenty of Bernie supporters who say they will vote third party or even vote trump before they vote Clinton. They're obviously not loyal to the party and they're definitely outsiders[/QUOTE] Because they're mad that they were disenfranchised by the established corrupt system. Why would anyone be 100% loyal to a political party unless they were stone dead retarded? Lemmings blindly follow, humans don't.
[QUOTE=da space core;50767345]You are quite right. Everyone knows that a democrat is a democrat because they simply run against republicans.[/QUOTE] That's what parties do. Being a liberal (or in Bernie's case, a socialist) does not make you a democrat. Democrats are a party, not an ideology
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767282]If anything is to be taken away frombthis election, its that Bernie is NOT a democrat, and his followers don't align themselves on party lines[/QUOTE] You act as if not following party lines is a bad thing
[QUOTE=phygon;50767351]Because they're mad that they were disenfranchised by the established corrupt system. Why would anyone be 100% loyal to a political party unless they were stone dead retarded? Lemmings blindly follow, humans don't.[/QUOTE] [sp]lemmings don't actually follow off of cliffs, but that's unrelated[/sp] I'm not saying they're required to be loyal to the party. However, if they're going to vote 3rd party or even republican before voting for the democratic candidate, then its obvious they're not democrats. Liberals, sure. Left wing, sure. Pissed off, sure. But not democrats. There are plenty of Hillary supporters from 2008 who voted for Obama when she conceded, and that's because they were democrats. [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;50767362]You act as if not following party lines is a bad thing[/QUOTE] That's not what I'm saying. But I am saying that if a populist outsider comes into your party and tries to win the nomination with no regard for your platform, you're justified in taking steps to prevent it from being highjacked
[QUOTE=person11;50767228]I mean, Clinton never had an e-mail leak in which she tried to plot against Sanders in an unsavory way. It was bad that Clinton did the whole private server thing, but the emails themselves never revealed anything terrible about Clinton, nothing like "oh Bernie's a Jew how can we use that against him?"[/QUOTE] No, I'm sure Clinton had nothing to do with the DNC's coordinated effort to crush her opposition. How could anyone suggest that the person who benefited the most from all this had something to do with it? Ludicrous!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.