• DWS now out as chair of the DNC, Marcia Fudge takes over
    87 replies, posted
lmao [media]https://twitter.com/pzf/status/757312899723370496[/media]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50767988]And to repeat my post you replied to - [I]You find this surprising?[/I] [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] Are you actually saying you believed they were fully being impartial?[/QUOTE] Nobody find this surprising. Just because corruption is expected doesn't make it right.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50768027]Where did I imply it was justified? :v:[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the DNC here.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50767988]And to repeat my post you replied to - [I]You find this surprising?[/I] [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] Are you actually saying you believed they were fully being impartial?[/QUOTE] Do you really find that surprising? Not everyone believes they're being lied to until they have undeniable proof.
[QUOTE=patq911;50768045]lmao [media]https://twitter.com/pzf/status/757312899723370496[/media][/QUOTE] This isn't going to be received well - Hillary should be distancing herself from the DNC's actions (as in "I had nothing to do with this, it was the actions of these people alone") if she wants Bernie's voters. Why would she do this exactly?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50768082]Why would she do this exactly?[/QUOTE] She believes that she will win the presidency because she thinks democratic voters and Progressive voters would want to get behind Hillary as per what had been pushed through for-profit news. The reporters from when I had MSNBC on cable (Before I decided that cable isn't worth having) had kept trying to spread this "When will democrats unify behind the eventual nominee?" crap during their program as if it would have an effect on Progressives unlike on their ordinary democrats voter base.
[QUOTE=patq911;50768045]lmao [media]https://twitter.com/pzf/status/757312899723370496[/media][/QUOTE] im borderline about to break out the good shit copypasta due to this
[QUOTE=patq911;50768045]lmao [media]https://twitter.com/pzf/status/757312899723370496[/media][/QUOTE] Why is the Clinton campaign and the dnc just giving Trump even more ammunition to use against them.... At this point I won't be surprised if she loses states she shouldn't have during the election
Also just a heads-up, Marcia Fudge is just as bad: [url]http://m.wtam.iheart.com/articles/local-news-122520/marcia-fudge-says-bernie-sanders-should-14506141/[/url] This was back in March. Before the NY primary.
[QUOTE=patq911;50768045]lmao [media]https://twitter.com/pzf/status/757312899723370496[/media][/QUOTE] is hillary clinton actually fucking retarded. why. what does she even have to gain from this?
[QUOTE=patq911;50768045]lmao [media]https://twitter.com/pzf/status/757312899723370496[/media][/QUOTE] Isn't "Breaking News Feed" full of shit? I remember them posting something that ended up being completely wrong. Edit: it's real [url]http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock[/url] [quote]Clinton also announced that Wasserman Schultz will serve as honorary chair of the campaign's "50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country" and that the two will campaign together both to help elect Clinton to the White House and to help with Wasserman Schultz's Senate re-election campaign.[/quote] Hillary Clinton is officially a fucking idiot. I'm honestly starting to think that she might not be a viable alternative to Trump after all, since she's basically going to fight to keep the DNC corrupt.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767346]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] You're like 22.. How do you have any authority to talk about people being too young and having never voted before? At best you voted for Obama in the most one-sided election in history, that isn't enough experience to make up for the fact that everything you say about this election is riding the line between ridiculous and satire.
[QUOTE=lolo;50768123]She believes that she will win the presidency because she thinks democratic voters and Progressive voters would want to get behind Hillary as per what had been pushed through for-profit news. The reporters from when I had MSNBC on cable (Before I decided that cable isn't worth having) had kept trying to spread this "When will democrats unify behind the eventual nominee?" crap during their program as if it would have an effect on Progressives unlike on their ordinary democrats voter base.[/QUOTE] It seems to me that Clinton is simply too arrogant. Not that this is new, but I had thought that maybe she'd shed some of it to appeal to voters.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50768148]is hillary clinton actually fucking retarded. why. what does she even have to gain from this?[/QUOTE] The only thing I can think of is that maybe Clinton told her she should go (to appease people) but promised to take her on? I don't know, it seems really weird to me.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50768156]Isn't "Breaking News Feed" full of shit? I remember them posting something that ended up being completely wrong. Edit: it's real [url]http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock[/url] Hillary Clinton is officially a fucking idiot. I'm honestly starting to think that she might not be a viable alternative to Trump after all, since she's basically going to fight to keep the DNC corrupt.[/QUOTE] Holy shit that is retarded. How could they even think that this would be a positive thing
I love how Hillary's campaign manager, Robby Mook, is trying to deflect this by still trying to push the narrative that it was the Russians and now saying they're colluding with Trump. It's not even remotely possible for him to have that kind of information or at least enough of it to make such bold claims. The DNC is a fucking mess, even more so now than the GOP I'm fairly confident. Hillary shouldn't have any problems beating Trump, but it seems like with every controversy being buried she finds herself in a deeper hole, eventually she's going to get buried along with one of these and it's probably going to cost her the election if things continue this way into October. Dean Howard sunk his campaign with a screech thanks to the Liberal media, how Hillary can still keep going is beyond me.
The only thing I can assume is that she simply assumes those on the left will vote for her regardless. The fact that she would have her on the campaign could be excused as maybe appealing to the old guard but saying she would support DWS's senate race is just awful optics
What a fucking stupid decision. DWS was largely at fault for this entire fiasco - dump her and let Canova win her seat and you've cut the fuse off the powder keg. Don't offer her a job on your campaign. Fucking idiotic.
People keep saying, 'Bernie's an outsider'. And? So was Roosevelt. I think a lot of People forget that outsiders have changed the Republicans and Democrats. That's how they function, denying new voices is what leads to toxic stagnation.
[QUOTE=DiscoMelon;50768047]Nobody find this surprising. Just because corruption is expected doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE] Explain to me how my posts are saying it's alright and justified, because rilez isn't doing it.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50768355]What a fucking stupid decision. DWS was largely at fault for this entire fiasco - dump her and let Canova win her seat and you've cut the fuse off the powder keg. Don't offer her a job on your campaign. Fucking idiotic.[/QUOTE] There's some word floating around that DWS was unwilling to resign as DNC chair without some sort of compensation, and that the only way to get her to resign was to give her a small role in the Clinton campaign. It's worth noting that it's not as if Clinton or even Obama himself would've had the authority to just remove her on the spot, so convincing her to resign is the only way to get her to go. It's certainly not ideal, but I suppose it's better than having her head the DNC with this email leak in the news. Also I hate to be that person but DWS's district went something like 2/3rds to 3/4ths Clinton in the primary. Canova really doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50768588]There's some word floating around that DWS was unwilling to resign as DNC chair without some sort of compensation, and that the only way to get her to resign was to give her a small role in the Clinton campaign. It's certainly not ideal, but I suppose it's better than having her head the DNC with this email leak in the news.[/QUOTE] I could understand that, then - it still looks really bad on Hillary and comes off as a dumb decision. But I'm not worried - Canova will steal her seat and she can go find a new job as a lobbyist instead.
[media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757318117391474688[/media] Yep, pretty standard Hillary quid pro quo.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50768855][media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757318117391474688[/media] Yep, pretty standard Hillary quid pro quo.[/QUOTE] Meanwhile, the newly chosen chair of the DNC is not innocent either: [media]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757328611884036096[/media]
That looks like the opposite of implication.
[QUOTE=Maegord;50768588]There's some word floating around that DWS was unwilling to resign as DNC chair without some sort of compensation, and that the only way to get her to resign was to give her a small role in the Clinton campaign. It's worth noting that it's not as if Clinton or even Obama himself would've had the authority to just remove her on the spot, so convincing her to resign is the only way to get her to go. It's certainly not ideal, but I suppose it's better than having her head the DNC with this email leak in the news. Also I hate to be that person but DWS's district went something like 2/3rds to 3/4ths Clinton in the primary. Canova really doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.[/QUOTE] actually Obama [I]is[/I] the head of the party, he might actually have the authority to remove her in any case, all the former heads of the DNC have come out saying that they would never have gotten that involved in the primaries. Sanders is yet again, proven correct to some extent though she wasn't the reason why he didn't win
[QUOTE=Potus;50768143]Why is the Clinton campaign and the dnc just giving Trump even more ammunition to use against them.... At this point I won't be surprised if she loses states she shouldn't have during the election[/QUOTE] I suppose it wouldn't be easy to let go of an extremely loyal and supportive organization like the DNC at this stage of the campaign, especially for someone whose used to being able to sweep things under the rug.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767724] I don't get why you have to be so hostile. Im just noting that Sanders supporters aren't aligned with any party, as much as theyre aligned with an ideology. I never said it was wrong, I'm just saying Sanders is an outsider. [/QUOTE] Sorry if I came off as overly hostile but party dogmatism [I]pisses me off[/I] because I have to deal with it literally every day at my college and I 100% believe that if anything ends up destroying the USA, blind dogmatism will be a major player in that end.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.