• Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52848496]He might inspire some good fellows from our generation to get into politics, and maybe Tulsi Gabbard could fill his spot since iirc she was a early supporter for him. She also checks off most democrat party requirements; women[Y], minority[Y], veteran[Y], political experience[Y], etc.[/QUOTE] Her support for Assad could be major baggage
CNN is reporting they've independently confirmed her allegations (thanks to 'multiple senior Democrats') about this agreement she's talking about. Shultz and Clinton were both reached out to for comment; they declined. The DNC's comm. director doesn't deny it either, instead opting to say 'the DNC must remain neutral in the presidential primary process', that they've 'dispensed with the old fundraising agreement'. Additionally, Sanders hasn't come out against this depiction of events - albeit his staff hasn't tweeted today. So far, odds are looking pretty good that her account is a truthful one - at least as far as the terms of the agreement goes. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-book/index.html]You can read their report on the matter here[/url]. When last we heard from the DNC about allegations of not running a fair primary, this is what their (legal) defense was: [quote]"[I]f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and [B]we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions[/B]."[/quote] Or in other words 'Well, we don't [I]owe you[/I] a fair primary. If we decided to simply choose our nominee, it would be [I]our right to[/I]."
I didn't think the DNC was literally a whore house for the Clintons. How the hell is this legal again?
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52848679]I didn't think the DNC was literally a whore house for the Clintons. How the hell is this legal again?[/QUOTE] Because, as was argued, they're technically a private entity. They make their own rules and as such self-police. The FEC [I]should[/I] be involved in this sort of shit, but it isn't. Policy matters are left entirely up to the parties in question; the FEC only really cares about the money side and [I]only then[/I] more specifically about whether things are 'on the books legal'. The whole rest of their job is just making sure that voting locations and the like are kept 'up to snuff'. It's a blind spot that both parties know exists and exploit.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52848633]Or in other words 'Well, we don't [I]owe you[/I] a fair primary. If we decided to simply choose our nominee, it would be [I]our right to[/I]."[/QUOTE] The funny/sad thing is [quote]"[I]f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different.[/quote] They literally did this. People donated to the DNC to help with local senate and house down ballot races, and they funneled a lot of that into Clinton's campaign instead. The Dem senate/house candidates didn't have the funding they needed.
[quote]They literally did this.[/quote] Actually, the really fucking scummy bit is they didn't do that. They just [I]implied[/I] it. Technically speaking, the money wasn't [I]for a specific purpose[/I] because the [I]purpose to which it was originally attributed[/I] was decided by a [I]voluntary policy[/I]. In other words, they didn't say 'this will go to down-ballot races' - they said 'this might go to down-ballot races, and we'll put it in a box called down-ballot races, but that doesn't guarantee they'll go to down-ballot races'. Nonetheless, it's extraordinarily sad and scummy. People (and more on-topic political parties) shouldn't be allowed to put up the equivalent of a sign called 'Donate to the Feeding the Homeless Party and End Hunger Now -Sponsored by the Feeding the Homeless Party' and then say 'we decided not to feed the homeless'. Nobody should be allowed to run a shell game and call it 'a legitimate business'.
I mean, I suspected that those leaks were real but...jeeze. There really is no hope for the US anymore is there? I just want to curl up and die now. There is no hope left at all. I go between hysterical laughing and abject terror nowadays. I think I'm broken.
[media]https://twitter.com/_celia_marie_/status/926176963341012992[/media] Bitch, fuck off. Jesus fuck, I would've preferred Hillary too but Hillary apologists are fucking insane.
I honestly believe the US will be in constant low, slowly losing their influence on the world.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52848886] Bitch, fuck off. Jesus fuck, I would've preferred Hillary too but Hillary apologists are fucking insane.[/QUOTE] Hold on a minute. This is the exact same kind of shit that comes from Russian bots yet, as far as I can tell from looking through her posts, this is a real person. The hell?
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;52848995]Hold on a minute. This is the exact same kind of shit that comes from Russian bots yet, as far as I can tell from looking through her posts, this is a real person. The hell?[/QUOTE] Honestly, this isn't that much different from Trump fans defending him when you think about it. X did blatantly unethical thing but it was fine because reasons.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52849011]Honestly, this isn't that much different from Trump fans defending him when you think about it. X did blatantly unethical thing but it was fine because reasons.[/QUOTE] But...why though? The reason Trump supporters are so blindly devoted to him is because Trump has the charisma and ability to appeal to people's fears necessary for a personality cult. Hillary on the other hand is about as capable of forming a personality cult as a bowl of wet spaghetti. There is literally no understandable reason for someone to be as blindly devoted to fucking Hillary Clinton as this chick is.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;52849035]But...why though? The reason Trump supporters are so blindly devoted to him is because Trump has the charisma and ability to appeal to people's fears necessary for a personality cult. Hillary on the other hand is about as capable of forming a personality cult as a bowl of wet spaghetti. There is literally no understandable reason for someone to be as blindly devoted to fucking Hillary Clinton as this chick is.[/QUOTE] Some people will love her based on “not trump” and “first woman president”. Most people vouching for Hillary like this will never ever bring up policy/
[QUOTE=Popularvote;52847562]Hillary Clinton will go down as the biggest loser of this century.[/QUOTE] She's the runner up to Henry Clay.
We really need Keith Ellison... I have no confidence in Tom Perez to reform the DNC, as much as I hope he really does.
Seeing stuff like this makes me a glad that Trump won the election. At least with Trump theirs a chance he gets impeached, which wouldn't happen if Hillary got into office. You also get the added benefit of him making a fool out of the republican party.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;52849035]But...why though? The reason Trump supporters are so blindly devoted to him is because Trump has the charisma and ability to appeal to people's fears necessary for a personality cult. Hillary on the other hand is about as capable of forming a personality cult as a bowl of wet spaghetti. There is literally no understandable reason for someone to be as blindly devoted to fucking Hillary Clinton as this chick is.[/QUOTE] The reason Hillary supporters are so blindly devoted to her is because Hillary has the ability to appeal to people's fears necessary for a personality cult. The fear in this case being having Donald Trump as pres There were supporters of either candidate who were essentially mirrors of each other, and they act the same even though their ideals are different.
[QUOTE=dark soul;52849252]Seeing stuff like this makes me a glad that Trump won the election. At least with Trump theirs a chance he gets impeached, which wouldn't happen if Hillary got into office. You also get the added benefit of him making a fool out of the republican party.[/QUOTE] If this was a football game I'd agree, but too much is at stake allowing the right wing to control all branches of government. I know Dreamers, the environment, the LGBTQ community, the poor, our allies, etc aren't so glad. Hillary would've been an ineffectual President with a red congress. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52849273]The reason Hillary supporters are so blindly devoted to her is because Hillary has the ability to appeal to people's fears necessary for a personality cult. The fear in this case being having Donald Trump as pres There were supporters of either candidate who were essentially mirrors of each other, and they act the same even though their ideals are different.[/QUOTE] I think you got it mixed up. A majority of those who voted for Hillary based on fear of Trump were not "Hillary supporters", they just voted for the lesser evil. The blindly loyal and devoted Hillary supporters are the "I'm With Her" neo-liberal types.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52848886][media]https://twitter.com/_celia_marie_/status/926176963341012992[/media] Bitch, fuck off. Jesus fuck, I would've preferred Hillary too but Hillary apologists are fucking insane.[/QUOTE] And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you lose 2018 [I]and[/I] 2020. And possibly 2024.
I guess if you think fucking over down ballot Dems and funneling 99.5% of money raised to your own campaign in which you end up losing to the most incompetent unelectable man in history counts as saving the dnc then yes Hillary did indeed save the dnc!
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52847930]Unless he lived in the 3-4 swing states Trump won with, his vote wouldn't have mattered.[/QUOTE] His vote didn't matter, anyway. Nor did mine. According to the votes cast by myself and the rest of the country, Trump shouldn't be president. Instead, the electoral college said he should be. But, it's that mindset. The smug centrist that says "they're both bad, so I'm not going to vote," where they (not saying Alxnotorious, but other people who agree with them) can always be "right," because whenever something bad happens they can just say "I told you so, [I]I[/I] didn't vote for them," when they didn't vote against them, either. Voting against can be just as important as voting for. Given all the information on a silver platter about Trump (Pence being anit-LGBT, blatant xenophobia, and the infamous "grab her by the pussy"), with events ranging from the Muslim ban to the transgender military ban all being non-surprising, and [I]still[/I] not voting against Trump, you're only helping Trump and the ideas he spouts spread. We have a system where it doesn't matter how you vote for President. But ideas are still powerful and have influence, and proudly saying "I didn't vote for either" is still dangerous.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52849011]Honestly, this isn't that much different from Trump fans defending him when you think about it. X did blatantly unethical thing but it was fine because reasons.[/QUOTE] Frankly we need people to stop being so attached to individual politicians. Be attached to your ideals, not people you've never met. Everyone attached to people they don't know is being a fool. Vote upon your ideals and for those who would be best for distributing it, or at least those who aren't against your ideals. Consider how your ideals help people, and whether they're truly ideals. Above all, vote for people you believe will be best at a position. Don't try to justify when they're doing poorly at a position. It's fine to feel like mistakes were made, but you must learn from them instead of mourning them. [editline]3rd November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=nagachief;52848877]I mean, I suspected that those leaks were real but...jeeze. There really is no hope for the US anymore is there? I just want to curl up and die now. There is no hope left at all. I go between hysterical laughing and abject terror nowadays. I think I'm broken.[/QUOTE] Don't, instead do something to achieve what you wish and stop what you truly fear. Help stop net neutrality from being boned by researching how to, work within your city to help build in areas you feel are lacking, and above all don't mourn when something happens that you don't want to happen. Don't brood over your shame, that's just the body mourning past mistakes. Vote, make noise, and be the best you can to help make a better world. Your grandparents and ancestors likely experienced far worse, and yet you're here today. We're always working to fix the mistakes of our ancestors to improve the future of our descendants, the same as it's been. Our ancestors lived through what we see as hellish circumstances for experiences of joy and for those they loved, do the same and greater for everyone you love as well as yourself.
[QUOTE=Luni;52849358]And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you lose 2018 [I]and[/I] 2020. And possibly 2024.[/QUOTE] All 3 will be a loss. The Democratic Party is too preoccupied with making themselves out as moral crusaders rather than policy makers
I'm just thankful that democrats are acknowledging it, but they need to do something ASAP. I'm also worried that this will be used to develop further nihilism into people via conservative oligarchs and assholes in order to keep people from voting out the blood elephants. Honestly I'm going to call my senator and congressman's' offices to have them call it out and work on it. The democrats are held to far higher standards than any republicans, but they need to work on meeting such standards and be encouraged to it. I know that 2018 when the Copper Minotaur will be surrounded by blue fiery mules, and that 2020 will be when Minotaur's heart bursts as it turns to ash.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52849473]But, it's that mindset. The smug centrist that says "they're both bad, so I'm not going to vote," where they (not saying Alxnotorious, but other people who agree with them) can always be "right," because whenever something bad happens they can just say "I told you so, [I]I[/I] didn't vote for them," when they didn't vote against them, either. [/QUOTE] You come off as the smug leftist who blames Trump on centrists rather than acknowledging Clinton was a terrible candidate. It's not their fault your terrible candidate failed to sway them.
Hillary Clinton is proof social justice and political correctness is the rich man's Marxism. The divide between the bourgeoisie and the working class is growing every day. Whenever a candidate like Sanders comes along and promotes economic justice, all Clinton has to do is scream "sexism! Racism! Transphobia!" to prevent things getting fixed.
I had been calling that this had been rigged, and whats put inside the book, she's had control of the party since [B]20 fucking 15.[/B] She did rig this against Bernie and that's bullshit. I don't like Trump but this shit right here is what causes our crap.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;52849850]In that situation did people even really have a choice? Both are super corrupt but I'd argue Hillary was far more dangerous than the puppet working against his own interests. Though we're still waiting on Mueller, you think it would have been any better had Hillary claimed it and kept the status quo? I'm sure they would have covered it up nicely.[/QUOTE] In what way could Hilary have been more dangerous, let alone "far more dangerous," than Trump and his cabinent who has blatantly attempted to restrict/called for the restriction of rights of people in this country, as well as tried to influence an oppression of freedom of speech, as well as defend Nazis? [editline]2nd November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=LoLWaT?;52849850]I see what you're saying, but...[/QUOTE] Yeah you obviously didn't. Staying a centrist, shrugging and saying "both are bad" is ignoring the problems. Ignoring the problem is what caused edgy, racist dudes on the internet to evolve into major news networks saying the term "alt-right" and a resurgence of white nationalists.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;52849850]In that situation [I]did[/I] people even really have a choice? Both candidates were super corrupt but I'd argue Hillary was more dangerous than Trump. Though we're still waiting on Mueller, you think it would have been better had Hillary claimed it and kept the status quo?[/QUOTE] So, Trump (a hot-headed narcissist with possible signs of dementia with the nuclear football, who asked why we "can't use Nukes if we have them") is less dangerous than Hillary, because of her corruption and maintaining of the status quo? :huh: What, was she going to be a warhawk and start WWIII with Russia?
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;52849850]In that situation [I]did[/I] people even really have a choice? Both candidates were super corrupt but I'd argue Hillary was more dangerous than Trump. Though we're still waiting on Mueller, you think it would have been better had Hillary claimed it and kept the status quo?[/QUOTE] Would Clinton have called Nazis very nice people?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.