PDA

View Full Version : Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair as email scandal rocks Democrats



Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 02:04 PM
Oh dear dear, will it never end?



Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair as email scandal rocks Democrats



Bernie Sanders made renewed call for resignation after email leak
Clinton campaign blamed WikiLeaks release on Russian hackers
Democratic convention: fight for America’s soul moves to Philadelphia (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/democratic-national-convention-response-republican-convention-clinton-trump)


(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders#img-1) DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation on Sunday. Photograph: Scott Audette/ReutersDan Roberts (https://www.theguardian.com/profile/dan-roberts) in Philadelphia, Ben Jacobs (https://www.theguardian.com/profile/ben-jacobs) in Washington andAlan Yuhas (https://www.theguardian.com/profile/alan-yuhas) in New York
Monday 25 July 201607.10 BSTLast modified on Monday 25 July 201616.18 BST

The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has announced her resignation on the eve of the party’s convention (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/democratic-national-convention-response-republican-convention-clinton-trump), dealing a blow to hopes of demonstrating unity in the face of the threat from Donald Trump.

Schultz said she would step down after the convention. She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campaign-blames-russia-wikileaks-sanders-dnc-emails) showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic party,” Sanders said in a statement, adding that the party leadership must “always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race”.
The Sanders campaign has long claimed that the party establishment had its “finger on the scales” during the bitter and surprisingly long primary, but the embarrassing new revelations proved to be the final straw for a figure who had been a lightning rod for tension within the party.
The DNC chair, whose named is emblazoned at the top of thousands of convention credentials, was originally expected to play a central role in the four-day meeting of delegates and party leaders. But as the convention prepared to get under way in Philadelphia on Sunday, there were already reports that Schultz had lost a prestigious speaking slot and would only “gavel-in” proceedings.
Internally, the resignation may reduce tensions, removing from the stage a figure who was almost certain to have been greeted with boos by sections of the large pro-Sanders delegation. Nevertheless, the turmoil risks undermining public attempts to show that Democrats have come together as a party and draw a contrast with chaotic scenes at on the floor at the Republican convention (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/democratic-national-convention-response-republican-convention-clinton-trump) in Cleveland last week.
It will also raise new questions about the source of the leaked emails, which emerged on Friday and are the latest in a batch of documents believed to have been hacked from DNC computers earlier this year.

Wikileaks published the latest batch, but on Sunday, Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said “experts” believed the Russian government may have played a role (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campaign-blames-russia-wikileaks-sanders-dnc-emails), even claiming their motive was to help elect Donald Trump.

“What’s disturbing to us is that experts are telling us Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually of helping Donald Trump,” Mook told CNN (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campaign-blames-russia-wikileaks-sanders-dnc-emails).





In June, Wasserman Schultzcalled the breach a “serious incident” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html) and said Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm brought in by the DNC, had “moved as quickly as possible to kick out the intruders and secure our network”.
The Trump campaign has angrily denied the suggestion that it is being promoted by the Russians, though it has taken a noticeably softer line toward Vladimir Putin than most other western parties and politicians. Crowdstrike experts who examined the first release of hacked emails several weeks ago suggested they bore the hallmarks of a government-sponsored hacking attempt.
More immediately, the Schultz resignation may inflame anger among Sanders supporters, many of whom had resisted the idea that the only way to stop Trump is by supporting Clinton.
The most explosive new revelation from the WikiLeaks release was an official’s suggestion that Sanders’ religious faith, or lack thereof, could be flagged as a way to dissuade voters from backing him in Bible belt states.
“I think I read he is an atheist,” the DNC chief financial officer, Brad Marshall, wrote in one email. “This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”
Sanders, who is Jewish, spoke little of religion during the primary, but the sight of a supposedly neutral body apparently seeking to weaken one of its own party candidates caused particular anger among progressives.

Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida who is herself Jewish, is not thought to have been directly involved in this email exchange, but she was seen in other messages writing dismissively of the Sanders campaign.
On Sunday, she said she had discussed her decision with Barack Obama, who appointed her in 2011, and with Clinton, in the interests of helping the party secure the election in November.
“Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as party chair at the end of this convention,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.
“As party chair, this week I will open and close the convention and I will address our delegates about the stakes involved in this election not only for Democrats (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/democrats), but for all Americans,” she said.
“We have planned a great and unified convention this week and I hope and expect that the DNC team that has worked so hard to get us to this point will have the strong support of all Democrats in making sure this is the best convention we have ever had.”
Earlier, Sanders told ABC: “I think she should resign, period.”
“I don’t think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC,” he added to CNN. “Not just because of these emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people. And I don’t think her leadership style does that.”

The senator’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said the emails proved his suspicion that the party establishment was biased against Sanders.

This spring, Sanders and Wasserman Schultz had clashed over alleged improper access to a DNC voter database, the scheduling of TV debates during the primary campaign and the angry reaction of Sanders supporters to a Nevada nominating convention.
In May, the feud reached such an acrimonious level that the senatorpromised to support her opponent (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/21/bernie-sanders-debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-primary) in the Democratic primary race this fall.
But Democratic leaders praised and thanked Wasserman Schultz in emphatic statements. “For the last eight years she has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful,” Obama said in a statement.


Wasserman Schultz, the president said, “brought Democrats together not just for my re-election campaign, but for accomplishing the shared goals we have had for our country”. Obama also saluted her role in “supporting our economic recovery, our fights for social and civil justice and providing health care for all Americans”.
Clinton paid extensive tribute to a “longtime friend”, adding: “there’s simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie.”
“I look forward to campaigning with Debbie in Florida and helping her in her re-election bid,” the presumptive Democratic nominee added. “Because as president, I will need fighters like Debbie in Congress who are ready on day one to get to work for the American people.”
Staffers also had praise for the representative, despite the controversy around her. “Regardless of the circumstances, you got to feel for someone who has logged the hours DWS has over the last five years,” a former DNC official told the Guardian. “Leaving under these circumstances is a shame.”
However, the same official pointed out that “no one is elected DNC chair for life. She overstayed her welcome and this result was a matter of time”.

for complete article see:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders

Phillip Allen
07-25-2016, 02:05 PM
there's already a couple of threads on them. I'm thoroughly entertained

like a cat covering up a cat....

Chip-skiff
07-25-2016, 02:07 PM
So the carrier pigeon arrived?

You livin' in de back-time, Mon.

Ian McColgin
07-25-2016, 02:08 PM
And if you want one of the threads on this, http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?209767-Trouble-at-the-Democrat-mill-Wasserman-resigns

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 02:17 PM
Even trying to weasel out of it to deflect from their actually doing it.e.g.

"Clinton campaign blamed WikiLeaks release on Russian hackers"

So so old Bernie was right after all.

If this is how the democratic action of the Democratic Party is working fairly for all members, how will it treat the country when Mrs Clinton becomes president?

"a dump of 19,252 emails from the DNC by Wikileaks that proved the nomination was rigged"

I guess it starts at the top, or is that where the buck stops?

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 02:19 PM
So the carrier pigeon arrived?

You livin' in de back-time, Mon.


And if you want one of the threads on this, http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?209767-Trouble-at-the-Democrat-mill-Wasserman-resigns


It is a big enough event to be worth all the coverage.

As I said before Ian, I don't read all the threads, plus some aren't even entitled indicating their content.

StevenBauer
07-25-2016, 02:20 PM
Why are they calling this an email scandal? It is a favoritism scandal. She blatantly violated the trust placed in her hands. Why is she being allowed to stay in charge through the convention?

ccmanuals
07-25-2016, 02:20 PM
yawn

Ian McColgin
07-25-2016, 02:24 PM
Rum_Pirate is just like Trump, the Trumpkins, and all right wingers: Never even makes the smallest nod of acknowledgement when caught but rather rushes on to a combination of denial, evasion, and change of topic.

Hard to have a dialog with people who openly deny the value of paying even a little attention to the remarks of others.

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 02:27 PM
Why are they calling this an email scandal? It is a favoritism scandal. She blatantly violated the trust placed in her hands. Why is she being allowed to stay in charge through the convention?

It is both, the favouritism scandal was exposed through the email dumping scandal.

The Sanders campaign has long claimed that the party establishment had its “finger on the scales” during the bitter and surprisingly long primary, but the embarrassing new revelations proved to be the final straw for a figure who had been a lightning rod for tension within the party.


Bernie was right!

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 02:32 PM
Rum_Pirate is just like Trump, the Trumpkins, and all right wingers: Never even makes the smallest nod of acknowledgement when caught but rather rushes on to a combination of denial, evasion, and change of topic.

Hard to have a dialog with people who openly deny the value of paying even a little attention to the remarks of others.

Deflection and personal attacks. . . . SOP.

I recall making several apologies recently. Guess that you overlooked, or did not read them.

Where have I been 'caught' in this thread? Were am I supposed to make a nod of acknowledgement?

I have pointed out several times before before that I (according to all the 'tests' on the forum) am slightly left of centre. You tend to ignore that.

Where have I rushed "on to a combination of i) denial, ii) evasion, and iii) change of topic.? :rolleyes:

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 02:33 PM
As I have said before, I do not envy the American voters in the choice in the upcoming election that they have for President.

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 02:41 PM
[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
No, it doesn't. First, you'd have to demonstrate that the '19,252' emails are genuine, and not partial forgeries. Next, you'd have to define 'rigged'.

Not even Bernie Sanders own campaign manager believes that the nomination was 'rigged'.

Rigged? Rigged HOW?

I've yet to see an explanation for how the campaign was 'rigged'.


Hmm, I wonder what all the fuss is about then, and why Debbie Wasserman Schultz has resigned, since they were not proved non-genuine or 'partial' (love that word) forgeries?

Perhaps this C&P from the OP


She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campaign-blames-russia-wikileaks-sanders-dnc-emails) showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic party,” Sanders said in a statement, adding that the party leadership must “always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race”.


Stop p'ing into the wind.

Face and accept it, they got caught with the hand in the cookie jar.

TomF
07-25-2016, 02:54 PM
Cripes.

Yes, even those of us with the weakest grasp of the obvious will have known that Bernie - whose joined the party last October and whose whole candidacy approach hinged on NOT being an insider - was not the preferred choice of Dem insiders. Strangely, the preferred nominee of Democrats who'd been fixtures in the Party and deeply committed to it for decades was ... someone who's been a fixture in the Party and deeply committed to it for decades.

Weird, eh?

So far as we can tell, the emails describe the Party insiders' preferences - is it any surprise that people who've made it their lives' work to be paid political party workers actually have preferences? Do you imagine that no Republican had preferences during the Republican primary campaign? The emails do not appear as yet to describe active work by those insiders which subverts the Democratic Party's own rules, or somehow gives undue advantage to either Sanders or Clinton. It's just kinda a snapshot into exactly the kind of discussion we've had here on the Forum .. with some being partisans for Sanders, and others for Clinton.

Yawn.

It is, as Keith said elsewhere, more troubling to find that there are pieces of evidence pointing towards the hackers who provided this information to Wikileaks being deeply connected to the Russians. Does nobody on the Right find it troubling that Russia may be working to skew the results of the American Presidential campaign?

If not, why not?

OTOH, it's fascinating that someone seems to have a real benefit accruing by tweaking a meme that the Dems are corrupt.

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 02:58 PM
Cripes.

Yes, even those of us with the weakest grasp of the obvious will have known that Bernie - whose joined the party last October and whose whole candidacy approach hinged on NOT being an insider - was not the preferred choice of Dem insiders. Strangely, the preferred nominee of Democrats who'd been fixtures in the Party and deeply committed to it for decades was ... someone who's been a fixture in the Party and deeply committed to it for decades.

Weird, eh?

So far as we can tell, the emails describe the Party insiders' preferences - is it any surprise that people who've made it their lives' work to be paid political party workers actually have preferences? Do you imagine that no Republican had preferences during the Republican primary campaign? The emails do not appear as yet to describe active work by those insiders which subverts the Democratic Party's own rules, or somehow gives undue advantage to either Sanders or Clinton. It's just kinda a snapshot into exactly the kind of discussion we've had here on the Forum .. with some being partisans for Sanders, and others for Clinton.

Yawn.

It is, as Keith said elsewhere, more troubling to find that there are pieces of evidence pointing towards the hackers who provided this information to Wikileaks being deeply connected to the Russians. Does nobody on the Right find it troubling that Russia may be working to skew the results of the American Presidential campaign?

If not, why not?

OTOH, it's fascinating that someone seems to have a real benefit accruing by tweaking a meme that the Dems are corrupt.

Since there is no 'corruption' / underhandedness/ etc why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz has resign?

Stop p'ing into the wind.

Face and accept it, got caught with the hand in the cookie jar.

Otherwise she would to have resigned.

PLUS


It is, as Keith said elsewhere, more troubling to find that there are pieces of evidence pointing towards the hackers who provided this information to Wikileaks being deeply connected to the Russians. Does nobody on the Right find it troubling that Russia may be working to skew the results of the American Presidential campaign?

Which gives even more concern to Mrs Clintion not using a secure server. :rolleyes:

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 03:14 PM
Wow that was quick and surprising:


Hillary to Schultz: You're Fired. You're Hired. Within about no time at all, Debbie Wasserman Schultz went from embarassed, to losing a speaking slot, to "resigning (http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/07/24/breaking-dnc-chair-debbei-wasserman-schultz-resigning-wake-dncleak-scandal/)", to ... brand new top Clinton campaign official.

Sorry again, Bernie fans. But she's not sorry.
Hillary just sent this statement out by email:
http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/07/HILLARY-EMAIL.jpg








Like President Obama (http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/07/24/breaking-dnc-chair-debbei-wasserman-schultz-resigning-wake-dncleak-scandal/), Hillary offers no apology or even acknowledgment that it was wrong of the DNC to rig the election against Senator Sanders. Instead, she praises DWS and gives her a new job. ON HER CAMPAIGN.
If that isn't a middle finger to the Bernie Sanders voters, I don't know what is.

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 03:29 PM
They weren't proved, either way. I realize you'd PREFER that all the emails were genuine... that's your bias workin' ya.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the nomination was 'rigged'. Perhaps it was unprofessional for DWS to have expressed her bias.... but a partisan favoritism isn't evidence of 'rigging' the nomination.


If there was nothing of any substance in it, why did she resign?

Daniel Noyes
07-25-2016, 03:31 PM
Chants of "LOCK HER UP" heard echoing across the Democratic convention floor... from Bernie delegates :ycool:

hokiefan
07-25-2016, 03:32 PM
If there was nothing of any substance in it, why did she resign?

Because she was divisive and a distraction.

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 03:36 PM
She resigned because she was a lousy chairman, with an abrasive personality, and was widely disliked.

Read the c&P in post #19....

...and THEN show me the evidence that the nomination was rigged.... not supposition, or rumor, or just plain old schadenfreude... show me actual evidence. C&P's of the emails, or whatever.

If you can't to that, then, you, and SullivanB, are just blowing smoke.


Because she was divisive and a distraction.

According to Norman and Hokiefan she was :

- a lousy chairman (
Assumed office May 4, 2011)
- with an abrasive personality

- was widely disliked

- was divisive

- and a distraction

So thats why Mrs Clinton immediately hired her? :D ROTFLMAO



http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/07/HILLARY-EMAIL.jpg

switters
07-25-2016, 03:45 PM
Best honorary chair of the the 50-state Program Campaign ever. AmIright

The really sickening part is at the end, wake up candidate Clinton, blocking regulation of payday lenders is not working for the American People.

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 03:47 PM
Oh, for chrissakes, gimme a break... are you REALLY that naive? Are you so un-worldly that you don't recognize what that was all about?

I am just asking the question.

I am only going by the rather negative things that you and hokiefan wrote about her.

Those being true (you guys wouldn't lie would you?) one would have thought that Mrs Clinton as a Presidential Nominee would have shied away from being with associated that sort of thing. Then again. :rolleyes:


Do you now wish to redact or withdraw your post # 22 ?


https://wildomarmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/rotflmao.jpg?w=450

TomF
07-25-2016, 04:02 PM
Somebody - it looks like it may be Russian intelligence - is interested in influencing the American Presidential election. The way they want to do this is to sow even more suspicion about Clinton. Apparently the Russians would prefer Trump.

This isn't cause to rehash the private server business, but to ask why they are working to elect Trump instead. Apparently they think Clinton is a tougher adversary.

Wasserman pretty obviously resigned immediately to help ensure that this week the dominant stories would be about the Dem convention topics, not about her. And yeah, Clinton unsurprisingly hired her, because whatever her faults, Wasserman is effective. And showed the judgment and loyalty to acknowledge the topic and pivot away before it could do more damage. Unlike, say, the Melania plagiarism bit

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 04:05 PM
Ask whatever questions you want... and feel free to post any 'cute' graphics you like. Post #24 demonstrates that you clearly haven't got the slightest clue when it comes to US politics. It is almost inconceivable that someone wouldn't recognize what HRC's statement about DWS's resignation was about...


I was using what you and Hokiefan wrote about her.

Since you apparently know could you please enlighten those of us that "clearly haven't got the slightest clue when it comes to US politics" and "wouldn't recognize what HRC's statement about DWS's resignation was about" which I (and perhaps others) don't understand what it was indeed about?

This given that you have already described Debbie Wasserman Schultz as :

- a lousy chairman (
Assumed office May 4, 2011 some 5+ years ago )




- with an abrasive personality

- was widely disliked

and hokiefan described her as being

- was divisive

- and a distraction

So tell us why Mrs Clinton immediately hired her.

I look forward to being educated.

Tom Wilkinson
07-25-2016, 04:30 PM
It sounds like it's really a nothing job she was given.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/25/1551930/-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-did-not-get-promoted-and-she-s-not-running-Hillary-s-campaign

Waddie
07-25-2016, 04:59 PM
yawn

When Republicans engage in shady behavior, liberals are all over it......but when one of their own proves to be an unethical opportunist, it's "yawn'..... I'll bet the Bernie supporters aren't yawning....

The old double standard is alive and well.

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
07-25-2016, 05:01 PM
It’s a gesture extended to a old friend in a bad moment.

Nope; it's payback for services rendered.....

regards,
Waddie

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 05:01 PM
Boy, are you dense.

Clinton paid a little homage to DWS, costing her nothing, and helping to ease the blow of being essentially fired as DNC chairman. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about US politics is that you don't burn your bridges (a lesson Cruz has yet to learn), and the supposed 'honorary chairmanship' HRC offered, in the press release, was a way of helping DWS 'save face'. This does NOT mean that HRC was, in ANY way, defending her... it was merely a kind act to a fellow democrat who found herself pushed out of a job.

Does this mean, somehow, that HRC in any way approved of the job she did? Of course not. Does it imply that HRC was somehow 'rewarding' DWS for the alleged bias she showed towards here? CERTAINLY not.... you don't reward someone by giving them an 'honorary chairmanship'.... it's basically akin to saying, 'well, sorry you screwed up and got lots of people mad at you... here's something to ease the blow'. Will DWS campaign with Hillary on the stump? Probably not, despite the press release... she's toxic.

Any darker interpretation is nothing more than partisan bias, perhaps just more 'Hillary Hate', or yet more baseless allegations without the slightest shred of proof. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of synthetic conspiracies... this crap is for teenagers, not adults.

And anyone with the slightest level of political sophistication would have understood all that. You obviously didn't. Doesn't wash.

Ian McColgin
07-25-2016, 05:01 PM
We already have a thread, and abundant proof, that Trump owes beaucoup bucks to Russian oligarchs close to Putin. One might argue inconclusivly that Clinton is rented to Wall Street but Trump is a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow. You pick.

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 05:03 PM
We already have a thread, and abundant proof, that Trump owes beaucoup bucks to Russian oligarchs close to Putin. One might argue inconclusivly that Clinton is rented to Wall Street but Trump is a wholly owned subsidiary of Moscow. You pick.
We all, well most, agree that Mr Trump is not ideal, probably far from it.

However let's not deflect from the OP.

ccmanuals
07-25-2016, 05:06 PM
When Republicans engage in shady behavior, liberals are all over it......but when one of their own proves to be an unethical opportunist, it's "yawn'..... I'll bet the Bernie supporters aren't yawning....

The old double standard is alive and well.

regards,
Waddie

I could care less what the DNC did. Clinton got the most primary votes and jeez, Bernie is not even a democrat. End of story. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

TomF
07-25-2016, 05:08 PM
The shady part is that the hacking appears to have been done by folks connected to Russian Intelligence, who have hacked government servers in 3 western countries at least. That is the thing to be "all over," an attempt to influence the American presidential election - and if our conversations here are any indication, it is working.

Period. This thing is what the Republican furor was hypothetically about with respect to Clinton's private server - and it didn't happen there. It happened to the Dem main server instead.

Why are you not livid and action oriented when an actual security threat is exposed, suborning your democracy... but go ballistic and spend millions when it could have possibly happened elsewhere, yet didn't?

Rum_Pirate
07-25-2016, 05:10 PM
The shady part is that the hacking appears to have been done by folks connected to Russian Intelligence, who have hacked government servers in 3 western countries at least. That is the thing to be "all over," an attempt to influence the American presidential election - and if our conversations here are any indication, it is working.

Period. This thing is what the Republican furor was hypothetically about with respect to Clinton's private server - and it didn't happen there. It happened to the Dem main server instead.

Why are you not livid and action oriented when an actual security threat is exposed, suborning your democracy... but go ballistic and spend millions when it could have possibly happened elsewhere, yet didn't?
If it didn't happen to the Clinton's private server she was just fortunately plain lucky.

Hwyl
07-25-2016, 05:14 PM
It sounds like it's really a nothing job she was given.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/25/1551930/-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-did-not-get-promoted-and-she-s-not-running-Hillary-s-campaign


I was upset about the job to start with, but you're right. Honorary chairman is about on a par with BROTM

Waddie
07-25-2016, 05:15 PM
I could care less what the DNC did. Clinton got the most primary votes and jeez, Bernie is not even a democrat. End of story. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Looks like Hillary knew what Wassermann was up to. The way Bernie was cleaning Hillary's clock in primary after primary Hillary wasn't taking anything for granted, ala Richard Nixon and Watergate...Nixon would have won without the dirty tricks. Hillary has her own dirty tricks squad...

regards,
Waddie

TomF
07-25-2016, 05:16 PM
And reps are unconcerned about actual rather than hypothetical foreign interference with American security because...

Waddie
07-25-2016, 05:27 PM
Is that what happened, in your alternative universe?

Funny thing, that's not what's happened in the universe I live in.

Grow up; you know the game. Hillary and her allies, (led by Wassermann) did what they could to derail Bernie. It's in the emails.

regards,
Waddie

TomF
07-25-2016, 07:30 PM
The emails Russia hacked, and arranged to come to light on the most embarrassing day for Dems possible?

You trust Putin to be an honest broker because he's played it so straight with the Ukraine, eh? And you think Manafort is not still on good conversational terms with his boss of the previous decade, just because he's now advising Trump too?

CWSmith
07-25-2016, 07:34 PM
If it didn't happen to the Clinton's private server she was just fortunately plain lucky.

Ironic, isn't it? She is pointer her finger at Russian hackers and the complaint against her private server and unsecured phone is that they could have been hacked.

McMike
07-25-2016, 07:37 PM
Why can't, both, the DNC and Putin be wrong? Are we that far gone that we can't just call a spade a spade. FWIW, The DNC apologized to Sanders and clearly take responsibility for the emails in so far as they were inappropriate. The wrong was in fact, there, it's also with Trump for not condemning the hack. That's where Dems should strike next, lets see if they're smart enough.

Captain Intrepid
07-25-2016, 07:40 PM
In presidential politics, you don't being a disgraced politician aboard your campaign even in a nothing role. At least not out of the kindness of your heart.

McMike
07-25-2016, 07:40 PM
Looks like Hillary knew what Wassermann was up to. The way Bernie was cleaning Hillary's clock in primary after primary Hillary wasn't taking anything for granted, ala Richard Nixon and Watergate...Nixon would have won without the dirty tricks. Hillary has her own dirty tricks squad...

regards,
Waddie

I'm not your biggest fan but I think you're dead on here.

CWSmith
07-25-2016, 07:40 PM
Why can't, both, the DNC and Putin be wrong? Are we that far gone that we can't just call a spade a spade. FWIW, The DNC apologized to Sanders and clearly take responsibility for the emails in so far as they were inappropriate. The wrong was in fact, there, it's also with Trump for not condemning the hack. That's where Dems should strike next, lets see if they're smart enough.

I've not seen the smart I'm looking for.

Daniel Noyes
07-25-2016, 07:51 PM
it's also with Trump for not condemning the hack. That's where Dems should strike next, lets see if they're smart enough.

WoW Dems grasping at straws... "Un-Hinged"

Hillary... the Definition of Loose Cannon

Garret
07-25-2016, 08:27 PM
WoW Dems grasping at straws... "Un-Hinged"

Hillary... the Definition of Loose Cannon

OK - we can agree that the DNC screwed up. But - you're OK with Russian Intelligence hacking party computers? I bet you'd be screaming bloody murder if they'd hacked the RNC. Of course since Putin's your hero's buddy they wouldn't - but say North Korea?

Waddie
07-25-2016, 09:00 PM
OK - we can agree that the DNC screwed up. But - you're OK with Russian Intelligence hacking party computers? I bet you'd be screaming bloody murder if they'd hacked the RNC. Of course since Putin's your hero's buddy they wouldn't - but say North Korea?

I'm not OK with any type of hacking. However, many times the information hackers release is information the public has a right to, like the information we got about how the intelligence community really felt about Iraq, or the Panama information, and now this DNC dust-up. If government were as transparent as Obama promised it would be, there wouldn't be much demand for hacking.

regards,
Waddie

Garret
07-25-2016, 09:04 PM
I'm not OK with any type of hacking. However, many times the information hackers release is information the public has a right to, like the information we got about how the intelligence community really felt about Iraq, or the Panama information, and now this DNC dust-up. If government were as transparent as Obama promised it would be, there wouldn't be much demand for hacking.

regards,
Waddie

Ah - I get it - no emails from anyone anywhere should be private. How soon do you want me to carry a national ID card?

Phillip Allen
07-25-2016, 09:05 PM
were there many racial slurs?

Garret
07-25-2016, 09:06 PM
were there many racial slurs?

That's Trump's Job.

Waddie
07-25-2016, 09:14 PM
Ah - I get it - no emails from anyone anywhere should be private. How soon do you want me to carry a national ID card?

Now you're putting up a straw man; emails that have to do with the nation's interest and government should be in the public domain. If you can't say it in public maybe it shouldn't be said. This should include emails that reveal illegal or extra-legal attempts at hiding funds from taxation (Panama), attempts to circumvent or over-ride the democratic process (Wassermann) and information that is contrary to the official version of events and policy regarding foreign policy (Iraq). Your emails to your nana can remain private...please.

regards,
Waddie

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 07:41 AM
In presidential politics, you don't being a disgraced politician aboard your campaign even in a nothing role. At least not out of the kindness of your heart.

+ 1

TomF
07-26-2016, 08:00 AM
..emails that have to do with the nation's interest and government should be in the public domain. If you can't say it in public maybe it shouldn't be said. This should include emails that reveal illegal or extra-legal attempts at hiding funds from taxation (Panama), attempts to circumvent or over-ride the democratic process (Wassermann) and information that is contrary to the official version of events and policy regarding foreign policy (Iraq). ...Sorry, but political parties are like private clubs or private companies, they're not branches of Government.

When a government department or branch is involved, I totally agree that there's a Freedom of Information right held by taxpayers and citizens. Unless something is prejudicial to the public interest (national security or etc.; laws for Freedom of Information differ from one jurisdiction to another), what's written on the public dime should be open to public view.

But this whole primary process has some folks confused; you and I really don't have a "right" to whatever a private organization may say among its own members. Or to pronounce on how they select their leaders. There's lots of infighting in big corporations when a CEO needs to be replaced too, but there are no Freedom of Information provisions requiring all of that to be available to newscasters.

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 08:06 AM
Sorry, but political parties are like private clubs or private companies, they're not branches of Government.

When a government department or branch is involved, I totally agree that there's a Freedom of Information right held by taxpayers and citizens. Unless something is prejudicial to the public interest (national security or etc.; laws for Freedom of Information differ from one jurisdiction to another), what's written on the public dime should be open to public view.

But this whole primary process has some folks confused; you and I really don't have a "right" to whatever a private organization may say among its own members. Or to pronounce on how they select their leaders. There's lots of infighting in big corporations when a CEO needs to be replaced too, but there are no Freedom of Information provisions requiring all of that to be available to newscasters.. . . even when that person/'leader' will be placed as leader/President over you, by a 'democratic process' ? :rolleyes:

Norman Bernstein
07-26-2016, 08:15 AM
. . . even when that person/'leader' will be placed as leader/President over you, by a 'democratic process' ? :rolleyes:

The democratic process you speak of, is the general election. Primary contests are NOT constitutionally mandated, nor prohibited; what a political party does (in terms of how it selects its candidate) is not subject to any federal law.

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 08:22 AM
The democratic process you speak of, is the general election. Primary contests are NOT constitutionally mandated, nor prohibited; what a political party does (in terms of how it selects its candidate) is not subject to any federal law.


I wonder if Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters think that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic.

Remind me, what is the party's name? . . . "The Democratic Party" ? :rolleyes:, so much for democracy.

If the GOP did that (maybe they tried but did not have the expertise and success of the DP) you would condemning them.

Norman Bernstein
07-26-2016, 08:27 AM
I wonder if Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters think that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic.

As far as I can tell, the 'emails' in this faux scandal didn't indicate ANYTHING that the DNC actually did, to tilt the primary result... all I've seen, was talk. Yes, the party leaders are human... they have opinions, they make choices, they have favored candidates. The question is simple: did they actually DO anything to skew the results? Was there actually a thumb on the scale, in any real sense?

If you've seen anything actually concrete, that skewed the process, post it or link to it.


If the GOP did that (maybe they tried but did not have the expertise and success of the DP) you would condemning them.

You actually think that the leaders in the RNC didn't have preferences among the candidates, and didn't talk about them amongst themselves?

Willin'
07-26-2016, 08:35 AM
Seems to me not long ago Trump was railing incessantly about how the GOP was rigging the primary against him by planning a brokered convention. Why was that not a scandal? Oh wait... I know. Because it was just blather.

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 08:40 AM
As far as I can tell, the 'emails' in this faux scandal didn't indicate ANYTHING that the DNC actually did, to tilt the primary result... all I've seen, was talk. Yes, the party leaders are human... they have opinions, they make choices, they have favored candidates. The question is simple: did they actually DO anything to skew the results? Was there actually a thumb on the scale, in any real sense?

If you've seen anything actually concrete, that skewed the process, post it or link to it.

You actually think that the leaders in the RNC didn't have preferences among the candidates, and didn't talk about them amongst themselves?


Do Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters think that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic. YES/NO ?



You can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink. Enjoy your day.

Tom Wilkinson
07-26-2016, 08:45 AM
Anyone who needed to see emails to think the DNC favored Clinton is not capable of clear thinking.

Norman Bernstein
07-26-2016, 09:33 AM
Do Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters think that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic. YES/NO ?


Do THEY think he was treated unfairly?

Yes... that is what they THINK.

WAS he treated unfairly? I see no actual evidence of that.

I'm STILL waiting to see the evidence of that. Negative opinions expressed in a manner that they thought was private, among DNC leaders, does NOT constitute 'unfair treatment'. If you have any actual evidence of anything concrete that they did, to disadvantage him, post it.

Norman Bernstein
07-26-2016, 09:34 AM
Anyone who needed to see emails to think the DNC favored Clinton is not capable of clear thinking.

I have no doubt that they favored Clinton. The question is whether simply not favoring him, and expressing that dissatisfaction among themselves, was in any way 'unfair'.

TomF
07-26-2016, 09:35 AM
Do Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters think that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic. YES/NO ?.The word you're looking for isn't "think," it's "feel." Many Sanders supporters feel that the outcome was not fair, reasonable, just, or democratic. They're wrong - the primary result objectively reflects the majority of votes cast both by registered Dems, and also by "superdelegates." What is objectively "fair, reasonable, just, or democratic" is that the winner according to the actual ruleset adopted ... wins. But it may not always feel that way to some who lost.

As my wife and I have discovered ... while "feelings" have a legitimacy all their own :D, their mere existence doesn't mean that anybody broke rules or commitments. It sometimes just means that the way we've established our rules/commitments needs to be updated, because the rules don't turn out to be doing what we want them to. In functional relationships rules are intended to help safeguard people's feelings, after all. If they stop doing that (and you want to continue in a functional relationship), it's time to tweak the rules.

Maybe the Dems will tweak their Primary rules a bit - there's more than one way to do things after all (e.g. Nate Silver observed that had the Dems run their primary under this cycle's Rep rules, Clinton would have utterly trounced Sanders months ago). FWIW I'd give good odds that after Trump loses in November, the Reps will re-introduce checks/balances protecting against Tyranny of the Majority before the next Primary cycle comes 'round. ;) Look for some of the Cruz, Rubio, or Bush supporters to spearhead this.

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 09:40 AM
I have no doubt that they favored Clinton. The question is whether simply not favoring him, and expressing that dissatisfaction among themselves, was in any way 'unfair'.



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
(http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4959782#post4959782)Do Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters think that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic. YES/NO ?.

The word you're looking for isn't "think," it's "feel." Many Sanders supporters feel that the outcome was not fair, reasonable, just, or democratic. They're wrong - the primary result objectively reflects the majority of votes cast both by registered Dems, and also by "superdelegates." What is objectively "fair, reasonable, just, or democratic" is that the winner according to the actual ruleset adopted ... wins. But it may not always feel that way to some who lost.

As my wife and I have discovered ... while "feelings" have a legitimacy all their own :D, their mere existence doesn't mean that anybody broke rules or commitments. It sometimes just means that the way we've established our rules/commitments needs to be updated, because the rules don't turn out to be doing what we want them to. In functional relationships rules are intended to help safeguard people's feelings, after all. If they stop doing that (and you want to continue in a functional relationship), it's time to tweak the rules.

Maybe the Dems will tweak their Primary rules a bit - there's more than one way to do things after all (e.g. Nate Silver observed that had the Dems run their primary under this cycle's Rep rules, Clinton would have utterly trounced Sanders months ago). FWIW I'd give good odds that after Trump loses in November, the Reps will re-introduce checks/balances protecting against Tyranny of the Majority before the next Primary cycle comes 'round. ;) Look for some of the Cruz, Rubio, or Bush supporters to spearhead this.


Try 'believe' then. Norman has no doubt that they favoured Clinton. :rolleyes:

So . . . Do Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters believe that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic. YES/NO ?.

biga
07-26-2016, 09:41 AM
come on, before the primaries made it through the first turn at talladega she had 95% of the super delegates on her side. why are all these delegates pledging support before they even watch a debate? they pledge b/c they're TOLD TO.

Norman Bernstein
07-26-2016, 09:42 AM
So . . . Do Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters believe that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic. YES/NO ?.

They do.

A shocking percentage of Americans also believe that there are aliens from other planets among us....

...but a 'belief' is not the same thing as a fact, and it's not the same thing as the truth.

TomF
07-26-2016, 09:43 AM
. . . even when that person/'leader' will be placed as leader/President over you, by a 'democratic process' ? :rolleyes:Correct. Political parties have no standing under the Constitution of most countries - mine, America, the UK, France, etc. The Constitution deals with how public elections occur for public office. It is silent on how private organizations select the people to compete in those public elections.

In Canada, each of the major parties selects their leaders through a different process. The thing they share in common is that to participate in that selection, you must first be a dues-paying, card-carrying member of that party ... usually with some minimum restriction on how long you've held a membership too. What goes on inside the parties is sometimes of interest to the rest of us ... and parties use conventions as marketing and communications tools. But it's the party's internal business, using the individual party's own rules and processes.

Daniel Noyes
07-26-2016, 09:46 AM
come on, before the primaries made it through the first turn at talladega she had 95% of the super delegates on her side. why are all these delegates pledging support before they even watch a debate? they pledge b/c they're TOLD TO.

+1 sooo true

just think... Would Democrats give Republican political Elite the "benefit of the doubt" if the situation were reversed???...

Dems who think Hillary is Honest or the DNC reffed a fair fight are in DENIAL refuseing to make Fact Based assessments of the world around them.

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 09:47 AM
Correct. Political parties have no standing under the Constitution of most countries - mine, America, the UK, France, etc. The Constitution deals with how public elections occur for public office. It is silent on how private organizations select the people to compete in those public elections.

In Canada, each of the major parties selects their leaders through a different process. The thing they share in common is that to participate in that selection, you must first be a dues-paying, card-carrying member of that party ... usually with some minimum restriction on how long you've held a membership too. What goes on inside the parties is sometimes of interest to the rest of us ... and parties use conventions as marketing and communications tools. But it's the party's internal business, using the individual party's own rules and processes.


Hmm, so the Democratic party suppresses the democratic wishes of its supporters and that is supposedly democratic(?), and the Democratic Party wishes that the public consider them democratic and should vote for their candidate even though the Democratic party has no respect for democracy? YES/NO

TomF
07-26-2016, 09:54 AM
Try 'believe' then. Norman has no doubt that they favoured Clinton. :rolleyes:

So . . . Do Bernie Sanders and a lot of his supporters believe that what was done against him was fair, reasonable and just, or democratic. YES/NO ?.What things are we talking about which were apparently "done against him?"

Many Sanders supporters believe that the rules give an inherent advantage to candidates who've emerged from inside the party, rather than candidates who emerged as party outsiders. "Superdelegates" are party insiders, whose voting commitments are themselves determined by rules established with their region's party insiders. They are almost certainly going to support insiders instead of an outsider like Sanders.

That wasn't "done against" Sanders - it's a structural check/balance feature of the Democratic Party's ruleset. Following those rules was just following those rules - not unlike last week when the RNC refused to amend their "bound Delegate" provisions to accommodate Cruz' supporters. That wasn't "done against" Cruz.

I figure that under the existing ruleset, Clinton got millions more votes than Sanders, spread out in such a way across the various States as to secure a majority of the citizen-voter-determined-delegates. She also got a majority of the superdelegate supporters, via whatever local and regional processes the Democratic Party establishes to secure them.

A majority of both kinds of voting delegates, following the rules established long in advance ... produces a "democratic" result.

Ian McColgin
07-26-2016, 09:59 AM
Perhaps Rum_Pirate failed to comprehend Sanders' speech of last night.

The democratic process is all about not getting your way on all things.

The glorious thing is that Putin's transparent effort to help Trump here only highlights the extent to which Putin's criminal oligarch pals own Trump and the reason why the small handed twit is so ready to sell us out to his no-shirt butch boy.

TomF
07-26-2016, 10:03 AM
Hmm, so the Democratic party suppresses the democratic wishes of its supporters and that is supposedly democratic(?), and the Democratic Party wishes that the public consider them democratic and should vote for their candidate even though the Democratic party has no respect for democracy? YES/NOHave you stopped beating your wife yet? YES/NO :D


Clinton won millions more votes than Sanders nationwide.
Clinton won more state primaries than Sanders
Clinton won more superdelegate support than Sanders, under processes voted on by state Dem organizations



So nominating Clinton because she's won the most support under the rules is ... undemocratic?

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 10:05 AM
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? YES/NO :D


Clinton won millions more votes than Sanders nationwide.
Clinton won more state primaries than Sanders
Clinton won more superdelegate support than Sanders, under processes voted on by state Dem organizations


So nominating Clinton because she's won the most support under the roles is ... undemocratic?
Who knows would she have done all that without the intervention of the party and the 'back room boys' ?

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 10:06 AM
Perhaps Rum_Pirate failed to comprehend Sanders' speech of last night.

The democratic process is all about not getting your way on all things.

The glorious thing is that Putin's transparent effort to help Trump here only highlights the extent to which Putin's criminal oligarch pals own Trump and the reason why the small handed twit is so ready to sell us out to his no-shirt butch boy.
Correct, but true democracy is based on a level playing field, or is it not?

Norman Bernstein
07-26-2016, 10:10 AM
Who knows would she have done all that without the intervention of the party and the 'back room boys' ?

I'll ask one more time:

WHAT did those alleged 'back room boys' actually DO?

You seem to be speaking as if you actually KNOW what was done to tilt the scales towards HRC....

....but I keep asking for evidence that they did ANYTHING, and you keep talking as if you KNOW!

Do you? If so, share it with the rest of us, would you?

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 10:13 AM
I'll ask one more time:

WHAT did those alleged 'back room boys' actually DO?

You seem to be speaking as if you actually KNOW what was done to tilt the scales towards HRC....

....but I keep asking for evidence that they did ANYTHING, and you keep talking as if you KNOW!

Do you? If so, share it with the rest of us, would you?


If you, who apparently knows all about politics, doesn't know (it has been in the news even by so called reputable sources) then there is no point in saying anything further.

Good day to you, Sir. |:)

Ian McColgin
07-26-2016, 10:15 AM
Here's the deal, Rum_Pirate.

I worked for Sanders in his first winning mayoral campaign, one of the few times I've fought for a winner in an election. I worked for him this time and I support the fact that in the US party "membership" is open by self-declaration and Sanders declared himself to be a Democrat less than a year ago.

Before that I was in Chicago in 1968, part of the ruckus that led to important party reform.

I have also seen times when the often better organized Republican Party sent waves of cross voters into Democratic primaries to get the opponent they wanted.

The whole notion of "super delegates" makes sense in the same way the US Senate makes sense - a partial brake on passing populist passions. It's all part of the action.

Like sausage making, more people like the result than have the moral courage to be part of the process. Sanders has that courage and is sharing it with more people. Hope they get the message and I especially hope they are not deflected by the right wing trolls who, at Putin's behest, are attempting to subvert the complex, messy, imperfect democratic process.

You people who have no real participation in democratic self-governance are welcome to hold your noses and act all fine and superior. Myself, I like sausage enough to be part of making it.

Norman Bernstein
07-26-2016, 10:17 AM
If you, who apparently knows all about politics, doesn't know (it has been in the news even by so called reputable sources) then there is no point in saying anything further.


In other words, you don't know.

I understand.

TomF
07-26-2016, 10:20 AM
Who knows would she have done all that without the intervention of the party and the 'back room boys' ?All what intervention? Can you show proof of actual interventions at all? Or just preferences by one political junkie expressed to another political junkie? If you can find actual interventions, can you show proof that they flipped the delegate count even in one state primary?

Hmm. I'll watch for your trenchant journalism backing up those claims.

I think that the American system of primaries is freaking ridiculous. Can't imagine a more wasteful, unproductive, and frequently divisive way to pick party leaders - there is to my knowledge no other industrial democracy on the planet using this system. France's or Germany's or Australia's or the UK's leaders are not objectively worse than America's, as a result.

But under the rules, Clinton won - just like under the other side's rules, Trump won. Suck it up.

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 10:20 AM
Here's the deal, Rum_Pirate.

I worked for Sanders in his first winning mayoral campaign, one of the few times I've fought for a winner in an election. I worked for him this time and I support the fact that in the US party "membership" is open by self-declaration and Sanders declared himself to be a Democrat less than a year ago.

Before that I was in Chicago in 1968, part of the ruckus that led to important party reform.

I have also seen times when the often better organized Republican Party sent waves of cross voters into Democratic primaries to get the opponent they wanted.

The whole notion of "super delegates" makes sense in the same way the US Senate makes sense - a partial brake on passing populist passions. It's all part of the action.

Like sausage making, more people like the result than have the moral courage to be part of the process. Sanders has that courage and is sharing it with more people. Hope they get the message and I especially hope they are not deflected by the right wing trolls who, at Putin's behest, are attempting to subvert the complex, messy, imperfect democratic process.

You people who have no real participation in democratic self-governance are welcome to hold your noses and act all fine and superior. Myself, I like sausage enough to be part of making it.

Fine, enjoy. Y>

George Jung
07-26-2016, 10:21 AM
Rummy is just making it up as he goes (that's SO Republican!), saying anything - anything at all - to get a 'rise'.

Someone needs to sail more. Or get a hobby. Or therapy!:arg

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 10:21 AM
I think that the American system of primaries is freaking ridiculous. Agreed.

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 10:22 AM
Rummy is just making it up as he goes (that's SO Republican!), saying anything - anything at all - to get a 'rise'.
Someone needs to sail more. Or get a hobby. Or therapy!:arg

Erm, what did I make up? :rolleyes:

George Jung
07-26-2016, 10:24 AM
Just about everything - when you're lips are moving, it's a 'tell'.

CWSmith
07-26-2016, 10:24 AM
You people who have no real participation in democratic self-governance are welcome to hold your noses and act all fine and superior. Myself, I like sausage enough to be part of making it.

I am afraid to ask what you mean by "You people". Most people can, at best, try to be informed and vote carefully. More than that is beyond what many can manage.

Osborne Russell
07-26-2016, 10:35 AM
I am afraid to ask what you mean by "You people". Most people can, at best, try to be informed and vote carefully. More than that is beyond what many can manage.

In any case they are gifted and burdened with self-government. The most apathetic has the same baseline responsibility as the most engaged. I don't know why people consider that to be a technicality or a vanishingly small thing. IMO it's the bulk of the situation. For example, we're all responsible for Abu Ghraib, even those who couldn't find Iraq on a map.

Ian McColgin
07-26-2016, 10:37 AM
I was specifically addressing Rum_Pirate and others who can't or won't be any part of our political process, the US being the subject here. It does make sense for people from all nations to take an informed interest in our process just as we should be considerably better educated about the rest of the world. Never hurts to be aware of the fact that we (any "we") are not superior to all of them (any "them") in all ways.

But I am partially addressing US citizens who barely even vote much less to a bit more. And political activity is not the only or even for many the best way to be a citizen. Charity work, civic associations, library volunteering, shoreline litter collection, taking the risk of expressing oneself with reasons and dialogue on a diverse forum such as this one . . . there are billions of ways one can be a citizen.

Thing is, none of them are Candide's way of only tending one's own garden.

If you don't meddle in lives beyond yourself and your family, you're a parasite.

TomF
07-26-2016, 10:39 AM
...If you don't meddle in lives beyond yourself and your family, you're a parasite.The distinction between me/my family and others is an illusion.

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 10:50 AM
Just about everything - when you're lips are moving, it's a 'tell'.

You have a vivid, but inaccurate, imagination.

Garret
07-26-2016, 11:16 AM
...A shocking percentage of Americans also believe that there are aliens from other planets among us....


Wait a sec - you're saying there aren't? You've participated in the Bilge talking politics for how long & you still doubt the presence of aliens? Really? ;)

ccmanuals
07-26-2016, 11:23 AM
Hmm, so the Democratic party suppresses the democratic wishes of its supporters and that is supposedly democratic(?), and the Democratic Party wishes that the public consider them democratic and should vote for their candidate even though the Democratic party has no respect for democracy? YES/NO

shouldn't the democratic party actually support people who are democrats?

Remember, Bernie was not a democrat.

CWSmith
07-26-2016, 11:28 AM
Ok, Ian, I'll go along with you on that. However, I would settle for a thoughtful and informed voter who stands apart from the propaganda machine (Oh, how I will regret that statement when the Fox crowd reads it!).

Rum_Pirate
07-26-2016, 12:41 PM
Doesn't matter. The parties are private organizations that can do as they please. It really is that simple.


Point noted.

Whether the party is democratic or not while professing to be.

C'est la vie.