Wasserman Schultz Resigns

anyone who felt that Clinton was "preordained" as the Democratic nominee, yeah well you were right

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-cast-doubt-on-hopes-for-party-unity-at-democratic-convention/2016/07/24/a446c260-51a9-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html

 

An actual thread about Democrat corruption? No worry, I'm sure the next 20 threads will be about Trump...icky.

So all those crazy Feel the Bern! supporters claiming Hillary and the DNC were actively fighting against him since last December were right? Wow. And now for the ultimate knife in the back as he still endorses Hillary. Hahaha those poor kids who bought into the "he's different" crap. What a bunch of suckers.

DWS is a good fall guy(gal).

RNC elect an outsider and DNC elects the most insider of all time.

What shame, just a crying shame.

 

Other nations look in horror at our system where a candidate can essentially hijack a party nomination and the party is powerless to stop them.

So it's shady but, in the grand scheme, it's a weird system to begin with. And I'm sure the RNC is wishing they had sabotaged Trump back when his candidacy was far more speculative.

Still, DWS got up many times and assured the nation that the party wasn't doing this thing that the party was absolutely doing. That's wrong and her resignation was justified. But considering both parties have always sort of informally chosen their candidates and then thrown weight behind them in elections to make it "official" I'm not sure why everyone is acting with such outrage.

 

"But considering both parties have always sort of informally chosen their candidates and then thrown weight behind them in elections to make it "official" I'm not sure why everyone is acting with such outrage."


This is true. DWS stepped down, and that is that. Trump is going to want to make a super huge deal about this, but it is done and over with. People have moved on. The drama has been taken out of any antics that may come up at the DNC by having DWS step down ahead of time, so that was a good move. At this point, all the major Sanders suuporters are starting to/have fallen in line with Clinton to ramp up against Trump.

 

You are, of course, welcome to start a thread yourself.:heart::yeah:

 

Jedi hand wave.


Impressive, most impressive.

 

I guess I don't fully understand the outrage. I wouldn't get it even if the RNC emails were released that showed they were secretly supporting someone other than Trump.

I mean the political parties are, by their very nature, political. Are we really going to get upset when they aren't fair and objective and pursue their own agenda rather than let "the people" chart the course?

Welcome to a two party system. We only get the illusion of a voice.

 

Nobodies outraged. This has already passed, people have moved on to bigger and better things.


There was no secret that the Republicans wanted anyone but Trump, they were upfront about it. "The people" whether you agree with them or not, picked Trump. The GOP could not stop it. Who knows what the people wanted from the Democrat side, it appears that there were many that wanted Sanders. And they're upset about the seemingly rigged (to them) system.


But like we've mentioned it's no worry. On to the Dem party in Philly. Also, I missed the story about the genocide that took place in the streets of Cleveland this past RNC convention. Did Trump’s Cossacks sack Shaker Heights?

 

The question is, "Did this have any effect on the popular vote?" My guess is that this had no effect on Sanders' lack of support from older minorities. That is what mostly caused him problems.

Historically, the parties chose who they wanted. But, I am curious to see RNC emails. The DNC hack has been traced back to Russian hackers who are known to have worked with Russian intelligence in the past. What is more concerning to me than a political wanting a certain candidate (these are private organizations who are free to do that) is that the government of a country who we are not on friendly terms with is trying to influence our political process. Trump should not be proud of having the support of Putin.

 

You'd think they'd want to hide DWS for a little bit while this blows over and the one or two people concerned about it simmer down. I actually admire this about Clinton, basically she has big balls. A nice FU to all those Bernie Bros. From the perspective of the Bernie supporters DWS helped to rig an election against their guy, and then when she gets fired...get's hired on to run the campaign for the very person she rigged it for. I'm seeing some pretty upset Bernie people online. Looks like Debbie got booed down in Florida today...headline on MSNBC says she was cheered (she was) but does not mention the boos. Lol.


Me? I'm bemused.


Remember this tweet from DWS? https://i.imgur.com/pV2VPV6.png

 

The tweet is very amusing.

I'm also reminded of when David Duke threatened to make his personal "friend" list public exposing members of both parties to embarrassment. If I recall the David Duke invocations kind of died down almost immediately.

In truth, Bernie Bros were never going to sway the election. These are people who routinely voted third party (Socialist Party, Democratic Socialist Party, Green Party etc) who got all excited that one of their own had a shot at actually winning on a DNC ticket.

It isn't terribly different from the Ron Paul bros who kicked up a big fuss in 2008. Yeah, they might not have voted McCain but those weren't lost votes. They weren't going to vote for any RNC candidate except for their guy (who had no chance).

As for giving DWS a cooling off period...

Why? Even if the DNC had remained incredibly impartial the Feel the Bern crew is asking us to ignore the fact that he lost a stunning majority of the primaries. Even if he had every single superdelegate he would have lost the nomination.

I feel like a lot of people are having this "Aha!" moment to the realization that politics involve dirty play and backdoor alliances. Lots of people crying about how it isn't "fair." The electoral college isn't fair. Congressional districting isn't fair. Politics in the U.S. is just not built on fairness so why would this be any different?

Ultimately, I think this election is coming down to voter turnout only. I cannot imagine there is really a person who is waffling between Trump and Clinton. The question is whether people are angry or scared enough to show up and vote.

 

1. Oh man, I don't recall that David Duke threat. I wish he would have shown his hand on that one...
2. I guess I wasn't aware of how little effect Bernie had. It seemed like his supporters with all the phone banking, activism, match me! donation chants and what not made their popularity and influence seem more than it actually was?
3. I agree Ron Paul and Bernie seems to be the same (not ideologically, just in their effect) but feel like Bernie got more primary votes. I'd have to check the actual stats to see if my remembrance is accurate.
4. I wouldn't call it an "aha" moment. More of a "of course" moment. I know the Bernie people are upset. His supporters now see that he's all in for the same old same old political elite 1% that he was against for the last 9 months, but he's not my guy so I don't take his fakeness and lying personally like his supporters are.


Again I'll voice my thoughts on Presidential politics. I'm convinced that no matter who is in the office the other 50% will cry incessantly, and that gets old. Whoever is elected, I will support. I may not agree with all of their policies, but for the most part I hope things work out. In the end when they say they want to create jobs, access for education, less crime, more opportunity I'm all for it. Even if their ideas are not my own.


So for me...my personal vote does not matter but I'm not going to put a capital letter ahead of the entire country. If it's Hillary I hope things are ok and that our country is successful. Same with Trump.


I don't get the froth at the mouth hatred for someone who does not think exactly as I do.

 

I'm sure it would have been worth a few chuckles.

Don't get me wrong, Bernie did very well considering he's sort of a fringe candidate. He collected almost 1900 delegates in the primaries compared to Hillary's 2,200. I will admit that I had the superdelegate count wrong. Hillary got 600, Bernie got 48. So yeah, if every single superdelegate turned in support of Bernie he would have taken the cake despite the fact that he lost the "popular vote."

I think superdelegates are a bad idea. But it's how the DNC controls which candidate they are supporting. The fact that these 600 superdelegates were commited to Hillary was proof that the DNC favored her. Had DWS owned up to that fact I doubt there would be as much controversy. But she tried to make it sound less crooked than it actually was.

He did. But the Republican tickets often start out with many more contenders. Ron Paul finished fourth in that race with the bulk of the votes going to McCain and Romney (McCain ultimately prevailed that time around).

If Ron Paul had taken on McCain or Romney he likely would have done much better. And if Bernie had been up against two or three other well established DNC candidates besides Hillary he likely would have done much worse.

Again though, two party system. We sit and wag our fingers at countries with a single party system and act like we are the arbiters of what constitutes democracy. Ultimately I think people just resent having our interests pigeon holed into one of two candidates who don't really represent anyone.

I used to be a Republican. There used to be a fair spectrum to that membership. You could be a fiscal conservative who supported same-sex marriage. You could be a member of the moral majority and support expanded government involvement in business. You could really be anything. But now there is no room for much discussion. You can't vote GOP without also voting for an anti-gay platform at this stage. I'm not OK with that. For others, they might support 99% of what a democratic candidate says but that 1% about abortion is enough to turn them off.

If we had a parliamentary system we'd probably have a lot more political diversity. But we don't. And voting for third party candidates is a fruitless endeavor. So, yeah, people get mad. I understand. There are times when it makes me mad too.

 

I'm with you on this one. I'm more Conservative in a way as well, but way too socially liberal. I was very much against the Iraq War (being a combat Marine convinced of my own invincibility I knew nothing would happen to me, but I became almost pathologically afraid of losing my fellow brother and sister Marines). That was step one to my not being on board.


I'm not religious, even kind of anti-Catholic on a personal level but still stick up for them when I think they get a bad rap from Liberals. There goes any chance of my aligning with the conservate religious right. I voted for same-sex marriage (my uncle was Gay and my older brother too) and legalization of weed in my home state. Very much no-no's in today's Republican party.


I'm pro choice, that's another strike against me.


I always hope that the republican movement get's blown up and there's room for people like me somewhere. I've got too much experience in the real world crossing from a poor upbringing to semi-blue collar to military to white collar and college educated while living all around the country in diverse areas to possibly be a feel good ah shucks we're all the same liberal type, so I'm out with that party.


I'm kind of stuck in the middle I suppose.

 

I think I'm too anti all forms of immigration to make a good libertarian. I'm not a big fan of our current strategy of invade the world invite the world. I'd like us to be more focused internally. Take care of ALL legal Americans first.

 

You asked me in another thread what I meant by the system being rigged for Hillary. Here you go.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.