Yep. Liberals and progressives losing their minds over silly shit while Republicans stick to Trump no matter what.
The stakes are too high to stay home because of some political purity nonsense.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DNC chair won't speak at Dem convention following Wikileaks fallout
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
- Status
Yep. Liberals and progressives losing their minds over silly shit while Republicans stick to Trump no matter what.
The stakes are too high to stay home because of some political purity nonsense.
Umm, no. You claimed the DNC stacked the deck for Hilary. That requires them to have actually preformed an action, rather than just hold an opinion.
wesleyshark
Banned
Yes. She is absolutely awful and needs to resign, but not just because of these leaks. She's been awful for a very long time.
thestopsign
Member
The thing that disgusts me most about these leaks are just how clearly targeted they are. I'm sure there were emails from Sander's supporters within the DNC (and I am sure there were a few) about different points of attack, they just never were provided to the public.
Also I am fine with DWS being a sacrificial lamb. Obama might not be too happy about it though.
Also I am fine with DWS being a sacrificial lamb. Obama might not be too happy about it though.
- helping her finance her campaign during the primary
05/02/16 Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
- rolling back restrictions that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committee
02/12/16 DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists
- setting the minimum number of debates possible
- ensuring majority of those debates would be viewed by the fewest people possible
- not attempting to draft anyone else in the race
And now we have actual emails that read more like an internal Clinton campaign memo rather than the DNC CFO.
Why would he? That would be a "waist of time", you know.
Evil Monkey DTT
Banned
The emails haven't changed that I'm voting for hillary, I am. But after all these years I am dropping out of the party. Doesn't mean I won't always vote left, but I feel my values are more left then the party I am attached too. The emails serve as a straw that broke the camels back for me when it comes to my view of a party I've been apart of for years.
I'm still voting hillary and democrat during this and almost certain future elections. Less to do with being a fan of democrats as the other party is literally a joke.
wesleyshark
Banned
I sea what you did their
On one side you have a candidate that publicly says things like: "let's build a wall separating us from Mexico", "Mexican immigrants are a bunch of rapists", "Saudi Arabia should have Nukes", "if Russia decides to invade estaern Europe countries we should check first if they have the OTAN fees in order before going there to defend them.", "Clinton should be locked down." On the other you have a DNC member, not related to any dem campaign that shows bias towards one of the candidates on an email exchange that he felt was secure and not meant to the public. That suggestion if not acted upon was only a throw away comment between two people that share the same candidate preference. It's very far away from a smoking gun of a collusion campaign or the candidate himself saying things in public incommensurable worse in terms of repercussion to the campaign, the country or its allies.
I'm pretty sure good grammar is elitist but tbh it's hard to keep up
-That first story is flawed in several ways. Firstly, there is no evidence that the money wasn't distributed properly, and the DNC would have LOVED to get Bernie more involved. Secondly, the web ads that it calls indistinguishable from Hilary ads are anything but. They promoted the Democratoc Party, not Hilary.
-How was removing those restrictions benificial to Hilary? That money was going to the DNC, not her campaign.
-The DNC negotiates the debate number and times with the networks. Considering the fact that there were so few people on the race, and that it was not expected to be very competitive, the networks weren't interested in hosting that many.
-How did they negotiable influence the number of viewers of the debates?
-Very few people wanted to run against Hilary, and it's not the job of the DNC to create an exciting primary for you. People file to run, and they run.
-Once again, none of these emails show anyone at the DNC doing anything against Bernie.
DragonSworne
Banned
Is there any evidence that DNC members acted in anyway in a biased form treating the campaigns differently? Not a rethorical question as I'm not in the USA and didn't accompany the primary that closely.
DNC members are obliged to publicly treat both campaigns in an unbiased fair way but certainly each member has his/her own bias and preferences. And can share them in private.
DNC members are obliged to publicly treat both campaigns in an unbiased fair way but certainly each member has his/her own bias and preferences. And can share them in private.
Cymbal Head
Banned
I don't understand why partisans feel the need to harangue people that want to vote 3rd party. Voters don't owe loyalty to anyone, and if a candidate or party fails to make a convincing case, that's their fault, not the fault of the voters.
There's far too much consternation over this given the miniscule proportion of the vote 3rd parties have typically managed to pick up. More liberals flipped and voted for Bush in 2000 than went for Nader.
That said, anybody who's truly on the left that lets a mean email about Sanders push them toward Trump needs to think about what that really means.
Spoiler: I'm voting for Clinton.
There's far too much consternation over this given the miniscule proportion of the vote 3rd parties have typically managed to pick up. More liberals flipped and voted for Bush in 2000 than went for Nader.
That said, anybody who's truly on the left that lets a mean email about Sanders push them toward Trump needs to think about what that really means.
Spoiler: I'm voting for Clinton.
DNC members are allowed to voice their opinions and endorse candidates. The DNC itself is not.
Big Baybee
Member
People are free to vote for who they want, and people are free to criticize the decision. Personally, all I see is "fuck minorities, good luck" whenever someone talks about voting for a candidate with no chance of winning.
Officerrob
Banned
Bernie is on Meet The Press saying these e-mails have done absolutely nothing to shake his support of Hillary Clinton. He wants DWS's head though
Oh thanks for the correction.
Politics is a sleazy business. The fact that they didn't act on the religion thing is a plus in my mind.
Already Torn
Banned
I guess this means he's going to endorse Jill Stein? Or will he demand that the super delegates switch to him?
boiled goose
good with gravy
I'm voting Hillary because of the Trump threat. But the apologetics on this thread for the dnc are hilarious. You guys and the party propped up a terrible candidate while antagonizing some of the most passionate in the democratic base.
Let's hope Trump doesn't win.
At this point let's just say I'm very very worried.
Agreed. If Democrats failed to nominate an appealing candidate it's on them. The best argument Clinton and her supporters are making is "Trump's worse". Fair point and I agree, but it's kinda sad.
Let's hope Trump doesn't win.
At this point let's just say I'm very very worried.
Agreed. If Democrats failed to nominate an appealing candidate it's on them. The best argument Clinton and her supporters are making is "Trump's worse". Fair point and I agree, but it's kinda sad.
Tell me specifically what the DNC did that has angered you so.
boiled goose
good with gravy
OK, how? How did they prop her up?
googleplex
Member
By not rolling over and just kissing Bernie's feet obviously.
I don't think people say you shouldn't vote 3rd party because you owe loyalty to the Democratic (or Republican for that matter) party.
I might have missed a post somewhere, and lord knows we have a wide spectrum of opinions on GAF, but it is certainly not the main argument people put forward.
I don't want to speak for everyone, or anyone but myself to be honest, so here goes -
I don't think that voting 3rd party can achieve anything. The current voting system will always result in two parties. Yeah, if there was a better party that had a realistic path to replace the Democratic party we could have (and should have) discuss it seriously, but as the things currently stand, voting for a 3rd party is going to achieve nothing at best, and result in a candidate you less like at worst.
And to be clear, I think it's perfectly fine to want to change the voting system in the US so it will allow for more parties, I think it's perfectly fine to want to replace one of the two parties with a better party. If that's a cause you're passionate about, by all means, try to advance that agenda. But I don't think that voting a 3rd party or not voting in the general is going to advance that goal.
If anything, it could hurt it, look at what 2000 did no Nader's political career and the causes he tried to promote (and for the record, I think Nader is unfairly blamed for that loss, even though I think it would've been for the best for him to to try to run in swing states).
Chiggs
Gold Member
Well put. They can't just sweep this under the rug, and if they do they had better pull it back out after the election.
Cymbal Head
Banned
This is what I'm talking about. Do you really feel comfortable telling people that a vote for Jill Stein is tantamount to a vote for racism? Do you really think that's the kind or rhetoric that will bring them into your coalition, now or in the future? Especially when 3rd party voters almost never make a material difference in the outcome of a presidential election?
Officerrob
Banned
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 8m8 minutes ago
There is no longer a Bernie Sanders "political revolution." He is turning out to be a weak and somewhat pathetic figure,wants it all to end!
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 5m5 minutes ago
Sorry folks, but Bernie Sanders is exhausted, just can't go on any longer. He is trying to dismiss the new e-mails and DNC disrespect. SAD!
There is no longer a Bernie Sanders "political revolution." He is turning out to be a weak and somewhat pathetic figure,wants it all to end!
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 5m5 minutes ago
Sorry folks, but Bernie Sanders is exhausted, just can't go on any longer. He is trying to dismiss the new e-mails and DNC disrespect. SAD!
Already Torn
Banned
Does this have anything to do with any of that? The DNC didn't prop up Clinton, the primary voters did, and Clinton isn't the one responsible for these leaked emails. Unless by "you guys" you mean all the democrats in America?
I understand you're frustrated, but I don't know why Clinton is being brought up.
Melkezadek
Member
Why is it always framed like the DNC are the ones that chose this "terrible" candidate?
The voters did. Bernie failed to convince those several million people. Is it really that hard to believe not everyone bought into what he was selling?
And I voted for him.
The voters did. Bernie failed to convince those several million people. Is it really that hard to believe not everyone bought into what he was selling?
And I voted for him.
Glendemonium
Member
Jill Stein? Maybe I could vote green but she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning anyway.
Already Torn
Banned
Plus, voting Jill Stein is just voting for Trump in a way that makes you feel a little less hollow inside.
Cymbal Head
Banned
Donald just wants what's best for the Democratic party, what a stand-up guy.
Them discussing to use Bernie's religion against him is Bernie's fault now.? >_>
googleplex
Member
Racism? Probably not. But anyone voting for Jill Stein this year, when with so much at stake shows a remarkably lack of empathy for those millions of people that will be directly effected if Trump becomes president.
His Majesty
Banned
these kind of mental gymnastics are amazing
boiled goose
good with gravy
Umm did you read the leaked emails? The DNC was clearly feeding talking points to the media aimed at defending Hillary Clinton from Sanders attacks on her biggest weakness.
The corrupting influence of money in politics is a big issue for many Americans. The DNC was trying to specifically defend Clinton on this.
Imagine if they had done the opposite?
Price might be paid in November. Hopefully not.
You do recognize that the media can influence voters opinions no?
Already Torn
Banned
It kind of makes sense. People can come up with anything to justify their actions, and it's an easy excuse to make especially if you don't know much about politics.
The victory fund was paying salaries and overhead expenses for the Hillary for America.
Lets see there are two candidates with different opinions on campaign financing - the DNC decision pretty much shows which of the two they favored.
Back in 2008, the Democrats held about 25 primary debates while the Republicans held 21. Doesn't matter how many networks want to host the debates, ratings aren't everything coverage after a debate are things that often get overlooked. It's especially detrimental to the candidate that's less known to have the fewest possible debates.
Of the four Democratic debates so far, three were on weekends, including the Dec. 19 debate a week before Christmas and the same night as the New York Jets vs. Dallas Cowboys NFL game. The Jan. 17 debate was the day before the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day holiday.
Part of the DNC's job is ensuring you have the strongest candidate by limiting the number of debates and the strength of the candidates - they allowed themselves to have artificial security about the strength of the Clinton candidacy. In any other election year this could have cost them the election.
Well I know that's your opinion on the matter but don't get angry at people having a different one
The DNC was defending the actions of a joint fundraising committee, not independent action by the Hilary campaign. Those are two very different things.
And no, it wouldn't have made any difference at all to the election of they haven't said anything about a joint fundraising committee.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I don't understand how those two being different things is a response to my point.
It's the reality though. Excluding militant people common voters vote for the less imperfect candidate against what they perceive as the worst candidate. And those fluctuating votes are the decisive votes of any election. If you are a militant Green voter that's understandable for you to vote on your candidate, if you're not that vote is aiding Trump side.
Cymbal Head
Banned
This rests on the assumption that a vote that isn't for Clinton is a vote for Trump, which is nice partisan rhetoric but isn't actually true.
Again, the few people voting for a 3rd party are infinitesimally unlikely to affect the outcome of the race. The few people voting for Jill Stein are probably no less sympathetic toward racial injustice than the people voting for Hillary. Democrats telling them that voting for their convictions makes them insensitive is not likely to increase their estimation of the Democratic party.
I guess this whole line of discussion is a little off topic, so I'm going to let it rest.
Already Torn
Banned
And even then, if you're a militant Green voter that just means you have a history of wasting your vote and hurting your own militant interests. It's a weird mind space to be in.
Spiritreaver
Member
All the liberal infighting is really depressing to read. There is some discourse on the conservative side of things and NeverTrump, but it's not as heated as the Sanders/Clinton folks.
I supported Sanders throughout the primaries. I would've liked to see him and his policies make it through, but with SCOTUS still sitting at 8 (the people seem to have forgotten about Garland entirely) I'd rather see a liberal justice hit the court than care so much about who is president (not to downplay it much).
As someone deeply invested in criminal law, a liberal tilted SCOTUS sounds like a dream, lol. The Warren Court did so much good, and given all the criminal law issues we're going through today (police reform!), a similar mindset would be great. Oh well, guess we may never see it happen in our life time.
Maybe Ivanka will get appointed and do some good, hah.
I supported Sanders throughout the primaries. I would've liked to see him and his policies make it through, but with SCOTUS still sitting at 8 (the people seem to have forgotten about Garland entirely) I'd rather see a liberal justice hit the court than care so much about who is president (not to downplay it much).
As someone deeply invested in criminal law, a liberal tilted SCOTUS sounds like a dream, lol. The Warren Court did so much good, and given all the criminal law issues we're going through today (police reform!), a similar mindset would be great. Oh well, guess we may never see it happen in our life time.
Maybe Ivanka will get appointed and do some good, hah.
Which definitely proves numbers couldn't have been better.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked