Democrats, Can We Agree?

BG9 said:

hoops said:

Nah  there's more no reason to go there   You already know.

Because you have nothing. You know what is ridiculous? People making assertions they can't back up.

nope,  its not worth the time to go back and dig up all the bg9 denials about the DNC, Wasserman Shultz, the media and the stacked deck against Sanders.  Its ok tho.   I still agree with a lot of your positions.  

Just cant stand the nonsense. 

This whole issue is not comparable to Watergate.  

bramzzoinks said:

Which is why one must be so careful crafting emails. Even if only one, or a small number, it is very damaging.

It's not just emails.

Well yes anything that can be accessed.

People really need to go back to speaking in parks with music playing in the background.

Underground parking lots used to be popular, IIRC.

bramzzoinks said:

Well yes anything that can be accessed.

People really need to go back to speaking in parks with music playing in the background.

Absolutely.  The Russians and Chinese are probably shaking their heads right now.  Or dying from laughter.  Or both.

BG9 said:

bramzzoinks said:

Bottom line - in 2016 no one should put into an email anything that they would not want publicly released. It was an unforced error and the fact that Putin may have chosen to take advantage is not to me relevant. All that is relevant is that the emails were written in the first place. 

I looked at an article listing the most damaging emails. Except for the religion one many are actually pretty innocuous and truthful.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/

The most damaging email I saw was dated in freaking May 2016, well after Bernie had lost the nomination.

This is such a stupid, stupid story. I haven't had much faith in the media for a long time, but they are completely outdoing themselves this year. Such incompetence.

bramzzoinks said:

Wow, it is such a shocker that the leadership of the Democratic Party favored someone who has been a member of the party and worked in the party her whole adult life against someone who has never been a member of the party. 

The leadership is supposed to be neutral.  The contest is of the people, for the people and by the people.

Not steered by the Party

author said:

bramzzoinks said:

Wow, it is such a shocker that the leadership of the Democratic Party favored someone who has been a member of the party and worked in the party her whole adult life against someone who has never been a member of the party. 

The leadership is supposed to be neutral.  The contest is of the people, for the people and by the people.

Not steered by the Party

That's a dream world.  The world of politics has always been, well, political.  Imagine that.  Of course, that doesn't mean things don't have to change.  The Internet and instant outrage might force change just as video of everything is driving changes in policing.

author said:

bramzzoinks said:

Wow, it is such a shocker that the leadership of the Democratic Party favored someone who has been a member of the party and worked in the party her whole adult life against someone who has never been a member of the party. 

The leadership is supposed to be neutral.  The contest is of the people, for the people and by the people.

Not steered by the Party

Boss Tweed would disagree. 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

dave said:

Blame anyone but themselves for their own awfulness and criminality. 

Dave, go back to Trumpland, where you will be more comfortable.

Yes Dave. Don't go thinking for yourself or voicing your opinion... Dennis_Seelbach is busy blindly following the sheep & you're getting in his way.

SlyFoxy1 said:
Yes Dave. Don't go thinking for yourself or voicing your opinion... Dennis_Seelbach is busy blindly following the sheep & you're getting in his way.

Who are you voting for in Nov?

drummerboy said:

BG9 said:

bramzzoinks said:

Bottom line - in 2016 no one should put into an email anything that they would not want publicly released. It was an unforced error and the fact that Putin may have chosen to take advantage is not to me relevant. All that is relevant is that the emails were written in the first place. 

I looked at an article listing the most damaging emails. Except for the religion one many are actually pretty innocuous and truthful.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/

The most damaging email I saw was dated in freaking May 2016, well after Bernie had lost the nomination.

This is such a stupid, stupid story. I haven't had much faith in the media for a long time, but they are completely outdoing themselves this year. Such incompetence.

Yeah, the MEDIA is incompetent.

dave23 said:

SlyFoxy1 said:
Yes Dave. Don't go thinking for yourself or voicing your opinion... Dennis_Seelbach is busy blindly following the sheep & you're getting in his way.

Who are you voting for in Nov?

I may be sitting this one out. Not entirely certain. You can bet it won't be corrupt Hillary.

SlyFoxy1 said:

dave23 said:

SlyFoxy1 said:
Yes Dave. Don't go thinking for yourself or voicing your opinion... Dennis_Seelbach is busy blindly following the sheep & you're getting in his way.

Who are you voting for in Nov?

I may be sitting this one out. Not entirely certain. You can bet it won't be corrupt Hillary.

Then, even if you don't go to the polls, you are voting for Trump. It's binary. 1 or 2, A or B. ONE of them is going to be our next president.

librarylady said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

dave23 said:

SlyFoxy1 said:
Yes Dave. Don't go thinking for yourself or voicing your opinion... Dennis_Seelbach is busy blindly following the sheep & you're getting in his way.

Who are you voting for in Nov?

I may be sitting this one out. Not entirely certain. You can bet it won't be corrupt Hillary.

Then, even if you don't go to the polls, you are voting for Trump. It's binary. 1 or 2, A or B. ONE of them is going to be our next president.

So, while one of these candidates will WIN, WE WILL ALL LOSE. 

Sorry, voting for Clinton over Trump is like asking if I want my crap sandwich with or without bread. 

I don't want a crap sandwich. 

SlyFoxy1 said:

librarylady said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

dave23 said:

SlyFoxy1 said:
Yes Dave. Don't go thinking for yourself or voicing your opinion... Dennis_Seelbach is busy blindly following the sheep & you're getting in his way.

Who are you voting for in Nov?

I may be sitting this one out. Not entirely certain. You can bet it won't be corrupt Hillary.

Then, even if you don't go to the polls, you are voting for Trump. It's binary. 1 or 2, A or B. ONE of them is going to be our next president.

So, while one of these candidates will WIN, WE WILL ALL LOSE. 

Sorry, voting for Clinton over Trump is like asking if I want my crap sandwich with or without bread. 

I don't want a crap sandwich. 

Gary Johnson is right there for you. Otherwise you reap what you sow.

SlyFoxy1 said:

So, while one of these candidates will WIN, WE WILL ALL LOSE. 

Sorry, voting for Clinton over Trump is like asking if I want my crap sandwich with or without bread. 

I don't want a crap sandwich. 

Don't blame you. You're so full of it, there's no more room.

a few months back someone made the analogy of the Democratic primary being like a choice between Coke and Pepsi.

In the general election, it's more like a choice between Coke and rat poison.  And you don't seem to get that. Sure Coke isn't great for you, and it won't cure what's ailing you.  But it also isn't going to kill you.

SlyFoxy1 said:

librarylady said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

dave23 said:

SlyFoxy1 said:
Yes Dave. Don't go thinking for yourself or voicing your opinion... Dennis_Seelbach is busy blindly following the sheep & you're getting in his way.

Who are you voting for in Nov?

I may be sitting this one out. Not entirely certain. You can bet it won't be corrupt Hillary.

Then, even if you don't go to the polls, you are voting for Trump. It's binary. 1 or 2, A or B. ONE of them is going to be our next president.

So, while one of these candidates will WIN, WE WILL ALL LOSE. 

Sorry, voting for Clinton over Trump is like asking if I want my crap sandwich with or without bread. 

I don't want a crap sandwich. 

Oh I'm hurt! The lemming supporting the candidate who is a proven liar & is corrupt to the bone thinks I'M full of crap!





Dennis_Seelbach said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

So, while one of these candidates will WIN, WE WILL ALL LOSE. 

Sorry, voting for Clinton over Trump is like asking if I want my crap sandwich with or without bread. 

I don't want a crap sandwich. 

Don't blame you. You're so full of it, there's no more room.

Appointing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the honorary chairperson of the Clinton-Kaine campaign, in the midst of a cheating scandal, has to be almost as dumb as telling your delegates to block an anti-TPP plank in the platform:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc.html?_r=0

I absolutely understand not liking Hillary, but making her the equivalent of Trump is an exercise in willfully ignoring his race-baiting, anti-Semitic, Muslim-fearing, economy-destroying, Russian-coddling, NATO-killing ways.

BG9 said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

on an observatory note: Hillary's paranoia (with reason) to hide her questionable dealings has made her reckless, careless & incompetent. 

I cannot logically reconcile how people still support this corrupt career criminal.  

But Trump you'll give a pass to because he's one of yours, a Republican.

btw - Can you enlighten me what questionable dealings she is hiding that has you so concerned?

Still waiting.

SlyFoxy1 said:

Oh I'm hurt! The lemming supporting the candidate who is a proven liar & is corrupt to the bone thinks I'M full of crap! ">





Dennis_Seelbach said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

So, while one of these candidates will WIN, WE WILL ALL LOSE. 

Sorry, voting for Clinton over Trump is like asking if I want my crap sandwich with or without bread. 

I don't want a crap sandwich. 

Don't blame you. You're so full of it, there's no more room.

The sad thing is that the clueless never know they are.

So they just go on and embarrass themselves constantly.

SF - tell us what you think about Benghazi.  That should be amusing. 

 Sanders lost because he did not have support from minorities.  It's worth reading the whole thing but here are two snippets: 

...you realize the fact that only 6 or 7 emails out of around 20,000 released were deemed to be remotely “anti-Bernie.” Does that really “prove” there was a giant conspiracy against him? I’ve read numerous articles from pro-Sanders people claiming these emails are the “smoking gun” that shows the process was rigged, based on these 6-7 emails — or around 0.035% of what Wikileaks released. If there were really some giant conspiracy against Sanders, I think we’d be discussing a lot more than 0.035% of 20k emails....

...Think about those numbers. He lost 90.5 percent of states with an African American population over 10 percent and half the states with a Latino population of 10 percent or greater — but won 70 percent of the states with a white population over 70 percent.Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/for-the-last-time-heres-proof-the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged-against-bernie-sanders/...

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/for-the-last-time-heres-proof-the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged-against-bernie-sanders/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/25/on-most-issues-sanders-primary-supporters-further-from-gop-voters-than-clinton-backers/?utm_content=bufferfe8a8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

On most issues, Sanders primary supporters further from GOP voters than Clinton backers

paulsurovell said:

Appointing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the honorary chairperson of the Clinton-Kaine campaign, in the midst of a cheating scandal, has to be almost as dumb as telling your delegates to block an anti-TPP plank in the platform:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc.html?_r=0

I really don't get her strategy.  It's like she does not even want my vote.  I don't want to see Trump get elected, but she makes it very difficult to vote for someone who rewards a person who cheated on her behalf.  And I don't know why DWS was even at the convention speaking about anything.  They should have locked her in a closet somewhere.

nan said:
I really don't get her strategy.  HUBRIS!  

It's like she does not even want my vote.  I don't want to see Trump get elected, but
she makes it very difficult to vote for(her) someone who rewards a person who cheated on her behalf.  
Welcome to my club

And I don't know why DWS was even at the convention speaking about anything.  They should have locked her in a closet somewhere.

Wassergate = Watergate

Next she'll hunker down like RMN and we'll end up w/ a summer of DJT screaming,

"Hillary's  Really Crooked"  or "Her Royal Crookedness had to cheat her way to the nomination."  And any attacks on DJT will be derided as hypocrisy.  Right now SHE can't attack him on Trump U or his multiple bankruptcies as a business strategy/get rich quick schemes.  Warren and Sanders can, but not on her behalf.

She has attacked him on Trump U, bankruptcies and business schemes. A lot. Many times.

Right,  BEFORE WASSERGATE!!!  

Now she'll be vulnerable to attacks/counterattacks as a hypocrite- that's my point. Other dems will be dismissed as defending Crooked Hillary.  This whole boondoggle is feeding djt's narrative.