Support NeoGAF

[HariKari]

You're acting like she did something illegal. She wrote a couple e-mails that were leaked that made it appear she may have not been 100% neutral at the DNC. That's it.

Folks are going to have to suck it up and realize that you're not going to agree with every political candidate on 100% of the issues or like 100% of the people who are working for those political candidates.

The move does nothing for Hillary and it's completely unnecessary. "Ignore it" and "suck it up" are not a valid defense for a move that has zero upside to it. The legality of what was done is also completely irrelevant, because this is about public perception.

 

[Vire]

Good write up about how she was let go. Apparently she wasn't that good of a fund raiser and was prone to playing favorites, according to the article.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100

Reads like a bunch of bullshit to be honest, Obama didn't oust her because it was too much of a pain and wasn't worth the trouble?

 

[Laughing Banana]

Pendas is a Correct the Record plant, confirmed!

I mean, all it takes was just one person saying "Trump!" and the conversation immediately veered off-course violently.

It's kinda funny in it's own way, to be honest. It must be so nice for Hillary to have an opponent like Trump, where she or her supporter(s) can just literally say, "But him!" and everything she does will be excused, heh

 

[Pai Pai Master]

People saying let's shake things up are really in an ivory tower trying to fuck over all people not a straight, white Christian male in the USA lol

But we've had it so good in America for 30 years now, time to let everyone but white people down because some woman was a shitty chairperson

 

[shem935]

The move does nothing for Hillary and it's completely unnecessary. "Ignore it" and "suck it up" are not a valid defense for a move that has zero upside to it. The legality of what was done is also completely irrelevant, because this is about public perception.

Ultimately I don't think they want her presiding over the convention each day and potentially getting booed. Not a good look. I suspect her speech which I think is still on will be an apology speech to sanders which will be good to try to bridge the gap. That's my guess. Even if they don't do that I think it's worth it to not have running the convention and causing friction each day.

 

[Pendas]

Well GAF, you've been fun. But I've got a really long day tomorrow.

Guess where I am?

Spoiler

Peace! <3

 

[Joeytj]

Since when is being a surrogate the same as "joining the campaing" in a meaningful way?

Some Sanders supporters definitely care more about their feelings than actual politics.

She already resigned, she's not running the campaign. Gezus, and even if she were, the controversy waa about her being at the DNC and not with Hillary.

 

[pgtl_10]

Let me guess, South Park is your favorite show, right?

That appears to be the general sentiment in the US:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/

 

[God Dayumm]

Let's see. If Clinton wins, little by little corruption will take over the Democratic party, next candidate will be worse than her but people will still vote because the alternative is even worse than Trump.

If Trump wins, he does damage for 4 years, loses next election and a true liberal president will be elected then we live in an utopia ever after.

The choice is clear to me.

Spoiler

jk.

Spoiler

Or not

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Well GAF, you've been fun. But I've got a really long day tomorrow.

Guess where I am?

Spoiler

Peace! <3

An alternate pixelated universe?

 

[Cerium]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100

But the Clinton campaign was very much involved in the DNC chair&#8217;s defenestration. Earlier in the day Sunday, Sanders had again suggested that Wasserman Schultz should resign -- and DNC officials announced she would be replaced as convention chair by Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge, an influential member of the Congressional Black Caucus. By sundown &#8211; after intense negotiations with senior Clinton campaign officials -- the committee tapped longtime Clinton aide, TV surrogate and party vice-chair Donna Brazile as interim chairwoman.

But, to senior Democrats, it also representing a clean-up operation that brought Clinton and Sanders &#8211; who has demanded her ouster for months -- into closer alignment a day before the Vermont senator was due to deliver his opening-night endorsement of an opponent he long accused of rigging the election with the help of the D.C.-based party establishment.

All weekend, senior Clinton staffers and members of the Sanders brain trust were huddling in Philadelphia. Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver and strategist Mark Longabaugh were in touch with Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, senior adviser Charlie Baker, and lawyer Marc Elias on Friday night and Saturday during the rules committee proceedings. The WikiLeaks emails kept popping up as a topic of conversation, and while the Sanders aides didn't demand Wasserman Schultz's ouster, they made their preference &#8212; that she exit as soon as possible &#8212; known.

Team Sanders got no warning either, but they were immediately cheered by the installation of Brazile. They had instructed Clinton aides in May &#8212; the last time speculation swirled about Wasserman Schultz's exit &#8212; that she was preferable, and they regarded her as better than Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's option at the time, as well.

Inside the White House, aides and lawyers have been poring through the Wikileaks dump all weekend. There's a lot of flagging of potential problems, but also a lot of eye-rolling and disbelief about what Wasserman Schultz and her staff were thinking, and that they were putting it in emails.

Still, Obama didn't get involved at all as Wasserman Schultz was at the brink. Whenever the topic of replacing her came up, despite the fact that Obama lost patience with her years ago and generally avoided having to talk to her, he'd always felt that it wasn't worth the trouble that would come of forcing her out.

 

[Bellamin]

Reads like a bunch of bullshit to be honest, Obama didn't oust her because it was too much of a pain and wasn't worth the trouble?

I trust Glenn Thrush's reporting. His work has always been good in the past and his article cites senior Democrats as sources.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Well GAF, you've been fun. But I've got a really long day tomorrow.

Guess where I am?

Spoiler

Peace! <3

This is a good explanation for why the Democrats have problems gaining traction even when facing a historically bad candidate like Donald Trump.

It all makes sense now.

In an election where we are facing a despot who is going to do his best to trample on our fragile democracy, we've got people at the convention who are more than happy to tear the entire system down.

This is more disgraceful than anything I've seen in the emails.

 

[Krowley]

Since when is being a surrogate the same as "joining the campaing" in a meaningful way?

Some Sanders supporters definitely care more about their feelings than actual politics.

She already resigned, she's not running the campaign. Gezus, and even if she were, the controversy waa about her being at the DNC and not with Hillary.

Actually, the controversy was that she was always an extension of Hillary's campaign.

That she has now, literally, joined the campaign is definitely (to borrow the popular vernacular of political junkies) "not a good look."

 

[TyrantII]

Beep beep.

Hear that? It's the Hillary / Bernie DNC bus.

Someone send a cleanup crew for poor DWS

 

[Epsilon-delta]

This election is one hell of a clusterfuck. DWS seems like an egomaniac who threw a tempter tantrum.

It's a good thing Hillary is running against Trump instead of Romney.

 

[pgtl_10]

I am glad Debbie is gone.

She is a bigot:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/top-democrat-walks-back-critiques-jewish-intermarriages-n299196

 

[dave is ok]

Next position will be part of the Clinton Administration

Right

Mission Accomplished Debbie. Your next assignment democracy ambassador for the Clinton Foundation.

Right

I remember reading back when Sanders made his list of demands including DWS stepping down that she was going to be gone anyways? It's standard procedure, DWS was appointed by Obama and Clinton is going to want her own person in the position. Plus Clinton doesn't like DWS anyways, they have history

Wrong

 

[gutter_trash]

I am glad Debbie is gone.

She is a bigot:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/top-democrat-walks-back-critiques-jewish-intermarriages-n299196

you know she is Jewish too

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Why are we even arguing over a made up title created just to keep her from being utterly humiliated in public? It's meaningless garbage.

 

[Steel]

Why are we even arguing over a made up title created just to keep her from utterly humiliated in public? It's meaningless garbage.

Technically correct, but at the same time the optics are bad.

 

[spiderman123]

Debbie does, does debbie want

 

[Vire]

Why are we even arguing over a made up title created just to keep her from being utterly humiliated in public? It's meaningless garbage.

Did you miss the part about Clinton vouching to campaign for her to reassert herself in a position of power.

Me too I guess.

 

[dave is ok]

Why are we even arguing over a made up title created just to keep her from utterly humiliated in public? It's meaningless garbage.

It's an awful political move and makes Hillary look bad.

This isn't good for anyone who doesn't want Trump to be president.

You have the head of DNC being accused of being in bed with you and your campaign and your first move after they're forced to resign is to actually bring them into your campaign? It looks like a quid pro quo at best.

 

[pgtl_10]

you know she is Jewish too

So? She wasn't exactly being bigoted toward Jews. She opposed interracial marriage because she wanted the "purity" of the Jewish people.

That makes her a bigot. Apparently we goyim are not good enough for her.

 

[Vire]

I do find it amusing that literally no news outlet is reporting on the fact that Clinton offered her a job after the fact.

Not even mentioned in the CNN article.

 

[Steel]

Did you miss the part about Clinton vouching to campaign for her to reassert herself in a position of power.

Me too I guess.

She's already a representative.

 

[gutter_trash]

Technically correct, but at the same time the optics are bad.

I think it's a compromise to get DWS to walk away quietly without making a fuss

it's a very Underwood move, and smart move on part of Clinton

 

[spiderman123]

You gonna hire her...it just brings your campaign into more disrepute.

 

[Pryce]

Why in God's earth would Hillary want her?

The optics of this looks horrible.

 

[water_wendi]

you know she is Jewish too

Wouldnt this instance of bigotry be because she is Jewish? Shes talking about Jews marrying gentiles and diluting the Jewish identity.

edit: beaten

 

[Steel]

I think it's a compromise to get DWS to walk away quietly without making a fuss

it's a very Underwood move, and smart move on part of Clinton

You don't have to think about that, the politico article posted earlier pretty much says as much.

I do find it amusing that literally no news outlet is reporting on the fact that Clinton offered her a job after the fact.

Not even mentioned in the CNN article.

It was mentioned on CNN the channel, though.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Did you miss the part about Clinton vouching to campaign for her to reassert herself in a position of power.

Me too I guess.

You mean get re-elected? Why is that even mildly controversial? All Sanders wanted was for DWS to be pushed out of the DNC, which happened. The rest of this is just noise and people screaming about optics.

 

[Biske]

Let's see. If Clinton wins, little by little corruption will take over the Democratic party, next candidate will be worse than her but people will still vote because the alternative is even worse than Trump.

If Trump wins, he does damage for 4 years, loses next election and a true liberal president will be elected then we live in an utopia ever after.

The choice is clear to me.

Spoiler

jk.

Spoiler

Or not

Uh and he stacks the supreme court with fuckheads and we get shitty decision after shitty decision... thats kind of a huge deal. Probably the biggest consequence of this election. Joke or not, the whole "vote for Trump so things get super shitty BUT Then they will get really great" is thrown around in seriousness and its dumb as hell and terrifying as hell.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I do find it amusing that literally no news outlet is reporting on the fact that Clinton offered her a job after the fact.

Not even mentioned in the CNN article.

Because they understand it's a made up title?

 

[gutter_trash]

Wouldnt this instance of bigotry be because she is Jewish? Shes talking about Jews marrying gentiles and diluting the Jewish identity.

that was not the charge though, nothing about marriage

the charge was that he was an atheist

 

[8 X 11 Printer Paper]

Did you miss the part about Clinton vouching to campaign for her to reassert herself in a position of power.

Me too I guess.

....They said they will get her re-elected for her congress seat, a seat that will never turn red due to demographics.

 

[jmood88]

Since when is being a surrogate the same as "joining the campaing" in a meaningful way?

Some Sanders supporters definitely care more about their feelings than actual politics.

She already resigned, she's not running the campaign. Gezus, and even if she were, the controversy waa about her being at the DNC and not with Hillary.

That's the point. We know that the position means nothing but hardcore Sanders fans are using this as proof that she was colluding with Hillary. We know that the emails are nothing outside the norm for a political campaign, and actually pretty tame, but hardcore Sanders fans see it as definitive proof that the election is rigged, and republicans are loving being able to fake like they're outraged. Just like with the Melania Trump thing, the issue isn't what actually happened, it's how the campaign has reacted and hiring her, even if it's for a nothing position, on the heels of the emails is just dumb. If she's whining and stomping her feet, tell her that she needs to shut up and wait or she won't have any job at all, don't allow her to continue making your campaign look bad.

 

[Vire]

Because they understand it's a made up title?

People in this thread will defend literally anything. If you fail to see the political cronyism going on in this entire scenario I don't know what to say.

 

[water_wendi]

that was not the charge though, nothing about marriage

the charge was that he was an atheist

i wasnt referring the email leak (i think thats what you are referring to) but the link you quoted.

 

[Cth]

I'm conflicted.

I'm one of those 3rd party/independent voters.

I don't like either candidate. Both have policies that will be destructive. There's checks and balances in place (in theory) to keep things from getting out of hand (provided neither party sweeps all three branches)

So, ultimately it boils down to the supreme court issue. Which I get that there's a chance to impact things for years to come. And yes, there's LGBT rights and other issues that will definitely be decided by the make up of this future court, so I get that importance.

My problem is, every single time there's been a Democrat in office, I've lost my job/got laid off. I finally managed to get a full time job after I 3 and a half years recently. So yes, it's selfish/paranoia but I'm leaning towards throwing my support to a third party candidate. I already lost my house to foreclosure, which put incredible stress on our family. So, I'm (hopefully) understandably nervous with either outcome.

And I'm in North Carolina, which makes things even more conflicting. Things could go either way. And ultimately, the election is decided by the electoral college it's really a matter of how I'm registered.

I know no candidate will ever fit me 100% and I value my vote and feel I have a moral obligation to vote my conscience -- and to me, voting for something as opposed to against something is important.

So I'm conflicted -- do I support my family and friends who are LGBT and risk losing my job again, or do I continue to (in some people's eyes) "throw away my vote" by showing I want more choices?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

People in this thread will defend literally anything. If you fail to see the political cronyism going on in this entire scenario I don't know what to say.

Okay, tell me what an honorary chair does.

 

[Blader]

Reads like a bunch of bullshit to be honest, Obama didn't oust her because it was too much of a pain and wasn't worth the trouble?

That's been reported before this incident too.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Okay, tell me what an honorary chair does.

Is it like the chair the Clint Eastwood yelled at 4 years ago?

 

[dave is ok]

Okay, tell me what an honorary chair does.

It doesn't matter.

Person A and Person B both work in a highly visible public office.

Person A is forced to resign from their job because of allegations being overly favorable to Person B. Person B hires Person A for a job on the same exact day.

When does that not look like a quid pro quo? When does that look like a smart business decision? It's laughable people are defending this. It looks AWFUL

 

[BluePigGanon]

I'm conflicted.

I'm one of those 3rd party/independent voters.

I don't like either candidate. Both have policies that will be destructive. There's checks and balances in place (in theory) to keep things from getting out of hand (provided neither party sweeps all three branches)

So, ultimately it boils down to the supreme court issue. Which I get that there's a chance to impact things for years to come. And yes, there's LGBT rights and other issues that will definitely be decided by the make up of this future court, so I get that importance.

My problem is, every single time there's been a Democrat in office, I've lost my job/got laid off. I finally managed to get a full time job after I 3 and a half years recently. So yes, it's selfish/paranoia but I'm leaning towards throwing my support to a third party candidate. I already lost my house to foreclosure, which put incredible stress on our family. So, I'm (hopefully) understandably nervous with either outcome.

And I'm in North Carolina, which makes things even more conflicting. Things could go either way. And ultimately, the election is decided by the electoral college it's really a matter of how I'm registered.

I know no candidate will ever fit me 100% and I value my vote and feel I have a moral obligation to vote my conscience -- and to me, voting for something as opposed to against something is important.

So I'm conflicted -- do I support my family and friends who are LGBT and risk losing my job again, or do I continue to (in some people's eyes) "throw away my vote" by showing I want more choices?

Um, what kind of job do you have that would be somehow so vulnerable to a Democrat in the White House?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It doesn't matter.

Person A and Person B both work in a highly visible public office.

Person A is forced to resign from their job because of allegations being overly favorable to Person B. Person B hires Person A for a job on the same exact day.

When does that not look like a quid pro quo? When does that look like a smart business decision? It's laughable people are defending this. It looks AWFUL

I'm not defending how it LOOKS or OPTICS, I'm trying to understand the REALITY of what it was. I would gladly agree that there's a bunch of people out there who will see what they want to see here, but that doesn't mean it's not a bullshit title made for a press release.

 

[Steel]

I'm conflicted.

I'm one of those 3rd party/independent voters.

I don't like either candidate. Both have policies that will be destructive. There's checks and balances in place (in theory) to keep things from getting out of hand (provided neither party sweeps all three branches)

So, ultimately it boils down to the supreme court issue. Which I get that there's a chance to impact things for years to come. And yes, there's LGBT rights and other issues that will definitely be decided by the make up of this future court, so I get that importance.

My problem is, every single time there's been a Democrat in office, I've lost my job/got laid off. I finally managed to get a full time job after I 3 and a half years recently. So yes, it's selfish/paranoia but I'm leaning towards throwing my support to a third party candidate. I already lost my house to foreclosure, which put incredible stress on our family. So, I'm (hopefully) understandably nervous with either outcome.

And I'm in North Carolina, which makes things even more conflicting. Things could go either way. And ultimately, the election is decided by the electoral college it's really a matter of how I'm registered.

I know no candidate will ever fit me 100% and I value my vote and feel I have a moral obligation to vote my conscience -- and to me, voting for something as opposed to against something is important.

So I'm conflicted -- do I support my family and friends who are LGBT and risk losing my job again, or do I continue to (in some people's eyes) "throw away my vote" by showing I want more choices?

I mean, if you lost your job in or around 2008 it's mostly on bush w. The financial crisis was not caused by Obama.

 

[Blader]

I'm conflicted.

I'm one of those 3rd party/independent voters.

I don't like either candidate. Both have policies that will be destructive. There's checks and balances in place (in theory) to keep things from getting out of hand (provided neither party sweeps all three branches)

So, ultimately it boils down to the supreme court issue. Which I get that there's a chance to impact things for years to come. And yes, there's LGBT rights and other issues that will definitely be decided by the make up of this future court, so I get that importance.

My problem is, every single time there's been a Democrat in office, I've lost my job/got laid off. I finally managed to get a full time job after I 3 and a half years recently. So yes, it's selfish/paranoia but I'm leaning towards throwing my support to a third party candidate. I already lost my house to foreclosure, which put incredible stress on our family. So, I'm (hopefully) understandably nervous with either outcome.

And I'm in North Carolina, which makes things even more conflicting. Things could go either way. And ultimately, the election is decided by the electoral college it's really a matter of how I'm registered.

I know no candidate will ever fit me 100% and I value my vote and feel I have a moral obligation to vote my conscience -- and to me, voting for something as opposed to against something is important.

So I'm conflicted -- do I support my family and friends who are LGBT and risk losing my job again, or do I continue to (in some people's eyes) "throw away my vote" by showing I want more choices?

Huh? Do you get laid off because all your bosses are republicans and they punish their employees every time a democrat is elected?

 

[Dead Man]

that was not the charge though, nothing about marriage

the charge was that he was an atheist

I'm not sure you are following what they are saying.