The Nexus of G
Banned
I swear it's like Democrats aren't even taking this seriously. Trump and the Republicans are literally shooting themselves into extinction and these idiots can't seem to take one step before tripping over their corruption.
-
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
Officerrob
Banned
It really shouldn't, these are DNC emails, not Hillary emails, even if her name is found on leaks it's not like they are tied directly to her. I think we all learned by now that staff from all campaigns can be a little too enthusiastic and cross lines.
blankempathy
Member
It's been like this since day one. "Haha trumps a joke he won't get anywhere and will quit so let's completely disregard him". Every time he got closer and closer the same laughs of denial. I wonder if those same people will be laughing come November.
Frozenprince
Banned
What Donald Trump represents is far, far, far scarier than 4 to 8 years of him as president.
Aaronology
Member
Donald Trump has the support of the RNC, those in the Republican party with power and GOP voters most importantly. Attempting to portray the GOP as a buffer to his Presidency to justify your passive support for him is a little sad. "It's ok minorities, the Republican Party will protect you from Trump!" is a hilariously unconvincing pitch.
I have said nothing of fascism in this thread. Do not loop me into that discussion. Trump is undeniably a racist, however. You've already indicated you are not a member of any of the groups most threatened by his Presidency despite your willingness to chastise those who are for fervently opposing him at all costs.
OK.
The far left already doesn't like the democratic party, this kind of news wouldn't change their resolve for the positive or negative.
He would never ever ever be president for 8 years
You would have a GOP and DNC candidate 4 years from now and he would he would be soundly defeated.
I don't understand. They were hacked four months ago and emails were stolen from them. The emails were given to Wikileaks by the Russian government. Wikileaks is now releasing them. The emails reveal strong favoritism at the DNC though no active collusion or sabotage. There were also very inappropriate things said about Bernie's religion from some senior staffers. As a result, the DNC head will not speak and I'm sure is about to punch her time card for the last time.
But the DNC is making mistakes? This stuff is not new. Would you have them allow DWS to speak?
The problem has always been Clinton. Sadly otherwise rational people would continue to lineup and explain how every negative thing that comes out this election cycle is the product of the widespread slandering of her character rather than Hillary making questionable decisions.
The DNC are simply another symptom of her weakness as they needed to stack the deck in order for her to defeat a 74 year old Jewish socialist who the majority of people had not heard of an year ago.
The field this year was horrendous and Clinton and her team should thank their lucky stars they are facing a candidate more hated than her in the GE. But Trump being a racist, bigot, populist doesn't excuse the democrats thinking they can put up a weak candidate like Clinton who people dislike and don't trust. If she somehow loses this election - people need to direct their animosity towards her and the apparatus who made her inevitable but I'm not holding my breath.
The Nexus of G
Banned
They were too busy being condensending pricks to Sanders supporters to properly see the rise of Trump so I don't blame them too much for being oblivious. I hope they can learn to get over their pretentious state of mind and focus on the chaos that's coming.
There was no stacking of the deck by the DNC.
By that time he'll have nominated at least 2 if not more Supreme Court Justice, his influence will be an extremely long lasting one if he's elected.
TheWarrior
Banned
Because it's party over principle. Anything but a vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump. It doesn't matter if you want to vote 3rd party for another candidate who aligns closer to your beliefs.
Yes, everyone, listen to conservatives about how you should vote third party to better align with your beliefs as they line up behind Donald Trump.
Hillary is not the DNC. Your argument is becoming of children.
Nice grammar/spelling there.Don't forget this guy:
I hate this accusatory tone, trying to sniff out "traitors". Personally, I'm all for Hillary (compared to the danger that is Trump), but I can't STAND some of the rhetoric coming from the Hillary camp.
Stack the deck? Wtf are you even talking about. Bernie Sanders lost due to his own stupidity and poor choice in campaign manager. I'm fucking tired of hearing excuse after excuse for Sanders. It's pretty fucking simple. He lost because in his infinite wisdom he decided not to contest the southern states. It's that fucking simple. He hired a moron as his campaign manager and then decided that they would just let Clinton rack up huge wins in the south. Stop making excuses for Sanders and looking for conspiracies where none exist. He made a catastrophic mistake not contesting the southern states. That's why he lost. Stacked deck my ass.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
Also, the "party over principle" thing ignores that the real argument is...y'know, math. First past the post is a thing that exists whether we want it to or not.
See the recent exchange between Dan Savage and the Green Party spokesperson for some highlights on this.
If a Dem is President, she will pick the next chair (with a perfunctory confirmation vote by the members). If not, the members vote from candidates running for the position.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
He speaks in broken english, not really surprising that he cant spell either.
I didn't read any email leaked that showed active collusion against Sanders or as stacking the deck toward Clinton. More comments between dnc members showing their personal predilection towards a specific candidate and commenting on what could be drawbacks of the other candidate on a channel they felt secure to share them.
Don't forget this guy:
Does Trump right his own tweets?
Serious question but I couldn't resist
I'm also happy to say that I am officially a member!
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'm inclined to agree. Not about being all for Hillary because I'm not. But some of the rhetoric attempting to paint anyone that isn't balls deep for Clinton as morally wrong is disheartening. No matter how some attempt to justify it by pointing out the oppositions horrible-badness. People may consider third party, happens every election. Just more prominent given how unlikeable each candidate is.
"It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,”
So is this guy part of the Clinton campaign or the DNC?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Has to write his own tweets given his boneheaded statements in the past.
Rock on! *thumbs up*
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Someone who votes in the general but are nowhere to be seen during mid-terms.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
For anyone wondering.. Bernie's plans for Monday, per Roll Call.
https://twitter.com/jonallendc/status/757184095571021825
https://twitter.com/jonallendc/status/757184095571021825
Galactic Barret
Member
The title of your linked piece is "DNC staffer", no?
The more important question is, was this written bit acted on? If it is, then you can say the system was rigged. But since it wasn't, aren't you just being thought police?
Oh lord I suppose you think all those right-wing documentaries are truth and fact too
Considering the fact that no one acted on that idea, I don't think this proves what you think it does.
EmpressInYellow
Banned
And I mean...those people have a moral right to consider third parties, so long as they realize they're basically forfeiting their ability to have a say in the election's actual outcome.
Math is math. Wanting, wishing, and dreaming won't change the numbers. If people want to think of their vote as some big statement, some moral gesture, well...that's on them. I think of it as a tool to help produce a particular outcome.
Is that really that scathing? Couldn't that fall in to what I considered a personal predilection and comment between people with similar preferences toward a candidate? Did someone asked Saunders if he believed in God?
It really is by far the most disgusting thing in the emails though. You should not be allowed to hold a high position in the DNC if you propose dividing people by attacking a candidates religion or lack thereof.
I'm not defending the idea. It is indeed gross (though it is also something that would come up in the general, and therefore an issue that Bernie's campaign should have been prepared for). But in no way does that email show the DNC did anything to hurt Bernie.
1) What incompetence has she shown?
2) Who truly runs the DNC?
3) I what way has she failed?
Also, would you mind telling me what you think the chair of the DNC does when there is a Democratic President?
"Can we get someone" isn't a prediction, it's a suggestion.
Escape Goat
Member
DWS is the worst. The party unity is built on a fear that to show anything else would damage public perception at the ballot.
Predilection as in preference. A suggestion made on what was perceived as a safe channel between people that seem to share the same opinion of a candidate and that suggestion wasn't acted on.
Netherscourge
Banned
Mathmatically, there are two candidates.
Not voting or voting for someone other than the two biggest candidates may make a voter feel better about themselves, personally, but it will also increase the chances that the worse of the two biggest candidates has a NET Gain in votes vs. their opponent.
Just remember that when you go to vote for a candidate with no chance to win. You may feel better about yourself, you can impress your anti-establishment friends on Facebook, but you are in fact helping the greater of two evils effectively gain votes.
Is this the email that people are using to prove foul play?
Because:
A) It came from neither Clinton nor DWS
B) It was never enacted.
This proves what, exactly?
Yes the DNC's chief financial officer, Bradley Marshal is just another DNC Staffer.
In terms of your second paragraph it loosely reads like this:
"The more important question is, were words acted on? If they are, then I can say Trump is a egotistical, racist, populist, bigot. But since he hasn't acted on them, it could all just be an act"
To me the whole need to defend the DNC and Hillary about every single thing is counter productive. I can criticize the way the primary was handled, dislike Clinton as a candidate immensely and think the DNC has done more to hurt Dem chances in 2016 and still think Clinton is a better choice than Trump.
Nothing, other than the guy that wrote it was kinda a jerk.
Why are people so willing to forgive trump's explicit racism, especially liberals? Why don't you go read the New York Times article posted yesterday. He has been acting on racism for 30 years.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked