esmith
Veteran Member
Just wondering how say you on the allegations of Donna Brazile about Hillary
Donna Brazile torches Clinton in new book - CNNPolitics
Donna Brazile torches Clinton in new book - CNNPolitics
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Comments On Donna Brazile's Allegations Against Hillary
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Altfish
Veteran Member
If it had not have happened Saunders would be POTUS
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Wishful thinking, but I believe the Dem vote would have been seriously split. Re: Ross Perot.
My takeaway:
The primary process is not fully democratic since it is run by private organizations that can run whatever candidate they want. There is no legal obligation for either party to treat candidates equally. This should be a wake up call to us all.
I would argue that there is a moral obligation to treat the candidates fairly if that is how the contest is portrayed. In other words, if they simply said "Hilary's our candidate", fine. But if you go through voting and what not, it needs to be clear that they aren't neutral instead of pretending as if the process is.
Super delegates have been in place for a while in the Democratic Party and their whole purpose is to steer the primary towards the party's preferred candidate. This doesn't mean the primary vote doesn't matter; it just means that that's not the only factor. So, it really shouldn't be conplete news to democrats that the primaries always have an aspect of "rigging".
It is disturbing that the DNC was so in debt. How the heck did that happen with a charismatic, popular president? This speaks to me of mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility.
Hilary bailed out the DNC in exchange for control over the finances. This seems reasonable to me. It's her (campaign's) money so they should have control. Should she have been altruistic? Come on.
What does concern me is that it may have been used to circumvent campaign financing laws. Not sure if that's true or not. Not good if true. But honestly, money in politics is completely out of control and it's not like Hilary needed the DNC to funnel dark campaign money. There's plenty of legal ways to do that.
As for Bernie being shafted: meh. I think the primary votes are pretty conclusive that Clinton would have won that primary regardless. I voted for Bernie in the primaries. But honestly, I don't begrudge the DNC for not embracing him.
As for Brazile. Her op-ed reads like a soap opera. She called Bernie with tears in her eyes? Give me a break. Also no mention of her debate question scandal (which was so stupid-- did Hilary really need a heads up that there'd be a question about the flint water crisis... in Flint?)
That's the good, bad, and ugly from my perspective.
The primary process is not fully democratic since it is run by private organizations that can run whatever candidate they want. There is no legal obligation for either party to treat candidates equally. This should be a wake up call to us all.
I would argue that there is a moral obligation to treat the candidates fairly if that is how the contest is portrayed. In other words, if they simply said "Hilary's our candidate", fine. But if you go through voting and what not, it needs to be clear that they aren't neutral instead of pretending as if the process is.
Super delegates have been in place for a while in the Democratic Party and their whole purpose is to steer the primary towards the party's preferred candidate. This doesn't mean the primary vote doesn't matter; it just means that that's not the only factor. So, it really shouldn't be conplete news to democrats that the primaries always have an aspect of "rigging".
It is disturbing that the DNC was so in debt. How the heck did that happen with a charismatic, popular president? This speaks to me of mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility.
Hilary bailed out the DNC in exchange for control over the finances. This seems reasonable to me. It's her (campaign's) money so they should have control. Should she have been altruistic? Come on.
What does concern me is that it may have been used to circumvent campaign financing laws. Not sure if that's true or not. Not good if true. But honestly, money in politics is completely out of control and it's not like Hilary needed the DNC to funnel dark campaign money. There's plenty of legal ways to do that.
As for Bernie being shafted: meh. I think the primary votes are pretty conclusive that Clinton would have won that primary regardless. I voted for Bernie in the primaries. But honestly, I don't begrudge the DNC for not embracing him.
As for Brazile. Her op-ed reads like a soap opera. She called Bernie with tears in her eyes? Give me a break. Also no mention of her debate question scandal (which was so stupid-- did Hilary really need a heads up that there'd be a question about the flint water crisis... in Flint?)
That's the good, bad, and ugly from my perspective.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
What can you expect when the parties can make up the rules as they go along?
-wait for it-
Trump to claim they did it illegally when Braziles said nothing illegal was done.
-wait for it-
Trump to claim they did it illegally when Braziles said nothing illegal was done.
Yes, she should have. It was apparently she was widely and very unpopular, that there were great stakes on the line in this election, and that Sanders would have had a far easier time winning than Hillary. Hillary and the DNC basically forced the world over backwards and screwed it in the bum, without even the courtesy to lube up.
Altfish
Veteran Member
We shall never know, the vote was split anyway by Johnson and Stein
Is politics being corrupt some sort of news to you? Next your going say money and power corrupts, well duh, look at the current Pres.
This is irrational. Why should Hilary be expected to just give up money that was donated to her campaign? If she was so very unpopular, why did she have such fundraising success? Clinton had 3.5 million more primary votes than Sanders. If people didn't want her, they didn't have to vote for her.
Yes, the DNC preferred Clinton but so did the voting democrats.
PureX
Veteran Member
I am not the least surprised that the democrats rigged the primaries so that Hillary would have to win. The democratic primaries have always been rigged so that the party could appoint whomever they wanted as their candidate, regardless of any voter tallies. That was obvious to anyone with eyes connected to a working brain. But I did not know Hillary herself had been the motivator. I figured that the democrats in government are just as bought off by the oligarchy as the republicans, and Hillary is part of their plutocracy, while Bernie Sanders is a socialist. So naturally the democratic party made sure Bernie wasn't going to be their nominee.
Blaming Hillary, I think, is somewhat missing the real issue, which is that the democrats are just republican-lite these days. And everyone knows it. Which is why they will continue to lose elections if they don't start differentiating themselves, WITH ACTIONS, instead of words. If they had run Bernie Sanders, they would have the white house, now, and be in an excellent position to take back the legislatures. But they think they HAVE to take the corporate bribe money to win elections, and then do the bidding of the bribers to keep the cash coming in. Which makes them, essentially, nothing more than a republican trying to pretend that he's not.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
PureX
Veteran Member
Republicans can't win elections without cheating, and without pandering to the ignoramus vote. They are the party of the rich, and there just aren't that many rich people. So they had to also become the party of the lunatic fringes because they're the only other people stupid enough to vote against their own interests. Yet even that isn't enough. It does get them close enough to winning, though, that some creative cheating can get them over the line.
So that's how the republicans win elections, now: they pander to the greed of the rich, the fear, bigotry, and ignorance of the stupid, and then they rig the electoral system in their favor, whenever and however they can get away with it.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
It's called being a good public servant. She, instead, acted selfishly, and took on the nominee position even though the Left was not standing firmly behind her, and not the the Dem/Libs were all solidly behind her. It wasn't that way with Sanders, but he had far greater moderate appeal than Hillary. That alone made him the wiser choice, as did his ability to whip up a firestorm of supporters. In all reality, he was in a position to snatch the nomination from Hillary late in the game like Obama did. And instead of playing it safe when they really needed to (especially with a Supreme Court nomination on the line), instead of going to more sure and safe route they put forth a candidate who felt she was entitled to run, despite the fact her position on things like the TPT had those on the Left looking at Trump as a better option.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
The leadership in the Democratic Party needs to clean up its act (not all of us). Recent polls are showing that Bernie's run has opened up a new economic can of worms for Dems, and it's a good thing.
Liberals have been turned off by democrats for far too long, who fail to live up to their standards on issues of economic policy. The Dems have been centrist for decades while the Pubs go further right.
The Democratic Party misled the millions of liberals who trusted them for a fair process. I for one knew there were major issues after the trumped up allegations of violence by Benie supporters during the Nevada primary. I think we all knew how the rest of it was going to go. Bernie's consistent stance was impalitable to the Dems, who had chosen the way path of making deals with big business over being pro-working class.
Trump saw a way to divide us, and it worked. We're all paying for their mistakes. . .
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I'd rather just watch reruns of "The Simpsons", thanks.
PureX
Veteran Member
It wasn't the voters that gave her all that money. It was the exact same big corporations that give the republican candidates their money. They bet on both party front-runners so they can "cash in" regardless of who wins the election. And when a politician takes their money, it's understood that if the politician wins, he/she will do their corporate sponsor's legislative bidding. Because otherwise, those big donations (corporate bribe money) will stop coming to them and to their party cronies.
Our government is for sale to the biggest money contributors, and has been for a long time. Hillary was not popular among democratic voters. She was popular among big corporate contributors because they believed she would deliver, legislatively, what they were paying her to deliver. Just as she had done in the past, and just as her husband did.
