Top DNC Staffers Leave Following WikiLeaks Email Scandal (usatoday.com) 424
An anonymous reader writes from a report via USA Today: Following the leak of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails and the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, several more staffers are leaving their positions. USA Today reports Amy Dacey, the chief executive officer of the DNC, Luis Miranda, the party's communications director, and Brad Marshall, chief financial officer, are all leaving the DNC. The statement announcing the staff changes praises the outgoing aides and makes no mention of the email issue. "Thanks in part to the hard work of Amy, Luis, and Brad, the Democratic Party has adopted the most progressive platform in history, has put itself in financial position to win in November, and has begun the important work of investing in state party partnerships. I'm so grateful for their commitment to this cause, and I wish them continued success in the next chapter of their career," said Donna Brazile, the party's interim chairwoman. Some of the leaked emails from party staffers depicted officials favoring now-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during their primary campaign.
Um, (Score:5, Insightful)
When you fire the entire executive staff for rigging a primary, wouldn't it be a good idea to invalidate the results of the primary? Just saying. I mean that would seem prudent.
Re:Um, (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully, election day will be a beautiful sunny day.
I would like to spend it playing tennis.
Pity the fool that wastes it in an American voting booth.
Pretending they participate in representative democracy.
Re:Um, (Score:5, Funny)
This didn't take long... (Score:2)
or check a bad box
the choice is yours all the same
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully, election day will be a beautiful sunny day.
I would like to spend it playing tennis.
Pity the fool that wastes it in an American voting booth.
Pretending they participate in representative democracy.
Well you are welcome to that.
The absentee ballot is my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Pity the fool that wastes it in an American voting booth.
I ain't gettin' in no booth, sucka!
Re:Um, (Score:4, Insightful)
Because apathy will contribute to the situation so much more.
Re:Um, (Score:5, Insightful)
Despair isn't actually the same as apathy.
Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Only fit punishment is expulsion from the party and rehosting the convention. To let Hillary keep it is to let her keep stolen goods. Sure, maybe she would have got them anyway, but they weren't Wasserman Scultz's to give to her.
The whole thing is a disgrace but the DNC elite will make sure Hillary gets to the stolen goods. It's too bad Hillary is only facing Trump [motherjones.com] because she's so disliked any half-decent Republican would whip her ass in the polls.
Re:Too little, too late (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too bad Hillary is only facing Trump...
Yeah, pretty convenient, huh? You'd think it was almost planned that way as part of the tag team with the republicans. To make sure the two worst possible candidates would face each other, and help keep congress from getting too lopsided and preventing the democrats from using republican "obstruction" to break their platform promises (rotating villain). They almost blew it in 2008, but the "blue dogs" saved the day, and they were able to toss a few seats in 2010 to bring it back closer to the 50/50 ratio to keep the gridlock game running right up to today. No, no, it's nothing like that at all, everything was on the up and up, perfectly legitimate. Politics is the most honest business there is.
Re: (Score:3)
Well then this is the RNC's own stupid fault for allowing that many candidates, and for using first-past-the-post voting combined with winner-takes-all for the delegate awarding.
Re:Too little, too late (Score:5, Informative)
The Daily Show pointed out that we have the two luckiest presidential candidates ever: they're both running against the only opponent they could conceivably defeat.
Re:Too little, too late (Score:5, Interesting)
2007/8 was politically a long time ago. A great deal of the landscape has changed even since 2012. Hillary has changed her position on pretty much every major policy point under debate this cycle since that time.
Hillary herself has made lots of missteps and been embroiled in multiple scandals since then. She has been forced to take accountable policy position as Sec of State many people in both parties disagree with, unlike being able to duck votes in the Senate. She was not especially successful at state. I think most Americans feel our foreign policy at least where the middle east is concerned and that is what is most visible to most people has been lacking. Finally I don't think she is as sharp as she used to be. She handled Sanders in the debates pretty well but he was probably a soft opponent everywhere except on certain economic issues where he was very passionate and his ideas more thoroughly developed; all said she won but without a lot of really good lines. You see that because non of the footage made it to political ads.
Frankly I don't think the Hillary of today would stand a chance against the Obama of 2008. I would actually expect it to be a blow out.
Re:Too little, too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but Hillary hasn't beaten anyone. She ran basically unopposed for NY Senator, couldn't beat a junior Senator / Community organizer in 2008, and had to cheat to win this year against a communist / socialist.
At least Trump beat over a dozen others, some of them in the pockets of the Republican Elites. Not that I am going to vote for him.
Of course, Hillary does have something we haven't seen in a Presidential Candidate in over 100 years ... a vagina. Now, if that makes her qualified ....
Re:Too little, too late (Score:4, Interesting)
She ran basically unopposed for NY Senator... and had to cheat to win this year
She cheated in the Senate election the same way she cheated this year. Only difference was nobody called her out that time.
Re:Um, (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just about rigging the primary. Have you READ the emails? They are full of racist and misogynistic references.
Talk about hubris and hypocrisy...
Re: (Score:3)
You're surprised at this? Democrats have been like that for decades all the while claiming it's anyone else who's making those comments. You know the whole "projection is thy name" meme? Sure does explain why the media goes to such lengths to protect them though doesn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I'm not surprised by this -- at least not the way YOU reference. I am totally surprised the media doesn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what the hell you are ranting about. The DNC will set whatever rules they want -- just like the RNC. Both are "rigged" to a degree. What offends me is the content and attitude of the lead organization which 'claims' to look out for 'protected' groups.
BTW, I support neither Clinton nor Trump. Nor would I support Bernie or Cruz. They are all tea party guests (as in Mad Hatter).
Re:Um, (Score:4, Insightful)
You didn't read them, did you?
Half of the recent protests/panics/etc. were staged by DNC staffers, which one might note is how they get away with being racists without media rebuke. They held a clandestine fundraiser with the Washington Post that their own lawyers disagreed with. They funneled all the DNC money straight to Hillary and it never mattered what the voters wanted. They'll call your CEO and demand apologies from any media type that dares call them on any of their BS.
But no, go on, rant about irrelevant nonsense and just ignore the fact that they are effectively above the law at this point.
Political parties are not democracies (Score:2)
But no, go on, rant about irrelevant nonsense and just ignore the fact that they are effectively above the law at this point.
What laws are you referring to? There aren't any. Aside from party bylaws (which the party leaders generally can change at a whim), we're not talking about actual laws for the most part. If the DNC leadership want's to be a bunch of douchebags who pick favorites, they're allowed to do that. If they want to funnel all the money one way or the other, there is really nothing stopping them. Anyone who gets involved with a political party and has the slightest belief that a party is a representative democra
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in law or regulations that prohibit the DNC from using a 2-headed coin to choose the nominee.
Re: (Score:2)
There would be, it would all tie back the charters for forming that party and it's rules as well as the electoral rules in place state and federal. So it would require a proper investigation and of course based upon how corrupt the current uncle tom administration is, that will never occur even though people had to resign and a cheater publicly claimed victory with the aid of those cheaters. Really publicly embarrassing stuff that the rest of the world will be able to mock for decades. Just watch the US go
Re: (Score:2)
What most folks don't realize is that even though it's carried out in the public eye with public funds - the primary election isn't a public election. It's a private internal function of the Party and so long as they stay within some pretty broad guidelines they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want - including 'rigging' the results.
Re: (Score:3)
Then they can pay for their primary election with private funds, too. The worst are the chicken-fuckers over at dailykos, who scream that that primaries should be closed to party members only (conveniently, the type that gave Hillary much of her margin of "victory"), yet are happy to use taxpayer funds to run them.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernies revolution is dead ... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you fire the entire executive staff for rigging a primary ...
They are being rewarded not fired. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already done, they are probably moving from the DNC to Hillary's campaign, and ultimately on to positions in the Clinton administration. Like Tim Kaine, another former DNC chair who has supported the Clintons for many years.
Hillary's been nominated, the DNC's main work is done. The important folks move on to the presidential campaign. The less important folks stay behind at the DNC and work on state and congressional stuff. These people are leaving on schedule. Washerman Schultz had to leave a few days ahead of schedule, nothing more.
They fear no repercussions for any of this since Bernie's followers will be good little Democrats and vote for Hillary in the end. That is all that matters. The revolution is dead despite Bernie's claims to the contrary. He got on board with Hillary so he will not lose the committee positions and other advantages he has in the Senate. To go against her would mean he would be ostracized, so he plays ball. He talks of the platform, platforms never mean a damn thing. They are just symbolic appeasements for the fringe elements of the party. Always has been, now Bernie's revolution joins those ranks.
A Hillary victory means everything Bernie fought for was for nothing, everything Hillary and company did vindicated. Hillary and the party machine will have forgotten Bernie in a matter of days, any pain or embarrassment he caused fading by the day, soon to be forgotten. Soon to be remembered as nothing more than a defeated tough opponent. What he stood for forgotten, just that he was somehow a "tough opponent", no one remembering precisely why.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are young and think it's clever or fun to post this stuff, you have a LOT of growing up to do.
If you're older, say late 20's and on, and think it's clever to write like this, you need help and a life.
If you're going through a bad time and this is how you deal with it, you need help with your problems and your closet racism.
If you've had a bad life then you need to find a constructive way to deal with it, pulling everything around you down to your level of filth makes the world a worse place.
No chance they'll be indicted (Score:4, Interesting)
"Thanks in part to the hard work of Amy, Luis, and Brad, the Democratic Party has adopted the most progressive platform in history, has put itself in financial position to win in November, and has begun the important work of investing in state party partnerships."
You mean the money left over after they gave all the donations to Hillary's campaign, violating FEC rules?
Re: No chance they'll be indicted (Score:4, Insightful)
No, progressive has always meant "I'm smarter than everybody else in the world and therefore my political opinions bring about progress, and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me."
As I've mentioned before, progressive is a label that many groups have applied to themselves in the past, including (but not limited to) prohibitionists and Nazis.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, progressive always meant this (pick up a dictionary and take a civics class):
adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
As you've mentioned, it doesn't mean anything. Anyone can claim a specific item/lab
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> No, progressive always meant this (pick up a dictionary and take a civics class):
You're the one who should take a history class if you think that "progress" has always had a consistent meaning across years and cultures.
The Nazis believed that they were creating a superior version of the human race by removing all the "inferior" people, for example, and this was their "progress" as they fought for (in their view) the common German worker and against those who they viewed as corrupt bankers (Jews).
The fa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, progressive has always meant "I'm smarter than everybody else in the world and therefore my political opinions bring about progress, and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me."
As I've mentioned before, progressive is a label that many groups have applied to themselves in the past, including (but not limited to) prohibitionists and Nazis.
The interesting (irony intended) part of all this is the massive collusion with the media. That old "the media is biased" complaint that used to be brushed off is now known to be true. Sort of like Snowden's releases showing the whole paranoia about them listening to everything was true too.
You can see this now that the dark curtain of deceit has been torn open, the media outlets 'owned' by the DNC are dropping from "pretend to be news" to "biased propaganda machine and we don't care if you know". They are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not much of a reader, are you!
Re: No chance they'll be indicted (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm smarter than everybody else in the world ... and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me.
I bet [your strawman] works great with conservatives and other people with severe intellectual challenges.
Much as I hate logical fallacies, such as the one put forward by the GP, you -- and you in particular -- perfectly illustrated their claim. I mean, it's really quite amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. I have some scientific evidence to support my statement.
Unlike you.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/study-links-low-intelligence-with-right-wing-beliefs/article543361/
F-mail (Score:5, Funny)
Rumor is they'll stop using all email and switch to smoke signals. Elizabeth Warren is an alleged expert on that tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they mention which encryption method they'll use for the smoke signals?
Re: (Score:2)
Fog
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, all I'm getting is something about Fred and Barney.
Re: (Score:2)
Rumor is they'll stop using all email and switch to smoke signals.
How?
Now they'll suffer the humiliation... (Score:5, Interesting)
...of being forced to take high-paying jobs with the Hillary campaign, the Clinton Foundation, or being hired as big-money lobbyists for the numerous Fortune 500 companies and foreign potentates [battleswarmblog.com] who have donated to Clinton.
What a rough fate...
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if any of them will join the Washington Post, which was running secret fundraisers with the DNC that the lawyers would "never" allow according to the leaked emails?
Clinton Foundation (Score:5, Interesting)
The real reason to have the Clinton Foundation: Give these people USD500K a year jobs while they wait for this to blow over.
Fixed that for you, Donna (Score:3)
" In spite of the hard work of Amy, Luis, and Brad, the Democratic Party has been forced to adopt a platform that's still more conservative than Richard Nixon's ", has put itself in financial position to win in November, and has begun the important work of investing in state party partnerships.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, Nixon's platform had free education for all (not just for the ones making less than $125k, and only in state univs like the dems) and raising the minimum wage by more than $8, unlike the dems. Nixon was totally more progressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon also tried to get universal health care legislation, but was stymied by the bought-off congresscritters and senators in both parties.
Not so much the email hack, but what it revealed (Score:5, Interesting)
.... such as a sham primary, extensive money laundering to get around contribution limits, racist commentary on various groups, condescension towards unions, and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he lost? He lost in absolute numbers, and so far as I can tell, none of the delegates or superdelegates had a gun to their head.
It seems for Sanders and Trump supporters "rigged" translates literally to "my candidate didn't/won't win." At least Bernie was big enough to realize that however much he might personally dislike Clinton, she remains by a wide margin a better presidential candidate than Trump. Trump, on the other hand, is doing his best to even convince his fellow Republicans (if there are
Re:Not so much the email hack, but what it reveale (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the primary was rigged. A laughable number of debates compared to 2008, and scheduled to air at times guaranteed to have few viewers. A primary schedule front-loaded with conservative southern states (most of which would never vote for Hillary in the general) to give the conservative candidate an early claim to "frontrunner" status. And that was right out in the open, before any of the DNC's outright ratfucking was revealed.
That's what Hillbots said in 2008, too. Sanders has a solid record and his positions are popular with far more voters than Hillary. Whereas Hillary's record is solid shit, and her positions are unpopular with voters. But hey, waddya know - when you start with the Mt. Everest of name recognition, have the banks/media/neocons/party bosses all lined up behind you - it is possible to beat a senator that most Americans had never heard of eight months ago!
Hillbots keep saying that too, but the Dem candidate is no lesser evil, not this time. Trump attacks the Iraq war as a stupid idea; Hillary replicated it in Syria and Libya. Hillary loves the TPP, Trump does not.
And every attack that can be made against Trump can be thrown right back in Hillbot faces. He's a racist? So is she - superpredators and deporting children - to the country she helped overthrow - to "send a message to their parents". He's corrupt? Cattle futures, pay-to-play with the Clinton Foundation, Goldman Sachs speeches, and so on.
Back in the real world (Score:2)
Because the primary was rigged.
Expecting a fair fight in politics is idiotic. The only people who think that ever happens are naive rubes. Those who are realistic about winning scramble for every advantage they can get, fair or not. Those who can rig the game, will rig the game. If Bernie or his supporters actually thought they were going to get a fair fight and wouldn't have to get their hands dirty then they were too dumb to deserve the nomination. I hugely respect the moral stance but the real world doesn't work that way.
suspicious (Score:2)
This sounds a lot like bribery to me.
Bernie should be the chairman (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The super delegates ar
i'm a Bernie Supporter (Score:2)
More importantly, by doing so well in the primaries, Bernie was able to significant
Re: (Score:2)
Until you actually see the "Bernie plans" being put out there, being waffled about in the house/senate and for that matter being passed into law,
That is a catch-22, there. Sure, I can't be certain that they will make it that far with a President Clinton, but I also can't be sure that they would with a President Sanders. I am well aware that the separation of powers in our country prevents a president from making such sweeping changes single-handedly.
I can, however, be certain that they would never be proposed by a President Trump.
"Ok, let's vote Clinton, we can trust her"
This is less about trust than it is about preventing the nuclear apocalypse that could come from a President Trum
It's A Promotion (Score:3)
It's not a resignation if you're moving to another position for more money.
That's called a promotion.
Yes... (Score:2)
and to the dismay (and I'm sure, disgust) of liberals everywhere Rush Limbaugh called it once again: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da... [rushlimbaugh.com]
This whole thing was in the can for Hillary right from the get go. It just goes to show that liberals will stop at absolutely nothing in the pursuit of political power. And spare me the "sore loser" speech. It's one thing to try and screw Republicans over - they screwed Bernie and his followers. People in their own party.
The current Democrat strategy is to try and discredit T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both parties having Yuuuuge communication issues: Dems plagued by email, Trump by his mouth.
It's like a boxing match between a quadriplegic and a blind dude.
Sad sad sad.
Re: (Score:2)
There's never been a better time to vote third party. (Except maybe in 1859)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone voted third party in 1859.
Re: (Score:2)
That year, four candidates actually won electoral votes, but it was a brand new party that won the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep on insulting, it's all you got (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait until the RNC completely collapses after the disaster Trump has brought to the party. Now he is saying that the election is going to be rigged. This casts doubt on the entire electoral process in the US. What a scumbag. He needs to quit to save himself from further embarrassment.
I dunno, looking at the way the DNC violated FEC rules [rollingstone.com] in order to beat Sanders, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they paid to rig the elections.
Remember those Trump protestors? The ones starting fights at Trump rallies? DNC paid staffers.
Remember Trump making his hats in China? Complete and total fabrication [snopes.com].
Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews? Mostly made up [unlockyourbravado.com].
The Democrats are spewing a deluge of lies and misdirection at Trump, because it's all they got. Trump beats Hillary on pretty-much every political position, and the voters know it.
Keep with the insults, we need the public to get tired of this and see it for what it really is: the last ditch efforts of a morally bankrupt campaign.
(Here's a good one that was top news yesterday: Trump having a conversation with the devil [politico.com]. Republicans should totally start throwing insults back at Clinton, because that's what the election is all about!)
And this just in (Score:3, Interesting)
And this just came in [nypost.com].
Apparently the Clinton foundation took in tons of donation money in return for letting the Russians get access to advanced technology.
From that article:
“The Clintons, they get their donations and speaking fees in the millions of dollars. The Russians get access to advanced US technology. The tech companies [that participated in the reset, including Cisco, Intel, Microsoft] get special access to the Russian market and workforce.
“But the American people get nothing. In fact, we get a rival — Russia — with enhanced technological capabilities. At best, that makes them a tougher competitor [in legitimate commerce],” Schweizer said.
“At worst, they get a more robust military, with technologies that we helped develop, and that can be sold to our enemies.”
Sad.
Re:And this just in (Score:5, Interesting)
"Peter Franz Schweizer (November 24, 1964) is an American author and right wing political consultant. He is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and a former William J. Casey Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.[1] He is also Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large.[2]"
Oh and lets see what he found:
"Schweizer concedes he found no “smoking gun” evidence that any of the donors who poured cash into the Clinton coffers actually were promised, or received, any State Department favors in return."
Trump supporters are abject morons.
Re: (Score:3)
There's basically never a smoking gun in pay-for-pay politics. No one is stupid enough to write down a receipt "in exchange for speaking fees, Hillary will approve technology transfers." What there is is a pattern of behavior. Bill was waning on the speaking circuit, and had only ever really been speaking to US companies. All of a sudden his wife becomes SoS, and lots and lots of foreign governments who just happen to have business before the state department are suddenly interested in hearing from Bill! An
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This gets very tiresome. Your accusations are shrill, hyperbolic at best, and just plain slander at worst. Whether you're a Sanders supporter or a Trump supporter, you're demonstrating the unhinged nature of the political partisan.
So Clinton played hardball. What the fuck do you think political primaries are about? They're a big bad bruising affair whose whole purpose is to determine who can take the most punches and still remain standing. Is that fair? No. Is it right? Not really. But it is what it is, and
Re: And this just in (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Keep on insulting, it's all you got (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember Trump making his hats in China? Complete and total fabrication [snopes.com].
Wow, I didn't guess that one. I didn't check it because I don't really care, but I figured it was true.
In other politifact news (Score:4, Informative)
Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?
Yes I do. And the Pulitzer-Prize-winning site Politifact confirms [politifact.com] the extent of his habitual lying.
Here's politifact dilligently checking Jeff Sessions' comment "there are about 350,000 people who succeed in crossing our borders illegally each year,".
[politifact:] The number of immigrants illegally in the country is staying the same or getting smaller. We rate Sessions’ statement False.
Let's go see what Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says about illegal immigration:
[DHS, from Wikipedia] Numbers of new illegal immigrants per year crossing the border illegally are not directly countable, and are estimated from the number who are caught trying. For FY 2015, DHS reported 337,117 apprehensions. [3] Using an estimated catch rate of 33%, the number crossing without detection would be 510,000 per year (337,000 / 0.67).
So, he's basically citing DHS numbers and being conservative, yet Politifact determined it was "false".
Additionally, note that the previous paragraph is not in the current version [wikipedia.org] of the Wikipedia article, it was removed *after* Sessions' speech!
I took the trouble to look at the edit history right after the speech (wondering myself how many illegals come into this country each year), and noted that the page had not been substantially edited in over a month, and that paragraph had been there for quite a long time.
So I don't really see Politifact as a neutral observer any more.
I mean, they didn't even *bother* to look at Wikipedia pages that are available when they write their results!
What other things do they get wrong, and do they have a hidden agenda?
Re: (Score:3)
You think Wikipedia is a reliable source on hot political topics? And, given two versions of an article (before or after a particular edit), you magically know which one is correct?
Wikipedia is wonderful for lots of things. Verifying Politifact is not one of them.
Dig for the truth! (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?
So, yes, I do remember his extensive bad-mouthing of many people over the past 9 months or so. Thanks for asking.
You're remembering the press reports, not what he actually said.
Dog down to the truth - you'll get there eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, this excuse is getting thinner and thinner all the time. After his badmouthing of the Khans, it's become pretty damned clear that he's race and religion baiting, and relies upon people like you and his poor kids to handwave away every awful thing he says.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After his badmouthing of the Khans
You mean the same Khans that operate a E2 and EB5 visa law firm. The most corrupt and scam heavy immigration visas available to enter the US? Oh and that he's suddenly scrubbed the website from existence after it came to light. Sure is race baiting...pointing out that they're being scummy people.
Re: (Score:3)
So, tell me, does this change that their son was a US soldier killed overseas? And do you actually have some evidence that they are partaking of corrupt activities? Or is this just your need to smear to defend the vile and lunatic candidate the Republicans chose?
Re: (Score:2)
Did Trump tell them he was glad their muslim son was killed? Did he tell them to burn their 'gold star'? What exactly did he say to someone who is spreading a political message for Trump's opponent?
Re: (Score:2)
So, tell me, does this change that their son was a US soldier killed overseas?
Clinton voted to send the son overseas, not Trump. And she's promised to send more soldiers overseas. Of course, Trump has promised that too. There's no good candidate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well keep in mind that it looks like their son was at least a pro-constitutionalist as well. His father? Not so much. Khizr Khan also openly supported sharia law, and wrote several papers on how to subvert american jurisprudence and legal code to replace it was sharia as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does what their son did matter in this regard?
I can't accuse somebody of playing politics with their dead kid when they're criticizing the person who made the decisions that got their kid killed. Cindy Sheehan criticizing Bush, or Patricia Smith criticizing Clinton, that's fine. But Trump had nothing to do with Captain Khan's death. His dad, though, dug up his corpse and used it as a shield so he can hurl political invective at Trump...in order to protect his "import muslims for profit" cheddar. That's
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Keep on insulting, it's all you got (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote for Johnson, *The name you know*
Let the chips fall where they may, and don't let the democrats guilt trip get to you... Their "purity" shtick is a hell of a lot more shameful than anything by the "Bernie Bros".
Your conscience and character will remain intact, in fact better than those who demand you play the charade their way.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think corruption should be much of a guiding factor. The only reason Trump doesn't seem corrupt is that he's refreshingly honest about his lack of ethical principles. There's nothing to corrupt in Trump.
Also, it's been a loooong time since we had an honest and ethical president. His name was Carter, and nobody liked him.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. People want a personable ass kicker. They don't care too much about honest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt you can even type two sentences he spoke, without having to look them up. And then, you won't find the ones you think he spoke, even though all your sources have been 'quoting' him extensively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's imagine if Hillary wins. If all or part of Congress ends up in Republican hands, we'll have more of the same, lots of grandstanding but ultimately compromise (which is what politics is all about, at least in a democracy). If the Democrats control the White House, she'll have a bit more liberty to move, but not as much as people often think. Many Presidents have been just as constrained when their party controls Congress as when the other party does.
Now, let's imagine Trump. Unless he suddenly starts a
What compromise? (Score:2)
we'll have more of the same, lots of grandstanding but ultimately compromise
We haven't seen any compromise from the republicans in over a decade. If a republican shows any inclination to compromise, he/she is immediately voted out during the next primary and replaced with some ideologically pure tea party douchebag who promises to be even less willing to compromise. The only upside is that a Congress that can't get anything done is a Congress that can't cause any new problems.
I agree though that while Hillary is basically a status quo vote and that sucks, Trump would be an unmit
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be that guy, but, if you hate Hillary and Trump so much, why not put your vote toward a 3rd party candidate? I mean, it's not going to support anyone with a chance of actually winning, to be sure, but it'll at least serve to grow their platform and representation a bit.
Of course, that assumes that you actually side, to a degree, with a 3rd party. Even if you don't, though, it's not like the election will only be for whomever is seeking the presidency. Truth be told, all those other local and state el
Re: (Score:2)
If we didn't have term limits then we would have gone Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Obama, Obama, and the we would have been much better off.
Re: (Score:2)
If you make elected offices financially unpalatable who will run? Even a Representative basically has to put their lives on hold for two years, a Senator for six at the minimum. That likely means that all but the wealthy are going to be disadvantaged simply by winning, not to mention the personal toll and cost involved in an electoral race.
At the end of the day you would end up much as Britain was in the 18th century, with only rich men or men beholden to rich benefactors running for elected office. If you
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is bad because Trump says so. He says so all the time. These days, almost every day brings new utterances that confirm just what a foolish and vile person he really is. And, as Enoch Powell once famously said, “For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea”
Re: (Score:2)