Donna Brazile turns

[Rockapotomuss]

it does appear that Podesta's bro was literally like 'look over there, nothing to see here'


and then we have now

Here is the basis upon which the claim is made that Russia hacked the DNC. Anonymous sources in the intelligence community think so, but can't say why. Who are these people and what is their connection to the Clinton money train?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Here is the basis upon which the claim is made that Russia hacked the DNC. Anonymous sources in the intelligence community think so, but can't say why. Who are these people and what is their connection to the Clinton money train?

So by hacking the DNC and exposing their extreme shadiness....

aren't the 'Russians' arguably just doing our own Media's job?

They exposed the MEDDLING of the DNC, not the other way around IMO

WikiLeaks was our Woodward and Bernstein in this scenario, correct?

 

[Rockapotomuss]

So by hacking the DNC and exposing their extreme shadiness....

aren't the 'Russians' arguably just doing our own Media's job?

They exposed the MEDDLING of the DNC, not the other way around IMO

My point is, why do people accept that Russia hacked the DNC when we don't know who made the claim or why they made it? Given the corruption involved in Clinton's fundraising, this is highly suspect.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

My point is, why do people accept that Russia hacked the DNC when we don't know who made the claim or why they made it? Given the corruption involved in Clinton's fundraising, this is highly suspect.

oh I agree, I wsa just saying even they did....so what?

they didn't alter votes, or hack machines. They just exposed corruption....which they wouldn't have to do if A) it didn't exist in the first place, and B) our own media wasn't sucking the teet of the democratic party

 

[chardog]

Trying to save herself.
Love when the left feeds on itself.

well she has a book for sale, so maybe she's a capitalist afterall?

maybe an exploratory committee is soon to come?

 

[GraveyardFilla]

 

[HockeyBjj]

They should be putting in more work NOW.

I know the libertarians have a case that's going to be heard by the Supreme Court of allowing 3rd party candidates access to the national debates

I know they technically can get in now, but they're arguing the structure is too limiting to be fair to non republicans and democrats and requirements need to be lowered

 

[waiguoren]

I know the libertarians have a case that's going to be heard by the Supreme Court of allowing 3rd party candidates access to the national debates

I know they technically can get in now, but they're arguing the structure is too limiting to be fair to non republicans and democrats and requirements need to be lowered

Without knowing anything about the case, it sounds bogus. Aren't the debates private events funded by the two major parties? Why should SCOTUS get involved?

 

[Strychnine]

As a Dem/Lib/Left-Winger, this does make me sad but it doesn't surprise me. When you're at that level of politics and power, people will sell their souls to hang onto it. Yeah, this is terrible, but I won't be making me change my views anytime soon.

I'm loyal to my core beliefs and my country before any political party.

 

[Trotsky]

uh no we read it

we just don't confuse 'policies we don't like ' w/ corruption

Regardless of whether that is material to your misunderstanding of Brazile's story (it's not), you're just a fucking moron if you don't see the obvious corruption of billions of private dollars flowing into policy makers who then pass policies that are objectively contrary to the interests of 99% of the population and objectively to the benefit of the donors. Fuck, why do you think Mitch McConnell fought for decades to prevent the American public from being able to see who and how much is donated to him and to place any kind of restriction on it?


Also, I would love, love, love to see you actually defend the expert-panned Randian policies that are rapidly distributing money to the top of society, destabilizing the long-term economy, and disenfranchising consumers to the tune of the 1920's (you know, when there wasn't enough empirical evidence for persons to reasonably know better). Go on: defend repealing fiduciary standards, industry oversight, and consumer protections.

Then again, that would require you understanding public policy in some basic detail and making one solitary statement regarding substantive policy that isn't reductive identity political drivel.

 

[chardog]

hillary for prison 2017, MAGA

 

[bobgeese]

One of these days the Bernie folks will put down the pipe and burn the dnc to the ground.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Regardless of whether that is material to your misunderstanding of Brazile's story (it's not), you're just a fucking moron if you don't see the obvious corruption of billions of private dollars flowing into policy makers who then pass policies that are objectively contrary to the interests of 99% of the population and objectively to the benefit of the donors. Fuck, why do you think Mitch McConnell fought for decades to prevent the American public from being able to see who and how much is donated to him and to place any kind of restriction on it?


Also, I would love, love, love to see you actually defend the expert-panned Randian policies that are rapidly distributing money to the top of society, destabilizing the long-term economy, and disenfranchising consumers to the tune of the 1920's (you know, when there wasn't enough empirical evidence for persons to reasonably know better). Go on: defend repealing fiduciary standards, industry oversight, and consumer protections.

Then again, that would require you understanding public policy in some basic detail and making one solitary statement regarding substantive policy that isn't reductive identity political drivel.

you project waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy too much on here playa, relax ffs.

So only the REP party engages in citizens united type campaign financing?
the Clinton Foundation wasn't literally selling positions?

the more you know.gif

carry on

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Regardless of whether that is material to your misunderstanding of Brazile's story (it's not), you're just a fucking moron if you don't see the obvious corruption of billions of private dollars flowing into policy makers who then pass policies that are objectively contrary to the interests of 99% of the population and objectively to the benefit of the donors. Fuck, why do you think Mitch McConnell fought for decades to prevent the American public from being able to see who and how much is donated to him and to place any kind of restriction on it?


Also, I would love, love, love to see you actually defend the expert-panned Randian policies that are rapidly distributing money to the top of society, destabilizing the long-term economy, and disenfranchising consumers to the tune of the 1920's (you know, when there wasn't enough empirical evidence for persons to reasonably know better). Go on: defend repealing fiduciary standards, industry oversight, and consumer protections.

Then again, that would require you understanding public policy in some basic detail and making one solitary statement regarding substantive policy that isn't reductive identity political drivel.

This isn't at about the GOP. This isn't even about the blatant bribery that goes on.

This is about how people donated to the DNC in support of whichever candidate the DNC selected, but instead their donations were funneled to one candidate. Do you not see the misrepresentation here? You can't collect money for the DNC, and then give that money to the Hillary Campaign when there are campaign donation limits. They broke the law.

Hillary's camp couldn't just let the SuperPacs campaign for her. No. She had to be in control of the money herself in order to have influence over people in the DNC and ensure her nomination. Don't you see how fucked up this is? It's absolute corruption and it completely undermined the democratic process.

 

[Trotsky]

you project waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy too much on here playa, relax ffs.

So only the REP party engages in citizens united type campaign financing?
the Clinton Foundation wasn't literally selling positions?

the more you know.gif

carry on

That's the entire point, had you actually read the post to which you originally replied: the Democratic Party literally had to give the reigns to a neoliberal plutocrat in Clinton and the modern Democrats have had to carve out neoliberal caveats (big finance, big pharmaceuticals, etc.) just to subsidize their actual honest-hearted policies.

There is no possible way for the two-party system to function post-Citizens United without an outstandingly educated and meticulously aware citizenry. Which means it cannot function at all. Each party is going to have to devolve into selling out citizens' interests to sustain its financing. The one that regards genuine policy interests less is going to retain a distinct competitive advantage.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

That's the entire point, had you actually read the post to which you originally replied: the Democratic Party literally had to give the reigns to a neoliberal plutocrat in Clinton and the modern Democrats have had to carve out neoliberal caveats (big finance, big pharmaceuticals, etc.) just to subsidize their actual honest-hearted policies.

There is no possible way for the two-party system to function post-Citizens United without an outstandingly educated and meticulously aware citizenry. Which means it cannot function at all. Each party is going to have to devolve into selling out citizens' interests to sustain its financing. The one that regards genuine policy interests less is going to retain a distinct competitive advantage.

Bullshit. Trump won with less than 1/10th of Bush's money.

 

[Trotsky]

This isn't at about the GOP. This isn't even about the blatant bribery that goes on.

This is about how people donated to the DNC in support of whichever candidate the DNC selected, but instead their donations were funneled to one candidate. Do you not see the misrepresentation here? You can't collect money for the DNC, and then give that money to the Hillary Campaign when there are campaign donation limits. They broke the law.

Hillary's camp couldn't just let the SuperPacs campaign for her. No. She had to be in control of the money herself in order to have influence over people in the DNC and ensure her nomination. Don't you see how fucked up this is? It's absolute corruption and it completely undermined the democratic process.

Yes, I understand how shitty it is.

This is a genuine issue with genuine ethics concerns. But viewing it in a vacuum as merely a reflection of Hillary Clinton's evil nature and corrupting influence is useless. It needs to be contextualized with the political landscape: the DNC was selling its soul to pay the bills that must come with honest policy, now that the GOP has become the bona fide business/wealthy party.

Bullshit. Trump won with less than 1/10th of Bush's money.

Yes, and Sanders had similarly uneven success on the Democratic side.

That's not the point.

The presidential election is an anomaly because of the inherent interest and fanfare (Trump capitalized on that especially, given that he dominated airwave constantly without having to pay for advertising). Most party funds get spent on down ballot races. The GOP has dominated in the House, Senate, and at the state level largely because their down ballot candidate are absolutely killing their opponents in funding.

 

[waiguoren]

This isn't at about the GOP. This isn't even about the blatant bribery that goes on.

This is about how people donated to the DNC in support of whichever candidate the DNC selected, but instead their donations were funneled to one candidate. Do you not see the misrepresentation here? You can't collect money for the DNC, and then give that money to the Hillary Campaign when there are campaign donation limits. They broke the law.

Hillary's camp couldn't just let the SuperPacs campaign for her. No. She had to be in control of the money herself in order to have influence over people in the DNC and ensure her nomination. Don't you see how fucked up this is? It's absolute corruption and it completely undermined the democratic process.

I think you can spare the part about undermining democracy. The DNC is a private club and their stacking the deck in favor of their preferred candidate doesn't have anything to do do with democracy.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

The WaPo spin on this is "nothing new to see here, folks" even though Donna Brazile has, for the first time, told us that Hillary purchased the DNC in August 2015, months before announcing her nomination, and the specified exactly how much money went from DNC donations straight into the Hillary camp. Nothing to see here folks! Move along!

How much is WaPo on the take? Is there any money left?

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Yes, I understand how shitty it is.

This is a genuine issue with genuine ethics concerns. But viewing it in a vacuum as merely a reflection of Hillary Clinton's evil nature and corrupting influence is useless. It needs to be contextualized with the political landscape: the DNC was selling its soul to pay the bills that must come with honest policy, now that the GOP has become the bona fide business/wealthy party.



Yes, and Sanders had similarly uneven success on the Democratic side.

That's not the point.

The presidential election is an anomaly because of the inherent interest and fanfare (Trump capitalized on that especially, given that he dominated airwave constantly without having to pay for advertising). Most party funds get spent on down ballot races. The GOP has dominated in the House, Senate, and at the state level largely because their down ballot candidate are absolutely killing their opponents in funding.

The GOP wasn't secretly funneling its funds to one campaign, that we know of. If it was, it didn't work. Hillary did this and it appears it was material for it was necessarily to beat Bernie. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you should not dismiss this type of behavior by saying two wrongs are needed to make a right.