The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[FireNexus]

snip

Where is the indication of special consideration for donors? I see this posted all over and it's the same daily caller article saying "would you like to suggest anyone to be appointed to a board or commission", without mention of donations at all...

Moreover, the laws you indicated (and the actual idea of corruption in general) apply to the promising of such consideration in exchange for donation. Rewarding donors with prestigious appointments is not corrupt if they do not express to you or get expressed to them by you the idea that they will be considered for such an appointment if they donate.

[Wild Zontargs]

*snip*

"Oh, we never explicitly promised them a spot. It's pure coincidence that our biggest donors were put on a special list for consideration." And Hillary wasn't criminally guilty of violating security regulations because she insisted she was too incompetent to understand what she was doing. She wasn't fooling anyone, and it's the same story here.

[Wild Zontargs]

Yep, putting DWS in charge of the Hillary campaign was an excellent idea.

Wasserman Schultz booed off stage in Philadelphia (videos in link)

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was repeatedly interrupted and booed Monday as she sought to speak to Florida's convention delegation.

The Florida lawmaker, who will resign after the Democratic National Convention this week after leaked emails showed top members of the DNC working to boost Hillary Clinton's presidential primary bid, had to strain her voice to yell over the flurry of protestors who showed up to interrupt her speech.

"We need to make sure we move together in a unified way," she said over shouts from the crowd.

As she spoke, people stood on chairs holding up signs that said "emails," "No!" and "Thanks for the 'help,' Debbie."

Others repeatedly shouted: “Shame.”

The heckling didn't stop even as Wasserman Schultz mentioned last night's shooting in Fort Meyers, Fla., that left two dead and more than a dozen injured.

The Florida congresswoman was defiant, insisting delegates would see more of her.

"You will see me every day between now and Nov. 8 on the campaign trail, and we will lock arms and we will not stand down," she said.

She also took on those heckling her.

"We know the voices in this room that are standing up and being disruptive, that’s not the Florida we know. The Florida we know is united, the Florida we know will continue to create jobs,” she said.

Yet the remarkable scene raised more questions about the wisdom of having Wasserman Schultz formally preside over the convention.

She has also said she plans to address the hall of delegates in Philadelphia. If she does, she will almost certainly be interrupted again by her opponents, but on a much larger scale.

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell on Monday said that were it up to him, Wasserman Schultz would not address the convention.

“Debbie is very single-minded, very dedicated,” Rendell said.

“She worked very hard, but she’s stubborn and she wants to see this thing through. I just think it’s wrong for her and it’s wrong for us.”

Emails posted by WikiLeaks appeared to show DNC officials looking for ways to tip the scales against Bernie Sanders during his race with Clinton for the party's presidential nomination.

One email showed a top DNC official calling for someone to corner Sanders on his religious beliefs, arguing that he’s “skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage.” And another showed a press official talking about pitching a negative story about Sanders's organization.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yep, putting DWS in charge of the Hillary campaign was an excellent idea.

What does the term "Honorary" mean to you?

I really want to know, because thinking "honorary co-chair" actually carries with it responsibilities or power would seem to indicate a reading comprehension failure.

It is a face-saving sop. Nothing more.

[FireNexus]

*snip*

"Oh, we never explicitly promised them a spot. It's pure coincidence that our biggest donors were put on a special list for consideration." And Hillary wasn't criminally guilty of violating security regulations because she insisted she was too incompetent to understand what she was doing. She wasn't fooling anyone, and it's the same story here.

So... You haven't got a god damn thing, but you really want it to be true. Thanks for clearing that up.

[maraxus2]

*snip*

"Oh, we never explicitly promised them a spot. It's pure coincidence that our biggest donors were put on a special list for consideration." And Hillary wasn't criminally guilty of violating security regulations because she insisted she was too incompetent to understand what she was doing. She wasn't fooling anyone, and it's the same story here.

So... You haven't got a god damn thing, but you really want it to be true. Thanks for clearing that up.

Yeah, basically. Just like those emails he posted earlier. No evidence of anything particularly egregious; just a lot of DNC staffers talking shit about an annoying candidate and his even more annoying supporters. But HILLARY UNTRUSTWORTHY LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP or whatever.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of how political campaigns work would recognize the stuff in those emails as standard operating procedure. Of course you want to shape the media coverage you can get. Of course you're going to talk shit about candidates/their supporters if they're acting like dipshits. But apparently it cost Bernie the election and is a conspiracy.

Speaking of supporters acting like dipshits, Bernie is quickly learning that attacking Hillary's legitimacy might not have been the best long-term strategy afterall. Who'd have guessed?

Bernie Sanders started a political revolution. Now he can’t stop it.
By Chris Cillizza July 25 at 2:46 PM

Bernie Sanders. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)
Bernie Sanders spoke to a large group of his supporters on Monday in Philadelphia. The crowd cheered as Sanders ran through all of the successes he and his self-professed "political revolution" had run up this year: the millions of votes he won, the reduction in superdelegates, the takeover of state parties by Sanders supporters.

Then came time for the pivot. Sanders tried to tell the crowd that now was the time to line up behind Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Timothy M. Kaine. Boos cascaded down. Shouts of "no!" And then a Sanders chant started up.

Sanders was at a loss. Here he was telling his most loyal supporters what needed to happen next in order to unify the party and beat Donald Trump. And they weren't listening. They wanted revolution. Now, not later.

What was clear for anyone watching Sanders's unsuccessful attempts to calm the churning among his supporters is that the revolution he started is no longer one he can totally control. Or maybe even control at all.

This is the nature of centering a presidential campaign — or any campaign, really — on the absolute necessity of radical political change. Sanders, who has been working within the political system — albeit it on the outskirts — for decades, gets that at the end of a losing campaign, you line up behind the person who won. That's just how things work.

But for many of his supporters who took the time to attend the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, that's not enough. They campaigned for him, voted for him, gave money to him and now have come to Philadelphia for him. They aren't ready to give up — and don't think they have to. "Bernie or Bust" T-shirts are everywhere. One woman interviewed by MSNBC insisted that the only way the problems surrounding the Democratic National Committee's email leak scandal could be solved is if Kaine was removed as VP and Sanders was installed. (Breaking news: That isn't going to happen!)

To be clear, not every Sanders supporter feels that way. In fact, the vast majority of them tell pollsters they plan to vote for Clinton this fall. But there is without doubt a vocal group here in Philadelphia unwilling to roll over and play nice with the presumptive nominee — no matter what Sanders says they should do.

That is an issue for Clinton — and for Sanders. A vocal minority in the context of, say, Sanders's speech to the convention tonight could be a major problem for party strategists doing everything they can to present a united front. Anything similar to what happened this afternoon — booing when Sanders mentions the need to support Clinton — would be a major embarrassment for the former secretary of state just days before she is set to formally take the reins of the national party.

The scariest thing if you are a member of the Democratic establishment? Not even Bernie Sanders seems to be able to control these people. The revolution is still happening for them, and no one can convince them otherwise.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course there's a surge in Bernie or Bust stupidity after this latest bullshit with Schultz. Its terrifying, because an ugly, divisive convention may massively increase Trump's chances of victory, but its utterly predictable.

And of course, predictably, party hacks like maraxus2 are blaming Bernie Sanders, because its somehow his fault for supporting a political revolution (in other words, the above article appears to be saying, if you try to change the status quo, you are responsible for anything any asshole supporter of yours does). Or, perhaps, its his fault for daring to ever challenge Hillary Clinton.

They don't seem interested in asking why it was so wrong for Sanders to use the campaign rhetoric he did against Clinton, but apparently not for her to use rhetoric tying him to Right wing racist vigilantes and communist dictatorships in the debates, or for her supporters to accuse his campaign of inciting violence in Nevada, for example.

Bernie is doing everything in his power to bring his people over to Clinton. Clinton undermined herself by giving DWS a post the moment she resigned.

But I expected this. No matter what Clinton does, no matter how badly she fucks it up, Bernie is the scapegoat.

What makes this clusterfuck even more shameful is that this entire thing was almost certainly instigate for exactly this effect by agents of the Russian government, with the likely purpose of aiding Trump, who's election would serve Russia's goal of undermining NATO:

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/ ... -democrats

Is the Kremlin trying to throw the U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump? It sounds like something out of a spy novel. But many cybersecurity experts, as well as the Hillary Clinton campaign, are now saying the Russians are responsible for last month's hack of the Democratic National Committee.

That hack has dominated the news cycle on the eve of the Democratic convention, and for good reason. The emails disclosed Friday by WikiLeaks are embarrassing. They show DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, plotting to undermine the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders, confirming the worst suspicions of the left flank of the party. She resigned her post on Sunday.

But the bigger issue is who was responsible for the hack in the first place. Bob Gourley, a former chief technology officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency and now the co-founder and partner Cognitio, a cybersecurity consultancy, told me Sunday that he thinks the Russians did it.

"The software code that I have seen from the hack had all the telltale signs of being Russian, including code re-used from other attacks," Gourley told me. "This is a really big deal. Some people in the community are saying this is the Russians pretending to be a hacker, then giving that information to Julian Assange is all part of an operation." (Assange founded WikiLeaks.)

Gourley is not alone among cybersecurity experts. When the hack of the DNC was first disclosed in June, the security firm Crowdstrike also pointed to the Russians. Crowdstrike investigated the incident for the Democratic party and concluded it was the same actor that penetrated the State Department, White House and Pentagon unclassified systems in 2015. Describing the code used for the penetration in a blog post, Crowdstrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch wrote: "Both adversaries engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services."

Over the weekend, the Trump and Clinton campaigns traded accusations on the issue.

Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook told ABC News the experts consulted by the campaign said it was Russia. Paul Manafort, who runs the Trump campaign, responded that this was "pure obfuscation."

The technical case for attributing the DNC hack to Russia rests in the similarity of the code found on the committee’s servers to other hacks believed to have originated in Russia. Gourley acknowledges though this isn't foolproof. "It could be some hacker in a garage in Florida found this code and re-used it," he said. "But historically the bad guys re-use their own code a lot."

There is also a circumstantial case that the Russians are behind the hack. To start, Vice Magazine's Motherboard channel got hold of the alleged Romanian hacker, Guccifer 2.0, who has claimed credit for the cyber skullduggery. The hacker was asked to describe his hack in Romanian and couldn't string together a coherent sentence in the language.

Then there is the question of who benefits. While Clinton implemented a reset in relations with Russia when she was secretary of state, she has since soured on Moscow. When Russian irregulars invaded Ukraine in 2014, she compared Putin to Hitler.

Trump on the other hand has bucked his party's Russia hawks. He has said he would only aid NATO states if they paid their fair share of the defense burden in Europe. Until Trump, no Republican presidential nominee has questioned the U.S. mutual-defense commitment enshrined in NATO.

Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me that it was in Russian president Vladimir Putin's interest for "the Democrats to keep power over foreign policy and to have Hillary Clinton -- architect of the Russia reset policy that opened the door for Putin's aggression throughout the globe -- become president." He added: "That's why I like this particular conspiracy theory even though I don't believe it -- it would mean Putin is far less intelligent than I thought, and that would be comforting to me."

Mike Vickers, a former undersecretary of defense for Intelligence and a Clinton supporter, disagrees. "I think all signs point to cyber actors with ties to Russian Intelligence,” he told me on Sunday. “What is unprecedented, it seems to me, is the use of these tools for covert political influence against the United States during a presidential general election."

That indeed would be unprecedented. The Russians operate RT, an English-language television network that gives airtime to 9/11 conspiracy theorists and other anti-American views. If the Russians are behind the DNC hack, it would be a new tactic that combines the state's overt influence operations with its covert cyber-spying.

Mike Flynn, who served as Defense Intelligence Agency director between 2012 and 2014 and is an adviser to the Trump campaign, told me he wouldn't be surprised if the Russians were behind the DNC hack. “Both China and Russia have the full capability to do this," he said. "If someone were to find out Russia did this I would not be surprised at all." Flynn said, however, that the real problem is that there is very poor information security for U.S. political parties and campaigns. "This is another email scandal for the Democratic party," he said.

There is something to this. Last year a group called the Online Trust Alliance surveyed major presidential campaign websites and found that only six met basic standards for security, privacy and consumer data protection.

Part of the problem is that the Federal Election Commission does not impose basic cyber security standards for political parties and campaigns the way the Federal Trade Commission does for U.S. businesses. "By not having a regulator that has the authority to investigate the campaigns and the data security practices of political parties, it was only a matter of time before a campaign or national party was hacked," Chris Soghoian, the chief technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union told me.

In this sense, the problem of Russian hacking may be bipartisan. In May, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said there were indications of hacks against both the Trump and Clinton campaigns.

This may be true, but so far only the Democrats have seen their pilfered emails made public. In that sense it looks like the Russians are playing favorites in American politics, something the Kremlin has accused the U.S. of doing to Russia for the last 100 years.

So congratulations, self-destructive Busters and dishonesty Clinonite hacks. You're doing a fine job of dancing to Vladimir Putin's tune.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... ecast/#now

538 is now giving Trump a 54.5% chance of winning the election in its projections.

I truly hope I'm wrong, and I know its far too early to say for certain, but I have a sinking feeling that Clinton just lost the country to a Nazi Russia puppet for the sake of giving Debbie Wasserman Schultz a pat on the back.

[Terralthra]

That's the Now-Cast, not the forecast. Learn to read.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's a relief, though your reply is needlessly insulting. I've read the whole page carefully, and as far as I can see, the only mention that its the now-cast rather than forecast is one tiny bit of small print on the far left side of the page.

As I seldom visit 538, I would not be familiar with this.

[maraxus2]

Of course there's a surge in Bernie or Bust stupidity after this latest bullshit with Schultz. Its terrifying, because an ugly, divisive convention may massively increase Trump's chances of victory, but its utterly predictable.

And of course, predictably, party hacks like maraxus2 are blaming Bernie Sanders, because its somehow his fault for supporting a political revolution (in other words, the above article appears to be saying, if you try to change the status quo, you are responsible for anything any asshole supporter of yours does). Or, perhaps, its his fault for daring to ever challenge Hillary Clinton.

They don't seem interested in asking why it was so wrong for Sanders to use the campaign rhetoric he did against Clinton, but apparently not for her to use rhetoric tying him to Right wing racist vigilantes and communist dictatorships in the debates, or for her supporters to accuse his campaign of inciting violence in Nevada, for example.

It IS his fault, you imbecile. His campaign picked these delegates. His campaign encouraged the notion of political revolution, despite it being obvious to everyone apart from kool-aid drinkers like you that it was never going to happen. His campaign attacked the legitimacy of Clinton's victories. He stuck around in the primary long after it was obvious that he lost. Now these chickens are coming home to roost, and it turns out that it was a very poor long-term decision on Sanders' part.

Man, if only someone had predicted that this might happen.

Bernie is doing everything in his power to bring his people over to Clinton. Clinton undermined herself by giving DWS a post the moment she resigned.

But I expected this. No matter what Clinton does, no matter how badly she fucks it up, Bernie is the scapegoat.

Yeah, how dare Clinton give DWS an utterly meaningless title after trying to push her out of office for the better part of a year. What a slap in Sanders' face.

I don't recall blaming Bernie for Clinton's email nonsense, just the stuff that he very obviously had a hand in.

So congratulations, self-destructive Busters and dishonesty Clinonite hacks. You're doing a fine job of dancing to Vladimir Putin's tune.

Fuck you. This dishonest Clintonite hack is trying to keep Trump out of the White House. What are you doing to keep him out of office?

[Terralthra]

That's a relief, though your reply is needlessly insulting. I've read the whole page carefully, and as far as I can see, the only mention that its the now-cast rather than forecast is one tiny bit of small print on the far left side of the page.

As I seldom visit 538, I would not be familiar with this.

You mean other than the URL where it says "#now"? You linked to a source you a) didn't read the URL b) didn't read the page and c) don't understand. Then got salty when I told you to learn to read, rather than, I dunno, learning to fucking read.

[maraxus2]

You mean other than the URL where it says "#now"? You linked to a source you a) didn't read the URL b) didn't read the page and c) don't understand. Then got salty when I told you to learn to read, rather than, I dunno, learning to fucking read.

Must be hard to read when you have your head shoved up your entire ass.

Now Sanders' delegates have booed Nancy Pelosi and mine own beloved Congresswoman Barbara Lee for...reasons I guess?

California Delegates Boo Speakers at Convention Breakfast
Jeers for Pelosi, cheers for Sanders in ominous opening for DNC
Posted Jul 25, 2016 10:05 AM

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took the boos from Bernie Sanders' supporters at the California delegation breakfast in Philadelphia on Monday in her stride. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo)

PHILADELPHIA — Democratic discontent with Hillary Clinton was on full display at the California delegation breakfast Monday morning ahead of the first night of the Democratic National Convention.

Members of the delegation repeatedly disrupted the lineup of speakers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, with protestations against Clinton and cheers for her erstwhile primary rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders won 43 percent of the California's Democratic primary vote in June, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 56 percent.
But whenever a speaker talked about uniting to elect Clinton in November, the crowd balked. They booed Rep. Michael M. Honda. And chanted, “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!” during Rep. Barbara Lee’s address.

Pelosi tried to unify the room by emphasizing the commonalities in the room rather than the divisions. “The differences that we have are not so great compared to the chasm between us and Republicans,” she said.

But the crowd wasn’t having it. When a "Bernie" sign was thrust in Pelosi’s face on stage, she remained calm, saying, “I don’t consider it a discourtesy even if it is intended as one.”

The minority leader said she’d always opposed superdelegates and praised Sanders for staying in the race through the California primary in June because he helped boost turnout that resulted in more down-ballot Democrats finishing in the state’s top-two primary system.

With one final call for unity, and rallying calls to take back the House and the Senate, Pelosi walked off stage to more “Bernie” chants.

Pelosi later downplayed the divisions and dismissed concerns that the booing of the presumptive nominee would hurt the party.

“Well, you know, it’s the Democratic Party," she told reporters after the breakfast. "We’ve never been a monolith, and we’ve always tried to reach consensus. But unanimity has never — it’s just an impossibility for any party.”


With two of her grandchildren at her side, Pelosi said she’d met with plenty of Sanders supporters who were pleased that their demands had been accommodated in the platform.

Others, she implied, don’t realize how well they had it.

“Some people are new and just are not familiar with how things work,” she said. “That is to say, you make your case, you make your vote, you make a difference, you demand a compromise, and you pull — whether it’s policy or rules — closer to you, and that is success.”

- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/c ... RQD6I.dpuf

[The Romulan Republic]

It IS his fault, you imbecile.

Well, of course, you would say that.

Personal attacks and Sanders bashing are nothing new from you.

His campaign picked these delegates.

Guess what? Not everyone a campaign picks is perfect.

And you know, when it comes to the behaviour of their appointees and surrogates, a Clinton loyalist really might not want to cast stones in their glass house right now.

His campaign encouraged the notion of political revolution, despite it being obvious to everyone apart from kool-aid drinkers like you that it was never going to happen.

Translation: "How dare he think he could win? How dare he try to achieve anything substantial?"

This is one step away from bashing him for daring to run against Clinton at all, which I suspect is the underlying sentiment.

His campaign attacked the legitimacy of Clinton's victories.

With reason.

Are you going to deny the widely-reported on voting irregularities?

He stuck around in the primary long after it was obvious that he lost.

He had ever right and good reason to stay in until the primaries were wrapped up, but we've been over this point so many times, and I have no desire to try to get it through your skull yet again.

I would have liked to see him endorse Clinton sooner, but I think he needed to get some major concessions first to convince more of his supporters to come over. And it appeared to have worked out just fine, until this clusterfuck over the emails and Clinton making the mind-boggling move of hiring a disgraced, biased ex-DNC chair despised by Sanders supporters onto her campaign.

Now these chickens are coming home to roost, and it turns out that it was a very poor long-term decision on Sanders' part.

See above.

Yeah, how dare Clinton give DWS an utterly meaningless title after trying to push her out of office for the better part of a year. What a slap in Sanders' face.

Why give her anything? She resigned in disgrace.

Are you at least capable of admitting how politically bad this looks, even if you personally don't object to it?

I don't recall blaming Bernie for Clinton's email nonsense, just the stuff that he very obviously had a hand in.

My point is that the things your blaming him for (the sudden re-inflaming of Bernie or Bust at the convention) is at least in part due to the email scandal, not any actions of Bernies' (he's out their doing what he can for damage control, and getting booed by some of his own supporters for his efforts while people like you attack him for not predicting all of this in advance and daring to run a strong campaign against Clinton).

Fuck you. This dishonest Clintonite hack is trying to keep Trump out of the White House. What are you doing to keep him out of office?

Well, I voted for Bernie, in part because I thought he'd be the best to beat Trump.

Then I switched my support to Clinton, despite my deep dislike and distrust of her, and have urged others to do the same.

I fully intend to vote for her in November, come what may.

And I am considering making some campaign donations to the Democrats, finances permitting.

I will consider further ways in which I can contribute more to Democratic efforts to achieve victory, although my resources are limited and my options are somewhat hampered by the fact that I'm currently living outside the country.

My point, in any case, is not that you want Trump. Its that this kind of infighting is not helping anyone but Trump and Putin, and that I hold both sides accountable for it.

[Iroscato]

At this stage in the game, I'm almost hoping Trump wins so that people fully understand the consequences of electing such a dangerous lunatic, and there is a heavy swing left in reaction to his reign of terror. Too many innocents would get mangled up in the process, though.

Sanders should've pulled out waaaay earlier.

[The Romulan Republic]

At this stage in the game, I'm almost hoping Trump wins so that people fully understand the consequences of electing such a dangerous lunatic, and there is a heavy swing left in reaction to his reign of terror. Too many innocents would get mangled up in the process, though.

Ah, yes. I've heard this argument before.

"If Trump wins, it'l be so horrible that everyone will see how right we were! Wouldn't that be great?"

You'll forgive me if I find that to be both a very questionable gamble on an uncertain future, and also morally bankrupt.

Sanders should've pulled out waaaay earlier.

No, he really shouldn't have.

He had ever right to stay in until it was no longer possible for him to win a majority of pledged delegates (indeed, he would have been breaking a promise to his supporters to drop out sooner).

After that, it was a question of winning enough concessions to convince more of his supporters to come over.

And it was working fine, to all appearances, until yesterday.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders and his top people continue their efforts at damage control:

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pr ... ock-her-up

PHILADELPHIA — Bernie Sanders supporters should stop calling for Hillary Clinton to be put in prison, Jeff Weaver said Monday ahead of the start of the Democratic National Convention.


"I know emotions are running high right now, but I think people really have to consider the implications of what a [Donald] Trump presidency would mean for those of us who support the kind of agenda that Bernie Sanders has laid out for the country," Weaver, who served as campaign manager for Sanders’s presidential bid, told The Hill in a brief interview at the Wells Fargo Center.
On Sunday, immediately preceding the opening of the Democratic convention, supporters of the Vermont senator reportedly marched through the streets of Philadelphia, chanting, "Lock her up."

It's the same chant Republicans used against Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, during their convention in Cleveland last week.

Among the anti-Clinton messages at Sunday's march were “Hillary for Prison” signs and calls for Clinton's indictment over her use of a private email server while secretary of State, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Asked whether he would urge supporters of Sanders to stop chanting "lock her up," Weaver said, "Yes.

"I would encourage them to continue the political revolution by advancing the cause of progressive change," he said.

"And the best way we're going to do that at this point is to elect Democrats up and down the ballot."

[Alyrium Denryle]

And of course, predictably, party hacks like maraxus2 are blaming Bernie Sanders, because its somehow his fault for supporting a political revolution (in other words, the above article appears to be saying, if you try to change the status quo, you are responsible for anything any asshole supporter of yours does). Or, perhaps, its his fault for daring to ever challenge Hillary Clinton.

Trying to change the status quo is not the problem, but his bloody rhetoric matters. You cannot attack the fundamental legitimacy of your opponent and whip up a revolutionary frenzy and then expect that it will quietly simmer down when you lose.

Are you going to deny the widely-reported on voting irregularities?

There are always irregularities. In every single election. None of the irregularities were biased in favor of clinton vs sanders supporters. This election is unique in that logistical fuckups are suddenly a massive conspiracy.

That is on him and his campaign.

[The Romulan Republic]

Question: Why condemn Sanders for his rhetoric but not Clinton for going up on stage in the fucking debates and trying to tie Sanders to the fucking Minutemen and accuse him of supporting crackdowns by communist dictators?

Why not blame her supporters for the grossly inflated accusations of violence in Nevada, including accusing the Sanders campaign of inciting violence?

I'd put all but accusing your opponent of terrorism a step beyond merely questioning their legitimacy.

I can't speak for anyone else, but a lot of my anger towards the Clinton side comes back to their being a double standard, and the sense of entitlement that accompanies it. It seems like the attitude is that its okay for Clinton to tear down her opponents any way she pleases, but they're wrong to challenge her in kind because she was "inevitable".

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just not sure where the Democratic Party, or progressivism in America, goes from here. It seems like we've lost every bit of ground gained in building unity since the California primary, and I don't know if there's time to rebuild that, or if either Clinton or Bernie has much credibility left on the subject.

I look forward to Bernie's convention speech tonight, and maybe Warren's, but otherwise I just find it all depressing.

[Terralthra]

To quote Joshua Lyman from The West Wing:

Josh: Donna...
Donna: Let me get through this. It's one of the more awkward moments of a lifetime.
Josh: I can't do this.
Donna: I'm good is the point. I'm as surprised as you are and rumor has it that you could use a deputy.
Josh: [reading from a file] "Matthew Santos is throwing a ton of numbers at you hoping you'll be so confused as to miss the fact that his education plan is both impractical and unaffordable. He was a House member, you'd think behavior like that would annoy him." Donna Moss, Spokesperson, Russell for President Campaign.
Donna: I didn't mean that he was...
Josh: "Claiming that 3 House terms qualifies you to be President is like me saying I'm a foreign relations expert because I ordered Kung Pao last night."
Donna: I didn't say that, did I?
Josh: February 26; Coffee, Cake, and Candidates; Raleigh, North Carolina. "He wasn't a military strategist, he was a pilot. Ask him about the overhead compartment, not about defense."
Donna: You called Russell a cowpoke. You said the President avoided him in the halls. You hummed "These Boots Are Made For Walking" every time the press mentioned his name.
Josh: Yeah, but I won.

The US follows a form of winner-take-all politics that for certain is shitty and toxic, but it's nonetheless the culture of the political class. Pissing into the wind won't change that.

[The Romulan Republic]

What is your point?

That Clinton should be able to do whatever she wants, no matter how offensive to progressives, without repercussions because she won the primary?

Well, sure, she can try to run things that way. Maybe she'll even pull it off.

But that doesn't mean its a good idea.

But you know what? I'm done arguing the point. Call that a concession if you wish. I've made my feelings clear on the matter, I hope, and I don't want to contribute any further to divisiveness on the Left.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- the first priority has to be stopping Trump. Any thing else is just dancing on Putin's strings right now.

[maraxus2]

Well, of course, you would say that.

Personal attacks and Sanders bashing are nothing new from you.

Consistency is a virtue. It warms my heart to see that you're consistently stupid.

Guess what? Not everyone a campaign picks is perfect.

And you know, when it comes to the behaviour of their appointees and surrogates, a Clinton loyalist really might not want to cast stones in their glass house right now.

I disagree. This is the perfect time to cast stones. Bernie's delegates are fucking up this convention. Nobody else is booing apart from them. They're even *booing their own candidate*

Translation: "How dare he think he could win? How dare he try to achieve anything substantial?"

This is one step away from bashing him for daring to run against Clinton at all, which I suspect is the underlying sentiment.

That's not what I said at all, you fatuous nincompoop. Bernie ran by promising the moon and a political revolution to his gullible supporters. Everyone outside of his campaign acknowledged that this would not happen, was not happening, and never would happen. Now he's acting all shocked that his delegates are behaving badly because they didn't get said political revolution.

With reason.

Are you going to deny the widely-reported on voting irregularities?

Yes, if you're going to make baseless insinuations without evidence. Hillary beat Bernie fair and square. The fact that you cannot reconcile yourself to that basic reality is your problem, not mine.

He had ever right and good reason to stay in until the primaries were wrapped up, but we've been over this point so many times, and I have no desire to try to get it through your skull yet again.

I would have liked to see him endorse Clinton sooner, but I think he needed to get some major concessions first to convince more of his supporters to come over. And it appeared to have worked out just fine, until this clusterfuck over the emails and Clinton making the mind-boggling move of hiring a disgraced, biased ex-DNC chair despised by Sanders supporters onto her campaign.

Yeah, it appears to have worked out just fine up until his numbskull *delegates* started booing everyone at the DNC. Are you for real?

Why give her anything? She resigned in disgrace.

Are you at least capable of admitting how politically bad this looks, even if you personally don't object to it?

Why? because it makes entitled dipshits like you angry? She's already effectively been out of the DNC for a month, and now she's actually out.

My point is that the things your blaming him for (the sudden re-inflaming of Bernie or Bust at the convention) is at least in part due to the email scandal, not any actions of Bernies' (he's out their doing what he can for damage control, and getting booed by some of his own supporters for his efforts while people like you attack him for not predicting all of this in advance and daring to run a strong campaign against Clinton).

And my point is that none of this would have been an issue had Sanders not gone around attacking Clinton's legitimacy and fanning the flames for Bernie or Bust months before dropping out. And I'm talking shit because it was very obvious thing to predict at the time. There were lots of people talking about how deeply irresponsible Bernie's attacks on Clinton's legitimacy would become, and they've been proven absolutely right on the first day of the convention.

Well, I voted for Bernie, in part because I thought he'd be the best to beat Trump.

Then I switched my support to Clinton, despite my deep dislike and distrust of her, and have urged others to do the same.

I fully intend to vote for her in November, come what may.

And I am considering making some campaign donations to the Democrats, finances permitting.

I will consider further ways in which I can contribute more to Democratic efforts to achieve victory, although my resources are limited and my options are somewhat hampered by the fact that I'm currently living outside the country.

In other words, you're doing fuck all. That's about what I expected.

My point, in any case, is not that you want Trump. Its that this kind of infighting is not helping anyone but Trump and Putin, and that I hold both sides accountable for it.

Perfect. Congratulations on concluding the most TRR post with a #bothsides golden mean bullshit. All you have to do now is talk about how "CNN isn't the best source" and tell me how Bernie *still has a chance* to make it an unqualified success.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, its not a golden mean fallacy to say both sides are doing something wrong when both sides really are doing something wrong.

A golden mean fallacy is saying that the position in the middle is right because its in the middle. That's not what I'm doing.

At least get your debating terminology correct.

[maraxus2]

You know, its not a golden mean fallacy to say both sides are doing something wrong when both sides really are doing something wrong.

A golden mean fallacy is saying that the position in the middle is right because its in the middle. That's not what I'm doing.

At least get your debating terminology correct.

I call that bold talk from a fellow who struggles with there/their/they're. What was that about stones and glass houses you mentioned earlier?