Current Events > Donna Brazlie sells out the DNC

(+) Yeah! (+)

Anteaterking posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Another big takeaway from this is, there was not enough money going to state and local races because Clinton was hijacking it all. So shes also directly responsible for the Republican majorities in Congress.

I think either you or I read it wrong, because it sounds like the only reason those state parties had money in the first place was through this deal where Clinton essentially raised all of their money for them.

Which is obviously its own set of problems, but the characterization of hijacking money seems incorrect if the money is raised by you under an agreement that gives you control over what the money is used for.

Sounds like hijacking to me. The DNC is who nominates the candidate for the party. If she's fucking running it too, then it can easily be framed as collusion.
---

This is the end of the DNC.

@southcoast09
---

This kind of shit goes on all the time on both sides. It's as much of an open secret as Harvey Weinstein.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Anteaterking posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Another big takeaway from this is, there was not enough money going to state and local races because Clinton was hijacking it all. So shes also directly responsible for the Republican majorities in Congress.

I think either you or I read it wrong, because it sounds like the only reason those state parties had money in the first place was through this deal where Clinton essentially raised all of their money for them.

Which is obviously its own set of problems, but the characterization of hijacking money seems incorrect if the money is raised by you under an agreement that gives you control over what the money is used for.

Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillarys campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild the party from the ground up when our state parties are strong, we win. Thats what will happen.

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillarys campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as essentially money laundering for the Clinton campaign, Hillarys people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernies people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

The agreementsigned by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Eliasspecified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the partys finances, strategy, and all the money raised.

And the money in question was raised through the Victory Fund.

Kineth posted...

Sounds like hijacking to me. The DNC is who nominates the candidate for the party. If she's f***ing running it too, then it can easily be framed as collusion.

I'm talking about the money, not the party. I personally wouldn't characterize it as hijacking the party, but I think that would be a fair characterization for you to make.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Anteaterking posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Another big takeaway from this is, there was not enough money going to state and local races because Clinton was hijacking it all. So shes also directly responsible for the Republican majorities in Congress.

I think either you or I read it wrong, because it sounds like the only reason those state parties had money in the first place was through this deal where Clinton essentially raised all of their money for them.

Which is obviously its own set of problems, but the characterization of hijacking money seems incorrect if the money is raised by you under an agreement that gives you control over what the money is used for.

Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillarys campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild the party from the ground up when our state parties are strong, we win. Thats what will happen.

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillarys campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as essentially money laundering for the Clinton campaign, Hillarys people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernies people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

right, but she was the one who was raising the money -- she just needed to use the DNC apparatus to distribute the funds because of limits on what you can give directly to the president

no one was giving money to the DNC or state parties because they wanted to give money to the DNC or the state parties, seemingly

edit -- at least potentially, I don't know how the fundraising occurred, it is possible her pitch was "hey help the state parties!" in which case that is even more fucked up than it already is
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Hillary was still infinitely preferable to Bernie.

According to who?
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Hillary was still infinitely preferable to Bernie.

According to who?

According to the Trump supporters who know that a Bernie nomination would have completely doomed Trump.
---

Shocker: Literally zero mention of this on CNN
---

Kineth posted...

The Top Crusader posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

I mean we always knew she did it, but at least now we know why.

Hope they're happy that Trump won because of it.

Hillary was very unlikable, but she was at least "safe." I don't think the majority of Americans were going to vote for an avowed socialist in the year 2016.

Plenty of Republicans would have voted for him before Trump or Hillary. It's more like that a majority of Americans wouldn't vote for a woman president yet, though we could have got a better candidate.

You jerks refused McCain because of Palin so take your sexism bullshit and shove it up your arse.

And she was only a VP pick not even the President pick.
---

The left is literally eating itself at this point.

and Hillary is wondering why she's seen as corrupt
---

Newhopes posted...

The left is literally eating itself at this point.

I don't get this criticism. The alternative is a "unity for unity's sake" that buries very real differences and complaints. The alternative is looking like Paul Ryan pretending to love Trump.
---

HiddenLurker posted...

You jerks refused McCain because of Palin so take your sexism bullshit and shove it up your arse.

And she was only a VP pick not even the President pick.

Palin was a fucking idiot and McCain was strongly convinced by the RNC that she should be his running mate, BECAUSE they wanted to get the women voters that were gonna vote for Hillary. He wanted Joe Lieberman and he would have coasted to the win if he had him. Hell, he could have put that chair that Clint Eastwood was arguing with as his VP nom and he woulda done better than with Palin.

Palin's presence was some sexist bullshit too.

And I'm just saying, black men got the right to vote in this country before white women.
---

Exactly why I voted for Trump, you rig a primary and force me to vote for someone then you lose my vote
---

HiddenLurker posted...

so take your sexism bullshit and shove it up your arse.

Hillary was a bad choice for the White House, simple as that.

That said she would have been a better choice than Trump.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

so take your sexism bullshit and shove it up your arse.

Hillary was a bad choice for the White House, simple as that.

That said she would have been a better choice than Trump.

I didnt vote for either this election because they both suck ass.
But if your excuse of Hillary losing is sexism then you people have the memory of a goldfish. Since the excuse to not vote McCain was literally "But but Palin!"
---

HiddenLurker posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

so take your sexism bullshit and shove it up your arse.

Hillary was a bad choice for the White House, simple as that.

That said she would have been a better choice than Trump.

I didnt vote for either this election because they both suck ass.
But if your excuse of Hillary losing is sexism then you people have the memory of a goldfish. Since the excuse to not vote McCain was literally "But but Palin!"

Palin was absolutely an incompetent person. There's no comparison between her and Clinton. None.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.

This is why I have no qualms with Trump winning and see these 4 years as a necessary sacrifice. . If I had to choose between a candidate who's rigging the system but would maintain the status quo versus a egregious and laughably embarrassing candidate who would surely burn the place down, I have to go with the latter. Under no circumstances should you compromise the integrity of the system if it's built to be trusted. We got a bit lucky where Clinton has her own agenda but wouldn't rock the boat for the country's people internally, but what if we had a competent Trump in her position with regards to controlling the party? We'd be more than screwed.
---

legendary_zell posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

so take your sexism bullshit and shove it up your arse.

Hillary was a bad choice for the White House, simple as that.

That said she would have been a better choice than Trump.

I didnt vote for either this election because they both suck ass.
But if your excuse of Hillary losing is sexism then you people have the memory of a goldfish. Since the excuse to not vote McCain was literally "But but Palin!"

Palin was absolutely an incompetent person. There's no comparison between her and Clinton. None.

Who is Palin? Is she some kind of Tina Fey impersonator?
---

HiddenLurker posted...

But if your excuse of Hillary losing is sexism then you people have the memory of a goldfish.

I misread your post - I don't think it was because of sexism - just that she was a terrible choice for president.

Kineth posted...

Palin's presence was some sexist bullshit too.

And I'm just saying, black men got the right to vote in this country before white women.

Neither of them were worth their weight in shit to be president - their only qualifications were that they both were equally as shady and suspect as all of the male nominations.

I personally like Liz Warren, but whatever.

If you want to push sexism as the reason for two terrible female nominees than that's a you thing; I'm just not going to vote for a horrible choice just for sake of gender equality.
---

HiddenLurker posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

so take your sexism bullshit and shove it up your arse.

Hillary was a bad choice for the White House, simple as that.

That said she would have been a better choice than Trump.

I didnt vote for either this election because they both suck ass.
But if your excuse of Hillary losing is sexism then you people have the memory of a goldfish. Since the excuse to not vote McCain was literally "But but Palin!"

It's not an excuse or the entirety of the explanation, nor did I frame it as that. It's just a factor that I'm not gonna bother using anecdotal evidence to support. Get out of your feelings. I was ragging on Hillary earlier in the topic and was saying, in that post that got you hot, that a socialist would have been more electable in 2016 than a woman.

And you're the one that used the word sexism.

So I can't do anything for you if your assumptions about my statements make you feel something. I didn't say that so that's your fault.

We done?
---

Kineth posted...

We done?

Put up yer dukes.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

If you want to push sexism as...

I didn't and don't.
---

Kineth posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

If you want to push sexism as...

I didn't and don't.

Ok den we done
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Kineth posted...

We done?

Put up yer dukes.

Have at thee, cur!
---

Antifar posted...

Newhopes posted...

The left is literally eating itself at this point.

I don't get this criticism. The alternative is a "unity for unity's sake" that buries very real differences and complaints. The alternative is looking like Paul Ryan pretending to love Trump.

I think Republicans, and Conservatives in general, are more inclined to set differences aside for the pursuit of common goals. You can get non-racist conservatives working together with ethnic nationalists if it means they get tax cuts, for example, passed, because Conservatives care more about getting their goals accomplished more than whether or not some of the people they work with are racist. The differences aren't as important as the commonality.

You don't hear as much about the Right eating itself because of this, where you might see people on the Left sabotaging their common causes by engaging in call out culture, and that sort of thing, against their own.

You might knock unity, but that kind of party cohesion can get things done or, conversely, prevent your opponents from getting things done.
---

This stuff sounds highly illegal whether it actually is or not is another question. The term enterprise corruption comes to mind.

Kineth posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Hillary was still infinitely preferable to Bernie.

According to who?

According to the Trump supporters who know that a Bernie nomination would have completely doomed Trump.

Dude, whatever you're holding, break out.

A legitimate Socialist who never held a real job won't be President in a center-right nation.
---

Esrac posted...

Antifar posted...

Newhopes posted...

The left is literally eating itself at this point.

I don't get this criticism. The alternative is a "unity for unity's sake" that buries very real differences and complaints. The alternative is looking like Paul Ryan pretending to love Trump.

I think Republicans, and Conservatives in general, are more inclined to set differences aside for the pursuit of common goals. You can get non-racist conservatives working together with ethnic nationalists if it means they get tax cuts, for example, passed, because Conservatives care more about getting their goals accomplished more than whether or not some of the people they work with are racist. The differences aren't as important as the commonality.

You don't hear as much about the Right eating itself because of this, where you might see people on the Left sabotaging their common causes by engaging in call out culture, and that sort of thing, against their own.

You might knock unity, but that kind of party cohesion can get things done or, conversely, prevent your opponents from getting things done.

this post seems funny in light of the lack of legislative accomplishments this congress has had to date
---

Bernie supporters have pretty much suspected this since forever. I'm a liberal but the shit show that's happening in both parties is really disconcerting.
---

Esrac posted...

Antifar posted...

Newhopes posted...

The left is literally eating itself at this point.

I don't get this criticism. The alternative is a "unity for unity's sake" that buries very real differences and complaints. The alternative is looking like Paul Ryan pretending to love Trump.

I think Republicans, and Conservatives in general, are more inclined to set differences aside for the pursuit of common goals. You can get non-racist conservatives working together with ethnic nationalists if it means they get tax cuts, for example, passed, because Conservatives care more about getting their goals accomplished more than whether or not some of the people they work with are racist. The differences aren't as important as the commonality.

You don't hear as much about the Right eating itself because of this, where you might see people on the Left sabotaging their common causes by engaging in call out culture, and that sort of thing, against their own.

You might knock unity, but that kind of party cohesion can get things done or, conversely, prevent your opponents from getting things done.

That is because the left largely consists of a bunch of special interest groups who largely hate each other.

It is the weakness of diversity.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Dude, whatever you're holding, break out.

A legitimate Socialist who never held a real job won't be President in a center-right nation.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/400-current-events/75944306

Answer for this bullshit, you swine.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Esrac posted...

Antifar posted...

Newhopes posted...

The left is literally eating itself at this point.

I don't get this criticism. The alternative is a "unity for unity's sake" that buries very real differences and complaints. The alternative is looking like Paul Ryan pretending to love Trump.

I think Republicans, and Conservatives in general, are more inclined to set differences aside for the pursuit of common goals. You can get non-racist conservatives working together with ethnic nationalists if it means they get tax cuts, for example, passed, because Conservatives care more about getting their goals accomplished more than whether or not some of the people they work with are racist. The differences aren't as important as the commonality.

You don't hear as much about the Right eating itself because of this, where you might see people on the Left sabotaging their common causes by engaging in call out culture, and that sort of thing, against their own.

You might knock unity, but that kind of party cohesion can get things done or, conversely, prevent your opponents from getting things done.

this post seems funny in light of the lack of legislative accomplishments this congress has had to date

Because the GOP is terrible at actually governing but amazing at winning elections. The Democrats are of course the opposite.
---

This lady better watch out. 2 gunshot head wounds rulled suicide is a strong possibility.
---

Esrac posted...

You don't hear as much about the Right eating itself because of this, where you might see people on the Left sabotaging their common causes by engaging in call out culture, and that sort of thing, against their own.

You might knock unity, but that kind of party cohesion can get things done or, conversely, prevent your opponents from getting things done.

Im not American but Im interested in politics so I skimmed through this topic and just felt like adding that lack of unity will indeed prevent a party or parties with a similar ideology from getting things done. Its just in my country, its the Right that eat itself and allow differences on specific issues to keep them from power. The various Right-wing parties have a shared majority in our Parliament but its the Socialdemocrats who govern since 2014. Four Right-wing parties united and put their differences aside and governed 2006-2014 but now they are back to squabbling with each other again.
---

Iodine posted...

Because the GOP is terrible at actually governing but amazing at winning elections. The Democrats are of course the opposite.

I think Bush was a pretty effective president in terms of getting shit done with Congress
---

Iodine posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Esrac posted...

Antifar posted...

Newhopes posted...

The left is literally eating itself at this point.

I don't get this criticism. The alternative is a "unity for unity's sake" that buries very real differences and complaints. The alternative is looking like Paul Ryan pretending to love Trump.

I think Republicans, and Conservatives in general, are more inclined to set differences aside for the pursuit of common goals. You can get non-racist conservatives working together with ethnic nationalists if it means they get tax cuts, for example, passed, because Conservatives care more about getting their goals accomplished more than whether or not some of the people they work with are racist. The differences aren't as important as the commonality.

You don't hear as much about the Right eating itself because of this, where you might see people on the Left sabotaging their common causes by engaging in call out culture, and that sort of thing, against their own.

You might knock unity, but that kind of party cohesion can get things done or, conversely, prevent your opponents from getting things done.

this post seems funny in light of the lack of legislative accomplishments this congress has had to date

Because the GOP is terrible at actually governing but amazing at winning elections. The Democrats are of course the opposite.

I wouldn't expect the party who has a very anti-government platform to be very good at, you know, governing. If anything, it sometimes seems like Republicans deliberately want to sabotage the government so they can more easily convince their constituents that they need to be elected so they can empower private corporations because the government (that they hobbled) does things so poorly.

Also, I don't know if I would say democrats are amazing at governing. I mean, there may be a reason that the common joke is Republicans are evil and Democrats are incompetent.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

This lady better watch out. 2 gunshot head wounds rulled suicide is a strong possibility.

The guy who killed himself by double tap to the head put out dirt on the CIA running a drug ring and wasn't a party guy.

Nobody in US politics was assassinated in that kind of suspicious manner. It's happened to Russian and Chinese politicians, but not American ones.
---

Kineth posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

Hillary was still infinitely preferable to Bernie.

According to who?

According to the Trump supporters who know that a Bernie nomination would have completely doomed Trump.

It has nothing to do with who had a better chance against Trump. If I was forced to choose between Hillary and Bernie, I would choose Hillary without hesitation.
---

But...but...Trumps Russia collusion.
---

this is really, really disturbing
---

Just sounds like a distraction piece written to take attention off of the Manafort fiasco. The timing is very suspicious. :v Donna is probably a GOP plant.
---