I think the fact that they wanted to use Bernie's religion against him is news. In addition, what the hell was that person thinking writing that in an email? And while the system being rigged isn't very surprising to some of us, I think the internet is waking more people up to these shenanigans and they don't like what they are seeing. I'd say that's part of why Bernie got such a foothold.

 

The Republican establishment tried to do the same thing to Trump. In fact they came at him even harder, it just didn't work. Hell, I'll even admit I wish it had.

I don;t understand how everyone isn't outraged.   "yes the sysrem is rigged, that isn't news".   And it wasn't news to Bernie either, and just because that is the way the system is rigged doesn't make him wrong for speaking out against it or his supporters for declining to go along with the rigging.  If the democrats want to rig the system against a guy who got just 1 million votes less than Hillary, maybe two, then they are basically telling over 40% of their voters to shut up, they don't count, the primaries are meaningless, and vote all you want but the nominee is Hillary.

 

Now I know some people don't care because they want Trump to lose, but for the less cynical, for the honest Bernie supporters for whom his religion is not an issue and who don't have NBC hosts shilling for their candidate, they would be perfectly in the right to sit the election out if they wanted.  Maybe that guy who wrote the religion email and Chuck Todd can cast 10 million votes in their absence, since they are all about rigging things.   "He's right but I don't care" is not an adequate response to Bernie's accusations of rigging.    Wikileaks is shady?   So what, they didn't tell a single lie.  "This helps Putin and Trump"...that's right it does, so why do it in the first place?   Was she not able to secure the nomination without shenanigans?  

I'm as outraged as I can be under the circumstances. As Marceline said, HRC didn't use that plan, thank goodness. I'll be honest, Hillary and Debbie could have convened a coven to put a hex on Bernie or stuck needles in a voodoo Bernie doll and I would still vote for Hillary. I liked him, even if didn't agree with all of his policies, but never Trump.

 

Any liberal who sits out this election is cutting off their nose to spite their face.  Trump has said he won't stand by our NATO allies, he's said he doesn't feel the need to pay our debts. I like Mr. Robot as much as anyone, but I don't want to live it.  His surrogates have said he'll put troops on the ground to fight ISIS. All of those things are insane and will destroy us. Oh, and then there's that part where he said we should kill the children of our enemies. That's what gets the bulk of my outrage.  I know some people here disagree with me, but not even Ted Cruz is as dangerous as this madman. He's close, but we'd survive him. I may be an atheist, but I do believe that a house divided against itself can't stand and Trump is doing his best to tear us apart. Even if he loses in the fall he's damaged our country with his hate.

My fear: whether or not he wins in November, Trump has lit a fuse with his politics of fear and hate; and if he does end up losing the election, those constituents, who believe Trump has given them their voice, will not go away quietly.

Breaking news....Debbie Wasserman Schultz OUT as DNC Chairwoman. THANK GOD!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-bloomberg-hillary-clinton_us_5794f220e4b0d3568f8396f0?section=

 

Breaking news....Debbie Wasserman Schultz OUT as DNC Chairwoman. THANK GOD!!!!

 

  She should have been out ages ago. Can we get Howard Dean back?

 

Edited July 24, 20169 yr by JaneAusten

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a rather...polarizing figure.  Could someone explain to me, though, why she is that way?  I'm not familiar with her record.

 

No doubt, Trump will use this scandal against Hillary in the run-up to Election Day.  But I wonder how it will affect her chances.  Will this hurt her in the voting booths or will voters be able to look past it?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a rather...polarizing figure.  Could someone explain to me, though, why she is that way?  I'm not familiar with her record.

 

No doubt, Trump will use this scandal against Hillary in the run-up to Election Day.  But I wonder how it will affect her chances.  Will this hurt her in the voting booths or will voters be able to look past it?

She's very strident, which isn't popular in female politicians, and very tin-eared. She also burned a lot of bridges before she became the scapegoat of the Sandernistas. Here's one example - her big campaign against a marijuana initiative in Florida and the personal feud with a former backer that followed:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/behind-wasserman-schultzs-marijuana-feud-115442

Someone needs to explain to me why HRC has now hired her on.

Someone needs to explain to me why HRC has now hired her on.

She's a Clinton loyalist and that's what always matters most to them.

To their credit, despite the multiple attempts at hashtag revolution from some corners the Sanders campaign has pretty much called the DNC leak a non-issue and told their followers to focus on Trump and unifying the party. So most of that has landed with a damp squib despite a lot of hot air on Twitter. I don't think it will really hurt Clinton beyond the people who were already Bernie or Bust or independents determined to never vote Democratic.

More on the lengthy efforts to let DWS go.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100

I probably would be more outraged if Wikileaks didn't link themselves to Breitbart and that Twitter troll Milo Yiannopoulos. It is appropriate and right that Wasserman-Schultz step down as well as any staffers who were behind this 'brain-storming'. OTOH, I recognize that is is realistic that the DNC did not want to back a candidate that is not a Democrat, yet used the Democratic apparatus, while also calling them corrupt- who promised to raise money for other candidates yet did very little to help all but 1 or 2 'down-ticket' candidates.  It's all politics, even from the machinations of the Sanders side- no one is pure in this.

 

Anyhoo, John Oliver's take on the 2016 RNC and no one is spared. He refers to Antonio Sabato Jr. as "IMBD awarded actor" 

 

 

I probably would be more outraged if Wikileaks didn't link themselves to Breitbart and that Twitter troll Milo Yiannopoulos. It is appropriate and right that Wasserman-Schultz step down as well as any staffers who were behind this 'brain-storming'. OTOH, I recognize that is is realistic that the DNC did not want to back a candidate that is not a Democrat, yet used the Democratic apparatus, while also calling them corrupt- who promised to raise money for other candidates yet did very little to help all but 1 or 2 'down-ticket' candidates.  It's all politics, even from the machinations of the Sanders side- no one is pure in this.

 

Anyhoo, John Oliver's take on the 2016 RNC and no one is spared. He refers to Antonio Sabato Jr. as "IMBD awarded actor" 

 

 

That clip is the first I've seen of any of the convention - I know football players and athletes go on the public speaking set for decades, but how sad that Fran Tarkenton (I wasn't even sure he was still alive - I remember seeing his SNL episode on DVD and enjoying it - another memory ruined) was the only one who could actually speak in that entire "highlight" reel.

 

I know not to take polls too seriously but a poll came out today showing that Trump got a bounce from the convention. That anyone watched that convention and said "yes please" bewilders me, unless they are a sadist. 

 

It looks like the usual suspects are already working to make this convention as messy as the GOP's was.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/chaos-erupts-as-wasserman-schultz-speaks-to-florida-delegates-226113?lo=ut_a1

 

Speaking of John Oliver, he really sounds very different when he's not "on."

 

Edited July 25, 20169 yr by DRW50

I probably would be more outraged if Wikileaks didn't link themselves to Breitbart and that Twitter troll Milo Yiannopoulos. It is appropriate and right that Wasserman-Schultz step down as well as any staffers who were behind this 'brain-storming'. OTOH, I recognize that is is realistic that the DNC did not want to back a candidate that is not a Democrat, yet used the Democratic apparatus, while also calling them corrupt- who promised to raise money for other candidates yet did very little to help all but 1 or 2 'down-ticket' candidates.  It's all politics, even from the machinations of the Sanders side- no one is pure in this.

 

Anyhoo, John Oliver's take on the 2016 RNC and no one is spared. He refers to Antonio Sabato Jr. as "IMBD awarded actor" 

 

 

I wish he would have taken over The Daily Show. 

Yeah, I think Oliver would have been better at the gig than Trevor Noah, who (IMO) just isn't intelligent enough.

They don't have the freedom they have at HBO, and I think he works better without correspondents. 

 

Oh look, more of Democrats doing what they do best - helping Democrats lose.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/california-delegates-boo-over-uniting-clinton