Just imagine if the media actually reported on the wiki leaks of the DNC emails. I hate trump but if he was smart he would pound that home.
Probably because there is nothing in the emails except boring shit, like Clinton going to work everyday and doing her job.
You obviously haven't seen them. Talking about demonizing Sanders over his religious beliefs, trying to control what is said on certain news programs about how the DNC chair is handling the primary fairly.It's pretty sad so many are fine with this kind of behavior.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the DNC pushing a candidate they feel has the best chance to win and represent their agenda. Pushing the platform is their mission. Even with that said, Hillary won by millions of votes.
The email conspiracy is dead. Yes, trump will pounce on it. But people's opinion are already set, for the most part. I don't see anyone that was considering voting for Clinton not voting for her because trump is going to try to keep the email scandal alive.
very true. while my choice is not made yet, the email nonsense will not be a factor in deciding.
Email nonsense? That easy huh. How about the DNC email nonsense? Just brush it off as no big deal, huh. All the shadiness and red flags surrounding the party and Clinton, yet we accept it as no biggie. That's amazing.
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the DNC pushing a candidate they feel has the best chance to win and represent their agenda. Pushing the platform is their mission. Even with that said, Hillary won by millions of votes.
That's not the DNC's job. They're not suppose to be pushing one person. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.
You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.
After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.
In a week following BLM protests, Police shootings, the RNC, France attack, Germany attack, etc., you think the 30 minutes of evening News at 630PM is going to find time talk about some emails between staffers at the DNC on how to attack Bernie Sanders? That hardly seems relevant in the big picture and won't change who the candidate is next week. Do you think these emails change the outcome? Did you change your vote based on what someone in a 3 min appearance on the Chris Hayes show said?
Shall I remind you of all the demonizing of HRC that took place by the actual Sanders campaign?
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
As am I. Pennsylvania. Very much looking forward to voting
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
She will not win CA as easily as you claim. Her and Sanders nearly split the vote, many Sanders Supporters are jumping ship. Either voting green or not voting. If Trump has a solid turn out he will certainly come close.
The email conspiracy is dead. Yes, trump will pounce on it. But people's opinion are already set, for the most part. I don't see anyone that was considering voting for Clinton not voting for her because trump is going to try to keep the email scandal alive.
very true. while my choice is not made yet, the email nonsense will not be a factor in deciding.
Email nonsense? That easy huh. How about the DNC email nonsense? Just brush it off as no big deal, huh. All the shadiness and red flags surrounding the party and Clinton, yet we accept it as no biggie. That's amazing.
just as im fed up with radical liberals and their constant hate, im fed up with conservatives bitching about emails.
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
She will not win CA as easily as you claim. Her and Sanders nearly split the vote, many Sanders Supporters are jumping ship. Either voting green or not voting. If Trump has a solid turn out he will certainly come close.
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.
You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.
After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.
In a week following BLM protests, Police shootings, the RNC, France attack, Germany attack, etc., you think the 30 minutes of evening News at 630PM is going to find time talk about some emails between staffers at the DNC on how to attack Bernie Sanders? That hardly seems relevant in the big picture and won't change who the candidate is next week. Do you think these emails change the outcome? Did you change your vote based on what someone in a 3 min appearance on the Chris Hayes show said?
Shall I remind you of all the demonizing of HRC that took place by the actual Sanders campaign?
So that means that the country doesn't have a right to know how things were happening? You say staffers, as if it were a bunch of low level people. It was the heads of the DNC doing this.
You'll have to remind me of the demonizing that took place by Sanders. Probably wouldn't really compare to the stuff Hillary did in 08. Didn't her campaign send out that photo of Obama in Muslim garb?
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
As am I. Pennsylvania. Very much looking forward to voting
cliff, PA? whats with that Yankees picture? also PA, and i am not looking forward to voting.
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.
You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.
After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.
In a week following BLM protests, Police shootings, the RNC, France attack, Germany attack, etc., you think the 30 minutes of evening News at 630PM is going to find time talk about some emails between staffers at the DNC on how to attack Bernie Sanders? That hardly seems relevant in the big picture and won't change who the candidate is next week. Do you think these emails change the outcome? Did you change your vote based on what someone in a 3 min appearance on the Chris Hayes show said?
Shall I remind you of all the demonizing of HRC that took place by the actual Sanders campaign?
So that means that the country doesn't have a right to know how things were happening? You say staffers, as if it were a bunch of low level people. It was the heads of the DNC doing this.
The DNC is a political organization . . . For Democrats. Who cares if they were emailing each other about how to defeat the Socialist who hijacked their party? Personally, I wish they had never even allowed the Socialist to run under the Democrat banner.
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
As am I. Pennsylvania. Very much looking forward to voting
cliff, PA? whats with that Yankees picture? also PA, and i am not looking forward to voting.
Relocated. New Yorker at heart but 10 years in philly now.
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.
You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.
After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.
In a week following BLM protests, Police shootings, the RNC, France attack, Germany attack, etc., you think the 30 minutes of evening News at 630PM is going to find time talk about some emails between staffers at the DNC on how to attack Bernie Sanders? That hardly seems relevant in the big picture and won't change who the candidate is next week. Do you think these emails change the outcome? Did you change your vote based on what someone in a 3 min appearance on the Chris Hayes show said?
Shall I remind you of all the demonizing of HRC that took place by the actual Sanders campaign?
So that means that the country doesn't have a right to know how things were happening? You say staffers, as if it were a bunch of low level people. It was the heads of the DNC doing this.
The DNC is a political organization . . . For Democrats. Who cares if they were emailing each other about how to defeat the Socialist who hijacked their party? Personally, I wish they had never even allowed the Socialist to run under the Democrat banner.
Oh, you don't care for socialism? Try not to drive on any roads this weekend. Or depend on our military at all. There are so many aspects of socialism ingrained in our society already. Good luck.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the DNC pushing a candidate they feel has the best chance to win and represent their agenda. Pushing the platform is their mission. Even with that said, Hillary won by millions of votes.
That's not the DNC's job. They're not suppose to be pushing one person. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
As am I. Pennsylvania. Very much looking forward to voting
cliff, PA? whats with that Yankees picture? also PA, and i am not looking forward to voting.
Relocated. New Yorker at heart but 10 years in philly now.
nice. belated welcome to the area....
which way to the beach? get me away from this interweb train wreck.
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
As am I. Pennsylvania. Very much looking forward to voting
cliff, PA? whats with that Yankees picture? also PA, and i am not looking forward to voting.
Relocated. New Yorker at heart but 10 years in philly now.
nice. belated welcome to the area....
which way to the beach? get me away from this interweb train wreck.
Word up. Awesome area.
Indeed. Actually being a dumbass and hoping on the bike in 100 degree heat to head around the city and check out all things DNC going up. Perhaps a little lunch at the reading terminal thrown in.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the DNC pushing a candidate they feel has the best chance to win and represent their agenda. Pushing the platform is their mission. Even with that said, Hillary won by millions of votes.
That's not the DNC's job. They're not suppose to be pushing one person. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.
No, they are supposed to be pushing a platform
But the platform isn't decided until after the primary. It literally just happened in the last few weeks so I don't understand what you're saying.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the DNC pushing a candidate they feel has the best chance to win and represent their agenda. Pushing the platform is their mission. Even with that said, Hillary won by millions of votes.
That's not the DNC's job. They're not suppose to be pushing one person. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.
No, they are supposed to be pushing a platform
But the platform isn't decided until after the primary. It literally just happened in the last few weeks so I don't understand what you're saying.
Come on. The DNC pushed the candidate that they felt best reflected their agenda. Who fucking cares. She won by millions of votes.
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.
You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.
After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.
In a week following BLM protests, Police shootings, the RNC, France attack, Germany attack, etc., you think the 30 minutes of evening News at 630PM is going to find time talk about some emails between staffers at the DNC on how to attack Bernie Sanders? That hardly seems relevant in the big picture and won't change who the candidate is next week. Do you think these emails change the outcome? Did you change your vote based on what someone in a 3 min appearance on the Chris Hayes show said?
Shall I remind you of all the demonizing of HRC that took place by the actual Sanders campaign?
So that means that the country doesn't have a right to know how things were happening? You say staffers, as if it were a bunch of low level people. It was the heads of the DNC doing this.
You'll have to remind me of the demonizing that took place by Sanders. Probably wouldn't really compare to the stuff Hillary did in 08. Didn't her campaign send out that photo of Obama in Muslim garb?
Who infringed on your right to know? You know. I know. It was on the boards and internet pages where lots of people get their information. You are saying THIS PARTICULAR story must be on the 30 minute news? Why? It's not relevant in the grand scheme compared to what else is happening.
Did this story make the nightly news? I guess not since you didn't know about it. I think Americans have a right to know and not have it suppressed to only internet and cable tv.
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
As am I. Pennsylvania. Very much looking forward to voting
cliff, PA? whats with that Yankees picture? also PA, and i am not looking forward to voting.
Relocated. New Yorker at heart but 10 years in philly now.
nice. belated welcome to the area....
which way to the beach? get me away from this interweb train wreck.
Word up. Awesome area.
Indeed. Actually being a dumbass and hoping on the bike in 100 degree heat to head around the city and check out all things DNC going up. Perhaps a little lunch at the reading terminal thrown in.
absolutely, cant go wrong wit a DiNic's pork.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 41,017
I hope third party voting is huge in this election. Two awful candidates from the big parties. Two crooks.
Either dont vote or vote third party
To a pragmatist like me, that comes off like a Trump endorsement! The rubes will vote, if the enlightened abstain the rubes will win the day.
To a certain extent, I very much agree with cp3. I think Clinton is going to annihilate Trump the election and I'm not at all thrilled with the thought that she may win by the biggest landslide in the history of the United States. That alone is reason enough for me to vote for someone other than the two crooks. On the other hand, as we near election time if I think there is anywhere near a chance that Trump could win I will vote for HRC simple because the only thing worse than a crook in the White House would be a lunatic crook.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
You're correct that her VP pick is irrelevant. But not for the reason you think. Clinton could have picked OJ Simpson and she will still beat the donald. He has no chance.
Totally agree. He hasn't got a chance. It's all for ego and show. HRC is a shoe in and a Big Foot shoe at that.
It is so dangerous to think this way. Sure, Clinton will easily win California. California is irrelevant. This election, like the ones in recent history, will come down to about four or five states. People in those states will fight for every vote. It's not going to be easy in my neck of the woods. I'm in one of those states.
As am I. Pennsylvania. Very much looking forward to voting
cliff, PA? whats with that Yankees picture? also PA, and i am not looking forward to voting.
Relocated. New Yorker at heart but 10 years in philly now.
nice. belated welcome to the area....
which way to the beach? get me away from this interweb train wreck.
Word up. Awesome area.
Indeed. Actually being a dumbass and hoping on the bike in 100 degree heat to head around the city and check out all things DNC going up. Perhaps a little lunch at the reading terminal thrown in.
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.
You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.
After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.
In a week following BLM protests, Police shootings, the RNC, France attack, Germany attack, etc., you think the 30 minutes of evening News at 630PM is going to find time talk about some emails between staffers at the DNC on how to attack Bernie Sanders? That hardly seems relevant in the big picture and won't change who the candidate is next week. Do you think these emails change the outcome? Did you change your vote based on what someone in a 3 min appearance on the Chris Hayes show said?
Shall I remind you of all the demonizing of HRC that took place by the actual Sanders campaign?
So that means that the country doesn't have a right to know how things were happening? You say staffers, as if it were a bunch of low level people. It was the heads of the DNC doing this.
You'll have to remind me of the demonizing that took place by Sanders. Probably wouldn't really compare to the stuff Hillary did in 08. Didn't her campaign send out that photo of Obama in Muslim garb?
Who infringed on your right to know? You know. I know. It was on the boards and internet pages where lots of people get their information. You are saying THIS PARTICULAR story must be on the 30 minute news? Why? It's not relevant in the grand scheme compared to what else is happening.
Did this story make the nightly news? I guess not since you didn't know about it. I think Americans have a right to know and not have it suppressed to only internet and cable tv.
I didn't know you were in charge of choosing what's relevant. And yeah I heard plenty about the guy at the NYC rally who used that term.
It's so disappointing how complacent people are with collusion and underhandedness in this "democracy" we live in. Yeah I think people have a right to know what was happening behind the scenes because it effected how the primary was covered by the mainstream media, who whether you wanna believe or not, is where the majority of americans get their news from.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the DNC pushing a candidate they feel has the best chance to win and represent their agenda. Pushing the platform is their mission. Even with that said, Hillary won by millions of votes.
That's not the DNC's job. They're not suppose to be pushing one person. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.
No, they are supposed to be pushing a platform
But the platform isn't decided until after the primary. It literally just happened in the last few weeks so I don't understand what you're saying.
Come on. The DNC pushed the candidate that they felt best reflected their agenda. Who fucking cares. She won by millions of votes.
The DNC chose Clinton well before this primary happened and that's not how this country and process are supposed to work.
Just imagine if the media actually reported on the wiki leaks of the DNC emails. I hate trump but if he was smart he would pound that home.
Probably because there is nothing in the emails except boring shit, like Clinton going to work everyday and doing her job.
You obviously haven't seen them. Talking about demonizing Sanders over his religious beliefs, trying to control what is said on certain news programs about how the DNC chair is handling the primary fairly.It's pretty sad so many are fine with this kind of behavior.
Dude, that's called politics. It has even going on for 225 years or so.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.
You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.
After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.
In a week following BLM protests, Police shootings, the RNC, France attack, Germany attack, etc., you think the 30 minutes of evening News at 630PM is going to find time talk about some emails between staffers at the DNC on how to attack Bernie Sanders? That hardly seems relevant in the big picture and won't change who the candidate is next week. Do you think these emails change the outcome? Did you change your vote based on what someone in a 3 min appearance on the Chris Hayes show said?
Shall I remind you of all the demonizing of HRC that took place by the actual Sanders campaign?
So that means that the country doesn't have a right to know how things were happening? You say staffers, as if it were a bunch of low level people. It was the heads of the DNC doing this.
The DNC is a political organization . . . For Democrats. Who cares if they were emailing each other about how to defeat the Socialist who hijacked their party? Personally, I wish they had never even allowed the Socialist to run under the Democrat banner.
Oh, you don't care for socialism? Try not to drive on any roads this weekend. Or depend on our military at all. There are so many aspects of socialism ingrained in our society already. Good luck.
Highways. Military. Both of those fall under the "common wealth" clause in the Constitution. Free birth control for everybody? Nah. Not so so much.
Comments
Shall I remind you of all the demonizing of HRC that took place by the actual Sanders campaign?
You'll have to remind me of the demonizing that took place by Sanders. Probably wouldn't really compare to the stuff Hillary did in 08. Didn't her campaign send out that photo of Obama in Muslim garb?
Either dont vote or vote third party
The rubes will vote, if the enlightened abstain the rubes will win the day.
which way to the beach? get me away from this interweb train wreck.
Indeed. Actually being a dumbass and hoping on the bike in 100 degree heat to head around the city and check out all things DNC going up. Perhaps a little lunch at the reading terminal thrown in.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-under-fire-supporters-whores-remarks-n555846
Did this story make the nightly news? I guess not since you didn't know about it. I think Americans have a right to know and not have it suppressed to only internet and cable tv.
It's so disappointing how complacent people are with collusion and underhandedness in this "democracy" we live in. Yeah I think people have a right to know what was happening behind the scenes because it effected how the primary was covered by the mainstream media, who whether you wanna believe or not, is where the majority of americans get their news from.
The DNC chose Clinton well before this primary happened and that's not how this country and process are supposed to work.
we will find a way, we will find our place