With all the talk of the Republican party nominating an authoritarian in waiting it is amazing which party actually behaved with a more authoritarian bent throughout the primaries.
Oh come on, you are not actually saying that political maneuvers within a party are comparable to "they are rapists, build a wall, nuke Europe, start trade war with China, ban and register a religion" rhetoric, are you? That's ridiculous.
BS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was comparing exaggerated rhetoric from the Republican party with the political maneuvering of the Democrat party at all. Rather, for all the Democratic rhetoric criticizing Trump and alluding to the fact that he would run the country like an authoritarian regime, it's fairly hypocritical given the way the Democratic party have attempted to stack cards in ways that benefit the continuity of the lucrative status quo they've formed over the years (i.e. the ideals that Clinton represents over the ideals that Sanders represents) which if not classified as authoritarian - are certainly deceptively and sneakily manipulative tactics. And if that's what BS is saying - I don't disagree in the slightest.
This is just my opinion, but from my perspective, both parties have acted in pretty infantile ways this election.
Certainly sneaky and manipulative, conspiratorial and shady... Even if it is authoritarian, the GOP had all the same happening, the party bucked and rolled and jigged behind the scenes and in the open to try to stop Trump, so to say the DNC was more authoritarian is inaccurate at the least.
With all the talk of the Republican party nominating an authoritarian in waiting it is amazing which party actually behaved with a more authoritarian bent throughout the primaries.
Oh come on, you are not actually saying that political maneuvers within a party are comparable to "they are rapists, build a wall, nuke Europe, start trade war with China, ban and register a religion" rhetoric, are you? That's ridiculous.
BS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was comparing exaggerated rhetoric from the Republican party with the political maneuvering of the Democrat party at all. Rather, for all the Democratic rhetoric criticizing Trump and alluding to the fact that he would run the country like an authoritarian regime, it's fairly hypocritical given the way the Democratic party have attempted to stack cards in ways that benefit the continuity of the lucrative status quo they've formed over the years (i.e. the ideals that Clinton represents over the ideals that Sanders represents) which if not classified as authoritarian - are certainly deceptively and sneakily manipulative tactics. And if that's what BS is saying - I don't disagree in the slightest.
This is just my opinion, but from my perspective, both parties have acted in pretty infantile ways this election.
Certainly sneaky and manipulative, conspiratorial and shady... Even if it is authoritarian, the GOP had all the same happening, the party bucked and rolled and jigged behind the scenes and in the open to try to stop Trump, so to say the DNC was more authoritarian is inaccurate at the least.
It's not the same. The RNC was messy as hell but it gave all factions an opportunity to express themselves. Every candidate was given a chance to speak and appear if they wanted to. That is democracy and while not everybody left happy nobody can really argue that the Republican primary contest was "rigged".
First time I ever had spinach on pizza was in Philly. True story.
Not as bad as broccoli. Anger from Inside Out would agree.
I love artichoke as a topping, though.
I like artichoke as a topping with maybe some bacon, olive oil or Alfredo for the sauce. I don't like broccoli on traditional baked pizza though. My wife makes this cold veggie pizza thing with cream cheese in place of sauce. She puts broccoli cauliflower peppers and all sorts of other veggies on it. Amazing.
With all the talk of the Republican party nominating an authoritarian in waiting it is amazing which party actually behaved with a more authoritarian bent throughout the primaries.
Oh come on, you are not actually saying that political maneuvers within a party are comparable to "they are rapists, build a wall, nuke Europe, start trade war with China, ban and register a religion" rhetoric, are you? That's ridiculous.
BS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was comparing exaggerated rhetoric from the Republican party with the political maneuvering of the Democrat party at all. Rather, for all the Democratic rhetoric criticizing Trump and alluding to the fact that he would run the country like an authoritarian regime, it's fairly hypocritical given the way the Democratic party have attempted to stack cards in ways that benefit the continuity of the lucrative status quo they've formed over the years (i.e. the ideals that Clinton represents over the ideals that Sanders represents) which if not classified as authoritarian - are certainly deceptively and sneakily manipulative tactics. And if that's what BS is saying - I don't disagree in the slightest.
This is just my opinion, but from my perspective, both parties have acted in pretty infantile ways this election.
Certainly sneaky and manipulative, conspiratorial and shady... Even if it is authoritarian, the GOP had all the same happening, the party bucked and rolled and jigged behind the scenes and in the open to try to stop Trump, so to say the DNC was more authoritarian is inaccurate at the least.
It's not the same. The RNC was messy as hell but it gave all factions an opportunity to express themselves. Every candidate was given a chance to speak and appear if they wanted to. That is democracy and while not everybody left happy nobody can really argue that the Republican primary contest was "rigged".
And Sanders didn't get his chance? Of course he did, and his delegates were counted. The only reason the den contest was more rigged is because they were more successful than the gops failed attempts to stage their coup.
With all the talk of the Republican party nominating an authoritarian in waiting it is amazing which party actually behaved with a more authoritarian bent throughout the primaries.
Oh come on, you are not actually saying that political maneuvers within a party are comparable to "they are rapists, build a wall, nuke Europe, start trade war with China, ban and register a religion" rhetoric, are you? That's ridiculous.
BS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was comparing exaggerated rhetoric from the Republican party with the political maneuvering of the Democrat party at all. Rather, for all the Democratic rhetoric criticizing Trump and alluding to the fact that he would run the country like an authoritarian regime, it's fairly hypocritical given the way the Democratic party have attempted to stack cards in ways that benefit the continuity of the lucrative status quo they've formed over the years (i.e. the ideals that Clinton represents over the ideals that Sanders represents) which if not classified as authoritarian - are certainly deceptively and sneakily manipulative tactics. And if that's what BS is saying - I don't disagree in the slightest.
This is just my opinion, but from my perspective, both parties have acted in pretty infantile ways this election.
Agreed, though I wouldn't limit it to just this election.
Just curious. Has anybody read the 20,000 emails? I know you all have read reports of the emails. But have you sat down and actually studied the original 20,000 emails so you can quote them here in your own original analysis of the situation, as opposed to what some partisan blog has told you to believe? All any of you can say is "think for yourself, you puppets!"and yet I see no evidence at all that any of you making such pleas actually do so yourself. You think if you post a video here, or a wiki blog there, that you somehow have proven you know more than anyone else. But I see nobody quoting the actual primary source under question. None of you have proven anything except that you enjoy perpetuating the shit show.
With all the talk of the Republican party nominating an authoritarian in waiting it is amazing which party actually behaved with a more authoritarian bent throughout the primaries.
Oh come on, you are not actually saying that political maneuvers within a party are comparable to "they are rapists, build a wall, nuke Europe, start trade war with China, ban and register a religion" rhetoric, are you? That's ridiculous.
Up until this point one party has behaved with an authoritarian bent while another party hasn't. If a campaign is really supposed to reflect how one might govern then the concerns of authoritarianism are clearly being pointed in the wrong direction. #demexit is trending for a reason.
You don't see an authoritarian bent in Trump's rhetoric?
Like Obama I see a man who sees no problem with governing through executive order. This concerns me. The Obama administration and his supporters normalized this type of governance by eroding the concept of checks and balances under the guise of "obstructionism". My thoughts however is that Clinton would be far more likely to abuse this system compared to Trump. Clinton's behaviour to date speaks far louder then any of Trump's "rhetoric".
Really. That Trump would abuse the system less is hard to imagine. He would throw the whole works out and run things off the hip. But moot point. He won't get there. He doesn't want the job.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
With all the talk of the Republican party nominating an authoritarian in waiting it is amazing which party actually behaved with a more authoritarian bent throughout the primaries.
Oh come on, you are not actually saying that political maneuvers within a party are comparable to "they are rapists, build a wall, nuke Europe, start trade war with China, ban and register a religion" rhetoric, are you? That's ridiculous.
BS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was comparing exaggerated rhetoric from the Republican party with the political maneuvering of the Democrat party at all. Rather, for all the Democratic rhetoric criticizing Trump and alluding to the fact that he would run the country like an authoritarian regime, it's fairly hypocritical given the way the Democratic party have attempted to stack cards in ways that benefit the continuity of the lucrative status quo they've formed over the years (i.e. the ideals that Clinton represents over the ideals that Sanders represents) which if not classified as authoritarian - are certainly deceptively and sneakily manipulative tactics. And if that's what BS is saying - I don't disagree in the slightest.
This is just my opinion, but from my perspective, both parties have acted in pretty infantile ways this election.
This is by far, the most embarrassing election I've lived to see, for sure. This is what the U.S. has come to.
On the other hand, having a candidate in the race representing a true progressive agenda for the people of this country, and the millions in support of him and his message, makes me still hopeful for the future.
I hope this disaster destroys the 2 party system for what it is. I really do.
Just curious. Has anybody read the 20,000 emails? I know you all have read reports of the emails. But have you sat down and actually studied the original 20,000 emails so you can quote them here in your own original analysis of the situation, as opposed to what some partisan blog has told you to believe? All any of you can say is "think for yourself, you puppets!"and yet I see no evidence at all that any of you making such pleas actually do so yourself. You think if you post a video here, or a wiki blog there, that you somehow have proven you know more than anyone else. But I see nobody quoting the actual primary source under question. None of you have proven anything except that you enjoy perpetuating the shit show.
I don't have to read 20,000 emails to be able to think for myself. I will take the word of the FBI director when he said that of the 20,000 about 100 of them may have contained some classified information.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Just curious. Has anybody read the 20,000 emails? I know you all have read reports of the emails. But have you sat down and actually studied the original 20,000 emails so you can quote them here in your own original analysis of the situation, as opposed to what some partisan blog has told you to believe? All any of you can say is "think for yourself, you puppets!"and yet I see no evidence at all that any of you making such pleas actually do so yourself. You think if you post a video here, or a wiki blog there, that you somehow have proven you know more than anyone else. But I see nobody quoting the actual primary source under question. None of you have proven anything except that you enjoy perpetuating the shit show.
I don't have to read 20,000 emails to be able to think for myself. I will take the word of the FBI director when he said that of the 20,000 about 100 of them may have contained some classified information.
Wrong 20,000. Talking about the DNC emails.
As for the FBI's findings, I dont recall Comey saying any of those sent designated as classified in some form went tothose unauthorized ro see them.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm 10 pages deep in the WikiLeaks. So far, no evidence that the DNC rigged the election. There is plenty of evidence that the Bernie Sanders people have been major pains in the ass every step of the way. The Nevada delegates are special assholes.
"Whiny little bitches," as Bill Maher likes to say of Trump. Apply to Sanders: "Whaaaaa, we don't like the rules . . . " Bunch of cry babies.
If I do finally get to a point where any DNC official says anything conspiratorial or anti-Semitic, I'll link it. FYI, doing a key word search of the 20,000 emails, only 1500 of the emails have the name Bernie Sanders in them. Most of them are news round-ups, with the media repeating and ratcheting up the same whiny little bitch stuff. The only staffer insertions I've read so far are basic "fyi, we need to respond again" and approval of statements.
So, the next time anyone says there are 20,000 emails proving the system is rigged: bullshit. There are 1500 emails with Sanders name in them, and I'm hard pressed to find anything remotely conspiratorial.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,319
I'm 10 pages deep in the WikiLeaks. So far, no evidence that the DNC rigged the election. There is plenty of evidence that the Bernie Sanders people have been major pains in the ass every step of the way. The Nevada delegates are special assholes.
"Whiny little bitches," as Bill Maher likes to say of Trump. Apply to Sanders: "Whaaaaa, we don't like the rules . . . " Bunch of cry babies.
If I do finally get to a point where any DNC official says anything conspiratorial or anti-Semitic, I'll link it. FYI, doing a key word search of the 20,000 emails, only 1500 of the emails have the name Bernie Sanders in them. Most of them are news round-ups, with the media repeating and ratcheting up the same whiny little bitch stuff. The only staffer insertions I've read so far are basic "fyi, we need to respond again" and approval of statements.
So, the next time anyone says there are 20,000 emails proving the system is rigged: bullshit. There are 1500 emails with Sanders name in them, and I'm hard pressed to find anything remotely conspiratorial.
Whoa! Really go the anger thing going strong today: "major pains in the ass" "special assholes" "Whiny little bitches" "Bunch of cry babies" "whiny little bitch stuff" "bullshit"
Classy.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Just curious. Has anybody read the 20,000 emails? I know you all have read reports of the emails. But have you sat down and actually studied the original 20,000 emails so you can quote them here in your own original analysis of the situation, as opposed to what some partisan blog has told you to believe? All any of you can say is "think for yourself, you puppets!"and yet I see no evidence at all that any of you making such pleas actually do so yourself. You think if you post a video here, or a wiki blog there, that you somehow have proven you know more than anyone else. But I see nobody quoting the actual primary source under question. None of you have proven anything except that you enjoy perpetuating the shit show.
I don't have to read 20,000 emails to be able to think for myself. I will take the word of the FBI director when he said that of the 20,000 about 100 of them may have contained some classified information.
Wrong 20,000. Talking about the DNC emails.
As for the FBI's findings, I dont recall Comey saying any of those sent designated as classified in some form went tothose unauthorized ro see them.
Yes he did. If you watched the whole day of testimony, specifically the questioning by Jason Chaffetz, Comey stated that neither the server administrator nor Hillary's lawyers had authorization to read the emails. He conceded that they all had access to classified information under Clinton's direction.
It's official. Debbie Wasseman Schultz is resigning at the end of the week. I am not sure that's ever happened before a party's convention before. Talk about a party in disarray.
It's official. Debbie Wasseman Schultz is resigning at the end of the week. I am not sure that's ever happened before a party's convention before. Talk about a party in disarray.
Lol. When most of the Republican party doesn't like their candidate you want to say that the Democratic party is in disarray. That's comical.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
It's official. Debbie Wasseman Schultz is resigning at the end of the week. I am not sure that's ever happened before a party's convention before. Talk about a party in disarray.
Lol. When most of the Republican party doesn't like their candidate you want to say that the Democratic party is in disarray. That's comical.
It's official. Debbie Wasseman Schultz is resigning at the end of the week. I am not sure that's ever happened before a party's convention before. Talk about a party in disarray.
She was outed last month, they were just going to let her save face and act like she was still in charge of the DNC.
"DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has turned over her duties to Brandon Davis, National Political Coordinator for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who was installed by the Clinton campaign. Wasserman Schultz will retain her title as DNC Chair until the Democratic Party votes on a successor."
Hillary Clinton is thanking her "longtime friend" Debbie Wasserman Schultz after the Florida congresswoman's decision to step down as chair of the Democratic National Committee.
"Clinton says that Wasserman Schultz will serve as honorary chair of her campaign's 50-state program to help elect Democrats around the country."
This isn't probably accurate, or at least representative of the situation. If they were requesting for a rally on ashburn field, it would never be approved. That's a very nice baseball field that they would never let a protest on. Bernie folks are going to have a big protest/rally in FDR park, but not that specific location. There were already people down there yesterday
Edit: Just to add, they already have screens set up down there for protesters to watch. Just not on that field. Non issue
Well, I've searched high and low for the smoking gun. Nada. One e-mail where DWS calls Jeff Weaver "a damn liar" and "scummy" for weaving his spin about what happened in Nevada. After five hours and every search term imaginable, I found not one single mention of Sanders's religion. I saw one hashtag #ImWithHer at the top of a Clinton statement condemning the deportation of refugee children back to war torn countries. I didn't find any emails suggesting the DNC needs to fix the election in Clinton's favor.
I did read a lot of news reports forwarded to the DNC by news outlets with the Sanders camp making accusations and putting the DNC in an unfounded, defensive posture. The major allegations had to do with fundraising for the DNC and the state parties (Sanders refused to do so and called it money-laundering), Nevada convention (cripes, those delegates were totally out of line), and unfair Sanders representation at Philadelphia convention. Each time, the Sanders team chose to use the press as its bully pulpit instead of "negotiating in good faith" (Wasserman-Schultz Schiltz) and left the DNC no choice but to defend its practices and rules that have been in place since the Kerry nominee days.
As usual, much to do about nothing. Lying Trump says she "attacks Sanders heritage," multiple talking heads calling it a conspiracy to elect Clinton, now it's the Russians. Quit watching and reading the news, people. If you have five hours to read your Twitter feed, you have five hours to read WikiLeaks. I did it, and found nothing to be alarmed by.
Well, I've searched high and low for the smoking gun. Nada. One e-mail where DWS calls Jeff Weaver "a damn liar" and "scummy" for weaving his spin about what happened in Nevada. After five hours and every search term imaginable, I found not one single mention of Sanders's religion. I saw one hashtag #ImWithHer at the top of a Clinton statement condemning the deportation of refugee children back to war torn countries. I didn't find any emails suggesting the DNC needs to fix the election in Clinton's favor.
I did read a lot of news reports forwarded to the DNC by news outlets with the Sanders camp making accusations and putting the DNC in an unfounded, defensive posture. The major allegations had to do with fundraising for the DNC and the state parties (Sanders refused to do so and called it money-laundering), Nevada convention (cripes, those delegates were totally out of line), and unfair Sanders representation at Philadelphia convention. Each time, the Sanders team chose to use the press as its bully pulpit instead of "negotiating in good faith" (Wasserman-Schultz Schiltz) and left the DNC no choice but to defend its practices and rules that have been in place since the Kerry nominee days.
As usual, much to do about nothing. Lying Trump says she "attacks Sanders heritage," multiple talking heads calling it a conspiracy to elect Clinton, now it's the Russians. Quit watching and reading the news, people. If you have five hours to read your Twitter feed, you have five hours to read WikiLeaks. I did it, and found nothing to be alarmed by.
Well, I didn't find the email where she said "He's not going to be president" but if she said that in May, it was hardly a biased statement. That was a fact in May.
ere was an email about a "narrative" but that was part of the Nevada debacle. They were dealing with the NV Democratic Party filing criminal charges against the campaign because of their nonsense, and they were trying to figure out how to keep the DNC out if it because the DNC was not involved in the state convention.
I used the srarch words "religion" "faith" "Jewish"and "atheist" and got nothing. I'll go back now and try Kentucky and whatever that other state is in the video reference.
So, my question remains, BS et. al. --Are you willing to do your due diligence? I don't expect you to take my word for anything, any more than I take the word of that guy's video on the religion thing. Fact check. It's not that hard.
Well, I've searched high and low for the smoking gun. Nada. One e-mail where DWS calls Jeff Weaver "a damn liar" and "scummy" for weaving his spin about what happened in Nevada. After five hours and every search term imaginable, I found not one single mention of Sanders's religion. I saw one hashtag #ImWithHer at the top of a Clinton statement condemning the deportation of refugee children back to war torn countries. I didn't find any emails suggesting the DNC needs to fix the election in Clinton's favor.
I did read a lot of news reports forwarded to the DNC by news outlets with the Sanders camp making accusations and putting the DNC in an unfounded, defensive posture. The major allegations had to do with fundraising for the DNC and the state parties (Sanders refused to do so and called it money-laundering), Nevada convention (cripes, those delegates were totally out of line), and unfair Sanders representation at Philadelphia convention. Each time, the Sanders team chose to use the press as its bully pulpit instead of "negotiating in good faith" (Wasserman-Schultz Schiltz) and left the DNC no choice but to defend its practices and rules that have been in place since the Kerry nominee days.
As usual, much to do about nothing. Lying Trump says she "attacks Sanders heritage," multiple talking heads calling it a conspiracy to elect Clinton, now it's the Russians. Quit watching and reading the news, people. If you have five hours to read your Twitter feed, you have five hours to read WikiLeaks. I did it, and found nothing to be alarmed by.
From:DaceyA@dnc.org To: MARSHALL@dnc.org, MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-05 12:23 Subject: Re: No shit
AMEN Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive Officer
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003 202-528-7492 (c) | 202-314-2263 (o) DaceyA@dnc.org
On 5/5/16, 1:33 AM, "Brad Marshall" wrote:
>It's these Jesus thing. > >> On May 5, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Brad Marshall wrote: >> >> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to >>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he >>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could >>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps >>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
Well, I've searched high and low for the smoking gun. Nada. One e-mail where DWS calls Jeff Weaver "a damn liar" and "scummy" for weaving his spin about what happened in Nevada. After five hours and every search term imaginable, I found not one single mention of Sanders's religion. I saw one hashtag #ImWithHer at the top of a Clinton statement condemning the deportation of refugee children back to war torn countries. I didn't find any emails suggesting the DNC needs to fix the election in Clinton's favor.
I did read a lot of news reports forwarded to the DNC by news outlets with the Sanders camp making accusations and putting the DNC in an unfounded, defensive posture. The major allegations had to do with fundraising for the DNC and the state parties (Sanders refused to do so and called it money-laundering), Nevada convention (cripes, those delegates were totally out of line), and unfair Sanders representation at Philadelphia convention. Each time, the Sanders team chose to use the press as its bully pulpit instead of "negotiating in good faith" (Wasserman-Schultz Schiltz) and left the DNC no choice but to defend its practices and rules that have been in place since the Kerry nominee days.
As usual, much to do about nothing. Lying Trump says she "attacks Sanders heritage," multiple talking heads calling it a conspiracy to elect Clinton, now it's the Russians. Quit watching and reading the news, people. If you have five hours to read your Twitter feed, you have five hours to read WikiLeaks. I did it, and found nothing to be alarmed by.
From:DaceyA@dnc.org To: MARSHALL@dnc.org, MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-05 12:23 Subject: Re: No shit
AMEN Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive Officer
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003 202-528-7492 (c) | 202-314-2263 (o) DaceyA@dnc.org
On 5/5/16, 1:33 AM, "Brad Marshall" wrote:
>It's these Jesus thing. > >> On May 5, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Brad Marshall wrote: >> >> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to >>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he >>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could >>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps >>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
Is there a point to this?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Well, I've searched high and low for the smoking gun. Nada. One e-mail where DWS calls Jeff Weaver "a damn liar" and "scummy" for weaving his spin about what happened in Nevada. After five hours and every search term imaginable, I found not one single mention of Sanders's religion. I saw one hashtag #ImWithHer at the top of a Clinton statement condemning the deportation of refugee children back to war torn countries. I didn't find any emails suggesting the DNC needs to fix the election in Clinton's favor.
I did read a lot of news reports forwarded to the DNC by news outlets with the Sanders camp making accusations and putting the DNC in an unfounded, defensive posture. The major allegations had to do with fundraising for the DNC and the state parties (Sanders refused to do so and called it money-laundering), Nevada convention (cripes, those delegates were totally out of line), and unfair Sanders representation at Philadelphia convention. Each time, the Sanders team chose to use the press as its bully pulpit instead of "negotiating in good faith" (Wasserman-Schultz Schiltz) and left the DNC no choice but to defend its practices and rules that have been in place since the Kerry nominee days.
As usual, much to do about nothing. Lying Trump says she "attacks Sanders heritage," multiple talking heads calling it a conspiracy to elect Clinton, now it's the Russians. Quit watching and reading the news, people. If you have five hours to read your Twitter feed, you have five hours to read WikiLeaks. I did it, and found nothing to be alarmed by.
From:DaceyA@dnc.org To: MARSHALL@dnc.org, MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-05 12:23 Subject: Re: No shit
AMEN Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive Officer
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003 202-528-7492 (c) | 202-314-2263 (o) DaceyA@dnc.org
On 5/5/16, 1:33 AM, "Brad Marshall" wrote:
>It's these Jesus thing. > >> On May 5, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Brad Marshall wrote: >> >> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to >>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he >>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could >>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps >>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
Is there a point to this?
This is the DNC, who is supposed to be neutral, trying to tilt primary elections in Hillary's favour. Worse then that it is using Bernie's religious beliefs or choice not to believe as the basis of it's attack.
Well, I've searched high and low for the smoking gun. Nada. One e-mail where DWS calls Jeff Weaver "a damn liar" and "scummy" for weaving his spin about what happened in Nevada. After five hours and every search term imaginable, I found not one single mention of Sanders's religion. I saw one hashtag #ImWithHer at the top of a Clinton statement condemning the deportation of refugee children back to war torn countries. I didn't find any emails suggesting the DNC needs to fix the election in Clinton's favor.
I did read a lot of news reports forwarded to the DNC by news outlets with the Sanders camp making accusations and putting the DNC in an unfounded, defensive posture. The major allegations had to do with fundraising for the DNC and the state parties (Sanders refused to do so and called it money-laundering), Nevada convention (cripes, those delegates were totally out of line), and unfair Sanders representation at Philadelphia convention. Each time, the Sanders team chose to use the press as its bully pulpit instead of "negotiating in good faith" (Wasserman-Schultz Schiltz) and left the DNC no choice but to defend its practices and rules that have been in place since the Kerry nominee days.
As usual, much to do about nothing. Lying Trump says she "attacks Sanders heritage," multiple talking heads calling it a conspiracy to elect Clinton, now it's the Russians. Quit watching and reading the news, people. If you have five hours to read your Twitter feed, you have five hours to read WikiLeaks. I did it, and found nothing to be alarmed by.
From:DaceyA@dnc.org To: MARSHALL@dnc.org, MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org Date: 2016-05-05 12:23 Subject: Re: No shit
AMEN Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive Officer
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003 202-528-7492 (c) | 202-314-2263 (o) DaceyA@dnc.org
On 5/5/16, 1:33 AM, "Brad Marshall" wrote:
>It's these Jesus thing. > >> On May 5, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Brad Marshall wrote: >> >> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to >>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he >>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could >>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps >>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
Is there a point to this?
Yes, it is a link to the email What Dreams was looking for.
Brad Marshall, CFO for the DNC, is trying to "get someone to ask his belief," referring to Bernie Sanders's religion in hopes of the answer making "several points difference" to his peeps. That is not impartial behavior for a DNC officer.
I found the email with the director of finance calling Sanders obnoxious. EDIT: It was part of a chain where someone was calling in a favor to get his 6 year old on the convention floor (must be a 10C member -- hahaha). It was right after Sanders's Nebraska win, and this Baker guy says it got Sanders nothing, that he still doesn't control the convention floor, even though he may be more obnoxious. Bad paraphrase, but gets at the gist. I can't copy and paste on my phone yet. Just search for "obnoxious" and it's there. END EDIT.
Hmmph. Wonder why when I searched for religion or atheist, I couldn't find it. Thanks though. I'm going to look back at the whole "no shit" chain. That's an odd subject line for an email.
Comments
Even if it is authoritarian, the GOP had all the same happening, the party bucked and rolled and jigged behind the scenes and in the open to try to stop Trump, so to say the DNC was more authoritarian is inaccurate at the least.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
On the other hand, having a candidate in the race representing a true progressive agenda for the people of this country, and the millions in support of him and his message, makes me still hopeful for the future.
I hope this disaster destroys the 2 party system for what it is. I really do.
we will find a way, we will find our place
As for the FBI's findings, I dont recall Comey saying any of those sent designated as classified in some form went tothose unauthorized ro see them.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Whiny little bitches," as Bill Maher likes to say of Trump. Apply to Sanders: "Whaaaaa, we don't like the rules . . . " Bunch of cry babies.
If I do finally get to a point where any DNC official says anything conspiratorial or anti-Semitic, I'll link it. FYI, doing a key word search of the 20,000 emails, only 1500 of the emails have the name Bernie Sanders in them. Most of them are news round-ups, with the media repeating and ratcheting up the same whiny little bitch stuff. The only staffer insertions I've read so far are basic "fyi, we need to respond again" and approval of statements.
So, the next time anyone says there are 20,000 emails proving the system is rigged: bullshit. There are 1500 emails with Sanders name in them, and I'm hard pressed to find anything remotely conspiratorial.
"major pains in the ass"
"special assholes"
"Whiny little bitches"
"Bunch of cry babies"
"whiny little bitch stuff"
"bullshit"
Classy.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
we will find a way, we will find our place
"DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has turned over her duties to Brandon Davis, National Political Coordinator for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who was installed by the Clinton campaign. Wasserman Schultz will retain her title as DNC Chair until the Democratic Party votes on a successor."
http://observer.com/2016/06/dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-is-finally-kicked-to-the-curb/
Now she needs to resign here House seat. If not, hopefully they won't put her back in office for two more years.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Another-Blow-for-Bernie-DNC-Rally-Permit-Denied-by-City-of-Philadelphia-387098081.html
Edit: Just to add, they already have screens set up down there for protesters to watch. Just not on that field. Non issue
I did read a lot of news reports forwarded to the DNC by news outlets with the Sanders camp making accusations and putting the DNC in an unfounded, defensive posture. The major allegations had to do with fundraising for the DNC and the state parties (Sanders refused to do so and called it money-laundering), Nevada convention (cripes, those delegates were totally out of line), and unfair Sanders representation at Philadelphia convention. Each time, the Sanders team chose to use the press as its bully pulpit instead of "negotiating in good faith" (Wasserman-Schultz Schiltz) and left the DNC no choice but to defend its practices and rules that have been in place since the Kerry nominee days.
As usual, much to do about nothing. Lying Trump says she "attacks Sanders heritage," multiple talking heads calling it a conspiracy to elect Clinton, now it's the Russians. Quit watching and reading the news, people. If you have five hours to read your Twitter feed, you have five hours to read WikiLeaks. I did it, and found nothing to be alarmed by.
ere was an email about a "narrative" but that was part of the Nevada debacle. They were dealing with the NV Democratic Party filing criminal charges against the campaign because of their nonsense, and they were trying to figure out how to keep the DNC out if it because the DNC was not involved in the state convention.
I used the srarch words "religion" "faith" "Jewish"and "atheist" and got nothing. I'll go back now and try Kentucky and whatever that other state is in the video reference.
So, my question remains, BS et. al. --Are you willing to do your due diligence? I don't expect you to take my word for anything, any more than I take the word of that guy's video on the religion thing. Fact check. It's not that hard.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
Re: No shit
From:DaceyA@dnc.org
To: MARSHALL@dnc.org, MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org
Date: 2016-05-05 12:23
Subject: Re: No shit
AMEN
Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive Officer
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
202-528-7492 (c) | 202-314-2263 (o)
DaceyA@dnc.org
On 5/5/16, 1:33 AM, "Brad Marshall" wrote:
>It's these Jesus thing.
>
>> On May 5, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Brad Marshall wrote:
>>
>> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to
>>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he
>>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could
>>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps
>>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
we will find a way, we will find our place
Brad Marshall, CFO for the DNC, is trying to "get someone to ask his belief," referring to Bernie Sanders's religion in hopes of the answer making "several points difference" to his peeps. That is not impartial behavior for a DNC officer.
Hmmph. Wonder why when I searched for religion or atheist, I couldn't find it. Thanks though. I'm going to look back at the whole "no shit" chain. That's an odd subject line for an email.