'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[Hornsby]

You just don't yet it do you?

Wow. No wonder the super rich run roughshod.

Just wow.

So shouldn't she stop exploiting the loopholes??? Talk the talk but don't walk the walk..smh...

You ever hear of the Carnegie Library system? The Rockefeller foundation? How much Bill Gates has given to charities? How many foundations are funded by the "super rich"? Yes, there have been some really bad people with lots of money, just as there's been extremely generous people, who are ethical as hell, who have money.

Don't equate wealth with bad intentions...

[chancellor]

I think y'all are missing Mith's point, though he's not clear - as the article notes, both Clinton and Trump use the same Delaware company to incorporate, which allows them both prodigious legal protections and significant state tax protection.

Now, it's fully legal. I'm not saying the Clintons should be prosecuted or any of that. But for Mith to doubt that Hillary will be less than enthusiastic about changing tax laws and deductions given their use of them I think is reasonable. I happen to think he's wrong - it's just the kind of easy political tack she'd take.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I took the time to find out before I responded to the post. I've been keeping up with this for the 25 years the right wing has been trying to pin things on Hillary, from Vince Foster's death to involvement in Watergate. It wasn't the Bernie campaign that discovered all these baseless rumors and allegations, although Bernie's supporters have been happy to continue to spread them.

What your last post does is to show that you don't have any specifics because there are none. You can say "Benghazi!", but multiple Congressional investigations have found zip. You can say "emails!", but after all this time the FBI has not announced anything. Being fairly familiar with the laws in question, I would be very surprised if they conclude a criminal violation has occurred. I could be wrong, but the mental state necessary to constitute a crime is very difficult to prove. Compare this with conservative pundits who have no more facts than I do who are absolutely certain that she will be convicted.

But, let's say that several of my friends and I question your ethics. Does that make your ethics questionable? Because a bunch of Hillary haters question her ethics, does that make her ethics questionable? And, for sake of argument, what if her ethics are "questionable"? In the world you and I want to live in, does that mean she is unethical?

As for the Clintons, they aren't worth hundreds of millions as you and many others seem to think. Together they are worth somewhere between $100 Million and $110 Million. But you could look it up. Lot of money, but not hundreds of millions. So, don't be dickishly wrong.

It is easy to demonize people who stand between you and something you want...in this case between you and having your candidate elected. But I have seen the Clintons, up close, work to make a State better by improving education, fighting the timber industry, fighting industrial pollution, lowering electricity rates, improving health care for the poor, fighting for battered spouses, and through other valuable programs. I've watched them from afar doing what they could in Washington to accomplish the goals of the Democratic Party. I know they are not the evil trolls the GOP has made them out to be in the propaganda programs over the last two decades, especially the woman-hating hysteria of the far-right.

Sanders supporters think Clinton is corrupt because she knows how the sausage is made.

What my last post shows is that i was posting from work on my phone and couldn't get into specifics.

I'll start with saying, I've refrained from making any of this personal, which is more than I can say for the pot shots you've continually levied my way for a while now. But if pointing that out is being dickish, well then--I guess I am.

I'll take that Gold Star ElD, Warren is one of the top financial minds we have today and she stands by her assertion that HRC changed her position after receiving donations from the credit card industry. HRC now states that she knew the bill was bad but voted for it because it contained some language that helped battered women and children. This could be true, but whom do you believe? HRC who has time after time come up with an explanation of why she's changed her position (and there have been many) or Warren who has NO reason to disparage HRC. I'll trust Warren's account over HRC because, well Warren has done nothing to make me question her ethics. You're a bright guy who's heart is in the right place, but I think you're mistaken on this Chris.

As for her net worth, I include their foundation, which is substantial and that makes them worth Hundreds of millions from my perspective. Even at a paltry 30 Million, she's closer in mindset to the Wall Street banker than she is to me.

Lucky, your love for the Clinton's is understandable, but they are notorious for parsing words to avoid admitting the truth.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Hillary has defended Bill multiple indescretions the entire time, she's hasn't been honest. Or she's willfully ignorant, just as she was in thinking there was nothing wrong with housing her Govt servers in her residence. Either way--I don;t want that in my POTUS

I have no issue with Benghazi or the Emails or pretty much anything, she's a great politician who has won the nomination She's not in Sanders way--the Process was. I might not like the way she's run her campaign, but she's been smart and savvy and won fair and square within the confines of the process.

I just don;t trust her.

Things don;t have to be criminal to be wrong, nor illegal to be unethical and I don;t need concrete proof to know Tom Brady knew about the deflate footballs, Barry Bonds knowingly took steroids and that Clinton hasn't told us the whole truth about everything.

You can choose to believe the best in her, but to admonish Sanders supporters for being naive in believing that Bernie can get his plan through and turn around and ignore common sense regarding how someone like Clinton can't possibly avoid having made promises in return for support of a campaign which has stretched over 10 years is equally naive.

As for Hillary's other Pivots. It doesn;t show me she's evolving, it shows me she'll say anything to get elected. Ethics is about having a position in the first place based on YOUR moral convictions and sticking to it. Sure people can change, but not in the manner HRC has, I mean was she that wrong abut that many things in the first place? What influenced her change? You can think it was enlightenment, I'll choose to believe it was to appease the focus groups. Not in every case, but enough to make me think she's one of the most compromised politicians I've experienced in my life.

As to what I'd think if people questioned my ethics? Well I'd have no issue with it as who I am hasn't changed a damn bit in the 20 years I've been posting here.

Questionable ethics in the POTUS is a deal breaker for me.

[Lucky]

What my last post shows is that i was posting from work on my phone and couldn't get into specifics.

I'll start with saying, I've refrained from making any of this personal, which is more than I can say for the pot shots you've continually levied my way for a while now. But if pointing that out is being dickish, well then--I guess I am.

I'll take that Gold Star ElD, Warren is one of the top financial minds we have today and she stands by her assertion that HRC changed her position after receiving donations from the credit card industry. HRC now states that she knew the bill was bad but voted for it because it contained some language that helped battered women and children. This could be true, but whom do you believe? HRC who has time after time come up with an explanation of why she's changed her position (and there have been many) or Warren who has NO reason to disparage HRC. I'll trust Warren's account over HRC because, well Warren has done nothing to make me question her ethics. You're a bright guy who's heart is in the right place, but I think you're mistaken on this Chris.

As for her net worth, I include their foundation, which is substantial and that makes them worth Hundreds of millions from my perspective. Even at a paltry 30 Million, she's closer in mindset to the Wall Street banker than she is to me.

Lucky, your love for the Clinton's is understandable, but they are notorious for parsing words to avoid admitting the truth.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Hillary has defended Bill multiple indescretions the entire time, she's hasn't been honest. Or she's willfully ignorant, just as she was in thinking there was nothing wrong with housing her Govt servers in her residence. Either way--I don;t want that in my POTUS

I have no issue with Benghazi or the Emails or pretty much anything, she's a great politician who has won the nomination She's not in Sanders way--the Process was. I might not like the way she's run her campaign, but she's been smart and savvy and won fair and square within the confines of the process.

I just don;t trust her.

Things don;t have to be criminal to be wrong, nor illegal to be unethical and I don;t need concrete proof to know Tom Brady knew about the deflate footballs, Barry Bonds knowingly took steroids and that Clinton hasn't told us the whole truth about everything.

You can choose to believe the best in her, but to admonish Sanders supporters for being naive in believing that Bernie can get his plan through and turn around and ignore common sense regarding how someone like Clinton can't possibly avoid having made promises in return for support of a campaign which has stretched over 10 years is equally naive.

As for Hillary's other Pivots. It doesn;t show me she's evolving, it shows me she'll say anything to get elected. Ethics is about having a position in the first place based on YOUR moral convictions and sticking to it. Sure people can change, but not in the manner HRC has, I mean was she that wrong abut that many things in the first place? What influenced her change? You can think it was enlightenment, I'll choose to believe it was to appease the focus groups. Not in every case, but enough to make me think she's one of the most compromised politicians I've experienced in my life.

As to what I'd think if people questioned my ethics? Well I'd have no issue with it as who I am hasn't changed a damn bit in the 20 years I've been posting here.

Questionable ethics in the POTUS is a deal breaker for me.

Now that was a good post. Good facts, well argued, enjoyable read. This is why I always read whatever you put up, no matter the topic.

My only issue was the thing about me getting personal. Don't recall that. I did say don't be "dickishly wrong" but that was a rejoinder to your "dickishly dismissive" remark. Did you forget about that? I didn't take it personally, because I know you didn't really mean it. You know for sure that I didn't mean it, because you know I respect your opinion, even when you are wrong.

Oh, yeah, and there's one other thing you were wrong about. I don't love Bill anymore. I think he is cheating on me.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Now that was a good post. Good facts, well argued, enjoyable read. This is why I always read whatever you put up, no matter the topic.

My only issue was the thing about me getting personal. Don't recall that. I did say don't be "dickishly wrong" but that was a rejoinder to your "dickishly dismissive" remark. Did you forget about that? I didn't take it personally, because I know you didn't really mean it. You know for sure that I didn't mean it, because you know I respect your opinion, even when you are wrong.

Well it's a good thing I'm never wrong, now being dickish, well that's a given.

[chancellor]

Sanders supporters acting out in Nevada:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nevada-democrats-sanders-campaign-violent-streak-002617971--election.html

[baldgriff]

Here is a clip more about what happened in Nevada...

[onejayhawk]

I will never understand how anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton could win in a landslide.

J

[chancellor]

And, to be fair, it's not just Bernie supporters attacking Hillary supporters. Sometimes it's large male actors supporting Hillary beating up on women who support Bernie:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/16/the-wire-and-grease-live-actor-arrested-in-atlanta-for-attacking-female-bernie-sanders-supporter-5885055/

[Hornsby]

Brian, were you there to verify any of this stuff? This is a report from Rolling Stone...

The Nevada State Democratic Convention was supposed to end at 7 p.m. Saturday. When backers for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were still raging at each other at 10 p.m., the Paris Las Vegas hotel told organizers the event needed to end.


According to various reports, Sanders supporters yelled, threw chairs and booed Clinton surrogate Barbara Boxer, incensed by a process they saw as rigged in Clinton's favor. Clinton backers responded by calling for the disruptive Sanders delegates' arrests.

Jennifer Forkish, a spokeswoman for Caesars Las Vegas, which owns the hotel, said in a statement that the convention "ran four hours past its scheduled end time, forcing the security paid for by event operators to leave their posts as their shifts ended. Without adequate security personnel, and in consultation with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and event organizers, a decision was made that it was in the best interest of everyone in attendance to end the event."

In a Medium post published Monday, the Nevada Democrats placed the blame for the mess squarely at the feet of the Sanders campaign, which they said was "deliberately sharing misinformation about how the convention operates to get people riled up" in advance of the convention "after starting this fire, they had no capacity — and no desire — to control their own supporters."



In the event's aftermath, party chair Roberta Lange's phone number and email address were posted online — at times alongside images of dead animals — by incensed Sanders supporters. The state Democratic Party says Lange received thousands of death threats, threats of violence and insults. The party archived online a selection of the harassing texts and voicemails, in which Lange is called a "cunt," "bitch" and "criminal;" the messages also include references to personal details like her home address and the location of her grandchildren's school. The party's headquarters was reportedly vandalized Sunday, with graffiti reading "Roberta Lange murdered democracy," "You are scum," and "Cheating is not winning."



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz48xiJVVVA
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[Hodor]

I wasn't there. I was an alternate delegate for state. However I can tell you that the county convention was just as contentious.

The Democratic party in Nevada is completely in Clinton's camp. Evidence of wrong doing is plentiful.

However the Sanders supporters need to find a better way to convey their complaints.

My experience in this election and the Nevada caucuses in particular have put me off the Democratic party forever.

It's truly a sad day for democracy when winning trumps integrity.

[onejayhawk]

Hillary will get Trumped in November. Heaven help us.

J

[nots]

Hillary will get Trumped in November. Heaven help us.

J

You've said that before and politics aside, I have a hard time seeing how he's going to get to 270 EV. What states do you believe are going to flip? Looking at the map, the only place where he might be able to make some inroads would be the Rust Belt--Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin---maybe some disaffected working class Democrats get behind his trade policies but I think it is very unlikely he can actually flip any of those states. It's a tough road for any GOP candidate, let alone one who does a pretty fair job of alienating minorities and women.

[baldgriff]

I wasn't there. I was an alternate delegate for state. However I can tell you that the county convention was just as contentious.

The Democratic party in Nevada is completely in Clinton's camp. Evidence of wrong doing is plentiful.

However the Sanders supporters need to find a better way to convey their complaints.

My experience in this election and the Nevada caucuses in particular have put me off the Democratic party forever.

It's truly a sad day for democracy when winning trumps integrity.

This is likely the best explanation - from personal experience. I dont know if people watched the clip I attached, but it is clear that the chair of that meeting used voice vote and her position to run roughshod over the Sanders camp. So you have a whole group of individuals new to the process and while they may have had suspicions that the process was stacked against them, the overt manner in which they got hosed likely surprised them.

Im not saying I condone their reactions - but I am also not surprised by it.

[baldgriff]

Brian, were you there to verify any of this stuff? This is a report from Rolling Stone...

Did you watch the video I posted?? The Rolling Stone article you posted seems to be blaming this all on Sander's supporters. It does not speak at all to what the cause was - which was the DNC making sure (even by cheating) HRC gets as many delegates as possible. The outcome may not have been much different in the end, but the method by which the DNC accomplished this was really pretty crappy.

When the Chair of the Convention announces that in a voice vote her ruling can not be overturned or questioned - and then proceeds to announce HRC's camp as the winner - well the DNC is doing a great job disenfranchising a whole group of voters in a general election.

Unfortunately in this case - "cheating is winning" - and speaks to the ethics the DNC is using to push HRC.