'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[Lucky]

Right, but 'scandal' isn't 'criminal'. I honestly thought it was a big mistake when he said in the early debate, 'everybody's tired of hearing about the damn emails'.

You may have missed the earlier post. By definition, scandal refers to conduct which is morally or legally wrong.

He told the truth about the "damn emails". Why is that bad?

[Lucky]

It's easy to see he's building leverage, which I believe he has and th the longer he stays in, the more he gains.

He holds the key to Clinton's presidential chances.

And the system, by its very nature, is rigged.

Bernie loses leverage every day. He has overplayed his hand. After California, if he doesn't lead in delegates, he'll be lucky to get a prime speaker's slot.

[Hodor]

Bernie loses leverage every day. He has overplayed his hand. After California, if he doesn't lead in delegates, he'll be lucky to get a prime speaker's slot.

Avatar bet?

[DMT]

You may have missed the earlier post. By definition, scandal refers to conduct which is morally or legally wrong.

He told the truth about the "damn emails". Why is that bad?

I saw it, but I think scandal is so overused that it does not register for most people in the same way 'criminal' does.

I didn't say it was 'bad'. It was a mistake because it represented an opportunity for him to question her judgment from the start, rather than waiting until he was too far behind to win. But at that point, his expectations were much lower. They should have seen Clinton's weaknesses earlier and they possibly would've had more success in the early primaries by attacking her judgment from another front that was fresh in the public's mind.

[DMT]

Bernie loses leverage every day. He has overplayed his hand. After California, if he doesn't lead in delegates, he'll be lucky to get a prime speaker's slot.

Certainly doesn't appear that way.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/sanders_gets_big_win_from_dnc

While the Chair of the Democratic National Committee usually chooses all 15 members of the platform writing committee, Sen. Sanders will now choose one-third, or five. Hillary Clinton will choose six, and Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz will choose the remaining four.

[chancellor]

I think I saw this movie. There were lots of orcs and sword fighting.

He's trying to kill the all-seeing eye.

Please provide analogies as you'd like.

[chancellor]

Bernie has been good about not calling Hillary a criminal. However, the very use of the word "scandal" is pretty loaded. Scandal is generally defined as an action which is regarded as morally or legally wrong. People exercise bad judgement often without reaching the threshold of conduct which is morally or legally wrong. But over the past couple of decades, every time Hillary passes wind someone calls it a scandal.

Agree with the overuse of scandal. However, I'd posit this was morally wrong behavior. She knew it was wrong (c'mon, she isn't that stupid), did it anyway, and then tried to obfuscate the issue.

[Fresno Bob]

I get that this is the thrust of the anger on this issue (and on Benghazi, from what I understand.)

But, why? What advantage did Hillary Clinton gain by engaging in this behavior? This question, I believe, applies to both the email and Benghazi situations. You are saying that her actions were willful, so.....why?

exactly. Cui Bono?

[Lucky]

Agree with the overuse of scandal. However, I'd posit this was morally wrong behavior. She knew it was wrong (c'mon, she isn't that stupid), did it anyway, and then tried to obfuscate the issue.

Sorry, chance, but you can't expect anyone to accept a sweeping moral judgment based upon such a vague indictment. She knew "it was wrong"? It is not at all clear what you claim Hillary did that was wrong. And it is not at all clear what you mean when you say it was wrong.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I get that this is the thrust of the anger on this issue (and on Benghazi, from what I understand.)

But, why? What advantage did Hillary Clinton gain by engaging in this behavior? This question, I believe, applies to both the email and Benghazi situations. You are saying that her actions were willful, so.....why?

Again, I see no evil intent, but what she did was definitely an error in judgment.


In an era where transparency is the cornerstone of integrity, having a private server allows the owner to control all content. She is turning over her emails, but she can, if she'd like, delete any incriminating emails and or turn over only the ones she'd like. There's NO way to know for sure what was on the server and if there was sensitive information in any of the emails. None. We have to trust Clinton, which is the rub. Many do not. I do not. Again, I don't give a crap about the emails themselves, only the choice to have her own private server.

As the rules don;t MAKE you use the Govt emails only suggest you SHOULD, she's done nothing criminal. However there was an ambassador who was asked to step down for using their private emails account, like Clinton, and ON HRC's watch.

Both Rice and Powell used their private accounts, but also the Govt email account and ALL their professional correspondence was on the Govt account and server.

ONLY Hillary has personal servers and ONLY Hillary used solely their private email account exclusively.

Criminal? NO. Morally wrong? Not really.

Bad judgment for someone seeking the most powerful job in the world?

IMO, Absolutely.

[Lucky]

Again, I see no evil intent, but what she did was definitely an error in judgment.


In an era where transparency is the cornerstone of integrity, having a private server allows the owner to control all content. She is turning over her emails, but she can, if she'd like, delete any incriminating emails and or turn over only the ones she'd like. There's NO way to know for sure what was on the server and if there was sensitive information in any of the emails. None. We have to trust Clinton, which is the rub. Many do not. I do not. Again, I don't give a crap about the emails themselves, only the choice to have her own private server.

As the rules don;t MAKE you use the Govt emails only suggest you SHOULD, she's done nothing criminal. However there was an ambassador who was asked to step down for using their private emails account, like Clinton, and ON HRC's watch.

Both Rice and Powell used their private accounts, but also the Govt email account and ALL their professional correspondence was on the Govt account and server.

ONLY Hillary has personal servers and ONLY Hillary used solely their private email account exclusively.

Criminal? NO. Morally wrong? Not really.

Bad judgment for someone seeking the most powerful job in the world?

IMO, Absolutely.

I'll go with this.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I guess she could be trying to avoid FOIA requirements.

That's just it Chris, there's no way of knowing WHAT she's trying to do.

Even if she's completely forthcoming, and we have no way of confirming that at all........... we still have to trust her.

She's put herself in this position.

She deserves the shit that comes with it.

[Hornsby]

Certainly doesn't appear that way.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...g_win_from_dnc

So the Sanders delegates now get to lose votes 9-5? Might make a great country song...

[Hodor]

So the Sanders delegates now get to lose votes 9-5? Might make a great country song...

This post is very telling on two counts.

One, you refuse to acknowledge that Bernie does indeed have leverage and Two, you already know Wassermans votes are going to Hillary.

But it's not rigged........

[Hornsby]

This post is very telling on two counts.

One, you refuse to acknowledge that Bernie does indeed have leverage and Two, you already know Wassermans votes are going to Hillary.

But it's not rigged........

LOL...you know those two statements are contradictory, right Brian? If HRC, essentially has 9 votes, Sanders has no leverage...

And yeah, the game has been fixed all along, just like the NBA lottery...feel better now?