EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4442
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Democratic National Committee staffers mocked chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz over her lack of policy knowledge and tendency to show up late to events, internal emails show. When DNC fundraising staffers scheduled her to address a fundraising event held by a trade association of nurses, Wasserman Schultz’s assistant complained that she was not familiar enough with measures to combat the Zika virus, which she expected to be brought up at the event. “Shouldn’t a Florida rep know about Zika virus. Come on,” wrote DNC finance director Jordan Kaplan in an email to Alexandra Shapiro, the fundraising staffer that had set up the event. “Realistically she’ll come 45 minutes late anyways,” Shapiro quipped. “And leave in five minutes,” Kaplan responded. Those messages were among 20,000 hacked emails released by the group Wikileaks last week. The release has embarrassed the DNC and Wasserman Schultz, in particular, primarily due to messages that showed DNC staffers plotting to undermine Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid despite the party’s official neutrality. Party officials announced on Sunday that Wasserman Schultz will not make any official appearances at the party’s convention in Philadelphia this week. She has also been replaced as the chair of the convention. “She’s been quarantined,” one Democrat told CNN. The emails showing DNC staffers mocking the embattled chairman had to do with a May fundraising event hosted by the American Nurses Association. The group was “interested in talking about the Zika virus” and then-pending legislation to combat it, Shapiro wrote to Kate Houghton, Wasserman Schultz’s assistant. “We can’t do this to Debbie. There were no joke 10 bills on this topic on the floor in the last two days,” Houghton responded. She suggested Shapiro call an expert on the issue. “Every time we lean on the legislative staff to do this it is recorded and we can’t have that,” she wrote. http://freebeacon.com/politics/dnc-staff-mocked-wasserman-schultzs-lack-policy-knowledge-emails-show/ | ||
|
oBlade
United States5863 Posts
On July 26 2016 03:18 Doodsmack wrote: The parties should probably have a way of preventing so one who has little prior membership and ties, and little in common (Sanders and Trump) from just declaring themselves a party member and getting on every Republican primary ballot. I'm surprised they didn't have this already. That would hardly be a democratic thing to do. Should Sanders have run as a Republican and Trump as a Democrat? They're in the best fit. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 26 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Bahahahaha. Also, anyone notice how curiously silent Hillary has been? I wouldn't be surprised if Wikileaks releases something showing either her direct involvement or the involvement of her campaign in all of this. Let's be clear: the only reason that DWS has been fired is that she got caught publicly. There is zero possibility that she went rogue and was operating in a vacuum. I have no doubt that that Hillary's campaign and Obama's team were involved in the collusion to one degree or another -- even if they only knew about what was going on. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On July 26 2016 03:52 Nevuk wrote: Ok I'm now confused, did anyone like her at all? Her staff was making fun of her : http://freebeacon.com/politics/dnc-staff-mocked-wasserman-schultzs-lack-policy-knowledge-emails-show/ The question remains: Where is she getting her power? Why was she on both Obama and Clinton's radar, yet nothing was done about her? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 26 2016 03:52 Nevuk wrote: Ok I'm now confused, did anyone like her at all? Her staff was making fun of her : http://freebeacon.com/politics/dnc-staff-mocked-wasserman-schultzs-lack-policy-knowledge-emails-show/ It all makes sense when you understand the Clinton playbook. Their ally has been caught doing something very bad, so now they have to distance themselves from her as quickly as possible and tarnish her reputation in the process. It started with that ridiculous Politico article last night will continue through the week. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 26 2016 03:57 Mohdoo wrote: The question remains: Where is she getting her power? Why was she on both Obama and Clinton's radar, yet nothing was done about her? Because they knew what was going on. Hillary in particular. DWS is a Clinton loyalist. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Sen. Bernie Sanders was subjected to a chorus of boos after he told fans that they needed to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president and support Hillary Clinton. Speaking to supporters in Philadelphia Monday afternoon, the Vermont senator said, “We have got to defeat Donald Trump,” to cheers, “and we have got to elect Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine” to a detonation of jeers. “Brother and sisters, brothers and sisters,” he said, trying to rein in the crowd. “This is — this is the real world that we live in. Trump is a bully and a demagogue. Trump has made bigotry and hatred the cornerstone of his campaign. Throughout this campaign he has insulted Mexicans and Latinos, he has insulted Muslims, he has insulted women and African Americans.” Through it all, the crowd booed, chanted “We want Bernie!” and raised their fists. One supporter held up a sign — “Not Hillary. Not Trump.” — in full view of the camera. “Trump is a danger for the future of our country and must be defeated,” Sanders said. “And I intend to do everything I can to see that he is defeated.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/sanders-gets-booed-after-telling-fans-to-support-clinton-this-is-the-real-world/ (video at source) | ||
|
pmh
1399 Posts
On July 26 2016 02:02 Gorsameth wrote: The point is the timing. When someone steps down over impartiality issues you don't go around and hire her minutes later as the party she was partial for, its just stupid. If you want to give her the face-saving sop then do it after the convention. They probably thought that making dws in charge of Clintons campaign was the best way to make sure the Bernie supporters would vote for Clinton  1 hour to go,lets get this party started. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 26 2016 04:03 Plansix wrote: I don’t get that impression at all. I’ve been hearing rumblings of people pushing to remove her for years now. The Poltico article seemed like a group Dems that were eager to throw her under the bus as hard as possible and took the chance. Really, I just want to know who were the members of the DNC demanding she keep the post? I can believe that Obama wanted her gone. She's not one of his people, and she clearly has hurt Obama's presidency with her mismanagement of the DNC. Hillary is the one who almost certainly wanted DWS there, because she knew that DWS would be a loyal ally at the top of the party who would help stack the nomination deck in her favor. And again, DWS worked on Clinton's 2008 campaign. DWS is a Clinton ally. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 26 2016 04:00 Nevuk wrote: http://www.mediaite.com/online/sanders-gets-booed-after-telling-fans-to-support-clinton-this-is-the-real-world/ (video at source) Literally booing their hero who doesn’t want to take the nomination and accepted he lost. These people have realistic expectations of democracy. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
Also, it's important to remember that, wikileaks reveals notwithstanding, Bernie supporters have still overwhelmingly signal a willingness to vote for Hillary. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 26 2016 04:06 Plansix wrote: Literally booing their hero who doesn’t want to take the nomination and accepted he lost. These people have realistic expectations of democracy. They're booing his support of Hillary. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 26 2016 04:05 xDaunt wrote: I can believe that Obama wanted her gone. She's not one of his people, and she clearly has hurt Obama's presidency with her mismanagement of the DNC. Hillary is the one who almost certainly wanted DWS there, because she knew that DWS would be a loyal ally at the top of the party who would help stack the nomination deck in her favor. And again, DWS worked on Clinton's 2008 campaign. DWS is a Clinton ally. I think it might have started that way and over time Clinton saw her has a liability. I think it was right about the time she started pushing for the deregulation of pay day lending. Either way, we will never really know. It is all guess work. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 26 2016 04:08 farvacola wrote: Two things: the more I think about it, the more it seems likely that DWS enjoyed her station due to her geographical station. It would seem likely that Democratic leaders might act irrationally with regards to influencing Florida after 2000. Also, it's important to remember that, wikileaks reveals notwithstanding, Bernie supporters have still overwhelmingly signaled a willingness to vote for Hillary. Not really, 538 estimated about a 1/3 of them weren't going to vote for her (they estimated that to be about 1.6 million votes). http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-clinton-might-have-a-tough-time-flipping-the-sanders-holdouts/ The good news, if it can be called that, is that these are the ones least likely to have voted for her anyways. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Yes and that is really stupid. Sanders always said he would support her and he stands to influence a lot of the platform with the recent release of emails. This could be a huge moment for Sanders if they support him and follow his lead to get things he wants. But they would rather fuck it all up and throw the political version of a temper tantrum. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Fivethirtyeight predicting odds of Trump winning, if the election was held today, are 56.7% to Hillary's 43.4% | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 26 2016 04:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now Fivethirtyeight predicting odds of Trump winning, if the election was held today, are 56.7% to Hillary's 43.4% You should read Nate’s coverage of that and what he expects to happen. This is very standard for an election season. Also there are a few articles about polling around the the conventions and that they are wildly inaccurate. I think three weeks from now we will have a better idea of how this played out. | ||
| ||
