|
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. |
On November 03 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 06:58 Nevuk wrote:On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2017 06:13 Nevuk wrote:
This explains a lot :
He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. He doesn't have a lawyer, but he does have "formal and informal advisers", whatever that means. Elizabeth Warren gets memo from Donna Brazile that it's okay to trash Hillary in the context of the DNC now. Perez's DNC official shakeup looks like its going to be a while before they get their act together.
I think it's just that candidates only have points to gain by admitting it was rigged. Warren being the one who said the race was rigged, and always being most people's #2 pick after Bernie, really poises her well to actually bring progressives out to vote in 2020. If she can manage to be the nominee while also throwing mild shade on the party along the way, I think she'll do a lot better than Clinton did.
|
On November 03 2017 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 07:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. me yesterday: "his lawyer is an idiot for letting him go on talk shows" me today: "oh" I've been so puzzled with Carter Page throughout this whole thing. At so many times, it has felt like he said something extremely bad, yet is well spoken, articulate and clearly not an idiot. So then I was left wondering: "What is his ace up his sleeve? Why is he not even remotely concerned about ever being arrested for anything"? And while I still think it is very possible he has this ace up his sleeve, I am beginning to wonder if he is actually just insane. For the legally experienced on TL, are there ever specific cases where representing yourself is a good thing? Could he actually be reducing his risk in some way by not having a lawyer? I think he either revels in the thrill of risk/cockiness or is legit insane.
Well, in cases where attorney client privileged has been/ could be cancelled or nullified, arguably it might be better to go solo. For example, the judge ruled this based on the crime-fraud exemption for Manafort and Gates. But this is very rare, and it's because the plaintiff is a lying liar and the court knows it.
|
On November 03 2017 08:31 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 07:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. me yesterday: "his lawyer is an idiot for letting him go on talk shows" me today: "oh" I've been so puzzled with Carter Page throughout this whole thing. At so many times, it has felt like he said something extremely bad, yet is well spoken, articulate and clearly not an idiot. So then I was left wondering: "What is his ace up his sleeve? Why is he not even remotely concerned about ever being arrested for anything"? And while I still think it is very possible he has this ace up his sleeve, I am beginning to wonder if he is actually just insane. For the legally experienced on TL, are there ever specific cases where representing yourself is a good thing? Could he actually be reducing his risk in some way by not having a lawyer? I think he either revels in the thrill of risk/cockiness or is legit insane. Well, in cases where attorney client privileged has been/ could be cancelled or nullified, arguably it might be better to go solo. For example, the judge ruled this based on the crime-fraud exemption for Manafort and Gates. But this is very rare, and it's because the plaintiff is a lying liar and the court knows it.
I guess you could argue this whole situation is such that if you end up needing a lawyer, you're already toast. Maybe he sees this as either the whole thing goes away or he's so boned it doesn't matter if he has a lawyer.
|
On November 03 2017 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 06:58 Nevuk wrote:https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/926193101282058240On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. He doesn't have a lawyer, but he does have "formal and informal advisers", whatever that means. Elizabeth Warren gets memo from Donna Brazile that it's okay to trash Hillary in the context of the DNC now. Perez's DNC official shakeup looks like its going to be a while before they get their act together. I think it's just that candidates only have points to gain by admitting it was rigged. Warren being the one who said the race was rigged, and always being most people's #2 pick after Bernie, really poises her well to actually bring progressives out to vote in 2020. If she can manage to be the nominee while also throwing mild shade on the party along the way, I think she'll do a lot better than Clinton did.
They are about a year and half late for real points. It's not as if Hillary's dominance over the party was actually a surprise to folks like Brazile or Warren.
Hell if they just admitted it before the election instead of gaslighting the fuck out of us for the whole thing maybe forgiveness would have come easier.
|
On November 03 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 06:58 Nevuk wrote:https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/926193101282058240On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. He doesn't have a lawyer, but he does have "formal and informal advisers", whatever that means. Elizabeth Warren gets memo from Donna Brazile that it's okay to trash Hillary in the context of the DNC now. Perez's DNC official shakeup looks like its going to be a while before they get their act together. I think it's just that candidates only have points to gain by admitting it was rigged. Warren being the one who said the race was rigged, and always being most people's #2 pick after Bernie, really poises her well to actually bring progressives out to vote in 2020. If she can manage to be the nominee while also throwing mild shade on the party along the way, I think she'll do a lot better than Clinton did. They are about a year and half late for real points. It's not as if Hillary's dominance over the party was actually a surprise to folks like Brazile or Warren. Hell if they just admitted it before the election instead of gaslighting the fuck out of us for the whole thing maybe forgiveness would have come easier.
I can't help but be sympathetic for Warren and others who were too afraid to speak out. Similar to this whole sexual assault in Hollywood ordeal, I think it is very possible that Clinton had the power to completely snap people's careers in half. I think it is entirely possible that fighting Clinton would have hurt Warren's 2020 run more than supporting her. If Clinton has already woven her vines throughout the DNC so thoroughly to where Warren knew she had 0% chance of actually helping Bernie, you could argue she is better off at least holding on to her career.
I think it is the sort of thing we may never know. A lot of people I would have expected to speak up and fight Clinton just bowed their heads in fear, it seems. What if there actually wasn't anything Warren could do? What if it would have been guaranteed suicide (HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH...just kidding) for her to defy Clinton and the result would have been the same anyway?
|
GH had it right when he said the problem with the DNC was like casting couch culture in Hollywood. Everyone knew it was a problem, but not how large of a problem. Even Bernie didn't drop the bomb once he was told. The DNC just needs to accept some humble pie and clean some house. Being back Howard Dean. His time is now.
|
On November 03 2017 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 06:58 Nevuk wrote:https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/926193101282058240On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. He doesn't have a lawyer, but he does have "formal and informal advisers", whatever that means. Elizabeth Warren gets memo from Donna Brazile that it's okay to trash Hillary in the context of the DNC now. Perez's DNC official shakeup looks like its going to be a while before they get their act together. I think it's just that candidates only have points to gain by admitting it was rigged. Warren being the one who said the race was rigged, and always being most people's #2 pick after Bernie, really poises her well to actually bring progressives out to vote in 2020. If she can manage to be the nominee while also throwing mild shade on the party along the way, I think she'll do a lot better than Clinton did. They are about a year and half late for real points. It's not as if Hillary's dominance over the party was actually a surprise to folks like Brazile or Warren. Hell if they just admitted it before the election instead of gaslighting the fuck out of us for the whole thing maybe forgiveness would have come easier. I can't help but be sympathetic for Warren and others who were too afraid to speak out. Similar to this whole sexual assault in Hollywood ordeal, I think it is very possible that Clinton had the power to completely snap people's careers in half. I think it is entirely possible that fighting Clinton would have hurt Warren's 2020 run more than supporting her. If Clinton has already woven her vines throughout the DNC so thoroughly to where Warren knew she had 0% chance of actually helping Bernie, you could argue she is better off at least holding on to her career. I think it is the sort of thing we may never know. A lot of people I would have expected to speak up and fight Clinton just bowed their heads in fear, it seems. What if there actually wasn't anything Warren could do? What if it would have been guaranteed suicide (HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH...just kidding) for her to defy Clinton and the result would have been the same anyway?
If she said all that it would certainly help. Then if dozens of people come out about the Clintons and how they leveraged/threatened people around Washington and so forth we might get somewhere. But this "I'm shocked, shocked there's gambling going on in here" from folks is weak tea
As p6 pointed out Bernie's been weak on this too, but I understand a bit more because it would have made it look petty an self-serving rather than just looking like legitimate outrage at a system that was bending him over the barrel and forcing him to tell them how much he liked it.
|
On November 03 2017 08:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 07:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. me yesterday: "his lawyer is an idiot for letting him go on talk shows" me today: "oh" I've been so puzzled with Carter Page throughout this whole thing. At so many times, it has felt like he said something extremely bad, yet is well spoken, articulate and clearly not an idiot. So then I was left wondering: "What is his ace up his sleeve? Why is he not even remotely concerned about ever being arrested for anything"? And while I still think it is very possible he has this ace up his sleeve, I am beginning to wonder if he is actually just insane. For the legally experienced on TL, are there ever specific cases where representing yourself is a good thing? Could he actually be reducing his risk in some way by not having a lawyer? I think he either revels in the thrill of risk/cockiness or is legit insane.
it's a good idea to represent yourself when the cost of legal services is higher than the expected value of procuring said legal services. as in small claims, etc.
|
On November 03 2017 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 08:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 08:30 Mohdoo wrote:On November 03 2017 08:23 Danglars wrote:On November 03 2017 06:58 Nevuk wrote:https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/926193101282058240On November 03 2017 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:He who represents himself has a fool for a client Explains why he keeps going on talk shows to further incriminate himself. He doesn't have a lawyer, but he does have "formal and informal advisers", whatever that means. Elizabeth Warren gets memo from Donna Brazile that it's okay to trash Hillary in the context of the DNC now. Perez's DNC official shakeup looks like its going to be a while before they get their act together. I think it's just that candidates only have points to gain by admitting it was rigged. Warren being the one who said the race was rigged, and always being most people's #2 pick after Bernie, really poises her well to actually bring progressives out to vote in 2020. If she can manage to be the nominee while also throwing mild shade on the party along the way, I think she'll do a lot better than Clinton did. They are about a year and half late for real points. It's not as if Hillary's dominance over the party was actually a surprise to folks like Brazile or Warren. Hell if they just admitted it before the election instead of gaslighting the fuck out of us for the whole thing maybe forgiveness would have come easier. I can't help but be sympathetic for Warren and others who were too afraid to speak out. Similar to this whole sexual assault in Hollywood ordeal, I think it is very possible that Clinton had the power to completely snap people's careers in half. I think it is entirely possible that fighting Clinton would have hurt Warren's 2020 run more than supporting her. If Clinton has already woven her vines throughout the DNC so thoroughly to where Warren knew she had 0% chance of actually helping Bernie, you could argue she is better off at least holding on to her career. I think it is the sort of thing we may never know. A lot of people I would have expected to speak up and fight Clinton just bowed their heads in fear, it seems. What if there actually wasn't anything Warren could do? What if it would have been guaranteed suicide (HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH...just kidding) for her to defy Clinton and the result would have been the same anyway? If she said all that it would certainly help. Then if dozens of people come out about the Clintons and how they leveraged/threatened people around Washington and so forth we might get somewhere. But this "I'm shocked, shocked there's gambling going on in here" from folks is weak tea
If I could be so brazen and pull shit out of my ass: I think it is the same reason Bernie got in line. He realized the damage to liberal progress would be so widespread and take so long to recover from that there's no way it would be worth it. Surrendering government to republicans through 2028 felt like you may as well just give up. Keep it out of public eye and don't let the kids hear you fighting, so to speak. It's basically what Republicans did when they were in the exact same situation as democrats are now after Bush2. They actively tried to suppress the tea party, but over time, started to kinda unleash it, then full on embraced it. Let's see what happens.
|
What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules).
+ Show Spoiler +
Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559
EDIT: remember 2008? I know no one does. But I do. Candidate Obama made a concerted effort to win over party insiders and he busted his hump and won over actual voters too. Candidate Clinton had been working insiders for years then as well. But what do you know, the candidate that got more votes and organized better actually won! Maybe if Bernie had studied how Obama beat HRC and emulated those tactics, then he might have actually beaten HRC.
|
On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger. Show nested quote +
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559
lol This was shot down as fast as it came out.
First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary.
It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news.
Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time "
Defending this trash is not a good look.
|
The scandal is no one knew about it until Clinton had already won and she controlled who was hired and fired at the DNC. She got a different deal than everyone else. That isn't a fair and impartial DNC. If that had been public in 2015 and it was to bail the DNC out, no harm, no foul.
|
On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger. Show nested quote +
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559EDIT: remember 2008? I know no one does. But I do. Candidate Obama made a concerted effort to win over party insiders and he busted his hump and won over actual voters too. Candidate Clinton had been working insiders for years then as well. But what do you know, the candidate that got more votes and organized better actually won! Maybe if Bernie had studied how Obama beat HRC and emulated those tactics, then he might have actually beaten HRC.
This kinda feels like explaining how a woman could have also dressed differently and not walked around at night if she wanted to not get sexually assaulted. There's a lot Bernie could have done, but it doesn't mean you pretend there wasn't a finger on the scale. Numerous people still decided to facilitate what could easily be understood as unfairness. Regardless of what the rules, regulations etc etc of the DNC are, we can still take a step back from legality and examine ethics without relying on legality. From a purely ethical perspective, it is very difficult to defend the DNC's favoritism in the primary.
|
On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look.
How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime?
|
On November 03 2017 09:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look. How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime?
The part where the charter of the DNC directly conflicts with influencing the primaries.
|
On November 03 2017 09:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look. How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime?
The lying man, the lying... Come on now.
If Hillary and the DNC said "Hillary owns DNC decision making process now because she bailed them out (of debt her VP and former Co-Chair got them in while losing 1000+ seats and paying millions in unnecessary consultants and firms)"
Then it would at least be on the verge of ethical.
|
On November 03 2017 09:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559EDIT: remember 2008? I know no one does. But I do. Candidate Obama made a concerted effort to win over party insiders and he busted his hump and won over actual voters too. Candidate Clinton had been working insiders for years then as well. But what do you know, the candidate that got more votes and organized better actually won! Maybe if Bernie had studied how Obama beat HRC and emulated those tactics, then he might have actually beaten HRC. This kinda feels like explaining how a woman could have also dressed differently and not walked around at night if she wanted to not get sexually assaulted. There's a lot Bernie could have done, but it doesn't mean you pretend there wasn't a finger on the scale. Numerous people still decided to facilitate what could easily be understood as unfairness. Regardless of what the rules, regulations etc etc of the DNC are, we can still take a step back from legality and examine ethics without relying on legality. From a purely ethical perspective, it is very difficult to defend the DNC's favoritism in the primary.
Raising money for the party and then placing your kind of people in the party is how politics works. Politicians raise money and try to expand their circle of influence. You need to explain precisely how this is unethical.
Bernie insistence on being independent and having no allies and never raising money for downticket candidates lead straight to him having less influence than HRC. WHy is that a good thing?
|
Why even have primaries then? Just let people pay for a slot and cut the bullshit.
|
On November 03 2017 09:19 Plansix wrote:
Why even have primaries then? Just let people pay for a slot and cut the bullshit.
Exactly, but they wanted their cake and to eat it to. They want the pageantry of primaries but not the actual process.
|
On November 03 2017 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 09:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 03 2017 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2017 09:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:What is the scandal here? That HRC used her fundraising to exert influence over the DNC? DNC was a financial wreck post Obama and HRC bailed it out. Also remember, the DNC runs ZERO primary elections. The state level parties each run their own primary election according to their own zany rules (see, every caucus having their own undemocratic rules). + Show Spoiler +Note that Bernie himself had a fundraising agreement with the DNC and signed it 2 months after HRC. But Bernie being Bernie, he raised zero dollars for the DNC and got zero influence. Why support downticket races when you know you don't have the votes to win the nom? Bernie didn't even try to win any insiders over to his side and then he didn't win enough votes from voters to win. I guess it makes sense that Socialist Bernie would think that he was entitled to exactly the same influence over the direction of the party as someone who actually raised money for the party and put in work make the party stronger.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559 lol This was shot down as fast as it came out. First let's stop trying to make this ethical in an effort to stan for Hillary. It's obviously unethical even if you want to argue it's strategically sound. The agreement was obviously different as it's missing the key "tight reins" phrase that Hillary stans have been showing from the 2015 politico article they say makes this old news. Turns out the "troubles coming to terms" was Hillary saying "I'll watch you go broke and die if you don't do exactly what I say and lie about it the whole time " Defending this trash is not a good look. How is it unethical? Explain. Politician A raises money for the party and then gets influence over the direction of the national organization. It is a party. It needs money. Where is the crime? The lying man, the lying... Come on now. If Hillary and the DNC said "Hillary owns DNC decision making process now because she bailed them out (of debt her VP and former Co-Chair got them in while losing 1000+ seats and paying millions in unnecessary consultants and firms)" Then it would at least be on the verge of ethical.
At any point during 2016 did anyone ever think that HRC didn't have more influence over the DNC than Bernie? She made it a point to help the DNC and actually raised money for it. If you want to allege some lies then you need to post up some examples. At this point your "lies" are really just your expectations that socialist Bernie is entitled to as much influence as someone who actually helped the DNC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
