patrick.net

After #DNCLeaks #FDNCLeak, the DNC and Clinton are done. Nobody in their right mind can vote for such a criminal organization. If they bring Sanders back, maybe they have a chance. If not, welcome president Trump.

Clinton raised millions for the DNC over several years, as well as down-ballot candidates within the party. Sanders has raised very little, and identified as an independent as a legislator (though he did caucus with the Democrats).

Clinton did a lot of work for the party over a period of years. Bernie didn't. He's entitled to run anyway, but it would be strange if the party didn't favor Hillary, since she did so much more work for the party.

Now back to Benghazi/moon-landing conspiracy theories.

What a joke. I wonder how much they had to pay bernie to go away?

HydroCabron says

Clinton raised millions for the DNC over several years, as well as down-ballot candidates within the party. Sanders has raised very little, and identified as an independent as a legislator (though he did caucus with the Democrats).

Clinton did a lot of work for the party over a period of years. Bernie didn't. He's entitled to run anyway, but it would be strange if the party didn't favor Hillary, since she did so much more work for the party.

Now back to Benghazi/moon-landing conspiracy theories.

This scandal is much larger than just suppressing Bernie. There are fake demeaning job ads for Trump's businesses and much more. It is not only infantile, but actually dangerous and borderline (il)legal. Trump is running against a criminal, no other way to put it (no matter where you stand politically).

Does the DNC still use ACORN?

anonymous says

“Does he believe in a God[?] He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist,” Marshall said. “This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and atheist.”

The chief executive officer at the DNC, Amy Dacey, responded with a single-word email: “Amen.”

Party of Diversity folks. A party that gets 70% of the Jewish Vote regularly. How cynical is this?

Unfit for governance.

HydroCabron says

Now back to Benghazi/moon-landing conspiracy theories.

No response to the Jew/Atheist baiting, or coronating Hillary before a single vote happened, I see. Just ignore it, it'll go away.

mell says

It is not only infantile, but actually dangerous and borderline (il)legal.

Ooh, infantile! Like, say calling your opponent's wife ugly, accusing his father of complicity in JFK's assassination, being a birther, and setting up a PAC to beat two men you've already beaten in the primary?

If Hillary is that infantile, that's a harsh accusation indeed.

Since you are maintaining only the highest of ethical standards: Got any comments on Trump's mob ties and his openly soliciting donations from foreign politicians (unambiguously illegal)?

Comey recommended not prosecuting her for the email server. She has survived investigations into the firing of troopers, the firing of travel office employees, Vince Foster (many times), Whitewater, Benghazi, the White House Christmas card list (140 hours of sworn testimony),

If the Republican Party came after you with a $100 million investigative budget, they could possibly nail you for a few felonies. She might be cleaner than you and I are.

Sorry, but having lived through the 1990s, I gave up on the "where there's smoke, there's fire" rule: Sometimes it's just smoke.

Maybe you should try supporting people who haven't cried wolf 50 times already.

If she's so awful, why has Trump contributed to her campaigns in the past? Are you saying he's a moron, or corrupt?

HydroCabron says

Ooh, infantile! Like, say calling your opponents wife ugly, accusing his father of complicity in JFK's assassination, being a birther, and setting up a PAC to beat two men you've already beaten in the primary?

If Hillary is that infantile, that's a harsh accusation indeed.

BTW, got any comments on Trump's mob ties and his openly soliciting donations from foreign politicians (unambiguously illegal).

Is this a tu quoque argument?

"Just because Hillary also did it...", hmmm, sounds familiar

thunderlips11 says

Is this a tu quoque argument?

Yep.

I also make other types of arguments.

(But then so do the Ukies, when they're not shooting down passenger jets from deep within Russian positions in Donbass).

It doesn't matter what Clinton or Trump do,one will probably elected America's next worst President.

HydroCabron says

If she's so awful, why has Trump contributed to her campaigns in the past? Are you saying he's a moron, or corrupt?

He already alluded to that in his nomination speech, flat out said he knows how to fix it because he's done it. Hillary better beware - he may go "There" and explain how he got certain things by making certain donations to a certain powerful Family.

Franks is right, the old fart political advisers are nuts if they think TPP-Fast Track and Wall Street Pal Tim Kaine is going to bring in the "White Male Vote" in an anti-insider election.

In any case Assange is having his revenge. We haven't seen those 33,000 deleted personal emails about Chelsea's bridesmaid's dresses yet - the hacks happened before the email wiping

HydroCabron says

Sorry, but having lived through the 1990s, I gave up on the "where there's smoke, there's fire" rule: Sometimes it's just smoke.

She's so far beyond "smoke" it isn't even funny. One, maybe two scandals might be smoke. Her continuous proximity to very serious transgressions is much more than smoke.

Does any of this bother you, at all? I can admit there are things that bother me about Trump. You don't appear to have much objectivity when it comes to evaluating her character. Your best answer is, "but Trump did this" or "you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist." It's okay to support a candidate overall (mostly because we have to work with what we have) but also recognize that there are some serious concerns. I guess I'd respect your answer more if it were more objective.... If you'd quit making excuses or calling everyone paranoid for suggesting that Hillary's continual connection to serious scandals puts her somewhere between having pathologic poor judgment and being downright criminal... and admit that it isn't unreasonable for people to be suspicious...

These aren't small transgressions and they aren't excused by anyone else's behavior. You decide what you're willing to overlook, but don't act like it isn't there because you choose to overlook it.

Obviously, you prefer her brand of "shady" over Trump's. But pretending that she's lily white because charges don't meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required in criminal court is absurd. Kind of like OJ. We all know he did it. His acquittal resulting from the reasonable doubt standard changed nothing. As soon as he was faced with the preponderance of evidence standard in civil court, the overall picture looked quite different.

No one ever believed that the RNC or DNC remained neutral in the respective primaries. The only difference, is that the RNC got Trumped, and was not successful.

The fake Trump CL add seems like a great Onion piece. Would that be illegal? It may be against the CL terms of service and punishable by death under Sharia law, but mockery is not illegal. Trump may want to make it illegal, but he has to become chairman of the board or dictator or whatever office he is running for first.

Arguing that Bernie isn't religious enough is bad? Are you guys fucking serious? I would love to live in a world where an atheist could run for president, but if you think for a second that the Evangelical party (RNC) would have presented him with a Yamulke and given him a high five, you're an idiot. He would have been picked apart on that issue by Republicans, including the "Christian" who never asks for forgiveness and has no ethical standards (Trumplestiltskin).

Next?

YesYNot says

Are you guys fucking serious? I would love to live in a world where an atheist could run for president, but if you think for a second that the Evangelical party (RNC) would have presented him with a Yamulke and given him a high five, you're an idiot.

You are misreading the situation. Trump was by far the least openly religious Republican candidate with a chance and yet the Republicans nominated him. The reason is that he is strongly against persecuting Christians for their beliefs and strengthening culture and tradition.He doesn't care what you believe in or what you don't as long as you respect western values and don't try to impose your beliefs over tradition. I'm sure the RNC tried to plant a couple of traps for him wrt to religion and make him less liked amongst strongly religious voters (which somewhat succeeded), but in the end he prevailed. Whereas the DNC from the get-go stuck to its script, painting Hillary as the more religious/diverse/whatever-it-takes-to-fake candidate and discrediting Bernie wherever they could, and they succeeded due to the strongly ingrained group-think on the left and its much better "functioning" party apparatus.

turtledove says

Does any of this bother you, at all?

No.

She shouldn't have kept an off-grid email server, but it doesn't bother me. It didn't bother me that Colin Powell did it; it didn't bother me when the Bush administration did it, and it doesn't bother me now.

8 Benghazi investigations so far. At what point are you going to wake up and realize that you're being conned, and that those running the investigations are corrupt?

Why would anyone vote for a left-wing racist authoritarian, with no record of helping anyone but himself, because his opponent kept a dodgy email server?

mell says

The reason is that he is strongly against persecuting Christians for their beliefs and strengthening culture and tradition.He doesn't care what you believe in or what you don't as long as you respect western values and don't try to impose your beliefs over tradition.

The reason is that he claimed to be a Christian and hold their views (e.g. on abortion) instead of the views that he has held for most of his life. He also promised to put a social conservative on the Supreme Court. Bernie wouldn't do any of that, and would get creamed by Trump among evangelicals. Some Christian leaders have been making friends with Jewish religious leaders to make an alliance to combat the fact that our society is becoming more and more secular. Well, guess what? Bernie is not really religious at all. People like papa bear O'Reilly and nasal breather Hannity would skewer Bernie in the general election on religion. The only reason that they did not do that in the primary is that they were rooting for him to do maximal damage to Clinton.

YesYNot says

The reason is that he claimed to be a Christian and hold their views (e.g. on abortion) instead of the views that he has held for most of his life. He also promised to put a social conservative on the Supreme Court.

He doesn't seem inconsistent but he did move a tad bit to the religious right. In the end people perceive him as somebody who speaks their language without political correctness and stands up for their traditions as well, not just for the minority-du-jour that is trending and needs to be cuddled.

YesYNot says

Bernie is not really religious at all. People like papa bear O'Reilly and nasal breather Hannity would skewer Bernie in the general election on religion.

Agreed, that would have been very likely. But wouldn't have been a surprise. The surprise twist was that the DNC which is regularly fingerpointing at white Christians was trying to use the white christian angle to harm Bernie in favor of Hillary.

mell says

he did move a tad bit to the religious right.

To me, it looks like he 'shifted' a huge amount towards religion, but that he is being totally disingenuous. He's just as PC as anyone, except for Donald, political correctness involves pandering to the religious right.

mell says

In the end people perceive him as somebody who speaks their language without political correctness and stands up for their traditions as well, not just for the minority-du-jour that is trending and needs to be cuddled.

I completely agree that his base sees it this way. To a lot of other people, he just seems like a racist and sexist guy who wants to cry PC when people point out his foibles. It is ironic that the DNC would use religion as a political tool, but not surprising. All of these polls will use unethical attacks when it suits them. Trump will do so personally, because it suits his personality, as well as through surrogates. Clinton will do so mainly through surrogates, because she doesn't want to look like an insult comic.

YesYNot says

It is ironic that the DNC would use religion as a political tool, but not surprising.

I hope they succeed. It would be nice to unload the southern crackers back on the Ds. They've been quite a liability to the Rs. I, for one, won't miss them.

turtledove says

It would be nice to unload the southern crackers back on the Ds.

Are you kidding? Do you think that southern whites are going to go for Clinton over Trump?

YesYNot says

Are you kidding? Do you think that southern whites are going to go for Clinton over Trump?

I don't know. If they think that Trump is tricking them... and that Clinton is the better Christian. I've learned never to bet on things regarding the "faithful" when religion is on the line.

turtledove says

I hope they succeed. It would be nice to unload the southern crackers back on the Ds.

An exceedingly rare find: an actual expression of disrespect for religious fanatics, from a self-proclaimed libertarian.

We find these about as often as new planets.

HydroCabron says

An exceedingly rare find: an actual expression of disrespect for religious fanatics, from a self-proclaimed libertarian.

Out of respect for the 1st amendment.

indigenous says

HydroCabron says

An exceedingly rare find: an actual expression of disrespect for religious fanatics, from a self-proclaimed libertarian.

Out of respect for the 1st amendment.

The 1st Amendment restricts the government's power over speech and religion.

It's silent on your right to criticize religious fanatics for requiring candidates to be religious, believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, or state that Jesus' #1 priority during his lifetime was stopping abortion.

HydroCabron says

It's silent on your right to criticize religious fanatics for requiring candidates to be religious, believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, or state that Jesus' #1 priority during his lifetime was stopping abortion.

You miss the point. It is out of respect for anyone to believe whatever they want, from the church of the flying spaghetti monster to the church of Cabron's fountain of endless sarcasm.

Looks like the Dems lost another demographic to Trump. Maybe Trump can really win NY.

HydroCabron says

An exceedingly rare find

I'm not sure how rare... Catholic school gal turned heretic but still retains aspects of conservative upbringing (recently uploaded photo due to a lost bet excepted)... I hold to the ideals, but reject the idea that the ideals are inextricably linked to faith. In fact, I vomit a little in my mouth when I hear things like "the Constitution came from God" which, presumably, is what gives it (the Constitution) it's infallibility... That thinking is ridiculous to me. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the genius of our existing Constitution. I just give more credit to man.

Further, it's the same thinking that has limited these people for centuries. If everything there is to know about the world is contained in ONE book... How does one grow?

Ever read "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors?" It was written a surprisingly long time ago... banned a while... then republished like 20 years ago. It has some errors, but for 1875, it was pretty impressive stuff.... and to this day, there is no real comprehensive rebuttal.

I have no problem with the idea of faith. In fact, I wish, sometimes, that I could be one of those people who could accept things as "God's will." I'd certainly be considerably less stressed in life. No longer feeling like I must find a solution to my every problem and piss against the wind... But the very idea that a person would hold faith as a reason for why something MUST be is incomprehensible to me. The specific faith is irrelevant. It causes more harm than not... IMHO, the Ds may have our Southern crackers... Maybe you all can straighten them out. The Rs certainly haven't been able to....

thunderlips11 says

In any case Assange is having his revenge. We haven't seen those 33,000 deleted personal emails about Chelsea's bridesmaid's dresses yet - the hacks happened before the email wiping

It would be beautiful if Assange cost Hillary Clinton the White House after she tried to have him killed or captured for treason. Fucking beautiful.

By the way, accusing Assange of treason for exposing the crimes of government officials is another reason that there is no way I'd ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

https://www.rt.com/usa/346534-wikileaks-clinton-assange-fbi/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/julian-assange-knows-fbi-wont-indict-hillary-will-seek-concessions-from-her-administration/

Assange says he suspects the true motives of the FBI in not moving forward with an indictment of Clinton’s private email use. “The FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment. But, there’s very strong materials both in the emails and the Clinton Foundation,” he said.

Hillary Clinton being blackmailed by the FBI is another reason not to vote for her.

If trump loses the southern white vote, he will get slaughtered, imo. My prediction is that Trump will win the southern white vote by nearly as big a margin as Clinton wins the black vote.

Dan8267 says

Hillary Clinton being blackmailed by the FBI is another reason not to vote for her.

Interesting...

It's very bad for Hillary. Who has the 33,000 personal emails? Any and every country with two pennies to rub together for their intel agency budget.

And there are more emails being released right here in the USA, but many will be delayed, thanks to the "impartial" DOJ Loretta Lynch, until after Election Day.

Assange has a lot more ammo than just this, and she's made a ton of enemies.

BTW, Hillary was NOT allowed to keep her emails on a private server:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/
Even polifact has to rate her 'permission' claim a "false".
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/

She was also supposed to turn over the all her work-related emails for record keeping (period, end of story, regardless of where kept) prior to leaving office. She only did so when caught, and fought a fierce but losing legal battle to prevent it.

turtledove says

the Constitution came from God

There is no mention of God in the constitution, that is a meme. No doubt because politicians love to conflate themselves/country with God.

indigenous says

There is no mention of God in the constitution, that is a meme. No doubt because politicians love to conflate themselves/country with God.

I totally agree. I'm just saying that the die-hard Constitutionalists seem to like to suggest that the US Constitution is like a mandate that came from God. Kind of like the 27 Commandments. "Our rights come from God Almighty," Ted Cruz (2016).

indigenous says

You miss the point. It is out of respect for anyone to believe whatever they want, from the church of the flying spaghetti monster to the church of Cabron's fountain of endless sarcasm.

If that were true, "libertarians" wouldn't argue with those who believe in expanding the power of the Federal Reserve, or banning gold ownership outright; both of these views are protected by the First Amendment. By these standards, your own posting history would show you are no "libertarian", by your own standards.

Could it be that "libertarians" show a special respect for the views of Christianist fanatics because they secretly identify with them?

HydroCabron says

Could it be that "libertarians" show a special respect for the views of Christianist fanatics because they secretly identify with them?

No. But because right-wing or religious fanatics always have been proponents of small government. You can't put up a big government apparatschik with the religious rednecks, never worked and it will never work. That's were they identify with each other. The left however cannot have a big enough government steering every last bit of an individual's life. Racist or gendrist thoughts? Let the government help you with your thought crime. God is too much of a variable in the equation of the leftist big government system. That's the main reason for libertarians for feeling closer to the religious right.

mell says

But because right-wing or religious fanatics always have been proponents of small government.

To those looking to purchase cold beer in Oklahoma, buy a car on Sunday in Colorado, or have an abortion in Jesusland, this statement is bizarre.

thunderlips11 says

Interesting...

It's very bad for Hillary. Who has the 33,000 personal emails?

Yes - this will blow this election wide open.

Once the Bernie supporters, much closer to Trump ideologically than to Clinton, catch wind of this, Trump will be swept to victory!

And then Trump, whose heirs swear to us that he thinks of the working man daily, will do great works on our behalf.

Trump will destroy ISIS while ending overseas wars!

Fuck Cruz, he is the kind of asshole I'm talking about.

The rules of chess have not changed in many hundreds of years. The constitution is 240 years old and has needed to change many times. If it was so great then why does it need to change?

It puts a huge amount of power in the presidency. When new countries form a constitution they usually pattern themselves after the English form of government.

By the perspective of the framers a congressman should not represent more than a 30,000 or 40,000 which would mean that congress today would have to have 10,000 members. So not very workable.

It the framers favor the senators were originally appointed by the states, this is important because it forms more of a republic and counters the tyranny of the majority (now Lips will say that no senator has been taken back by the state since the 17 amendment was passed, which somehow in his mind negates the importance of appointed senators)

States should be allowed to secede in order to keep the central authority from becoming too powerful. Barring this at the very least states should nullify fed mandates or executive orders.

The bottom line is that the individual should have liberty and rights, not to be encumbered by the government and to able to pursue his goals. As it is the individual is squashed by a centralized government, that does not even recognize him at all.

thunderlips11 says

She was also supposed to turn over the all her work-related emails for record keeping (period, end of story, regardless of where kept) prior to leaving office.

No the federal records act and the national archive act didn't have a time frame specified until the amendment of 2014. Which should have been called the hillary clinton amendment. The lack of the statute detailing a specific time frame is what made hillary technically in compliance with the law. She was still reviewing her emails 5 years later fully intending to get them out to the state department on the twelve of never.

mell says

But because right-wing or religious fanatics always have been proponents of small government.

Then why does the government grow so much when right wing fanatics are in power? Seems they are only proponents when seeking office, not after gaining office.