• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Inside Hillary Clinton’s secret takeover of the DNC

As we speak I'm looking at a draft word copy of a joint fundraising agreement from Wikileaks dated 2015 and I don't see any indication of what DB is claiming.
 
Last edited:
WFcatamount22 said:
The center left needs to win this war so we can continue with normalcy. Just as the right needs to drive out far right social, and populist views from their party. At this point which ever party is the first to stabilize and come to the center I will align with. Until then I am out.

At this point fiscally progressive views are so far from my best interests I cannot vote for them.
Click to expand...

well said 22, I have always been relatively independent in my voting. I align mostly with Libertarian but they seem to be a lost cause at this point. Johnson, good grief, I voted for him in 2012 but his interviews in 2016 gave me indigestion. i thought i would vote Rep this time until i saw the nominees and Trump.

the GOP has jumped into the religious Pandora's box and i hate the direction that social issues have turned. They all spout this and that from the Bible but, knowing the Bible well, they just aren't comprehending the teachings. nobody will respect anyone bible thumping about one issue and turning your back on another one...it doesn't work that way. the Bible is about inclusion and not exclusion, as a Christian. Jesus cleaned the feet of lepers and whores...but a gay person, gross...i don't think so.


maybe it is best to not care anymore. as Joshua said in War Games...The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
 
Last edited:
wsc8521s said:
Speak for yourself old man
Click to expand...

Dude, we just effin' elected Trump. This administration is a complete disaster, yet close to 40% of the country and more than half of white America is solidly behind it. It's just plain true that the US is considerably more conservative and individualistic than most Euro countries and Canada. Hell, we can't even come close to getting a single payer health care system when the rest of the first world all have some form of that, and we're paying through the nose for not having it. But you say socialized anything in the US, and it ain't going nowhere.

If you don't believe me, just look at history of our presidential elections. In 1968, the Dems had a similarly contentious primary season with a lot of progressives feeling left out when they chose Humphrey at the convention. They retaliated and got a truly progressive candidate in 1972 in McGovern, and McGovern was slaughtered. After winning only 1 of the next 4 (and that only because of Ford's pardoning Nixon), the moderate wing of the party got together and started pushing moderates like Bubba. Since then, the Dems have run more centrist candidates and have won 4 of the last 7 and have won the popular vote in 2 others. Only Kerry, who was a pretty weak candidate, lost both the EC and the popular vote. So go ahead and nominate Bernie, Warren or Brown, but I don't think any of those 3 could beat an embattled and weakened Trump. The hardcore Left just isn't populous enough to win nationwide elections here at this time. It goes in cycles. So it may be different 30-40 years down the road. But we're up against a strong social backlash currently as well as being in a pretty conservative country. I'm not making value judgments as to who is more morally right. I'm just observing where we appear to be now and making observations based on recent American history.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Doing business in Europe and making money there is a real challenge, I am worried our policies will get there.

1. Workers can't work more than 3X hour work weeks.
2. Workers not allowed to answer work emails after work hours
3. 90 lead period to fire employees
4. Overly complicated tax codes that slow down work
5. Overly taxed corporations that crush small businesses and prevent innovation and disruptive technologies from being developed
6. A party to focused on identity politics leading
7. Bernie's/ "democratic socialists" rejection of globalism and trade deals and push of labor unions, allowing us to get caught keeping dying industry afloat. (see the oakland shipping docks)
8. Unscalable ideas of how how we should provide healthcare
Etc....
Click to expand...

So what's going on right now in the US that you are worried about?
 
bcobbdeacs said:
Marquee,
Will your obsession with Hillary ever end? You are like a spurned, vindictive former lover. We have moved on, we have bigger fish to fry.
Click to expand...

I threw up in my mouth thinking of someone being Hillary's spurned lover. But washed it down with scotch so all is good.
 
cville deac said:
Dude, we just effin' elected Trump. This administration is a complete disaster, yet close to 40% of the country and more than half of white America is solidly behind it. It's just plain true that the US is considerably more conservative and individualistic than most Euro countries and Canada. Hell, we can't even come close to getting a single payer health care system when the rest of the first world all have some form of that, and we're paying through the nose for not having it. But you say socialized anything in the US, and it ain't going nowhere.

If you don't believe me, just look at history of our presidential elections. In 1968, the Dems had a similarly contentious primary season with a lot of progressives feeling left out when they chose Humphrey at the convention. They retaliated and got a truly progressive candidate in 1972 in McGovern, and McGovern was slaughtered. After winning only 1 of the next 4 (and that only because of Ford's pardoning Nixon), the moderate wing of the party got together and started pushing moderates like Bubba. Since then, the Dems have run more centrist candidates and have won 4 of the last 7 and have won the popular vote in 2 others. Only Kerry, who was a pretty weak candidate, lost both the EC and the popular vote. So go ahead and nominate Bernie, Warren or Brown, but I don't think any of those 3 could beat an embattled and weakened Trump. The hardcore Left just isn't populous enough to win nationwide elections here at this time. It goes in cycles. So it may be different 30-40 years down the road. But we're up against a strong social backlash currently as well as being in a pretty conservative country. I'm not making value judgments as to who is more morally right. I'm just observing where we appear to be now and making observations based on recent American history.
Click to expand...

I think this breaks down with the Obama victory-he was fairly centrist and in line with recent history econmiically, but that isn't why he won, and IMO he won because the perception about him was the opposite. Bernie will not be a pragmatic option in the forseeable future in terms of either his stated policies or his electability (and I say this as someone who likes him), but the fact that he was able to fill the need for a challenger to Hillary confirmed what people had hoped for in 2008. I think the most pragmatic option was someone who could build off Obamas run (Hillary tried to do that, but her history hurt the "believably" part).
 
deactherunner said:
I think this breaks down with the Obama victory-he was fairly centrist and in line with recent history econmiically, but that isn't why he won, and IMO he won because the perception about him was the opposite. Bernie will not be a pragmatic option in the forseeable future in terms of either his stated policies or his electability (and I say this as someone who likes him), but the fact that he was able to fill the need for a challenger to Hillary confirmed what people had hoped for in 2008. I think the most pragmatic option was someone who could build off Obamas run (Hillary tried to do that, but her history hurt the "believably" part).
Click to expand...

Good post.

Plus the sea is changing under our feet, and I think cville underestimates the degree to which it is. We were a different country in the 1970s, one of not absurd income inequality, one where we weren't encumbering the youth with massive levels of student debt, one where the private/public imbalance wasn't nearly as stark as it is now, and one where we were conducting an ideological war with a rival that discouraged any type of in-the-same-universe thought.

Bernie's and Jeremy Corbyn's successes from such low starting points/low expectations are just the beginning IMO. At least I goddamn hope so
 
Last edited:
Also, re:

cville deac said:
Dude, we just effin' elected Trump. This administration is a complete disaster, yet close to 40% of the country and more than half of white America is solidly behind it.
Click to expand...

Trump hardly campaigned as your garden variety, corporatist, let's-funnel-everything-to-the-1% Republican. It was always a joke but in some people's eyes he looked less like that than HRC did.

He has certainly governed as that. But if you provide a real alternative to that -- as people thought they were in getting in Obama's change in the middle of a massive financial crisis in 2008 -- success will follow
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

However, the memo also made clear that the arrangement pertained to only the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility that it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary," the memo states.


"Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates," it continues.
 
Last edited:
Lock her up.

Now let’s get Trump and his cronies. Fox would have nothing to talk about.
 
ChrisL68 said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

However, the memo also made clear that the arrangement pertained to only the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility that it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary," the memo states.


"Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates," it continues.
Click to expand...
Let me know when any member of Hillary's campaign staff, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or any DNC staffers deny the allegations. I'm not super interested in Hillary shills layman, context free interpretation of the document. I mean, surely Lincoln Chafee was making DNC staff decisions before the primary IN PREPARATION for the general election.
 
Last edited:
I do love the galaxy brain theory that Brazile just confused the '16 document with the '15.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Let me know when any member of Hillary's campaign staff, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or any DNC staffers deny the allegations. I'm not super interested in Hillary shills layman, context free interpretation of the document.
Click to expand...

Yes, lets not actually get to the detail of what the document in question actually said. That's in no way relevant when you need to shill Bernie's rigged BS.

She claimed it was a JFA. The fact that a 2015 JFA was leaked by WikiLeaks which contradicts her account was relevant. Apparently, she was talking about this memo instead which clearly doesn't say what she implied it said either.

Sorry, the truth matters.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
Yes, lets not actually get to the detail of what the document in question actually said. That's in no way relevant when I need to shill Bernie's BS.
Click to expand...
"lets", meaning me and you? You wouldn't rather rely on the experience of the people actually involved? Ok. You do whatevers most convenient for you. I'll take Donna Brazile's, Elizabeth Warrens, and Tulsi Gabbards word for it.
 
Or you could read the actual letter itself in the NBC news link I just provided. You are such a clown.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
Or you could read the actual letter itself in the NBC news link I just provided. You are such a clown.
Click to expand...
I read the letter, Jesus Christ, it's 1.5 pages. I'm apparently just not as naive as you. But sure, let me hear that Martin O'Malley had the same access and control over the DNC a year before the convention, and I might be convinced. Otherwise i'll take the word of the former chair of the DNC. Congrats on your ability to read though, that must be very exciting for you.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Let me know when any member of Hillary's campaign staff, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or any DNC staffers deny the allegations. I'm not super interested in Hillary shills layman, context free interpretation of the document. I mean, surely Lincoln Chafee was making DNC staff decisions before the primary IN PREPARATION for the general election.
Click to expand...

So if I decided to run for President as a Republican should the Republican National Convention hire staffing people with an eye towards them working with me as much as they would be concerned with hiring people that would work with John Kasish, Ted Cruz or Donald Trump?

You are apparently incredibly naïve about certain things.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top