WikiLeaks revealing how scummy the DNC is

[byco42]

the problem I have with this sentiment is that it assumes that both unlikable candidates are somehow equal. They're both unpopular so they're the same, right?

That's your problem, I guess. They are both corrupt, imprudent, weak and unaccountable. Not presidential in any way.

 

[Spartanmack]

the problem I have with this sentiment is that it assumes that both unlikable candidates are somehow equal. They're both unpopular so they're the same, right?

One candidate thinks that it's acceptable to punish the doctor who performs a legal procedure.

One thinks that we should murder the parents and families of terrorists

One thinks that we shouldn't back our NATO allies

One thinks that the president can force a public company to manufacture in the United States

One thinks that a Judge that's an American Citizen is incapable of doing their job because of his ethnicity or religion

Trump is coming up with his positions on the spot when he's asked questions, he has absolutely zero intellectual curiosity or even a basic understanding of the rule of law.

I could go on. I know there are things that you disagree with Clinton on and she's a sycophant but they are far from equal.

we could make a list of all the horrible thing Hillary has actually done, let alone what she thinks is ok and your response would be that she hasn't been charged for any of them - as if that makes her innocent and demonstrates her respect of and ahderence to the rule of law. That doens't make it so, it's just makes people like you naive.

Also with respect to Trump's comments about the judge - what would you say about a supreme court nominee who said this:

"?Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases...I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

paraphrased - people with Mexican heritage make better justices BECAUSE of their Mexican heritage. That nominee is now sitting on the Supreme Court.

 

[KAWDUP]

I think this is actually a good thing. please make sure to follow through and not vote in 2016, or any future election, whether it be local, state or federal.

Well, Ok if you make the same pledge. If you vote in any election, I need to vote to offset yours.

Do tell me when and where, and I will be sure to offset your ignorant vote.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Since Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned it's a moot point, but I have been amused when I heard talk about Obama "firing" her or Hillary Clinton "firing" her.

I have no doubt there's a process by which a party chair can be removed but I can't believe it would be as simple as the seatrd president or the presumptive nominee simply firing the chair-the chair doesn't answer directly to either of them, the chair is duly elected by the party regulars through an electoral process and I'm sure if there was cause for removal it would have to be done through a process also of the party regulars.

I'm sure the procedure is somewhere in the bylaws but I haven't been able to find it.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well, Ok if you make the same pledge. If you vote in any election, I need to vote to offset yours.

Do tell me when and where, and I will be sure to offset your ignorant vote.

You live in different places. The only office you vote for in common is president and vice president, and your votes can only offset each other For those offices if you lived in the same state.

So my advice to both of you is to go or don't go and vote however your like.

 

[KAWDUP]

You live in different places. The only office you vote for in common is president and vice president, and your votes can only offset each other For those offices if you lived in the same state.

Wow, you picked up on that all on your own? Brilliant observation.

So my advice to both of you is to go or don't go and vote however your like.

You don't want to know what my advice to you would be. I make an honest statement about how I am struggling with my vote, and that's what you got?

Go or don't go? Hmm . . . very interesting choice - I suspect you just mean shut up about it, but are just being too nice to post it? Well anyway, great advice, I certainly can't even come up with a good third choice. Advice taken.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You live in different places. The only office you vote for in common is president and vice president, and your votes can only offset each other For those offices if you lived in the same state.

So my advice to both of you is to go or don't go and vote however your like.

I wonder if it would ever make sense for people to exchange non votes like that. Seems possible if the participants have differences of opinions of who's state is more up for grabs.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Wow, you picked up on that all on your own? Brilliant observation.



You don't want to know what my advice to you would be. I make an honest statement about how I am struggling with my vote, and that's what you got?

Go or don't go? Hmm . . . very interesting choice - I suspect you just mean shut up about it, but are just being too nice to post it? Well anyway, great advice, I certainly can't even come up with a good third choice. Advice taken.

I was just being mostly sarcastic and a little ironic.

It isn't so much that I don't want to know what your advice to me would be as it is I really don't care.

Whatever it might be I don't think it would bother me very much though.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Wow, you picked up on that all on your own? Brilliant observation.



You don't want to know what my advice to you would be. I make an honest statement about how I am struggling with my vote, and that's what you got?

Go or don't go? Hmm . . . very interesting choice - I suspect you just mean shut up about it, but are just being too nice to post it? Well anyway, great advice, I certainly can't even come up with a good third choice. Advice taken.

I was just being mostly sarcastic and a little ironic.

It isn't so much that I don't want to know what your advice to me would be as it is I really don't care.

Whatever it might be I don't think it would bother me very much though.

 

[KAWDUP]

I was just being mostly sarcastic and a little ironic.

It isn't so much that I don't want to know what your advice to me would be as it is I really don't care.

Whatever it might be I don't think it would bother me very much though.

Well it might have possibly had something to do with butting out, if I wanted to be truly sarcastic, and you can freely not care, it is your prerogative. Isn't the Internets great?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well it might have possibly had something to do with butting out, if I wanted to be truly sarcastic, and you can freely not care, it is your prerogative. Isn't the Internets great?

Why would I butt out?

The two of you are just too much fun to not want to join in on.

 

[KAWDUP]

Why would I butt out?

The two of you are just too much fun to not want to join in on.

You wouldn't.

We (me and the mouse in my pocket), aim to please.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, Ok if you make the same pledge. If you vote in any election, I need to vote to offset yours.

Do tell me when and where, and I will be sure to offset your ignorant vote.

uh... hmm... okay, KAWDUP.

I will be voting November 8th... straight Republican ticket for this good old boy.

 

[Michchamp]

That's your problem, I guess. They are both corrupt, imprudent, weak and unaccountable. Not presidential in any way.

I thought he made some good points.

looking at the nonsense Trump comes up with (and this is only going on his history post 2015 BY THE WAY... go back further and you get his sketchy business dealings in NYC, presumed mob connections to build & operate his casinos in Atlantic City, bankruptcies galore from mismanaging them).

compare these things with the Clinton "scandals"...

you have the appearance of impropriety by the Clintons versus actual impropriety in Trump's case.

Clinton has done some awful things... like voting for the Iraq War... but the awful things she's done tend to be things the GOP supports, so... not sure why they hate her so much, again.

 

[KAWDUP]

uh... hmm... okay, KAWDUP.

I will be voting November 8th... straight Republican ticket for this good old boy.

I'll be sure to offset that, and write in Bernie Sander's name on November 8th.

 

[byco42]

I thought he made some good points.

One candidate thinks that it's acceptable to punish the doctor who performs a legal procedure.

The other thinks it's okay to capriciously murder innocent life at any stage prior to live birth.

One thinks that we should murder the parents and families of terrorists.

The other was Sec. of State of an administration that already has.

One thinks that we shouldn't back our NATO allies.

The other is an incompetent, inept bureaucrat who violated international law and is a puppet of the military-industrial complex.

One thinks that the president can force a public company to manufacture in the United States.

The other will force companies to violate their solemn religious beliefs to advance the culture of death she promotes for personal gain and profit.

None of these claims "appear" to be "improper." Hillary Clinton is Donald Trump in a pantsuit.

 

[Sbee]

we could make a list of all the horrible thing Hillary has actually done, let alone what she thinks is ok and your response would be that she hasn't been charged for any of them - as if that makes her innocent and demonstrates her respect of and ahderence to the rule of law. That doens't make it so, it's just makes people like you naive.

Also with respect to Trump's comments about the judge - what would you say about a supreme court nominee who said this:

"…Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases...I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

paraphrased - people with Mexican heritage make better justices BECAUSE of their Mexican heritage. That nominee is now sitting on the Supreme Court.

Horrible things she's done? that's a little dramatic, don't you think? Trump is simply making his positions up as he goes along and would be an absolute train wreck of a President. He simply doesn't understand how government works and his speeches are rambling, free association rants. Also, I'm not talking about things Trump has done, like his business practices or carrying on a very public affair while married to his first wife, I am talking about crazy shit that he says on the campaign trail.

As for Sotomayor's lecture from 2001, I don't agree with that viewpoint. I understand the value of diversity in any court or governing body though. Her statements in a speech about increasing diversity in the judiciary are much different than saying that race or ethnicity essentially disqualifies them from doing their job.

 

[sggatecl]

The other thinks it's okay to capriciously murder innocent life at any stage prior to live birth.

Why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good anti Hilary rant with a straight bullshit statement? I despise that lizard woman but the only thing worse is fake statements that make her opposers look like lying, religious nutbags.

 

[Sbee]

The other thinks it's okay to capriciously murder innocent life at any stage prior to live birth.

The Supreme court says that it's not murder. You can't reasonably chastise someone for agreeing with the law

The other was Sec. of State of an administration that already has.

There's a big difference between conducting drone attacks where there is collateral damage and intentionally targeting and killing those who played no part in any terrorist activity as retribution.


The other is an incompetent, inept bureaucrat who violated international law and is a puppet of the military-industrial complex.

Incompetent? I disagree but she's infinitely more competent that Trump

The other will force companies to violate their solemn religious beliefs to advance the culture of death she promotes for personal gain and profit.

By that logic, Muslim men should be allowed to rape their wives in America. Their religious beliefs would be put ahead of the law

None of these claims "appear" to be "improper." Hillary Clinton is Donald Trump in a pantsuit.

^^^

 

[Spartanmack]

Horrible things she's done? that's a little dramatic, don't you think? Trump is simply making his positions up as he goes along and would be an absolute train wreck of a President. He simply doesn't understand how government works and his speeches are rambling, free association rants. Also, I'm not talking about things Trump has done, like his business practices or carrying on a very public affair while married to his first wife, I am talking about crazy shit that he says on the campaign trail.

As for Sotomayor's lecture from 2001, I don't agree with that viewpoint. I understand the value of diversity in any court or governing body though. Her statements in a speech about increasing diversity in the judiciary are much different than saying that race or ethnicity essentially disqualifies them from doing their job.

It's not at all dramatic - she's a horrible human being who has done horrible things. Are you really trying to make Trump look like a bad person by comparison for having an affair when Hillary stayed with her serial philanderer of a husband and actually ATTACKED the women he assaulted, harassed or cheated on her with simply for her own political ambitions? Get real.

You may not agree with my viewpoint on Sotomayor, but you'd be wrong. First, diversity for diversity's sake isn't a proven good for anything - there is zero empirical evidence to suggest it improves outcomes. And for the thick-skulled readers, I'm not saying diversity is bad or detrimental, I'm just disputing the claim that diversity itself improves outcomes. What you "understand" is merely your belief that it sounds logical and nice, therefore is probably true - it's not. And her statements aren't much different than Trump's - she claimed that her gender and ethnic heritage would lead her to make better decisions than a white male. That's at least as racist as Trump's accusations. And if she actually believes that, which there is no reason to think she doesn't, it also would actually indicate Trump has a point if Mexican judges do look to their heritage and life experience and not the rule of law to inform their decisions.

Also, with respect to your response to Byco - just because the supreme court says abortion is legal, that doesn't mean it's not murder. the supreme court gets things wrong all the time and being on the wrong side because of the supreme court decision doesn't make you right. And there's a massive difference between forcing companies to act against their religious beliefs to pay for insurance that covers birth control and abortion services or provide services to same sex marriages and allowing people to commit crimes like rape and murder in the name of their religion - it doesn't follow that opposing government coercion to act against their beliefs is the same as allowing people to commit crimes like rape and murder in the name of their religious beliefs. That's an absurd statement - surely you can see that.