The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Gunky]

I think most of us that have been following the democrats since last summer, it was obvious that the DNC favored Hillary Clinton.
We talked about it at length on this thread.
I think that this will again take a little sparkle off of Hillary.
It will make it harder for her to get the Bernie Sanders voters. They might choose to not vote. The democrats keep shooting themselves in the foot too.

I wonder if you are laboring under a misconception about what American political parties are? They are not disinterested public service organizations designed to allow anyone to promote themselves and any ideas they happen to have. Parties are inherently biased. They have histories and long term agendas, platforms and policies that remain fairly consistent for generations. Parties are partisan by definition. When interlopers with really different agendas come along - like Trump or Bernie - the party hierarchy offers some resistance, because there is an existing set of ideological and policy templates they are mainly following. Bernie tried to take over the democratic party and remold it in his socialist image. So if some DNC officials exhibited partiality toward the mainstream dem and against the newly minted democratic outsider in their emails and even brainstormed schemes which did not actually come to anything, this should not come as a complete shock to you.

 

[lwien]

So I've been watching Hillary presenting her VP pick to the American public in a rally this morning which is very much a preview of what we can expect from the Democratic National Convention and I must say that any reservation that I may have had in how the DNC is going to answer the GOP convention, my reservation have been put to rest. The DNC is gonna nail it..............without a doubt. So proud to be on THIS side of the fence.

After listening to Kaine, and knowing his experience, I would feel totally comfortable, if God forbid, he had to step into the Presidency, he would do a GREAT job.

I am now more confident in the Dems winning this thing than ever before for Kaine is going to bring likeability and empathy to this campaign which is just what they needed to top of the tank.

 

[CarolKing]

@Gunky i was unhappy that Bernie kept saying negative things about Hillary that would bite the democrats in the ass during the Presidential Primary. He probably was a little angry to say the least that the DNC favored Hillary over him. They needed to stay more neutral and they didn't do that. Debbie Wasserman Shultz needs to step down as their leader.

I'm sure the Wikileaks article was planned at the right time. We better be careful right before the election what may happen far as any hidden ghosts in the closet.

I will be voting democrat and support them. I just hope that they win. We wouldn't want the alternative.

Edit
I'm liking Tim Kaine.
I want to see Donald Trump's taxes too, Tim Kaine.
He acts and talks like he is genuine, a really good person and and not a fake.

 

[lwien]

Gotta add one more thing. If you missed this rally, I strongly suggest that you find it somewhere and watch it in total. VERY inspiring.....

I don't think that I've EVERY felt this good about any other VP pick......I like this guy.....

 

[Gunky]

The DNC did not cover itself in glory. I would like to see a bit more transparency in their process. The parts that involve primaries and caucuses should always be administered by 'neutral' parties. Even though they may have personal prefs they should behave like judges insofar as the running of elections and so on, because otherwise the process appears rigged. Nevertheless, the outcome was not close or in doubt this time and Bernie-bro conspiracy theories are bullshit.

 

[cybrguy]

He is not the perfect candidate, but he is a very good one and will serve Hillary well. And I expect him to serve US well. The difference between the Dem rollout and the Repub rollout is very telling...

 

[His_Highness]

Tim Kaine? Congrats on finding a democrat that might actually appeal a little to the repubs and centrists.

I find myself riding the fence on this one.

He has stated that he has a faith based issue with abortion but is behind a woman's right to choose and has voted as such.

Has also stated that marijuana is a gateway drug

Just finished watching Kaine speak. I'm no longer riding the fence. The man exudes likability, energy, intelligence and most importantly TRUSTWORTHINESS. And as I have said before likability and trustworthiness are kryptonite to the current presidential hopefuls. Kaine offsets the issue of trust beautifully.

Prior to the speech I looked into his backgrond.....I am amazed and overjoyed at the fact that he has strong personal beliefs but doesn't allow them to get in the way of supporting the will of the people when they contradict each other.

KAINE IS A GREAT CHOICE!

 

[lwien]

And btw, I gotta add that Hillary's introduction of Kaine was hit out of the ballpark as well. What a pre-sell!! It's like she was introducing Mother Theresa.

The upcoming VP debate wasn't necessarily something that I was looking forward to. I'm looking forward to it now though.

 

[grokit]

Hey just want to point out that he actually does mention the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) beginning at the 53:30 minute mark. You probably missed it, it was a long speech! 75 minutes! This is an important issue to a lot of tuned in Trump and Sanders supporters, but I think the average voter isn't really aware of it at this point. Hopefully that will change.

I remember that he mentioned re-negotiating nafta, and referred to a couple of others...
I kind of remember it now, that he tried to make it about hillary and china

edit: Tpp tidbit from josh earnest, current white house press secretary:

When asked if he had a comment Friday about Donald Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R), Earnest declined—but not before pointing out some of the key disagreements between Trump and that pick.

WH @presssec on Trump’s VP pick: “You mean the TPP-supporting, Medicaid-expanding Mike Pence? No, I don't have any comment.”​

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 15, 2016​

Trump has been an vocal critic of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, while Pence has backed every free trade deal for the past 15 years, according to Quartz. Trump also is no fan of the Affordable Care Act, under which Pence expanded Medicaid in his state, earning praise from President Obama.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/josh-earnest-mike-pence-trump-vp-reaction

 

[cybrguy]

The Day the GOP Stood Still
by D.R. Tucker
July 23, 2016 11:30 AM

Rarely is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrong in his political or economic conclusions; the man makes an error about as infrequently as Halley’s Comet is visible from Earth. However, there was one tiny flaw in his July 18 post about the GOP’s march towards mania.

Krugman correctly noted that he was one of the few main-event figures in American punditry who was willing to declare the Republican Party non compos mentis back when it was considered rude to do so in polite company. Now that discussions of the GOP’s descent into dementia are less taboo today, Krugman is right to remind his readers that he faced intense intolerance back in the day for expressing views that are taken for granted today.

Krugman further observed:

What I want to talk about is when, exactly, the GOP went over the edge. Obviously it didn’t happen all at once. But I think the real watershed came in 1980-81, when supply-side economics became the party’s official doctrine.I’m not sure, even now, whether people who aren’t involved in economic policy discussion understand that supply-side wasn’t a doctrine like monetarism or even real business cycles — ideas I may think are wrong, but which had and to some extent still have significant support from professionals in the field. Supply-side economics never had any evidence behind it; it never had any support in academic research; it barely even had any support among economic researchers and forecasters in the business world. It was and remains crank economics pure and simple, with nothing going for it except political convenience.Yet 35 years ago the GOP was already willing to embrace this doctrine because it was politically convenient, and could be used to justify tax cuts for the rich, which have always been the priority.​

While the GOP’s romance with Reaganomics was indeed a low point, even that embrace of economic eccentricity in the early-’80s was not the moment when the GOP truly lost it. The point of no return occurred a few years later; in fact, the 28th anniversary of that morbid moment will arrive in just a few days.

The GOP officially sold its soul–and its sanity–on August 1, 1988, when Rush Limbaugh’s Sacramento, California-based radio show was first syndicated nationally, a feat made possible by President Reagan’s elimination of the Fairness Doctrine a year earlier. Limbaugh and his backers had a clear goal of driving the GOP, and America’s overall political/media culture, as far to the right as possible–and sadly, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Limbaugh’s demonization of Democrats spawned a subculture of sarcasm that dominated AM radio. Soon, Limbaugh’s loathing of liberalism found a home on syndicated television; in many respects, Limbaugh’s TV show (which was executive-produced by Roger Ailes) was a four-year dress rehearsal for the Fox News Channel.

Rush was the ringleader of the Republican rush towards recklessness; he led the crusade to ideologically purify the GOP, trashing any Republican who supported choice or climate protection. He established his own views as the litmus test for who was, or was not, a “real” Republican. By 2009, it was clear that Limbaugh was, without question, the real leader of the GOP.

Think about the sick stain and the loathsome legacy Limbaugh has left behind. Thanks to his poisoning of the Republican Party, America was unable to lead in a bipartisan fashion on such issues as health care reform, gun control and climate change. Considering the international implications of that last issue, it can be argued that Limbaugh largely prevented America from leading the rest of the world in transitioning expeditiously away from fossil fuels–a transition that could have spared countless lives over the past 28 years.

Donald Trump became the 2016 Republican nominee by copying Limbaugh’s shtick–appealing to the worst angels of our nature, exploiting extremism, casting scorn upon common sense, prevaricating with pride. It was Limbaugh who removed all traces of logic, reason, decency, civility and compassion from the party of Abraham Lincoln. It was Limbaugh who made hatred of environmental protection the organizing principle of the party of Theodore Roosevelt. It was Limbaugh who led the GOP towards lunacy–and the party may never, ever find its way back.

 

[Gunky]

I strongly suspect that after Trump loses by a pretty big margin and the repubs lose at least their senate majority and probably achieve a diminished majority in the House, the republican brand will begin to regroup under the 'reform republicanism' of people like Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, David Brooks and others. These are conservatives but they are willing to let go of the Reagan Delusion, a condition which has beset the party for decades and which causes people to believe that endless tax cuts for the 1% will make everything better and trickle down benefits on the lower classes. I do not think the republican pendulum is going to swing back to anti-government Tea Partyism or religious right social conservatism, or the alignment of those two, or the arithmetically challenged apologies/rationalization for those groups constructed by people like Paul Ryan. They had control of Congress for a long time and all they did was shut down the government and fuck up our credit rating. For several years they promised alternative health and economic plans and have come up with zip. They simply cannot come up with numbers that make sense because their premise about cutting taxes on the wealthy has never worked, won't work now, can't work in the future. We tried that and to varying degrees have applied it ever since Reagan. The result is ever more concentrated wealth and power at the top (and ever greater debt). The demographic clock is ticking on the repub strategy of ginning up white resentment and winning with whites only. It won't work much longer.

 

[Silat]

The Day the GOP Stood Still
by D.R. Tucker
July 23, 2016 11:30 AM

Rarely is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrong in his political or economic conclusions; the man makes an error about as infrequently as Halley’s Comet is visible from Earth. However, there was one tiny flaw in his July 18 post about the GOP’s march towards mania.

Krugman correctly noted that he was one of the few main-event figures in American punditry who was willing to declare the Republican Party non compos mentis back when it was considered rude to do so in polite company. Now that discussions of the GOP’s descent into dementia are less taboo today, Krugman is right to remind his readers that he faced intense intolerance back in the day for expressing views that are taken for granted today.

Krugman further observed:

What I want to talk about is when, exactly, the GOP went over the edge. Obviously it didn’t happen all at once. But I think the real watershed came in 1980-81, when supply-side economics became the party’s official doctrine.I’m not sure, even now, whether people who aren’t involved in economic policy discussion understand that supply-side wasn’t a doctrine like monetarism or even real business cycles — ideas I may think are wrong, but which had and to some extent still have significant support from professionals in the field. Supply-side economics never had any evidence behind it; it never had any support in academic research; it barely even had any support among economic researchers and forecasters in the business world. It was and remains crank economics pure and simple, with nothing going for it except political convenience.Yet 35 years ago the GOP was already willing to embrace this doctrine because it was politically convenient, and could be used to justify tax cuts for the rich, which have always been the priority.​

While the GOP’s romance with Reaganomics was indeed a low point, even that embrace of economic eccentricity in the early-’80s was not the moment when the GOP truly lost it. The point of no return occurred a few years later; in fact, the 28th anniversary of that morbid moment will arrive in just a few days.

The GOP officially sold its soul–and its sanity–on August 1, 1988, when Rush Limbaugh’s Sacramento, California-based radio show was first syndicated nationally, a feat made possible by President Reagan’s elimination of the Fairness Doctrine a year earlier. Limbaugh and his backers had a clear goal of driving the GOP, and America’s overall political/media culture, as far to the right as possible–and sadly, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Limbaugh’s demonization of Democrats spawned a subculture of sarcasm that dominated AM radio. Soon, Limbaugh’s loathing of liberalism found a home on syndicated television; in many respects, Limbaugh’s TV show (which was executive-produced by Roger Ailes) was a four-year dress rehearsal for the Fox News Channel.

Rush was the ringleader of the Republican rush towards recklessness; he led the crusade to ideologically purify the GOP, trashing any Republican who supported choice or climate protection. He established his own views as the litmus test for who was, or was not, a “real” Republican. By 2009, it was clear that Limbaugh was, without question, the real leader of the GOP.

Think about the sick stain and the loathsome legacy Limbaugh has left behind. Thanks to his poisoning of the Republican Party, America was unable to lead in a bipartisan fashion on such issues as health care reform, gun control and climate change. Considering the international implications of that last issue, it can be argued that Limbaugh largely prevented America from leading the rest of the world in transitioning expeditiously away from fossil fuels–a transition that could have spared countless lives over the past 28 years.

Donald Trump became the 2016 Republican nominee by copying Limbaugh’s shtick–appealing to the worst angels of our nature, exploiting extremism, casting scorn upon common sense, prevaricating with pride. It was Limbaugh who removed all traces of logic, reason, decency, civility and compassion from the party of Abraham Lincoln. It was Limbaugh who made hatred of environmental protection the organizing principle of the party of Theodore Roosevelt. It was Limbaugh who led the GOP towards lunacy–and the party may never, ever find its way back.

And soon after OxyRush came Murdoch. Who bought his citizenship then the votes to allow him to become a big player in the media.

 

[lwien]

 

[grokit]

Moore told Business Insider back in December 2015 that “Donald Trump is absolutely going to be the Republican candidate for president of the United States".


Michael Moore Gives 5 Scary Reasons Why Trump Will Win
"Get out of your bubble, people!"

Despite his "sh*t show" of a campaign, no one can doubt Trump's momentum; especially not liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who, for months, has urged mainstream media not to underestimate Donald Trump.

Though he may get no pleasure from being right, Moore told Business Insider in December 2015 that “Donald Trump is absolutely going to be the Republican candidate for president of the United States.”

And last night, returning to "Real Time With Bill Maher," Moore made another terrifying prediction.

"I'm sorry to be the buzzkill... but I think Trump is gonna win," Moore told host Bill Maher. According to the filmmaker, here's why:

1. The Rust Belt/Brexit Strategy

"Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. The total votes of [Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ]... 64," Moore told Maher. "All he has to do is win those four states."


2. The Trump Family

Trump's main surrogates—his own family—have become Republican National Convention superstars, and their testimonials really cause voters to consider, "well if he raised them, he can't be so bad, right?" Moore points out that the family members are not really looking like the "hostages" liberal voters might have thought they would. In fact, "between [Melania] and the children, none of them have offerered any of the sort of anecdotes that you would expect," Moore pointed out.


3. Make America Great Again? How About Just Reality Television

Moore believes Trump doesn't even want to be in the White House; that he'll give it to Mike Pence and his children after buying an estate in Fairfax. "The thing that we're describing... 'Make America Great Again'... He's gonna turn his presidency into a reality show; a literal reality show. But if I say that, millions are gonna go, 'F*ck yea,'" Moore said.


4. Angry White Men Vote

While statistically Trump needs as many as seven out of 10 white guys to win the presidency, Moore insists that angry white men are incredibly dependable when it comes to voting. "White men over 35 are only 19 percent of the country, but that's 40 million voters, and I'm telling you they're going to be out there [at the polls]," Moore said.


5. The Two Sides Don't Even Talk Anymore

It's worth investigating the yearlong conundrum of why poor, middle-American voters identify so well with an ego-centric real estate mogul from New York. "When you say he hasn't read a book in his adult life, you've just described the majority of Americans. Get out of your bubble, everybody!" Moore urged.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

long version: http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

 

[HellsWindStaff]

When I said that Fox buried the news, I was referring to the first day that this story came out. On that day, it was front page headlines on EVERY news outlet that I brought up that day with one exception............Fox. On that day, the story could only be read if one scrolled down the page and on subsequent days, it NEVER garnered the headline. I looked through about 10 different media outlets and FOX was the only one to carry the story like that on the day that it broke. Was I surprised? Not at all. Fox is what it is.

And in regards to my perspective, I did paint with a very broad brush and I should pull that back a bit being that I've come down on those that have done the exact same thing. Generalizations simply don't work being that there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. I think I'll just leave it at that.

a bit confused, I took those screenshots within an hour of you posting they buried it, which was the first day it was presented. You mean to tell me Fox threw all those stories up in the 30-40 minutes it took for me to have a break from work for screenshots?

Fox is what is is, correct. More accurate then MSNBC. Unless the specifically became more accurate in only the time after you said they buried it. That's false. Say it lol. Don't rationalize your mistake. You said the story was buried on Fox, at the time you said that, it wasn't.

Look at my task bar. It hold up my end of when I took them.

Edit: your post is from 2:29 that day. So, I should take your word that your perspective was right then and Fox filled in all those Articles within 40 minutes? Cmon. Admit you're perspective was wrong. Admit your statement was outright false. The proof is in the pudding

Edit 2: on second thought. The rationalization makes total sense To what I'm saying about Clinton supporters not being able to face reality. Face it. You were wrong lol. Please don't sugarcoat it. Or do, but that continues to fuel the Trump train as it proves my point about ideostic and unrealistic Hillary supporters.

Edit 3: Carolkkng you should have your hubby sub to this site.
If he's not on social media saying he's voting for trump, he's a silent majority member. Provinf yet another point ice said. Your family sounds smart and I'd like to hear their perspective.


Waiting on from everyone why Trumps kids hunting is pertinent, why you'll be bothered by the exploitation at RNC but aren't at all bother by the dnc exploitation afternoon proposal. Zzzz cmon guys. I'm on vacation and can't cite well; this is your chance!!

 

[lwien]

DNC Chair Quarantined......
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/index.html

Not to say that two wrongs don't make a right but one does have to wonder though how many RNC emails contained info on how to stop Trump during the primaries.

Politics is a dirty game. Always has been............always will be. Hope this doesn't keep too many of Bernie supporters away although I'm sure it will have an impact.

 

[Farid]

Not to say that two wrongs don't make a right but one does have to wonder though how many RNC emails contained info on how to stop Trump during the primaries.

That's not really a fair comparison, because there were several candidates going against Trump on the Republican ticket. Any conspiracy against Trump would just be a conspiracy against Trump. What we are talking about is a conspiracy FOR Hillary, which is much more sinister. It's one thing to do anything in your power to stop a candidate you disagree with. It's quite another to anything in your power to prop up your candidate.

Now I know Clinton supporters will respond by saying it's just chance that Clinton was the only candidate, and that these pro Clinton delegates were just anti Sanders, not pro Clinton. That doesn't sit well with people who have been saying Clinton was given preference as the presumptive candidate. Hell, I know I was offended by how presumptuous "Ready for Hillary" was as a slogan.

 

[cybrguy]

Not a normal source for me, but we have to pull entertainment from where it lies sometimes...

Too good to check: Trump ready to invest $20 million to end Cruz’s and Kasich’s careers
posted at 8:01 pm on July 22, 2016 by Allahpundit

Newsworthy, not because Trump is actually going to do it but because it shows you where his mind is, allegedly, the day after the biggest triumph of his life, with a presidential election ahead. Hillary Clinton? Sure, we’ll get to her later. Right now there are Republican enemies to destroy.

Who’s the source here? Given the vindictiveness involved, I’d say there’s a five percent chance that it’s Corey Lewandowski, five percent that it’s Paul Manafort, 15 percent that it’s Roger Stone, and 75 percent that it’s Trump himself. He did, after all, casually bring up this very idea in his press conference this morning.

Donald Trump plans to create and fund super-PACs specifically aimed at ending the political careers of Ted Cruz and John Kasich should either run for office again, after both snubbed the Republican nominee during his party’s convention this week, a source familiar with Trump’s thinking told Bloomberg Politics on Friday.

The plan would involve Trump investing millions of his own money –perhaps $20 million or more — in one or two outside groups about six months before their respective election days if Texas Senator Cruz or Ohio Governor Kasich stand for office again. The source said Trump is willing to set up two separate super-PACs – one for Cruz and one for Kasich – and put millions into each.

The source said that Trump would be willing to invest tens of millions more if necessary to ensure his former competitors didn’t win another race. Of course, the ire that Trump has exhibited in the aftermath of the bitter nomination contest could fade over time, leading the sometimes mercurial billionaire to drop the plans.

Actual quote: “The source close to Trump’s thinking indicated that Trump would consider forming the super-PAC whether or not he wins the presidential election in November.” I can already see President Trump fielding questions about building the wall at his first press conference in the Rose Garden in February. “It’s going to happen,” he’ll say, “just as soon as I’m done setting up my ‘Stop Kasich’ nonprofit.”

The easy and almost certainly correct interpretation of all this is that it’s empty Trump-y bravado crudely designed to intimidate Cruz and Kasich. A guy who wouldn’t set aside an extra $20 million last year to build a formidable national ground game and data shop that would make him the most powerful man in the world isn’t going to cough it up to make Ted Cruz cry. If nothing else, maybe the mere threat will make Cruz and Kasich think twice about criticizing Trump before Election Day in case they’re tempted.

On the other hand, last spring the easy and almost certainly correct interpretation of Trump saying “I think I’m going to run for president” was that he’s an attention whore who likes the media interest in his prospective candidacy but who’d never actually risk rejection by the voters. (That was my interpretation.) Turns out he’s full of surprises! A Twitter pal makes a fair point too: Trump being Trump, it’s easier to imagine him dropping 20 large to indulge a grudge against Cruz and Kasich than to build a competent organization that might get him elected president. If you believe the armchair psychology about him, he only ran in the first place to ease some of his butthurt at the political class for treating a great man like himself as a joke. Nothing would take the sting out of an ego blow as severe as losing the election like reminding Senator “Vote Your Conscience” who the alpha male is between them.

Speaking of which:
Ramesh Ponnuru ✔ @RameshPonnuru
Trumpworld attacks on Kasich undermine the "Cruz shouldn't have come to the convention" argument. Trump would still have blown up.

5:22 PM - 22 Jul 2016

Good point. Chew on that, and on this: This Bloomberg story is floating around tonight at a moment when Kasich and Ohio’s state GOP are being urged to put aside their hard feelings towards Trump and get to work for him against Clinton. This guy is threatening the sitting Republican governor of a swing state he desperately needs to win this fall, knowing that he’s depending on the state party to do most of the legwork for his skeletal ground-game operation. Does he have clinical brain damage?

 

[Joel W.]

On Saturday, the Democratic Rules Committee voted 158 to 6 to bind about two-thirds of superdelegates to the results from primaries and caucuses. Elected lawmakers and governors would still be unbound delegates.

http://www.kiro7.com/news/politics/...-vote-to-change-superdelegate-rules/410623771

 

[CarolKing]

Washerman Shultz won't be speaking at the convention but that won't be enough. She will have to step down from her post as chairperson. Too many angry Bernie voters. Very curious what organization or country did the hacking of the emails?

The timing of this coming out a few days before the democratic convention is just too perfect for the other team. Obvious someone doesn't want the democrats in power. Could it be Russia? They would love Trump as prez.

It's not a surprise to anyone that the DNC showed favoritism. Basically only 2 in the race. Washerman Shultz was Hillary's surrogate when she ran for prez last time. It was very obvious to the regular person that watches democratic politics that the DNC favored Hillary. Their job is to be neutral.

@Gunky you can say all you want that the systems wasn't rigged in Hillarys favor. Everyone could tell even us in this thread that it was. Nobody needed to tell us in our little corner of America.

 

[macbill]

It's not a surprise to anyone that the DNC showed favoritism.

I think there were many who felt Hilary was robbed in 2008 of her "rightful" spot: remember how folks were certain that she would be "The One"? I think some of her supporters became officials in the DNC.

 

[lwien]

The timing of this coming out a few days before the democratic convention is just too perfect for the other team. Obvious someone doesn't want the democrats in power. Could it be Russia? They would love Trump as prez.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but when the DNC emails were first hacked, it was reported that the Russians had their fingerprints all over it. It's also safe to assume that Russia would much rather deal with Trump than Clinton. And then, as you say, CK, consider the timing of the release.

But, with all that said, it doesn't take away from the content. Schultz should resign. There is no positive reason for her to stay on. She is doing more harm to the Dems staying on than if she leaves. And, there should also be a few others to fall on their swords as well. The sooner this happens the better. A lesson should be learned from how the GOP handled the whole plagiarism deal and how they handled it was a disaster.

 

[Gunky]

Part of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Lincoln details the process by which Lincoln was nominated. Check it out sometime. There was a good deal of chicanery! Next to that the selection of Hillary looks very straightforward. People whine endlessly about the DNC and now even Russia is putting its oar in, having hacked the DNC, but the truth is the DNC made little difference. Hillary won more votes and would have won even more if several states had held primaries instead of caucuses. Bernie gained as much as he lost from the vagaries of the democratic party process.

 

[t-dub]

If indeed it was Russia who did the hack, do you think they, or someone else, could have hacked H's basement e-mail server?

 

[lwien]

If indeed it was Russia who did the hack, do you think they, or someone else, could have hacked H's basement e-mail server?

Absolutely. And if I was still active in the intelligence community, I would assume that her server had been hacked. For me, I'm MUCH more concerned about the hacks that have not been made public than those that have.

People whine endlessly about the DNC and now even Russia is putting its oar in, having hacked the DNC, but the truth is the DNC made little difference. Hillary won more votes and would have won even more if several states had held primaries instead of caucuses.

While that's true, the optics still look like shit and definitely puts a pall over the DNC. Hillary must be just as pissed about this as Trump must have been over the plagiarism fiasco.

I wonder what other leaks will be made public during the Dem's convention?