• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is this believable story by Donna Brazile?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Has the DNC realized that the timing is right to tear down the Clinton dynasty? That they have an opportunity right now to make them go away forever? Or, is this all a smoke screen in an attempt to get ahead of what's coming down the legal pipe for the Clinton machine that will affect the party as a whole? Could be some of both. When Hillary gets cornered and it appears she will, there will be a shortage of buses to throw people under. She'll take a lot of people with her. The victim mentality that is such a huge part of her psyche along with the survival instinct will lead her to expose anyone and everyone in a manner she thinks could save her.

Brazile has jumped the sinking ship and Warren jumped after her. There will be more. Democrats that want to continue feeding at the public trough that are smart enough to understand what is actually happening in the nation will eventually figure out that survival will entail getting out ahead of a lot of things and finely honing some lies such that they are perceived to have moved drastically to the right.

Big donors being exposed in big ways to be sexual predators and pedophiles is bad for the party in the public eye. The base can justify anything that is done, spoken or instigated by anyone that is not a conservative. But the base can't win them elections.

We got the President we needed at the exact right time we needed him. Isis, the economy, jobs, it's wonderful to see what can happen when progressive ideology is kicked to the curb with extreme prejudice.

bryanW1995 said:
GOP is going into a bloodbath next year, it will be awful for them, then even worse 2 years later when Warren or Sanders gets elected. The few of them with character have already broken with Trump.
Click to expand...
Sure, and huffpo said the day before the election that there was a 98% chance that Hillary would win. Hope springs eternal but it's sad to see it fertilized with idiocy.
 
brycejones said:
But it will be quoted for years by brandonbullshit and tajbot.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't automatically discount everything with Warren agreeing with some of it. In any case the process stinks and I don't mean with the Dems, but by the design of the system.

Neither party would allow it but I'd like to see a system of public funding which is capped. We could have three levels of support determined by verified signatures for sake of discussion. The top tier gets the largest share, the second the next, and the last the least but such that everyone can at least be visible. Naturally we'd need rules to go with this such as auditing each party and their processes. More "carts" in the marketplace of ideas. Partisans will fear this.
 
fskimospy said:
I'm not sure how I would define a healthy political organization. If you mean 'are they in power' then of course the answer is no, but they are a much healthier organization than the Republican Party, just without the structural advantages. Since unfortunately the Republicans are the only real benchmark we have I'm kind of stuck there.
Click to expand...

I would define a healthy political organization as one that effectively advocates and fights for the policy preferences of their members. One that has a clear message, and attracts both leaders and new membership with a compelling vision for how government can improve the lives of residents and workers.
 
Blackjack200 said:
I would define a healthy political organization as one that effectively advocates and fights for the policy preferences of their members. One that has a clear message, and attracts both leaders and new membership with a compelling vision for how government can improve the lives of residents and workers.
Click to expand...

Would that mean supporting a dishonest approach in choosing candidates for the party platform? What if ethics flies out the window to secure a candidate that the *NCs backers want?

How much soul should be on the auction block?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Would that mean supporting a dishonest approach in choosing candidates for the party platform? What if ethics flies out the window to secure a candidate that the *NCs backers want?

How much soul should be on the auction block?
Click to expand...

Would that be innuendo?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I wouldn't automatically discount everything with Warren agreeing with some of it. In any case the process stinks and I don't mean with the Dems, but by the design of the system.

Neither party would allow it but I'd like to see a system of public funding which is capped. We could have three levels of support determined by verified signatures for sake of discussion. The top tier gets the largest share, the second the next, and the last the least but such that everyone can at least be visible. Naturally we'd need rules to go with this such as auditing each party and their processes. More "carts" in the marketplace of ideas. Partisans will fear this.
Click to expand...

ONLY if you also killed off dark money pacs and put strict limits on so called "educational outreach" aka issue ads.
 
Her conscience led her to tell the truth about the unethical practices within the party. It is the most damaging type of revelation, this is very consistent with the unraveling of Hollywood. Brave people have come out to finally reveal the truth, even though it means throwing their own under the bus.

This is the real way that the swamp will be drained. Not from an attack by the opposing party but within.
 
brycejones said:
ONLY if you also killed off dark money pacs and put strict limits on so called "educational outreach" aka issue ads.
Click to expand...

What I am suggesting would almost certainly require a Constitutional amendment but I think it would be worth it at least for Presidential elections and Congress if I had my way. All contributions would be doled out from "The Fund", which has independent oversight. PACs want to donate? It goes to the fund, which kills the purpose of having one. All advertising, campaigning, anything and everything must be from this one pot of money. Fraud would be considered a felony of Draconian proportions. Independent auditing of *NCs would be done on a routine basis.
 
dyna said:
Her conscience led her to tell the truth about the unethical practices within the party. It is the most damaging type of revelation, this is very consistent with the unraveling of Hollywood. Brave people have come out to finally reveal the truth, even though it means throwing their own under the bus.

This is the real way that the swamp will be drained. Not from an attack by the opposing party but within.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And apparently other insiders know it to be true too:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html

""But what we've got to do as Democrats now is we've got to hold this party accountable," Warren said."
 
Meghan54 said:
And the Repubs.
Click to expand...

Subject is the DNC and their issues with corruption. Which lead them to anointing a horrible person with middling domestic policy and horrible foreign policy, who in turn displeased the voters by a large margin. Large enough to let an even greater travesty take office. Republicans are not relevant here as none of us are voting for them anyway.

Is your ego still so ingrained into Hillary that you have to deflect? At some point the next election is coming up and Democrats need to face the issues of 2016. Donna Brazile provides us a good place to start. The party embraced the populist surge in 2008, but abandoned it in 2016. We need to figure out a way to embrace it again. To get people to believe in Democrats again, after the disaster of the ACA.

And yes, standing firm and admitting that people got HURT by compromising with Republicans is a good place to start. Americans were hurt by the ACA. If you stand by it they will continue to abandon you as they have since 2010. You must find a way to move past it and to inspire them to hope for change again. 70 year olds beholden to Wall Street aren't going to do that.
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
Subject is the DNC and their issues with corruption. Which lead them to anointing a horrible person with middling domestic policy and horrible foreign policy, who in turn displeased the voters by a large margin. Large enough to let an even greater travesty take office. Republicans are not relevant here as none of us are voting for them anyway.

Is your ego still so ingrained into Hillary that you have to deflect? At some point the next election is coming up and Democrats need to face the issues of 2016. Donna Brazile provides us a good place to start. The party embraced the populist surge in 2008, but abandoned it in 2016. We need to figure out a way to embrace it again. To get people to believe in Democrats again, after the disaster of the ACA.

And yes, standing firm and admitting that people got HURT by compromising with Republicans is a good place to start.
Click to expand...

Disaster of the ACA? The ACA was not only effective in a policy sense, it is now popular by a margin of 11 points:

https://www.kff.org/interactive/kai...esponse=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=twoYear
 
Blackjack200 said:
I can't imagine that it would.
Click to expand...


Well we'd hope not but for the moment it's all religion in that it's faith based. At the very least I'd like to see a uniform standard applied which performs a public audit into the back room as well as the public face of political parties done by an independent auditor. I think we've seen enough to know that dark spaces should be illuminated.

If we take for the moment that there are no shens with the Dems then they have no problem with us looking behind the curtain. Reps would hate it, but who we're talking about "the very sacred election process" and that requires serious transparency. Obviously tactics would understandably remain public, but if the Chair of *NC just got a gift from a major player and known supporter of a candidate we ought to know.

These things matter.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Well we'd hope not but for the moment it's all religion in that it's faith based. At the very least I'd like to see a uniform standard applied which performs a public audit into the back room as well as the public face of political parties done by an independent auditor. I think we've seen enough to know that dark spaces should be illuminated.

If we take for the moment that there are no shens with the Dems then they have no problem with us looking behind the curtain. Reps would hate it, but who we're talking about "the very sacred election process" and that requires serious transparency. Obviously tactics would understandably remain public, but if the Chair of *NC just got a gift from a major player and known supporter of a candidate we ought to know.
Click to expand...

Such sound logic cannot be tolerated.
/shun
/s
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I wouldn't automatically discount everything with Warren agreeing with some of it. In any case the process stinks and I don't mean with the Dems, but by the design of the system.

Neither party would allow it but I'd like to see a system of public funding which is capped. We could have three levels of support determined by verified signatures for sake of discussion. The top tier gets the largest share, the second the next, and the last the least but such that everyone can at least be visible. Naturally we'd need rules to go with this such as auditing each party and their processes. More "carts" in the marketplace of ideas. Partisans will fear this.
Click to expand...
Even Warren herself claimed it was rigged. I just love to see the establishment Dems in here lie, cheat, steal and lie some more about their party and their total lack of ethics. Just to watch the tap dancing is amusement enough.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...l_primary_was_rigged_for_hillary_clinton.html
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Even Warren herself claimed it was rigged. I just love to see the establishment Dems in here lie, cheat, steal and lie some more about their party and their total lack of ethics. Just to watch the tap dancing is amusement enough.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...l_primary_was_rigged_for_hillary_clinton.html
Click to expand...


At this point I think the majority aren’t arguing that it didn’t happen but rather it’s a private organization so they can do whatever they want. I live in a democratic republic and rather like it so don’t agree with that position (that it doesn’t matter).
 
Amused said:
What immediately debunks the entire narrative of this story and makes Donna Brazile a liar (or utterly incompetent) is this little story in published in 2015 to the entire world in Politico fully describing the fundraising agreement the Clinton Campaign made with the DNC at the time it was made. While Donna Brazile tries desperately to make the arrangement a super secret conspiracy no one knew about. Meanwhile, it was apparently just her. Oops...

https://www.politico.com/story/2015...ary-clinton-fundraising-agreement-2016-121813
Click to expand...

Hillary has also spoken about it publicly (not necessarily about the deals specifics but of the infrastructure she received and had to prop up).

This is a nothingburger and should be obvious to anyone who can see what people are discussing this (hint its mostly trump supporters).
 
UglyCasanova said:
At this point I think the majority aren’t arguing that it didn’t happen but rather it’s a private organization so they can do whatever they want. I live in a democratic republic and rather like it so don’t agree with that position (that it doesn’t matter).
Click to expand...

I'm still a bit confused as to what people are actually alleging here. So it's 'rigged', right? What does that actually translate into in terms of actions? I can't think of any outside of debate scheduling, which is pretty minor.

Serious question though, what did they 'rig'?
 
As predicted the people who vote in the Democratic Primaries are not concerned to slightly pissed off. The people that NEVER vote in the Democratic Primaries are OUTRAGED!!!
 
Amused said:
Exactly. In fact, Bernie was offered the same and turned it down. This story is pretty silly on it's face and Brazile is only going to come out of it looking like a liar and a fool.

In fact, the fact checkers are beginning to have a field day with her accounts in the book. It's falling apart like a sand castle at high tide.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter. The righwingers' brains have already been programmed. Brazile is their new hero for exposing this super secret lies, and no truth will change the narrative that they now believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top