The fix is in: Bernie Sanders to sue DNC if access to db isn't restored

[TheSlamma]

You do realize that Bernie can't do shit w/o a compliant congress. And if he can't even get the support of people in his own party, he'll end up being just another figure head like Obama was for most of his presidency.

He can make better appointments (something Obama failed at miserably) based on his principals.

As Commander in chief he can also pull the plug on this endless fighting and bombing that just creates more radical groups. The simple days of the Taliban are over, thanks to the continued swatting of the hornets nest, Obamas middle east strategy has helped in creating the group we all call ISIS. We need someone that simply wants us OUT OF THERE.

 

[boomerang]

We need someone that simply wants us OUT OF THERE.

So, that would bring the efforts of ISIS to a halt? Would they eventually decide to let all that caliphate stuff go and live in peace and harmony with the rest of the peoples of the world?

 

[Charmonium]

He can make better appointments (something Obama failed at miserably) based on his principals.

As Commander in chief he can also pull the plug on this endless fighting and bombing that just creates more radical groups. The simple days of the Taliban are over, thanks to the continued swatting of the hornets nest, Obamas middle east strategy has helped in creating the group we all call ISIS. We need someone that simply wants us OUT OF THERE.

I sort of agree with you on letting every one in the middle east kill each other rather than getting involved. But that's what we tried to do with Afghanistan and it ended up breeding terrorists. I don't think we can allow extremist groups like ISIS to have safe havens from which they can recruit.

 

[Aegeon]

He can make better appointments (something Obama failed at miserably) based on his principals.

Actually for many appointments this is not necessarily always true. (Even if we temporarily actually accept your argument that the quality of the picks themselves would be inherently better in some cases for the sake of this discussion.)

In a remotely plausible hypothetical scenario for Bernie's first term, Democrats will have a narrow majority in the Senate so it would only take a couple of Senate Democrats in addition to the Republicans objecting to block a candidate (with regards to those subject to Senate votes). This means if Sanders picks too many individuals perceived as having having too extreme political views, those positions are likely to simply lie vacant for awhile rather than actually being filled. A realistic assessment of the reaction of the general American public is they are likely to view a Sanders administration poorly if even Democrats keep on objecting to his nominees.

There is also are obvious potential advantages Hillary would have over Sanders in terms of the appointment of judges. Basically Hillary got a law degree from Yale, taught classes at Arkansas University 's School of Law, and served a number of years in private practice as an attorney. She also is familiar with how her husband went about picking judges and can even see how those picks have ruled as judges on the bench so she can potentially recognize any mistakes her husband may have made with his selection prospect in retrospect. Sanders essentially has none of these advantages since he doesn't have any real background in the practice of law persay.

Essentially Hillary's experience would be potentially useful especially for questioning a judge about their judicial philosophy effectively so major surprises about how the judge will rule from the bench are avoided once they have already been appointed. It also should be noted that in terms of Supreme Court Judges, there is certainly an argument that a judge too publicly stridently to the right or left is not always the best pick. Basically you ideally want a judge who can persuade other key members of the court to side with them on various decisions since this will change the outcome of how the Supreme Court rules. (This sometimes leads to some sort of compromise on the exact nature of the ruling since otherwise a key justice or two could end up simply outright ruling the other way in a case.) With the wrong very left leaning judge, even other members of the Supreme Court who are generally identified as liberal might believe the judge's judgement is suspect and be inclined to ignore his/her arguments when they did not start off thinking about ruling the same way in the first place.

In other words there are a bunch of reasons to think Hillary would have advantages with regards to making appointments.

 

[TheSlamma]

So, that would bring the efforts of ISIS to a halt? Would they eventually decide to let all that caliphate stuff go and live in peace and harmony with the rest of the peoples of the world?

It would stop this trend of continuing to make more andmore radical groups. Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, all inventions of our interventions.

 

[TheSlamma]

I sort of agree with you on letting every one in the middle east kill each other rather than getting involved. But that's what we tried to do with Afghanistan and it ended up breeding terrorists. I don't think we can allow extremist groups like ISIS to have safe havens from which they can recruit.

Even if not militarily involved with Afghanistan we have constantly meddled with them in some form which has caused the animosity they have towards us.

 

[Aegeon]

Even if not militarily involved with Afghanistan we have constantly meddled with them in some form which has caused the animosity they have towards us.

This seems like a highly dubious interpretation. While we can talk about the inadvertent consequences, the reason various groups in Afghanistan hated the US certainly does not appear to have anything to do with the fact the US provided weaponry for them to kick the Soviets out with. (In fact this would be something mostly having the exact opposite effect to the extent it had an impact.) After this succeeded the US really did completely stop any measurable involvement with Afghanistan for awhile.

Now you can argue some in the country hate the west in general due to historical British involvement in particular, but still is not the US's fault and suggests we are going to (at a minimum) have long term issues in certain parts of the world even if we have no involvement at all for quite awhile in that region.

The one thing that might arguably have had an effect is the extent that US culture happens to be exported in various forms (including tv shows and music and the like) but I don't see a plausible way you stop this even if you actually make the argument that this should actually be stopped. In other words your interpretation of Afghanistan up until the 9/11 attacks seems to be flat out plainly wrong.

 

[TheSlamma]

Actually for many appointments this is not necessarily always true. (Even if we temporarily actually accept your argument that the quality of the picks themselves would be inherently better in some cases for the sake of this discussion.)

In a remotely plausible hypothetical scenario for Bernie's first term, Democrats will have a narrow majority in the Senate so it would only take a couple of Senate Democrats in addition to the Republicans objecting to block a candidate (with regards to those subject to Senate votes). This means if Sanders picks too many individuals perceived as having having too extreme political views, those positions are likely to simply lie vacant for awhile rather than actually being filled. A realistic assessment of the reaction of the general American public is they are likely to view a Sanders administration poorly if even Democrats keep on objecting to his nominees.

There is also are obvious potential advantages Hillary would have over Sanders in terms of the appointment of judges. Basically Hillary got a law degree from Yale, taught classes at Arkansas University 's School of Law, and served a number of years in private practice as an attorney. She also is familiar with how her husband went about picking judges and can even see how those picks have ruled as judges on the bench so she can potentially recognize any mistakes her husband may have made with his selection prospect in retrospect. Sanders essentially has none of these advantages since he doesn't have any real background in the practice of law persay.

Essentially Hillary's experience would be potentially useful especially for questioning a judge about their judicial philosophy effectively so major surprises about how the judge will rule from the bench are avoided once they have already been appointed. It also should be noted that in terms of Supreme Court Judges, there is certainly an argument that a judge too publicly stridently to the right or left is not always the best pick. Basically you ideally want a judge who can persuade other key members of the court to side with them on various decisions since this will change the outcome of how the Supreme Court rules. (This sometimes leads to some sort of compromise on the exact nature of the ruling since otherwise a key justice or two could end up simply outright ruling the other way in a case.) With the wrong very left leaning judge, even other members of the Supreme Court who are generally identified as liberal might believe the judge's judgement is suspect and be inclined to ignore his/her arguments when they did not start off thinking about ruling the same way in the first place.

In other words there are a bunch of reasons to think Hillary would have advantages with regards to making appointments.

Hillaries degree means nothing to me for appointments, why? they do not teach "judge of character" as part of any curriculum. Hillary also doesn't have exclusive knowledge to bad past choices, that has all been public information as we are the recipients of every bad mistake made.

And I'm not interested in political strategy, I'm interested in doing the right thing and appointing the right person for the job. Not putting self interested people in those positions is a great start. A 9 year old off the street has just as much ability to know right from wrong than any law degree (in fact they probably have a better understanding of it)

I'm done with the Holder, Lynch, Michael Taylor and Archuleta types who are absolute failures, I wouldn't trust these morons to manage a lemonade stand. These are the types of choices you make when you are wishy washy, Sanders has been solid on his stances for decades, unlike Clinton.

 

[TheSlamma]

This seems like a highly dubious interpretation. While we can talk about the inadvertent consequences, the reason various groups in Afghanistan hated the US certainly does not appear to have anything to do with the fact the US provided weaponry for them to kick the Soviets out with. (In fact this would be something mostly having the exact opposite effect to the extent it had an impact.) After this succeeded the US really did completely stop any measurable involvement with Afghanistan for awhile.

Now you can argue some in the country hate the west in general due to historical British involvement in particular, but still is not the US's fault and suggests we are going to (at a minimum) have long term issues in certain parts of the world even if we have no involvement at all for quite awhile in that region.

The one thing that might arguably have had an effect is the extent that US culture happens to be exported in various forms (including tv shows and music and the like) but I don't see a plausible way you stop this even if you actually make the argument that this should actually be stopped. In other words your interpretation of Afghanistan up until the 9/11 attacks seems to be flat out plainly wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_%28August_1998%29

Bush couldn't do it and no one else will either.. that is convince me that "They hate us for our freedom"

 

[Aegeon]

Bush couldn't do it and no one else will either.. that is convince me that "They hate us for our freedom"

This is missing the fact that Afghanistan was already hosting Al Queda which had previously announced it was at war with the US at that point and even bombed the US Embassy in Tanzania. There doesn't' appear to be any evidence the Taliban's policies measurably changed after this incident with respect to how it was hosting Al Queda, so this doesn't really support your argument to any true degree. A single cruse missile strike also doesn't actually support your "constantly meddled" claim.

(The idea the Taliban suddenly became anti-US due to the cruise missile strike is simply laughable.)

 

[Aegeon]

Hillary also doesn't have exclusive knowledge to bad past choices, that has all been public information as we are the recipients of every bad mistake made.

Hillary would in fact have realistic essentially exclusive knowledge of what went on with regards to the selection process and thought process of Bill Clinton with regards to his actual judicial picks though. Basically in private Bill should presumably be extremely forthcoming and she also could question other aides with the understanding anything they admit might have been a mistake they made during the process this does not have to become public knowledge.

By contrast in a scenario where Sanders calls up Bill after he wins and asks for info on the mistakes he made selecting judges, Bill is likely to be defensive in his answer at absolute best, and certainly won't be as remotely forthcoming as he would be in private with Hillary.

 

[Gryz]

Nice move, but a lawsuit isn't going to make him president.

Lawsuit worked for Dubya.

 

[TheSlamma]

(The idea the Taliban suddenly became anti-US due to the cruise missile strike is simply laughable.)

Who ever said it was? The US meddling in ME affairs is what I stated make them anti-US, my link was to prove that yes we have been there and been combative earlier than 9/11 which you stated. I don't want the US government there in ANY capacity.

Have we been pissing off the middle east for decades, YES
Were we combative before 9/11, YES

With those 2 facts in place you can now give up on calling me off base.

Repubs and Dems can go on thinking they will solve this shit though with the same bullshit they have been doing for decades that has done NOTHING but make it worse. Clinton will do the exact same shit and her appointments will also be corporate interest drones too. Still waiting on my "change" that I voted for.

For the meddling needing more proof, that is your burden to go actually learn about, I'll start you off with Operation Cyclone and you can build from there.

 

[Aegeon]

Who ever said it was? The US meddling in ME affairs is what I stated make them anti-US, my link was to prove that yes we have been there earlier than 9/11 which you stated.

Have we been pissing off the middle east for decades, YES
Were we combative before 9/11, YES

With those 2 facts in place you can now give up on calling me off base.

That is certainly NOT at all what you claimed with your previous post, in which you asserted problematic US constant meddling which caused the locals to hate us was specifically in Afghanistan.

Since you apparently are unaware of this, Afghanistan is not even in the Middle East at all, but in Central Asia (or at least Asia in general). Now you can assert meddling by the US elsewhere in the Islamic world caused eventual consequences for the US in Afghanistan, but that is in fact substantially different than your prior claim.

 

[kage69]

He can make better appointments (something Obama failed at miserably) based on his principals.

As Commander in chief he can also pull the plug on this endless fighting and bombing that just creates more radical groups. The simple days of the Taliban are over, thanks to the continued swatting of the hornets nest, Obamas middle east strategy has helped in creating the group we all call ISIS. We need someone that simply wants us OUT OF THERE.

FALSE. The seeds of ISIS were planted before Obama even got into office.

Stating that AQ and the Taliban were American creations is also FALSE. The Taliban started from muj remnants that got busy fighting eachother after the Soviets were run off. AQ was created during the same hububb as some fighters, especially those from Wahabi lands, saw the US as the new infidel to fight due to our presence in the Sa'udi kingdom. OBL wanted the Sa'uds to show US forces the door and use muj to fight Saddam. Riyadh declined, thinking the US military a safer bet, and OBL's feelings and ego did not take it well. Here begineth the fun.

 

[kage69]

Lawsuit worked for Dubya.

Yep. Too bad it fucked the USA.

 

[cubby1223]

Yes, but more importantly what do you think of the slimy DNC denying him access to his own voter data? It's almost comical how badly the DNC wants hillary as their candidate that they would stoop this low to try and rub Sanders out in this manner.

Say what? We've had a president impeached for accessing DNC campaign information. Sanders should get a by just because he's such a likable ol' chap?

 

[cubby1223]

The one thing that never gets any less pathetic to read - the whining of Sanders' supporters about this fix the DNC has against them.

Keep it up, guys! We need more laughs around here

 

[boomerang]

It would stop this trend of continuing to make more andmore radical groups. Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, all inventions of our interventions.

I never for even one second bought into that talking point. You shouldn't either.

 

[Jhhnn]

Say what? We've had a president impeached for accessing DNC campaign information. Sanders should get a by just because he's such a likable ol' chap?

How lame. There's a difference between burglary & shitty software that allows access when it shouldn't.

 

[TheGardener]

Say what? We've had a president impeached for accessing DNC campaign information. Sanders should get a by just because he's such a likable ol' chap?

It's called equality.

 

[cubby1223]

The DNC wants Hilary as the candidate because she can win. Sanders cannot.

Bolded is the important part for many to read.

Also remember, Sanders was not a part of the Democratic Party until he wanted to run for president. Sanders was always an independent. The DNC exists for the promotion of the Democratic Party. Sanders never wanted to be a part of the Democratic Party. That the DNC has allowed him any access at all should be taken as a positive.

And, from the very beginning of this "scandal", the DNC has said access will be restored once the Sanders campaign destroys their copies of Hillary's data.

So, rage on Sanders' supporters, rage on

 

[cubby1223]

Sanders is the only hope this country has of starting the revolution that will return democracy to the people

If Sanders is your only hope then you are hopeless. It takes more than 1 person's vote to win a national election.

Maybe you should have devoted your life to being nice towards others rather than being a raging asshole. You might have just had more people willing to stand by your side.

But that's your failing in life and you are the only person who is forced to live with yourself.

 

[Jhhnn]

Looks like the DNC turned over on their decision to keep Sanders from his data:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...fe0d5aca2?cps=gravity_2425_195312214791803398

Guess they didn't want the lawsuit afterall.

So, uhh, overblown concern trolling over a family spat pretty much sums it up, right?

Of course the lawsuit can't be dropped until Monday morning when the courts open, anonymously sourced comments not withstanding. Still trying to wring out the last little bit of divisive bullshit.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bolded is the important part for many to read.

Also remember, Sanders was not a part of the Democratic Party until he wanted to run for president. Sanders was always an independent. The DNC exists for the promotion of the Democratic Party. Sanders never wanted to be a part of the Democratic Party. That the DNC has allowed him any access at all should be taken as a positive.

And, from the very beginning of this "scandal", the DNC has said access will be restored once the Sanders campaign destroys their copies of Hillary's data.

So, rage on Sanders' supporters, rage on

Stirring the shit & trollin' on through, huh?