-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CNN severs ties w/ DNC chair Brazile for sharing Dem primary debate q's with Clinton
- Thread starter Yamauchi
- Start date
- Status
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
I voted for Sanders in my state's primary. Clinton's still the candidate with the closest views to mine and Sanders. The other major party would also love to take away my rights, and Clinton has a higher chance of nominating a liberal justice to the Supreme Court even if Republicans have already publically announced that they won't bother with the vetting process. I dislike Trump far more than Clinton for reasons that should be obvious to anyone. I also don't want Mike Pence anywhere near the white house due to his anti-LGBTQIA+ views, among other reasons.
The only third party candidate I would even consider voting for is Stein, and I disagree with her on some issues, too. I don't like right wing libertarianism and would never vote for Johnson due to his stances on for profit prisons, deregulation, the abolishment of major departments, and states' rights. Castle and the Constitution Party are even worse. McMullin isn't even on my state's ballot and I wouldn't vote for him anyway because he's essentially a Republican-lite alternative to Trump.
Is that explanation good enough or do I have to pass some sort of purity test to show you that I have self-respect?
Clockwork5
Member
Well the primary system is not put in place for party officials to groom a candidate and to provide a single candidate an unfair advantage in securing votes. They are there so that registered voters of the party can vote for the candidate of their choice. The DNC never did anything close to this with Obama vs Clinton.
Also, this doesn't happen on the other side of the isle. Trump is proof of that.
TestOfTide
Banned
Yeah America is so fucked by having one of the most experienced politicians ever become POTUS. Such a travesty.
I'm gonna feel so horrible 10 years from now for voting for Hillary Clinton, especially after those recent three debates.
You want reasons to vote for Hillary? You mean besides:
- Donald Trump being her opponent. (Though I'm sure you'll respond with some crappy false equivalency)
- Hillary Clinton having a long history of getting shit done.
- Hillary Clinton winning by more than 3 million votes in the primary (meaning you can't claim she only won due to rigging)
- Hillary Clinton adopted most of Bernie's platform (assuming you actually cared about Bernie's platform and aren't just some antiestablishment hack)
- Hillary Clinton is one of the most experienced politicians who will become POTUS.
- Bernie himself wants his fans to vote for Hillary due to the above reasons (assuming you actually cared about Bernie's views)
- If Donald Trump doesn't lose in a massive landslide then you can expect more Donald Trump types to pop up for 2020.
Clockwork5
Member
No you have made it clear you support corruption in politics.
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
Thanks for reading the rest of my post, breh
Honestly not even sure if you really read it at all. I'm concerned about my rights and you make a shitpost like this.
Like you know, you could have at least acknowledged the rest of my reasoning, but instead chose to be completely reductionist. It's ridiculous.
talisayNon
Member
yep.
seriously no one wants that fucking orange turd in office, but DNCs got to realize this shit is offputting to a lot of people.
stop this crap.
Starchasing
Member
Experienced in being a slave to her masters.
Clockwork5
Member
I read your post. Full of unsubstantiated claims that Trump will restrict your rights.
How about your right to a fair election. Is that important to you?
It is the most important right to me.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
This is the email they should have replied with.
'Ms. Brazile, Not sure why you think this was a good idea. Sharing debate questions is grossly unethical and flat out cheating. We will be reaching out to CNN to discuss this. Please do not reply to this email again. You are being blocked.
Thanks,
John Podesta
P.S Aliens are real."
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
That would assume Podesta had ethics.
Starchasing
Member
Sharim, thanks for your generous money offer, we can not take it because it would not be ethical to indirectly take your money. But your secret files on UFO sightings are welcome, i dunno if you were drunk the day you mentioned it. Any how hows that x files binge going?
And that's the issue- This shit makes it appear like no one does.
Again, there's a narrative that's been in play since the beginning of this election... That Clinton is one of the most corrupt people to ever run for the presidency. It's clearly a successful narrative, regardless of its accuracy.
Shit like this doesn't help. If this event happened in a vacuum, no one would care. But it fits perfectly into the season-long story of 'Crooked Hillary- The Butcher of Benghazi'.
TestOfTide
Banned
There you go guys again with the ridiculous conspiracy theories. You both gonna bring up Soros next?
evilromero
Member
They severed ties due to her taking the interim position in the DNC. According to the email she shared a question that would be posed at the March Democratic primary. One possible question prior to Dem Town Hall in March.
Saint Gregory
Member
The current system of having national primaries is less than 50 years old and there are no official guidelines in place, each party decides its own rules. The parties almost always have a particular candidate that they want to push (Jeb was that candidate for the Republicans) but he failed miserably against Trump.
I can absolutely guarantee you that the RNC will change its rules by 2020 to more closely mirror the DNC to ensure Trump never happens again.
Hillary was the choice of the people for this election, not Bernie. Had she failed in the primaries again like she did in 2008 the DNC would have begrudgingly switched support to Bernie.
You left out the third type:
Those who are aghast by the whole political system and the two candidates who are the epitome of broken democracy; and would refrain from voting in the upcoming election while faced with no viable third party candidate to vote for.
Clockwork5
Member
This is no conspiracy theory, my friend.
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
Do you mean to tell me with a straight face that Trump wouldn't attempt to restrict LGBT+ rights if he became president? Not to mention womens' rights. A conservative Supreme Court would be disastrous for my future.
A right to a fair election is important, yes. There are other issues that are important to me too, am I just supposed to throw them aside?
But sure, continue to be reductionist about my views.
TestOfTide
Banned
No that falls under the second category considering it involves a false equivalency, ignoring the Bernie himself now, ignoring Hillary's current platform, and ignoring Hillary's accomplishments.
Oh it most certainly is. You just don't like having the ridiculousness of it called out.
Tell me did you actually care about Bernie's platform? I mean the actual policy ideas not the antiestablishment crap.
SkeptiMism
Member
Did you read any of it? Be honest.
Because as far as I see, they don't say a word about Trump specifically restricting their rights.
The only two sentences in their post that could be interpreted as "Trump restricting their rights" are:
The first one is about the party. Do you deny that the Republican party wants to take rights away from minorities?
The second part doesn't say anything about restricting, but it only speaks about Pence's views.
So, be honest, did you read it at all?
Clockwork5
Member
So you think Brazile's decision to prep Hillary for the debate was appropriate? And that other parties should do the same?
Starchasing
Member
diablos991
Can’t stump the diablos
CNN did say it was illegal to read them. Haha!
shoplifter
Member
^^ which also would have been unethical.
But they're stolen. Both stolen *and* fake. CNN also told me it was illegal to read them.
But they're stolen. Both stolen *and* fake. CNN also told me it was illegal to read them.
Dude Abides
Banned
Brazile really shouldn't have emailed the debate question to Hillary's private server back in 2011. If only Bernie had a better answer on Flint he wouldn't have lost the black vote 80-20. Truly rigged. Something's going on. People are saying things.
Tranqueris
Banned
Not gonna lie, it's hilarious watching Trump supporters and whatever is left of the Bernie or Bust crowd trying to push this narrative that "this is going to drive all of Bernie's supporters away" and pretending that they were going to vote for her or support the Democratic party but this is the ultimate dirty deed that caused them to change their mind.
Also yes, Donna Brazile sharing a question or two while she wasn't the DNC chair, a fact that some on here are trying to sweep under the rug by repeatedly calling her the head of the DNC, is totally what stole the election from Bernie. That probably five minute section during the primary debate is totally what clinched the nomination for Hillary. Not the fact that Bernie had already been dealt a fatal wound during the first super Tuesday and that he was horrible at adapting his message and reaching out to the 3 extra million voters that sided with Hillary.
It's fucking depressing that this is the thing that always gets ignored when stuff like this comes out. "Did you hear? There was an email that said bad things about Bernie! THEY TOTALLY STOLE IT FROM HIM!"
The DNC didn't teleport the 3 million extra voters that were on Hillary's side to an alternate dimension until the primary was over. How can we trust them if they won't even treat Bernie fairly???
Also yes, Donna Brazile sharing a question or two while she wasn't the DNC chair, a fact that some on here are trying to sweep under the rug by repeatedly calling her the head of the DNC, is totally what stole the election from Bernie. That probably five minute section during the primary debate is totally what clinched the nomination for Hillary. Not the fact that Bernie had already been dealt a fatal wound during the first super Tuesday and that he was horrible at adapting his message and reaching out to the 3 extra million voters that sided with Hillary.
It's fucking depressing that this is the thing that always gets ignored when stuff like this comes out. "Did you hear? There was an email that said bad things about Bernie! THEY TOTALLY STOLE IT FROM HIM!"
The DNC didn't teleport the 3 million extra voters that were on Hillary's side to an alternate dimension until the primary was over. How can we trust them if they won't even treat Bernie fairly???
Clockwork5
Member
Of course I read the post. The word full was hyperbolic, sure; but that was the meaning of the first half.
I can understand why someone wouldn't vote third party so I didn't speak to that part.
Now how about fixing elections. That's not at all something we should be concerned with, or discussing in this thread....
Starchasing
Member
I hate trump because what he has said in public and i despise hrc because what she has said in private.
The emails are disgusting.
That's not really what anyone is arguing, is it?
He loses with or without this 'help', but it's the ethical implications of letting someone just give you questions for debates without someone saying 'You shouldn't be doing this. Please stop sending this our way'.
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
I do think that Trump would restrict those rights, though I said it in other posts. If he didn't, he probably wouldn't have went with Pence, whose positions and past actions were well-known before this election cycle, as his running mate, even if Pence wasn't his first choice.
I'm hoping that a relatively younger, Sanders-like figure steps up in future elections, but I'm settling for Clinton this time. What Brazile did was totally wrong, you won't see me argue that. I'm just tired of other former Sanders supporters shitting on me and people like for voting the way we are, as if we must be morally bankrupt for doing so.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Bernie Sanders, you are the man! So many people called him a sore loser, a conspiracy nut, a crazy old socialist jew who cried about the DNC and media being biased against him.
At the same time, I think The Democratic Party and DNC have shown a big respect to Sanders. Bernie "purity asshole" Sanders, as he has been known as here, got so much of his agenda of the platform of the Democratic Party. Outside of a few key issues, there is no difference in policy and promises now between them.
And Sanders always said he didn't matter, it was his policies.
So outside of recouping a bit of honor for Sanders himself, nothing about this changes. Hillary carries many of his wishes now and that is what matters.
Sanders was unusually idealistic for a old man and lid the fire in a lot of young people, but he also retained a sense of pragmatism and embraced Clinton when the primary had played out it's part, but he took it to the conventions as he said he would and he endorsed the democratic candidate as he said he would. He kept his promises, but many have called him a traitor and a sellout.
He is classy enough to admit and be self reflective about his own campaigns probably also having some bad emails.
Sanders did indeed have a media bias against him, but it was not a conspiracy. It's a self fulfilling horse race of the media reporting on the way things are already going. Sanders own idealism and lacked of planning kept him from having the exposure he desperately needed. For contrast, Obama was build up in 04 when he made a historic speech, even if he was not the DNC favorite. And Obama managed to raise upwards more than 500 million dollars.
For contrast, Sanders idealism and lack of previous planning had him run as an unknown being carried by a demographic online who only could get him attention the louder they were, and that would be a double edged sword throughout, but it's doubtful he would have ever gotten as far as he could without them, which also went for Ron Paul.
I don't personally think Brazile tipping off the Clinton campaign made a significant difference, but I do think the precedent is bad, and it begs the question; How much else is there that haven't been uncovered?
If anything made a big difference to Sanders chances of winning it is without a doubt the 5 scheduled debates by DWS.
Sanders who was unknown desperately needed as much exposure as possible and without the funds needed having only 5 debates put a big damper on his exposure.
The argument that 5 is enough to cover the main issues is besides the point- The point is that you have a candidate who is unknown the country and one who is one of the most famous people in the world, and that contrast of exposure has a massive massive impact. One candidate stood to gain considerable while another suffered.
This wouldn't have been such a problem had DWS been a bipartial actor, but she wasn't. She didn't only have a personal conflict of interest, but she had deliberate bias like others in the DNC, and this idea that Sanders deserved it because he was an outsider or hadn't raised money is just a really lame argument when the DNC wanted to be perceived as a fair and equal democratic contest that didn't want to put its weight on one candidate.
If you like Sanders you should vote for Clinton because she has almost all of his policies, and Sanders still has things he can do in a great position. The Democratic party have been nice to him and that counts for a lot. They could have shut him out, treated him badly, but that is not how it has been despite the toxic atmosphere during the primary, so you can say that combined with the DNC restructuring and people being led go that they have tried to make it up for him.
If Sanders policies is what matters (and they do) and not him as a character having those policies realized is what matters.
How often does a politician get such a string of wind behind his back, at his age at his point in his career? He probably hadn't dreamed that he would play a part in making a difference in so many peoples lives. It should have been O'malley versus Clinton. It made no sense that Sanders emerged. It happened out of luck and because this election hit a nerve when people are pissed off by the establishment.
At the same time, I think The Democratic Party and DNC have shown a big respect to Sanders. Bernie "purity asshole" Sanders, as he has been known as here, got so much of his agenda of the platform of the Democratic Party. Outside of a few key issues, there is no difference in policy and promises now between them.
And Sanders always said he didn't matter, it was his policies.
So outside of recouping a bit of honor for Sanders himself, nothing about this changes. Hillary carries many of his wishes now and that is what matters.
Sanders was unusually idealistic for a old man and lid the fire in a lot of young people, but he also retained a sense of pragmatism and embraced Clinton when the primary had played out it's part, but he took it to the conventions as he said he would and he endorsed the democratic candidate as he said he would. He kept his promises, but many have called him a traitor and a sellout.
He is classy enough to admit and be self reflective about his own campaigns probably also having some bad emails.
Sanders did indeed have a media bias against him, but it was not a conspiracy. It's a self fulfilling horse race of the media reporting on the way things are already going. Sanders own idealism and lacked of planning kept him from having the exposure he desperately needed. For contrast, Obama was build up in 04 when he made a historic speech, even if he was not the DNC favorite. And Obama managed to raise upwards more than 500 million dollars.
For contrast, Sanders idealism and lack of previous planning had him run as an unknown being carried by a demographic online who only could get him attention the louder they were, and that would be a double edged sword throughout, but it's doubtful he would have ever gotten as far as he could without them, which also went for Ron Paul.
I don't personally think Brazile tipping off the Clinton campaign made a significant difference, but I do think the precedent is bad, and it begs the question; How much else is there that haven't been uncovered?
If anything made a big difference to Sanders chances of winning it is without a doubt the 5 scheduled debates by DWS.
Sanders who was unknown desperately needed as much exposure as possible and without the funds needed having only 5 debates put a big damper on his exposure.
The argument that 5 is enough to cover the main issues is besides the point- The point is that you have a candidate who is unknown the country and one who is one of the most famous people in the world, and that contrast of exposure has a massive massive impact. One candidate stood to gain considerable while another suffered.
This wouldn't have been such a problem had DWS been a bipartial actor, but she wasn't. She didn't only have a personal conflict of interest, but she had deliberate bias like others in the DNC, and this idea that Sanders deserved it because he was an outsider or hadn't raised money is just a really lame argument when the DNC wanted to be perceived as a fair and equal democratic contest that didn't want to put its weight on one candidate.
If you like Sanders you should vote for Clinton because she has almost all of his policies, and Sanders still has things he can do in a great position. The Democratic party have been nice to him and that counts for a lot. They could have shut him out, treated him badly, but that is not how it has been despite the toxic atmosphere during the primary, so you can say that combined with the DNC restructuring and people being led go that they have tried to make it up for him.
If Sanders policies is what matters (and they do) and not him as a character having those policies realized is what matters.
How often does a politician get such a string of wind behind his back, at his age at his point in his career? He probably hadn't dreamed that he would play a part in making a difference in so many peoples lives. It should have been O'malley versus Clinton. It made no sense that Sanders emerged. It happened out of luck and because this election hit a nerve when people are pissed off by the establishment.
Absolute nonsense. Third type exists and you do a great disservice by just labeling them Anti-Hillary/establishment while belittling their political views and what they stand for. Two party system is a broken democracy and when you take into account the DNC's favouritism towards one specific candidate and an absolute disdain for the other candidate, you leave people with no choice but to refrain from voting.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
He has "strongly considered" the restriction of certain rights(while deregulating everything concerning guns, of course), this is a fact.
Tranqueris
Banned
I.. what? What has Hillary said in private? None of these new emails have anything from her at all. Are you talking about the speeches? Because everyone was saying that all she said was some pragmatic common sense type stuff.
Saint Gregory
Member
Nope, I think it's inappropriate but I'm also not really comfortable with this information because it feels very one-sided to have all of this knowledge about the DNC and Hillary's campaign.
We've seen how the political sausage gets made now and it's not pretty.
Clockwork5
Member
Yeah, I was being harsh. I don't mean to imply anything by the way others vote, as a deplorable; I know how that feels.
I'm tired of the same thing. My bad.
It's just when it becomes clear that the DNC made the path to the nomination much more difficult for every candidate not named Clinton, I can't support that party.
I don't want candidates that are picked by the party. I want candidates that are picked by the people.
Poltergust
Member
You get Trump when this happens. Turns out that the people who vote in primaries are apparently bad judges of character.
You can bet the GOP will modify its primary process after this election is done.
SkeptiMism
Member
Yes I'm aware of that (and I share that opinion by the way), but that wasn't in the post the person was quoting. My point there was more that the guy doesn't actually care to read and give any thought to contrary opinions. It was pretty clear already but this was an obvious gotcha moment.
Clockwork5
Member
Believe me, I would love to see a GOP dump as well. But I'm not going to shy away from this info nor discard it because I don't have equal knowledge of the other side. I'm not saying you are either, you are obviously in this thread.
Dude Abides
Banned
Who knows what the fuck they're arguing? It's largely a mélange of buzzwords. Conspiracy! Corruption! Favoritism! Emails! Private Server!!
Nobody is arguing that it was proper for Brazile to do this. But Bernie or Busters such as Clockwork5 keep suggesting that the DNC's favoritism actually influenced the outcome, when there is no reason to think it did.
EatinOlives
Member
It's funny seeing the conspiracy theories flying out at 100mph in every direction in this thread. Boy this non-story really has riled up the crazies.
Clockwork5
Member
Yeah, CNN and their crazy anti-Clinton conspiracy theories.
Starchasing
Member
Since the only substantiated claim of voter fraud that I've seen is the Trump supporter in Idaho, I'm guessing that moved the needle for you?
Clockwork5
Member
A lone fraudulent voter in Idaho means nothing to me. Have some perspective.
Dude Abides
Banned
Tell me how many votes were affected by the DNC's malfeasance then we can talk.
Sony
Nintendo
An even better analogy would be "we have a test tomorrow, I know the teacher can't possibly ask questions from every chapter of the course book, but I know he'll ask a question about this chapter". It's still cheating because you can prepare that chapter. Why can't you see that telling her what the question was about, and not Trump aswel, is concidered cheating? In poker analogy: one show all show. As minimal as the advantage might be, it's cheating. It doesn't matter what the significance is. If it's insignificant then the person who leaked the question to Clinton should have not spoken at all.
EatinOlives
Member
I have no real problem with CNN severing ties with Brazile. It's the clownshoes reaction to this and the comical amounts of extrapolation to Clinton herself to be what's most entertaining.
I'm sure you're not exaggerating in any possible way.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked