2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Berners don't want to be called right-wingers.
Then Berners should stop repeating right-wing smears.
#8moredays
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)mac56
(17,575 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)regarding a certain server or foundation would be considered a RW smear, even if it's a huge story carried by approved media sources.
mac56
(17,575 posts)will be considered a RW smear.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)Got it
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Expect Much More Of THIS from Hillary... WHO IS NOT The Nominee By The Fucking RULES of The Party And zRecently REITERATED ByA Party Rep W/ Jake Tapper on Clinton News Network!
e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...
Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...
Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"
Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"
Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the FBI report will be...
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)appointees.
It IS vast
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)brush
(53,968 posts)with most stories where little media attention is wanted.
There's no criminal intent, therefore no recommendation by the FBI for an indictment.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Oh wait... it has been quite insignificant.
You guys have been under estimating this story the same way you have been under estimating Trump. I am far from impressed.
brush
(53,968 posts)for an indictment crowd so a runner-up can get the nomination.
Cabinet secretaries are heads of their departments. They decide what to do with recommendations from people who work under them. They can accept or reject them.
The OIG, FBI, or any other alphabet agency you can name can spew out reports all they want, but if their is not criminal intent by a department head running her department as she wishes, there will be no indictment.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)if your party wants to commit political suicide go for it. I mean it, but don't blame the people who told you for months this was coming.
Don't worry, after Trump is elected I will blame you and your party for the disaster.
brush
(53,968 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I became a Decline to state voter in CA... I am one of those dreaded independents.
So go ahead... continue to under estimate... I expect you
brush
(53,968 posts)Latino Americans, African Americans, sensible progressive whites who don't want Trump appointing the next 3-4 SCOTUS justices, Native Americans, gays, women, disabled Americans, and sensible left-leaning and moderate independents who also don't want Trump appointing the next 3-4 SCOTUS justices will come out and vote in Clinton just as we didn't for Obama in '08 and '12.
We outnumber the angry and/or racist whites that back Trump. That was shown in '12 when Romney got a huge majority of the white vote but still lost handily.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this is a mature scandal, Your candidate is weak, not a natural politician and now wounded. It is your choice. For all I care, her replacement could be the man on the moon. So don't do that. You are not getting this. Shit is now hitting the oscillatory device.
brush
(53,968 posts)Sh_t is not hitting the fan. You guys are sounding like Chicken Little here with this stuff. It it was going to happen it would have already happened weeks ago.
There is no smoking gun of criminal intent, and there will be no indictment.
And has it ever crossed your mind that if Clinton was indicted, we're all be screwed as the party would be tarred by 24/7 ads funded by the Kochs and Adelson. And Bernie's socialist background would also be thrown in
So Sanders wouldn't have a chance, nor would Biden or Warren if they agreed to play the Johnny-come-lately role.
Trump would win in a walk so we need to drop the prayer beads and slowly back away from the ledge.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you cannot make them drink it.
And yes the potential election of a fascist is a problem, and the fact that your party will enable it. is a bigger problem. Historians will not be kind. And no, you are not going to blame me for the loss in November.
I am not getting carried away... it is a real scandal, I recommend you avoid CNN, MSNBC might be safe for the moment, though their reporting was scathing.
This includes reporting from both Mitchell and Todd
And this is the best one
So maybe avoid even the friendly press. They are pissed.
brush
(53,968 posts)equals ratings equals cash money.
They want to keep this going as long as possible.
You have to know this.
You should also know their going on about breaking State Dept. rules is sheer hyperbole as, as head of the State Department, Clinton would have been the one to set the rules. And we're talking about her State Dept., not the current one, which is why there will be no indictment.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)"And no, you are not going to blame me for the loss in November"
They will DEFINITELY blame you (and me) for a loss in November
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)She violated national security by having classified material on her private, unauthorized for work server. That is a known fact.
brush
(53,968 posts)Are you a Snowden fan? If you wanna talk about classified material, How about him?
He stole classified material and fled to our biggest rivals who I'm certain now have that material.
If Snowden hasn't been indicted in absentia, Clinton's won't be either, and she's right here, heading for the Democratic nomination for president, no matter how much the runner-up's fans pray it were not so.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)on her unauthorized, privately owned server, Hillary was told not to use. Your use of Snowden is nothing more than your attempt at diversion here. Nothing more. If you really had something you'd stick to the subject.
brush
(53,968 posts)is calling for his indictment.
How about this: As head of the State Department, Clinton either accepted or rejected suggestions and/or recommendations from IT people who worked for her. She was their boss and was the one to set the rules in her department.
And we're talking about her State Dept., not the current one, which is why there will be no indictment.
Hillary was appointed by Obama, therefore Obama was her boss. Obama told Hillary not to use Sydney Blumenthal as an adviser. Hillary did anyway. Sydney Blumenthal did not have any security clearance, but he gave Hillary top secret E-mails. Hillary also sent Sydney Blumenthal unauthorized security information after striping off the security classification information.
It was never up to Hillary to decide what was and what not classified. That task is up to other agencies in the government.
This security review is in reality a criminal investigation by the FBI, into the way Hillary ran the State Department and treated classified nation security information.
brush
(53,968 posts)Department heads are usually afforded full reign as to how they see fit to run their department.
This will most likely end with a late Friday afternoon document dump, as is done when little media attention is wanted, with no recommendation for indictment.
And we should all be glad there will be no indictment because that would taint the whole party, including Sanders, and leave the presidency wide open for Trump.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Ah, good thorny times in Hillary's side.
merrily
(45,251 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Clinton supporters are more likely to shrug and say, "We were wrong."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
merrily
(45,251 posts)and no basis in reality?
How you could read this board and make the claim you made about shrugging is beyond me. Maybe for reasons similar to why people posted Sanders would not be able to carry Vermont.
randome
(34,845 posts)It must be because I'm a big meanie, right?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
merrily
(45,251 posts)And no one but you said a thing about "mean." So, another post from you that has nothing to do with me or with reality. You must be on a roll. Let me guess: you'll go for thirdsies.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,947 posts)Is being a right-wing Communist anything like being an atheist Kenyan Muslim?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)And comes from the same wing.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)someone is confused or just flinging meaningless drivel.
All the right wing policy being promoted comes from Clinton supporters
morningfog
(18,115 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)One Black Sheep
(458 posts)posting multiple threads like crazzzzyy..
In any case, the attacks I commonly see coming from Bernie supporters is from the left flank of Hillary, and not right wing at all.
mac56
(17,575 posts)You gotta go for volume.
evidently...
GRhodes
(162 posts)gets paid by the post, and there's a bonus for each voter he or she alienates. At this rate, he or she will retire early.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)has the power to alienate me, or influence my vote. Evidently the same isn't true for some former Sanders supporters, some that insist -- ad nauseam -- that they let total strangers influence their vote and drive them to Hillary, even though they can't stand her. Like magic, they're supporters!
*Totally* believable!
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)now you with "right-wingers"? Pfft.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)even intimated that my personal history is made up.
QC
(26,371 posts)for the Israelis, who are going to give him a bunch of money for being a meanie to Hillary or some such crazy bullshit?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)well, it's allowed
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Many trashed Hillary every which way in 2008, yet are now some of her biggest cheerleaders. I'm not sure where they think people fall for that sort of bullshit, but DU *ain't* it. It would be interesting to know that site's legit-to-sock ratio (if it even still exists!). Hell, DU's legit-to-sock ratio.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)The media may call it sooner, although that report seems to be giving them a little pause.
brush
(53,968 posts)She'll have way more pledged delegates than Sanders so if the goalpost is moved, it'll be even farther away from Sanders, right?
What's up with that?
Snark sometimes has unintended consequences?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Almost 1500 posts in just a little more than a month.
So many prolific and super-aggressive new Hillary posters lately. Must be a big coincidence.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's the past hires that no one has owned up to.
amborin
(16,631 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)Just the mere thought of Jane Sanders is off limits. But Bernie's supporters won't be able to silence everyone. People are going to want to know just how did Jane Sanders get a job as a college president paying $160,000 with a PhD that she earned on the internet. How does her education and experience in social work and heading up an afternoon program for teens qualify her for her position as a college president, or a position on a state board dealing with the disposal on nuclear waste? I can't wait until the RWers ask these questions and see what Jane has to say.
merrily
(45,251 posts)So a story on the internet says.
But, gee, it should be no surprise to DU that people like to hire people they perceive as well-connected.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Someone's been putting in the hours.
It's taken 10 + years to beak 6000.
Wow, and you think people don't know your a troll?
QC
(26,371 posts)It's rare these days.
Sadly, though, quality control tends to fail in piecework situations.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)That should tell you all you need to know.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Or perhaps it's just the Inspector General's report or maybe the F.B.I.?
My advice: Take a break. Find someone who will hold your hand.
Really. It's going to be OK.
Jackilope
(819 posts)My advice to the troll is opposite. Be terrified! Despite what trolls get paid, real people are enthusiastic and want to see and hear Bernie. HRC has to pay people to troll and fake enthusiasm. How sad and pathetic is that??
QC
(26,371 posts)Don't worry. #shesgotthis
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Count on it. After all, look how well it worked in 2008!
QC
(26,371 posts)as the guy she was certain to defeat said at the time.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Just re-watched that video moment today. Perhaps you did too.
QC
(26,371 posts)catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)So I'm not all that concerned.
merrily
(45,251 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)telling people who to vote for.
Demanding other people fall in line, not to question is a right wing tactic.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Think what a racket that would be!
Good night!
But before you go to sleep, make sure your pistol's under your pillow, and don't forget to check under your bed for any "democratic socialists"!
Broward
(1,976 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the copy of the Communist Manifesto was feeling a tad hot... must be all that fire and brimstone!
QC
(26,371 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)bourgeois kulaks and counterrevolutionaries and shoot down sleigh of Santa.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)haven't they?
Snicker
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Just say we're too far left for your tastes: it's an insult I'll gladly take, and a lot more honest.
jfern
(5,204 posts)So nope, I won't change a damn thing. If your candidate is so pathetic that she can't handle criticism, then she is super weak.
there's not a politician alive today that has handled more criticism than Hillary Clinton. she is a Pioneer so I suppose it is expected. What is surprising is the gutter politics some so-called misleading people that decided to engage in.
extremes of other party is not healthy or good. sometimes it feels like you folks want to turn us into Venezuela.
frylock
(34,825 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)By the way, not saying it's going to amount to indictments. It doesn't even have to before it turns off voters.
Was it started by rightwing smears? What I've read is that John Kerry initiated the request for looking into this issue, or at least was part of that.
Just ignoring it seems ridiculous. And I have to confess, it all sounds like a colossal case of bad judgment and questionable activity that deserves at the very least investigation and very likely some form of censure or punishment. Neither good for someone representing the Democratic Party and our chances in November.
There are undoubtedly other things that you call "rightwing smears". Suggestion - see if they really are that, and only that, before smacking that label on it or just assuming it's correct because the echo chamber starts repeating that chorus.
Yes, I'd like to believe in enlightened government, and I'd like to think the Democratic Party can be that for us. But not if it acts and speaks in the least enlightened ways.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)Blanket statements with no supporting facts or links.
I heard you can get paid by the Hillary camp to do that nowadays.
seekthetruth
(504 posts)Her Majesty is ascending......
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)work on understanding that criticizing dishonesty and graft and corruption aren't right wing talking points in and of themselves?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Vinca
(50,323 posts)Discussing an investigation that is actually taking place is not repeating a smear. It's repeating a fact.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)coming from the FBI?
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)about it. I played by the rules until they changed to no rules at all after years here. I'm not going to play nice when the Admins called for all out war. Why would I? You don't. And you have only been here a few fucking weeks. So why would I not protect myself here?
The riot rules were not my choice, got complaints take them to Skinner.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)I'm just pointing out how dumb it is for you to chase me around and post links to my hide page when you have a bigger hide page.
You gotta admit...
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...talking points for months and months on end.
I can post many examples if you so desire...
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Mostly about the emails. Today there was one from Steve Forbes, for example.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Therefore, it doesn't hurt so much to be called that name.
It's a shame, in fact, that so many Left-leaning people are backing the Right-leaning candidate for a variety of reasons that many of us find suspect. But everyone surely has their right to back the candidate of their choice.
As to us "repeating right-wing smears", I feel sure we are repeating news that seems relevant or right or like something that should be paid attention to. We could, of course, hide our heads in the sand, but that is not wise.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I don't give a fuck. I stand by my beliefs.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)What a waste of bandwidth and DU database space.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Response to YouDig (Original post)
Post removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)stop pooping in the soup.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)PufPuf23
(8,847 posts)Hillary Clinton (and POTUS Obama as well) is a neo-liberal in economic policy; this is the right wing economic policy popularized at the University of Chicago, exported internationally by the USA with the blessings of Kissinger, and what became the predominant domestic economic policy under Raegan, and adopted into the Democratic party under Bill Clinton and the New Democrats (or whatever one calls the Democratic party neo-liberals).
Hillary Clinton is a neo-conservative in foreign policy; this is the right wing foreign policy formulated by (among others) the Project for a New American Century with the agenda to militarily dominate the globe. The first PNAC projects were the Balkans (former Yugoslavia) and Plan Colombia (for Latin America, not just Colombia) under POTUS Bill Clinton. The PNAC project accelerated under GWB and Cheney with the aim of regime change in seven nations of the Middle East; establishment of an arc of control from Pakistan to Georgia on the Black Sea, and another arc of control from the Horn of Africa to the Gulf of Guinea.
The Free Trade Agreements go hand in hand with the military global foot print to secure trade routes and mercantile centers.
ACA originated as a right wing / GOP answer to health care.
Charter and privatization of schools are right wing.
University costs have risen so dramatically because of right wing policies.
Social Darwinism and the great economic inequality of our times is right wing.
Law enforcement has been militarized and private prisons have been built because of right wing policies.
And so on.
Sanders at least in theory is a check on these long term right wing trends by the USA and the Democratic party.
But you already knew that when you typed your OP.
BTW I have been a registered and voting member of the Democratic party since voted for McGovern in 1972 and first self-identified as a Democrat age 15, 1968.
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and rightwingers obviously lack a monopoly on both those types
AzDar
(14,023 posts)DU is becoming quite the cesspool...
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Repugnants "for" Bernie, not true Bernie supporters. OF course, many Bernie supporters swallow that Repugnant disinformation in part because they have only been giving questions of public policy and politics any thought for a year of two. Inexperience makes them easy to confuse with McCarthyist Bullshit.