Donna puts the blame on HRC and DWS for the DNC debacle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Bernie I would be soooooo pissed. He really was screwed over by HRC and the DNC.

Look, I don't love Hillary or what her campaign did. But as a Democrat, I have a hard time getting upset that someone who wasn't a Democrat didn't get the Democratic Party nomination for president. He could have run as an independent, but he didn't. I'm not surprised that the system was rigged for someone who actually belongs to the party to get the party nomination. What party wants to nominate someone who does not even belong to that party? Seriously.

Your party has fallen off the cliff. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest nothingburger in the history of nothingburgers. Trump is a moron to keep tweeting about this. He clearly has NO clue about political parties.

Omg. We understand that you are comfortable with lies and corruption, but could you please at least pick a new favorite word? I don’t understand why so many of you are so infatuated with this dumb term.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Bernie I would be soooooo pissed. He really was screwed over by HRC and the DNC.

Look, I don't love Hillary or what her campaign did. But as a Democrat, I have a hard time getting upset that someone who wasn't a Democrat didn't get the Democratic Party nomination for president. He could have run as an independent, but he didn't. I'm not surprised that the system was rigged for someone who actually belongs to the party to get the party nomination. What party wants to nominate someone who does not even belong to that party? Seriously.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Bernie I would be soooooo pissed. He really was screwed over by HRC and the DNC.

Look, I don't love Hillary or what her campaign did. But as a Democrat, I have a hard time getting upset that someone who wasn't a Democrat didn't get the Democratic Party nomination for president. He could have run as an independent, but he didn't. I'm not surprised that the system was rigged for someone who actually belongs to the party to get the party nomination. What party wants to nominate someone who does not even belong to that party? Seriously.

Here's the thing: Bernie never joined the party but he has caucused with the Democrats for ever and a day. Besides, I consider Bernie to more representative of Democratic goals and ideals as compared to Hillary who is the Democratic version of a neo-con and is a shill for banking and other corporate interests.

Belonging to a party is not enough ...... one expects those who belong to the party to actually adhere to the goals and ideals of the party. Sanders does that in spades but Hillary talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Bernie I would be soooooo pissed. He really was screwed over by HRC and the DNC.

Look, I don't love Hillary or what her campaign did. But as a Democrat, I have a hard time getting upset that someone who wasn't a Democrat didn't get the Democratic Party nomination for president. He could have run as an independent, but he didn't. I'm not surprised that the system was rigged for someone who actually belongs to the party to get the party nomination. What party wants to nominate someone who does not even belong to that party? Seriously.

Here's the thing: Bernie never joined the party but he has caucused with the Democrats for ever and a day. Besides, I consider Bernie to more representative of Democratic goals and ideals as compared to Hillary who is the Democratic version of a neo-con and is a shill for banking and other corporate interests.

Belonging to a party is not enough ...... one expects those who belong to the party to actually adhere to the goals and ideals of the party. Sanders does that in spades but Hillary talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

Sanders is uncommitted to being committed to the democratic party. Lack of commitment is a poor personality trait in a government official.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Bernie I would be soooooo pissed. He really was screwed over by HRC and the DNC.

Look, I don't love Hillary or what her campaign did. But as a Democrat, I have a hard time getting upset that someone who wasn't a Democrat didn't get the Democratic Party nomination for president. He could have run as an independent, but he didn't. I'm not surprised that the system was rigged for someone who actually belongs to the party to get the party nomination. What party wants to nominate someone who does not even belong to that party? Seriously.

Here's the thing: Bernie never joined the party but he has caucused with the Democrats for ever and a day. Besides, I consider Bernie to more representative of Democratic goals and ideals as compared to Hillary who is the Democratic version of a neo-con and is a shill for banking and other corporate interests.

Belonging to a party is not enough ...... one expects those who belong to the party to actually adhere to the goals and ideals of the party. Sanders does that in spades but Hillary talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

Sanders is uncommitted to being committed to the democratic party. Lack of commitment is a poor personality trait in a government official.

A governmental official should be committed to citizens over party. The present Democratic Party is an obvious failure. Many voters respect Bernie for the simple reason he values his fellow Americans over the scuzzy insiders in the DNC. And yes, Bernie has caucused with the Dems and worked with DSCC fundraisers for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donna B. is an opportunist. She is now hitching her wagon on Bernie because this revelation almost certainly ensures Bernie's nomination in the next election. Bernie is the future of the Democratic party at this point in time and Donna sees that clearly.

Bernie is only a Democrat when it suits him, what do they call that...an opportunist.

Yep. Hillary Clinton has been a Democrat since 1968, Elizabeth Warren became a Democrat in 1996, Bernie Sanders became a Democrat in 2015.

The fact that Bernie isn’t a real Dem only adds to his appeal. The Dem party is a lying, cheating, losing machine.

Yet he had no problem running as a Dem, taking their money, etc. Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

You are alluding Sanders did something wrong? Seriously? He has been so gracious in the face of this indignant treatment of his followers. His followers would have taken scalps on Twitter and there is no one worthy of their loyalty to lead them as far as I can tell. Progressives blew it.

Dems are calling themselves “Progressives” yet are sticking “to the old ways” that worked in 2008. Clintonistas their loss on the winners “collusion” with a geopolitical foe after Democrats won the 2012 election partially on the lack of foresight dealing with the very real threat of that very same geopolitical foe. GMAFB.

I am a Dem (though not a "Clintonista" whatever that is) and I blame our loss, ultimately, on one thing and one thing alone. Too many apathetic Democrats didn't show up to vote that day. We had the numbers - we still do - but too many people stayed home that day and THAT is why we lost. Is it because Hillary was a lackluster nominee? Probably, but at end the end of the day she WAS the nominee and the fact that Dems stayed home rather than vote handed the oval office to Trump. He didn't win, we gave it away.

Blaming the voters who have suffered due to turpitude of elite Dems with massive financial backing and a shameless willingness to value those backers over voters? Wow, do you want to lose? The Democrats need to offer better, this stuff about voter turnout is simply 'blaming the victim'.

"Better"? Like Trump? If you think that is better, then I guess these "victims" who couldn't bother to vote got "better."

NP. What you're not getting is that it was the Hilary machine that caused the election of someone as unqualified and crazy as Trump. The options were bad and bad.

Blaming people for not voting for one bad over the other bad is exactly the tactic that HRC uses. Either way, we as a nation were going down. The Trump presidency absolutely sucks, but a HRC presidency would have been just as bad or even worse from a longview standpoint. It would have continued to bolster the corruption within the Democratic party laying the stones for a future continued demise.

At this point, as we suffer through these 4 years, the Democratic party has the option of reflection, reorganization and doing right by its people or take the road that you and HRC take in the blame game.

This is the point where I vehemently disagree. I would have voted for The Rock before I voted for Donald Trump.

The repeats a sad media lie: that Trump is somehow wildly worse than the status quo ante. He might be worse, but a lot of the wildly worse business comes from people who are utter denial about the awfulness of the Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes. And while Trump might not fix anything, I absolutely understand voters either staying home in 2016 or rolling the dice on Trump. Though their situations might not change, given the patronizing attitude of elites and the whole 'you have no choice' routine of insiders, voters' schadenfreude from watching squirming by people who've messed up so many lives is almost worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donna B. is an opportunist. She is now hitching her wagon on Bernie because this revelation almost certainly ensures Bernie's nomination in the next election. Bernie is the future of the Democratic party at this point in time and Donna sees that clearly.

Bernie is only a Democrat when it suits him, what do they call that...an opportunist.

Yep. Hillary Clinton has been a Democrat since 1968, Elizabeth Warren became a Democrat in 1996, Bernie Sanders became a Democrat in 2015.

The fact that Bernie isn’t a real Dem only adds to his appeal. The Dem party is a lying, cheating, losing machine.

Yet he had no problem running as a Dem, taking their money, etc. Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

You are alluding Sanders did something wrong? Seriously? He has been so gracious in the face of this indignant treatment of his followers. His followers would have taken scalps on Twitter and there is no one worthy of their loyalty to lead them as far as I can tell. Progressives blew it.

Dems are calling themselves “Progressives” yet are sticking “to the old ways” that worked in 2008. Clintonistas their loss on the winners “collusion” with a geopolitical foe after Democrats won the 2012 election partially on the lack of foresight dealing with the very real threat of that very same geopolitical foe. GMAFB.

I am a Dem (though not a "Clintonista" whatever that is) and I blame our loss, ultimately, on one thing and one thing alone. Too many apathetic Democrats didn't show up to vote that day. We had the numbers - we still do - but too many people stayed home that day and THAT is why we lost. Is it because Hillary was a lackluster nominee? Probably, but at end the end of the day she WAS the nominee and the fact that Dems stayed home rather than vote handed the oval office to Trump. He didn't win, we gave it away.

Blaming the voters who have suffered due to turpitude of elite Dems with massive financial backing and a shameless willingness to value those backers over voters? Wow, do you want to lose? The Democrats need to offer better, this stuff about voter turnout is simply 'blaming the victim'.

"Better"? Like Trump? If you think that is better, then I guess these "victims" who couldn't bother to vote got "better."

NP. What you're not getting is that it was the Hilary machine that caused the election of someone as unqualified and crazy as Trump. The options were bad and bad.

Blaming people for not voting for one bad over the other bad is exactly the tactic that HRC uses. Either way, we as a nation were going down. The Trump presidency absolutely sucks, but a HRC presidency would have been just as bad or even worse from a longview standpoint. It would have continued to bolster the corruption within the Democratic party laying the stones for a future continued demise.

At this point, as we suffer through these 4 years, the Democratic party has the option of reflection, reorganization and doing right by its people or take the road that you and HRC take in the blame game.

I'd add that there's something especially awful in HRC's tactic of trying to scare voters into acquiescing to her awfulness. She was to put it mildly, behaving like an abusive male spouse with a routine of "you're worthless, you can't make it with out me, shut up and take my crap, you ungrateful wretch!"

[Anonymous]

Why aren't more Democrats disgusted by the state in which Obama left the party's finances? It's not as if he couldn't raise the money. I'm trying to understand, was this something against Hillary? I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but did he not want her to win for fear her accomplishments would eclipse his? He and Michelle easily could have raised more money for the DNC. Or did they spend it all on entertaining the celebrities with whom they spent more time with than with Congress.

[Anonymous]

If Hillary had won, she'd have fleeced the American taxpayers given that she is the ultimate grifter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Hillary had won, she'd have fleeced the American taxpayers given that she is the ultimate grifter.

What do you call eliminating the estate tax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Hillary had won, she'd have fleeced the American taxpayers given that she is the ultimate grifter.

Penultimate. We know who the ultimate grifter is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Hillary had won, she'd have fleeced the American taxpayers given that she is the ultimate grifter.

Penultimate. We know who the ultimate grifter is.

Actually, I think they are both grifters - the only difference is that Trump's "grifting" is under constant scrutiny whereas with Hillary she tends to get a pass from the media unless it is particularly egregious. In both cases their greed knows no bounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Bernie I would be soooooo pissed. He really was screwed over by HRC and the DNC.

Look, I don't love Hillary or what her campaign did. But as a Democrat, I have a hard time getting upset that someone who wasn't a Democrat didn't get the Democratic Party nomination for president. He could have run as an independent, but he didn't. I'm not surprised that the system was rigged for someone who actually belongs to the party to get the party nomination. What party wants to nominate someone who does not even belong to that party? Seriously.

Exactly

+1 Nothing wrong with cheating to get what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were Bernie I would be soooooo pissed. He really was screwed over by HRC and the DNC.

Look, I don't love Hillary or what her campaign did. But as a Democrat, I have a hard time getting upset that someone who wasn't a Democrat didn't get the Democratic Party nomination for president. He could have run as an independent, but he didn't. I'm not surprised that the system was rigged for someone who actually belongs to the party to get the party nomination. What party wants to nominate someone who does not even belong to that party? Seriously.

Exactly

So you are not surprised the DNC lied to Bernie supporters, not even letting Lessig on stage for the debates and pretending to support Bernie by using him like a prop. nice. Isn’t that interstate wire fraud, racketeering, diving in the shallow end of the pool or something? It is something. Please don’t make me read federal campaign finance caselaw to figure this crap out myself.

Further, if Members of Congress benefitted from any actions of the corrupt DNC, how could they impartially recall AG Sessions? I mean come on, people!!!!

Drip, drip, drip.