(March 17, 2018 at 4:02 pm)FFaith Wrote: That's all in Donna Brazile's book. Where were you when this was all over the news for days on end?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...016-215774

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

Where was I? Browsing the SandersForPresident reddit, when this was posted as breaking news. So I've long been aware of this. However, what I do when I read controversial news like this is to wait to hear what the other side had to say. After some time, it turned out that there were two documents in question to consider, one that had to do with fundraising for the DNC after the primaries were over (which Bernie's campaign also signed) and the other had to do with staff selection and not fundraising (AFAIK). So this is why I challenged Chad to post a source to lend credence to the exact claims he was making. Not because I was ignorant of Donna Brazile's book and articles and tweets on the DNC (in fact, she herself later confusingly "clarified" that she never said the DNC rigged the election in favor of Hillary), but because I had a feeling some people don't take the time to read both sides of the story.

Here's to show Bernie's campaign also had signed the fundraising agreement before the primaries.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/b...dnc-215559

And this is with the knowledge that Hillary was going to be in charge of everything beforehand? And no, she may not have specifically said that Hillary rigged the election. That's just an educated guess on the part of everyone that knows there's something shady about someone controlling the DNC at the same time they're running for office.

(March 17, 2018 at 4:14 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Time spent pushing for obamacare is time spent not pushing for single payer. That's what's wrong.

Nevertheless, pushing for (or defending) Obamacare was never a Republican thing. Are you ready to now renounce the claim that Hillary was a "Republican in disguise"?

Quote:And yeah, where have you been that you don't know Hillary had control over the DNC? It should be common knowledge by now.

Read my previous reply. What's "common knowledge" isn't always accurate knowledge.

---

(March 17, 2018 at 5:59 pm)Chad32 Wrote: And this is with the knowledge that Hillary was going to be in charge of everything beforehand? And no, she may not have specifically said that Hillary rigged the election. That's just an educated guess on the part of everyone that knows there's something shady about someone controlling the DNC at the same time they're running for office.

Did you read my post carefully? Please review what you said earlier, and see if it lines up exactly with what the facts themselves reveal.

(March 17, 2018 at 6:00 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 4:14 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Time spent pushing for obamacare is time spent not pushing for single payer. That's what's wrong.

Nevertheless, pushing for (or defending) Obamacare was never a Republican thing. Are you ready to now renounce the claim that Hillary was a "Republican in disguise"?

Quote:And yeah, where have you been that you don't know Hillary had control over the DNC? It should be common knowledge by now.

Read my previous reply. What's "common knowledge" isn't always accurate knowledge.

They didn't call it obamacare decades ago when they supported it as another option for healthcare in Romney's time. And no, I'm still pretty sure Hillary would fit in closer to republicans than progressives. She fits in with establishment democrats because establishment democrats agree with republicans on a lot of things. Trade deals, military, and cutting taxes on the rich.

(March 17, 2018 at 6:04 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 6:00 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Nevertheless, pushing for (or defending) Obamacare was never a Republican thing. Are you ready to now renounce the claim that Hillary was a "Republican in disguise"?


Read my previous reply. What's "common knowledge" isn't always accurate knowledge.

They didn't call it obamacare decades ago when they supported it as another option for healthcare in Romney's time. And no, I'm still pretty sure Hillary would fit in closer to republicans than progressives. She fits in with establishment democrats because establishment democrats agree with republicans on a lot of things. Trade deals, military, and cutting taxes on the rich.

And Planned Parenthood, gun control, immigration, campaign finance reform? You're not taking a good look at all the policies she espoused before 2016. You're just looking at a subset of the policies that happen to support your bias, and in the process being very selective. One could do the same with Bernie Sanders as well, if they really wanted to.

And it's not like Hillary Clinton doesn't want to see single-payer health care for all be successfully implemented. I mean, I was with Bernie the whole time during the primaries, but even I could see she wasn't against this policy in principle.

(March 17, 2018 at 10:03 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 17, 2018 at 6:04 pm)Chad32 Wrote: They didn't call it obamacare decades ago when they supported it as another option for healthcare in Romney's time. And no, I'm still pretty sure Hillary would fit in closer to republicans than progressives. She fits in with establishment democrats because establishment democrats agree with republicans on a lot of things. Trade deals, military, and cutting taxes on the rich.

And Planned Parenthood, gun control, immigration, campaign finance reform? You're not taking a good look at all the policies she espoused before 2016. You're just looking at a subset of the policies that happen to support your bias, and in the process being very selective. One could do the same with Bernie Sanders as well, if they really wanted to.

And it's not like Hillary Clinton doesn't want to see single-payer health care for all be successfully implemented. I mean, I was with Bernie the whole time during the primaries, but even I could see she wasn't against this policy in principle.

I think Foreign policy, world trade, tax policy, and in the pockets of corporations aren't 1 to 1 with planned parenthood, gun control, and campaign finance in terms of importance, despite how the media treats them.

And that's assuming you buy the Clinton's being for Campaign finance reform given their history, which is a tough sell.  On top of Bernie not being strong on guns.  

I don't recall immigration histories.  

In the end, when you talk Bernie-Hillary-Trump-Bush, I think you're looking at a square more than a line.  They each have their own quadrant, and Bush and Hillary are on the same side of one of the Axes.

Sure, Hillary was to the right of Trump, Trump being above her towards authoritarianism on the left/right authoritarian/libertarian quadrants.  Bush is there in that quadrant as well.  Most american politicians of either party are in that quadrant.

The "left" has been trying to purchase rightward votes for awhile...their response to trumpism is pretty much the same. Case example, Connor Lamb. Essentially, a likable version of hillary who happens to swing richard.

Lol, it's funny to see people's opinions in this thread. A lot of the left wing people here sound like someone just asked about their biggest weakness on a job interview. "Oh she was just too awesome, that's why they hate her."

C'mon, you could go to a conservative forum and get real answers with minimal work.

Though I doubt that either you or I would certify all of those real answers as being grounded in reality. 

That's the amusing thing about american politics. If being in the same political quadrant as either bush or any other republican..for example..makes a candidate suitable...Hillary should have been suitable to republicans. She was more right leaning. Apparently, though, the -right- went with an ever so slightly more leftward candidate.

(March 19, 2018 at 1:52 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Lol, it's funny to see people's opinions in this thread. A lot of the left wing people here sound like someone just asked about their biggest weakness on a job interview.  "Oh she was just too awesome,  that's why they hate her."

C'mon,  you could go to a conservative forum and get real answers with minimal work.

Shit, I'm not even technically liberal, and I think most of them just hate smart women. She might be just as bad as the rest of the crooks, but she's smart and wears panties. They don't like that.