General Discussion

Scuba

(53,475 posts)

121. No, but the rules require DNC members to be impartial ...

Reply to creeksneakers2 (Reply #120)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 03:36 PM

Jul 2016

... in the interest of fairness and democracy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

141 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please rec if you're OK with the DNC violating their own impartiality rule. [View all] Scuba Jul 2016 OP

Only losers complain about the rules... jonno99 Jul 2016 #1

You forgot to rec. Scuba Jul 2016 #2

Sorry - the sarcasm was meant to be implicit (per the norm, I was too clever by half). jonno99 Jul 2016 #7

Thanks. Scuba Jul 2016 #8

Good one! n/t Peregrine Took Jul 2016 #102

This is not about the rules awake Jul 2016 #4

^^ This right here ^^ Scuba Jul 2016 #6

Agreed (see my #7). nt jonno99 Jul 2016 #10

Hopefully her resignation is being written as we speak... Cooley Hurd Jul 2016 #11

Thank you, so many do not see it that way. notadmblnd Jul 2016 #14

The only people "endangering" Hillary are the sufrommich Jul 2016 #16

With "friends like DWS who needs enemies? awake Jul 2016 #24

I don't give two shits about DWS. She's been used as an sufrommich Jul 2016 #27

I CANNOT rec this ^^^^^^ More! Well said Grey Lemercier Jul 2016 #126

This is my take R0ckyRac00n Jul 2016 #17

That is an excellent point PatSeg Jul 2016 #31

So now we're throwing DWS under the bus in order to "save" HRC? WolverineDG Jul 2016 #69

No DWS has put herself in the gutter by how she mishandled her job awake Jul 2016 #77

Thinking about hands, ever notice how difficult it was to wash one without the other nolabels Jul 2016 #141

Oh my how the tide turns... Silver_Witch Jul 2016 #127

Yes, I think the DNC chair should have been impartial and evenhanded. book_worm Jul 2016 #3

There isn't an emoticon for sweeping things under the rug, HereSince1628 Jul 2016 #5

Do you want a President Trump? liberal N proud Jul 2016 #9

This isn't about Trump. It's about cleaning up the DNC. Scuba Jul 2016 #13

So we can put you in the yes column? notadmblnd Jul 2016 #15

Is there a "lalalala-fingers-in-ears" column? Cooley Hurd Jul 2016 #25

Exactly. Faux and CNN are blathering about this ENDLESSLY. This is the last thing we need. anneboleyn Jul 2016 #39

We are not obligated to cover for people who cheat against us. They are obligated to not cheat. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #46

yup renate Jul 2016 #100

No and I'm even less interested in politicians who operate with the M.O. that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #73

I suppose it's a technical violation, but it doesn't appall me. Demit Jul 2016 #12

Any one who thinks it is ok to attack another's religion should never be running this party awake Jul 2016 #18

I'm an atheist, and after his January 21st interview, I said that Sanders could not LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #38

Exactly. It was not an "attack" -- it was a point that atheists do not get elected in the US anneboleyn Jul 2016 #41

Kyrsten Sinema (double points for bi-sex!), Barney Frank (double for gay!) Pete Stark, Jesse Ventura Grey Lemercier Jul 2016 #124

Evening questioning a candidates religion has no place in my party awake Jul 2016 #42

That's suicidally naive LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #43

I think you are the one being naive. DLevine Jul 2016 #54

Oh, please; look up how many times the term "Jesuit" has been used on DU in the last few days (nt) LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #59

Lol! zappaman Jul 2016 #134

Should we have a religous test for our Dem candidates? DLevine Jul 2016 #45

Let alone one with a name like Barack Husain Obama awake Jul 2016 #48

And we proved them wrong, but we had data to support it LongtimeAZDem Jul 2016 #55

Democrats wern't complaining about his democraticness over the 25 years he voted with them notadmblnd Jul 2016 #19

No. A more telling point is that he never joined the party, in all those 25 years. Demit Jul 2016 #68

A technical violation is missing a report date. bluedigger Jul 2016 #21

Can't rec this dragonlady Jul 2016 #20

Ok if you do this for me first. MyNameGoesHere Jul 2016 #22

^^^^^This^^^^^ liberal N proud Jul 2016 #28

These are actions, not opinions ... Scuba Jul 2016 #33

No they are discussions in an email MyNameGoesHere Jul 2016 #90

Miranda offered to help the press smear Bernie. That's violating the impartiality rule. Scuba Jul 2016 #93

Most of the actions at your link creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #107

No, they're not. Scuba Jul 2016 #109

I'll go through them creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #125

Number 1 is planting anti-Bernie stories in the press. Scuba Jul 2016 #129

In response to anti-DNC stories Bernie planted in the press creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #130

So you don't think cleaning up the DNC is important? Scuba Jul 2016 #131

If they had done something wrong it would be. creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #132

So why did Debbie resign again? Scuba Jul 2016 #136

Asked and answered creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #138

Apparently Bernie is just fine with it....he eschewed faux outrage.... msanthrope Jul 2016 #23

I missed the part where he's "just fine with it." DLevine Jul 2016 #29

I think DWS will step down when she thinks it is time to. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #36

And her judgment is to be respected! Not. truebluegreen Jul 2016 #88

Yes Bernie still is backing Hillary, this is not about Hillary awake Jul 2016 #30

Eh. The Party seems to like her just fine. She will step down when she's ready. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #37

Me thinks not "the party" seems to have removed her from being seen on stage this week awake Jul 2016 #40

Marcia gavels in and out.....and I suspect we will be seeing quite a bit of DWS msanthrope Jul 2016 #47

Check again she has been replaced awake Jul 2016 #49

Yes.....that why I wrote "Marcia." nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #53

Sorry for missing that I miss read that post awake Jul 2016 #61

People should probably be paying more attention to the party organization. Chathamization Jul 2016 #26

What state was that? PatSeg Jul 2016 #34

D.C. N/T Chathamization Jul 2016 #52

Thank you PatSeg Jul 2016 #63

Stuff like that seems to get almost no press coverage Chathamization Jul 2016 #81

Not enough bling PatSeg Jul 2016 #85

Bookmarked. n/t DirkGently Jul 2016 #32

No Rec Faux pas Jul 2016 #35

The primary is over. Are you on our side against Trump? geek tragedy Jul 2016 #44

Both. Scuba Jul 2016 #57

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #79

A message to our trolls sofa king Jul 2016 #50

Who says it was Russians? Could have been the Trump campaign that hacked the DNC. Scuba Jul 2016 #58

The Clinton Campaign manager said it was the Russians. sofa king Jul 2016 #92

Of course he did. Did you think he was going to say it was Wall Street? Scuba Jul 2016 #94

If he did, and he were lying... sofa king Jul 2016 #96

I've seen no evidence that the DNC was hacked by Russians, and only Russians. I've seen lots ... Scuba Jul 2016 #97

Fortunately, sofa king Jul 2016 #98

NOBODY has said it was Wall Street NastyRiffraff Jul 2016 #104

And no one has proven it was Russia! Scuba Jul 2016 #105

And when, exactly, did I say it was Russia? NastyRiffraff Jul 2016 #108

It is time to move on. hrmjustin Jul 2016 #51

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #82

I thought the primaries were over, so why keep fighting them? MohRokTah Jul 2016 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author RonniePudding Jul 2016 #60

Does mean that they can't think one candidate is being an ass? nt boston bean Jul 2016 #62

It's not about opinions, it's about actions. Scuba Jul 2016 #64

and what actions are you meaning? boston bean Jul 2016 #66

This, for starters ... Scuba Jul 2016 #67

He thought there were problems with the DNC committee appointments. He can't say that? He can't boston bean Jul 2016 #70

He's supposed to be impartial, not feeding the press lines that hurt one candidate. Scuba Jul 2016 #71

He has no need to be impartial about DNC committee appointments. boston bean Jul 2016 #74

Take off the blinders. Scuba Jul 2016 #76

they are boston bean Jul 2016 #78

That's after the nominee was evident creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #115

That was before the convention began, before all primaries were conducted. Scuba Jul 2016 #116

The DNC is not required to engage creeksneakers2 Jul 2016 #120

No, but the rules require DNC members to be impartial ... Scuba Jul 2016 #121

Like a dog worrying a bone lillypaddle Jul 2016 #65

Should be enough beef for a grand BBQ with all the cows being had. hobbit709 Jul 2016 #72

Recced! Loki Liesmith Jul 2016 #75

Rationale? Scuba Jul 2016 #80

Name an election that the politics haven't been dirty Motley13 Jul 2016 #83

Howard Dean said almost the same thing n/t malaise Jul 2016 #84

I appreciate the effort, Scuba. Hell Hath No Fury Jul 2016 #86

Of What violations do you speak? ismnotwasm Jul 2016 #87

The DNC isn't denying that the emails are authentic. Scuba Jul 2016 #89

Of what violations do you speak? ismnotwasm Jul 2016 #106

The impartiality rule.... Scuba Jul 2016 #110

Of what violation do you speak? ismnotwasm Jul 2016 #139

Go to the link Scuba Jul 2016 #140

Rules schmules. LWolf Jul 2016 #91

Well, I am, for what it's worth. Will Morningstar Jul 2016 #95

Gee, the DNC didn't enthusiastically embrace an independent who has trashed the Democratic Party NYC Liberal Jul 2016 #99

They aren't supposed to embrace anyone... TCJ70 Jul 2016 #101

And Sanders wasn't supposed to access Clinton's voter database. NYC Liberal Jul 2016 #103

And he was held accountable for that... TCJ70 Jul 2016 #112

BINGO! n/t NastyRiffraff Jul 2016 #114

Also, we never found out what kind of access the Clinton campaign had to Sanders stuff... TCJ70 Jul 2016 #122

We have a critical election to win Cary Jul 2016 #111

I can do more than one thing at a time. I'll bet you can too. Scuba Jul 2016 #113

You and and I both know what you're doing Cary Jul 2016 #117

Trying to clean up the DNC. Scuba Jul 2016 #119

Right. And I have a bridge in New Jersey to sell you Cary Jul 2016 #123

All the more reason for HRC to publicly demand DWS resignation and get it. so that we can move on. aikoaiko Jul 2016 #118

Funny the same people telling you to move on are the very ones that rec'd Rex Jul 2016 #128

You have a point, however, there are also some people who post at a supposed progressive Hillary still_one Jul 2016 #133

Well I said that anyone at this point NOT voting for HRC never planned to vote Dem in the first Rex Jul 2016 #135

I really wasn't referring to anyone specifically, and I agree with your sentiments. As for the OP, still_one Jul 2016 #137