General Discussion

creeksneakers2

(8,016 posts)

125. I'll go through them

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 03:56 PM

Jul 2016

Number 1 was planing about a defense against Sanders smears about not enough of his people on the committee and DNC unfairness about the subject.

Number 2 is private comments that had no influence on the outcome of the elections. The comments were made in response to an attack and threats by Sanders.

Numbers 3 and 5 are defenses against Sanders money laundering smears against the DNC.

Number 4 is just normal fact checking by a reporter before submitting his story. There's no indication the story had anything to do with Sanders.

Number 6 is a defense against a reporter using the Sanders smear that the DNC played favorites.

Number 7 is a defense against a potential fight with Sanders.

Number 8 is about planning a potential collaboration with Hillary, not about an actual collaboration.

Number 9 was a defense against attacks against DWS from Sanders supporters.

Most of these are about defense. I don't agree that Bernie should have been allowed to smear the DNC through his entire campaign and if the DNC defended themselves they were cheating.

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