General Discussion

lapucelle

(20,932 posts)

53. Facts are not "excessive defensiveness"

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:12 AM

Nov 2017

any more than self-serving narrative is "truth". What we do know is that one of the joint fundraising agreements seems to have been crafted with the long term fiscal health of the party in mind.

Although the Clinton campaign is over, and she has nothing personal to gain, she continues to raise funds for Democratic candidates and for her party. So if the question is "cui bono?", the answer is clearly not HRC. So who does benefit from Brazile's "explosive claims"?

Who indeed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie had a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC too. [View all] boston bean Nov 2017 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author Wwcd Nov 2017 #1

He chose not to use it. He did sign it. (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #6

Sanders has been working with the party for decades. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #2

+1 n/t FSogol Nov 2017 #4

+1000 (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #7

Its in Muellers hands so we wait. Wwcd Nov 2017 #8

A lot more than that. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #9

+.. Wwcd Nov 2017 #10

+ a million! lunamagica Nov 2017 #12

++++perfectly stated. Loyalty to his talking points is not a Democratic value. R B Garr Nov 2017 #13

that isn't factual...that is a slant. Coalition building is powerful, but it can come with dilution JCanete Nov 2017 #18

It's actually factual and known. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #19

Its still slant, because you act like coalition bulidng for Clinton wasn't empowering her own place JCanete Nov 2017 #20

I never said such a thing. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #21

you are defining one person as doing work towards goals, and the other as just saving his own skin. JCanete Nov 2017 #22

Yes x infinity pandr32 Nov 2017 #28

Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2017 #35

Don't be bullied into not having this discussion. wasupaloopa Nov 2017 #3

Shhhhhhhh Me. Nov 2017 #5

MSNBC just covered this. Bernie failed to perform. R B Garr Nov 2017 #11

I think this is more about Brazille and Schultz than Clinton and Sanders, they can both go to hell. phleshdef Nov 2017 #14

Hmmmm, thx for the context uponit7771 Nov 2017 #15

Well, how about that? mcar Nov 2017 #16

K&R highplainsdem Nov 2017 #17

Im not getting why she worded things in that excerpt the way she did ismnotwasm Nov 2017 #23

You call it "a similar agreement"? That's absolutely laughable. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #24

He never became the nominee, did he?? boston bean Nov 2017 #25

In 2015 Clinton wasn't the nominee, either. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #26

Seems there were two agreements. Check yo facts. boston bean Nov 2017 #27

OK, I've checked the facts. I'm right. Here's a link. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #29

You need to broaden ur horizons. boston bean Nov 2017 #32

A narrative is not a fact. lapucelle Nov 2017 #44

What you link to doesn't undercut Brazile's revelations Jim Lane Nov 2017 #46

Facts are not "excessive defensiveness" lapucelle Nov 2017 #53

The defensiveness is in taking everything to be about Clinton Jim Lane Nov 2017 #55

I wasn't aware of any "screeching". lapucelle Nov 2017 #58

Why would? sheshe2 Nov 2017 #33

O'Malley (unlike Hillary Clinton) was a lifelong Democrat. Was he offered a similar agreement? Jim Lane Nov 2017 #34

Pow melman Nov 2017 #36

I see you didn't answer my question. sheshe2 Nov 2017 #37

lol melman Nov 2017 #38

Profound statement. sheshe2 Nov 2017 #39

What more needs to be said? melman Nov 2017 #40

Neither you or Jim responded to what I wrote... sheshe2 Nov 2017 #41

If not getting questions answered were a crime... Jim Lane Nov 2017 #42

Great start and a really cool dig at a DEMOCRAT! sheshe2 Nov 2017 #43

It was a DEMOCRAT who popularized the phrase "an inconvenient truth". Jim Lane Nov 2017 #45

And look what happened to him...lost the election. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #49

Oh, right, I forgot. Therefore we should ignore everything he says. Good point. (n/t) Jim Lane Nov 2017 #56

No, but I wouldn't bet he can guide us to a win...I blame Nader mostly for his loss...but Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #61

Bear in mind the context. I wasn't quoting Gore on electoral strategy. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #62

What facts? From what I can tell... the 'facst' were either out and out lied about or Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #63

Oh and the article was bullshit...votes determine who wins any primary ...not the DNC first of all. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #50

Why was DNC virtually bankrupt and how did delisen Nov 2017 #57

She is a former Goldwater girl... KitSileya Nov 2017 #54

Here's the context: I support the Democratic Party's rule of neutrality. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #59

Great post! Spiranthes Nov 2017 #30

Good, yes, get all the information out. David__77 Nov 2017 #31

And he fucked over all the state parties because he refused to concede KitSileya Nov 2017 #47

There is that...and we have the Congress from hell now. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #51

+1 uponit7771 Nov 2017 #52

Unforgivable. NurseJackie Nov 2017 #60

Yep - that's what Brazile probably didn't intend to reinforce. ehrnst Nov 2017 #64

Agreed Gothmog Nov 2017 #65

That article was total bullshit. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #48