Donna Brazile Torches Hillary Clinton

[waitforufo]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/donna-brazile-dnc-book/index.html

Quote

In excerpts from "Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House," published in Politico, Brazile writes the DNC was rigged in Clinton's favor because her campaign was largely financing the party early on in the presidential election.

 

Brazile's comments rip a scab off a wound that plagued the Democratic Party during last year's primary and charge the Clinton campaign with impropriety.

 

The Democratic strategist said the agreement "was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical."

I find it interesting that Donna Brazile would burn Hillary down in such a way after admitting to giving Hillary primary debate questions before Hillary's match up with Bernie .  Perhaps she didn't know just how deep the Hillary rot ran in the Democratic party when she gave Hillary the questions.  Maybe we would have President Sanders now if Hillary had any ethics.  

Here's Politico's take.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Quote

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

 

[Endy0816]

I suspect he would have had a tough time winning over conservative leaning moderates. 

Its past anyways. The question now is who leads the charge down the line or if Trump will  be impeached before hand.

[waitforufo]

9 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

I suspect he would have had a tough time winning over conservative leaning moderates. 

Its past anyways. The question now is who leads the charge down the line or if Trump will  be impeached before hand.

So " "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make [Hillary Clinton]?

I'm sure there are a lot of Bernie Sanders voters that feel disenfranchised over the primary.  Are you saying they have no were else to go but the Democratic party so who cares how they feel? 

Elizabeth Warren thinks it makes a difference.

Quote

How one word from Elizabeth Warren exposed the massive split in the Democratic Party

"Yes."

That was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's response to a simple question asked by CNN's Jake Tapper Thursday night: "Senator, do you agree with the notion that (the 2016 Democratic primary) was rigged?"
And with that single word, a largely behind-the-scenes feud -- over not just how the 2016 election was lost but also where the Democratic Party needs to go before 2020 -- broke out into the public eye in a major way.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-democratic-party/index.html

Edited November 3, 2017 by waitforufo

[zapatos]

Given that Sanders is not a Democrat, was it unreasonable for the Democratic party to favor Clinton over Sanders?

[waitforufo]

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Given that Sanders is not a Democrat, was it unreasonable for the Democratic party to favor Clinton over Sanders?

Donna Brazile and Elizabeth think it was unreasonable.  Discovering the dishonesty of her party made Donna Brazile cry.  I'm sure most Bernie Sanders supporters, who are Democrats, think it was unreasonable.  The Democratic party accepted Bernie Sanders as a presidential candidate.  Don't you think the Democratic Party should have simply rejected Bernie Sanders instead of rigging the primary against him? Democrats are acting like Donald Trump is the worst thing that happened to the United States since Benedict Arnold.  I'm sure all Democrats think that President Sanders sounds a lot better than President Trump.      

[iNow]

Whoa! So, you're telling me that politics happens even in political campaigns. Who knew?

 

[Ten oz]

43 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Donna Brazile and Elizabeth think it was unreasonable.  Discovering the dishonesty of her party made Donna Brazile cry.  I'm sure most Bernie Sanders supporters, who are Democrats, think it was unreasonable.  The Democratic party accepted Bernie Sanders as a presidential candidate.  Don't you think the Democratic Party should have simply rejected Bernie Sanders instead of rigging the primary against him? Democrats are acting like Donald Trump is the worst thing that happened to the United States since Benedict Arnold.  I'm sure all Democrats think that President Sanders sounds a lot better than President Trump.      

It is a party nomination. It is not an open national democratic progress. The rules very by state with many having closed primaries where only party members can vote. The winner of a primary holds no specific office; they are merely a party nominee. No one is obligated to vote for or be a member of the Democratic party. It is silly to compare "rigging" a party nomination to what people are upset at Trump for. Also let's not forget that party Primaries weren't even national events allowing all 50 state participation until 1976 and unlike the General Election they are not outlined in the Constitution. Moreover people don't even need a party nomination to run for President. Sanders didn't need the Democratic nomination to run. He could have ran as an independent just has he did for the Senate. 

[iNow]

It is unfortunate. It's also curious why Brazile would light this particular match right now. Is this another distraction? Hard to say. Will it help us come together in the long-term? Doubtful.

I'm all for fairness in our elections, which is why I'm also so frustrated by the Russian interference, Citizens United ruling, moving away from the Voting Rights act, the work being done to disenfranchise the poor and nonwhites, etc. For all the same reasons, I'm frustrated that Bernie didn't seem to get a fair shake by the DNC.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Donna Brazile and Elizabeth think it was unreasonable.  Discovering the dishonesty of her party made Donna Brazile cry.  I'm sure most Bernie Sanders supporters, who are Democrats, think it was unreasonable.  The Democratic party accepted Bernie Sanders as a presidential candidate.  Don't you think the Democratic Party should have simply rejected Bernie Sanders instead of rigging the primary against him? Democrats are acting like Donald Trump is the worst thing that happened to the United States since Benedict Arnold.  I'm sure all Democrats think that President Sanders sounds a lot better than President Trump.      

Ah, so the purpose of this thread was to give you another avenue to complain. Sorry I enabled you.

[Ten oz]

I think Bernie was treated fairly and has been handled with kiddie gloves since. Democrats walk on egg shells over Sanders. It is a party nomination and Sanders is NOT a Democratic party member. He ran for Senate as an independent. He can't even be bothered to register as a Democrat yet expects a leadership role in the party; it isn't how it works.

If the argument is that primaries should be open to everyone and everyone treated the same why aren't people opposed to closed primaries? Why must millions be registered party members to vote in a primary? Why the slow bleed where specific states vote first? Why no calls to open all primaries and hold a national vote in all 50 states for Democrats and Republicans on the same day like the general? It seems to me that those complaining aren't really interested is ensuring equal treatment for all much as they just like having something to complain about. A loaded "whatabout" in their back pocket to toss out whenever convenient.  

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Donna Brazile and Elizabeth think it was unreasonable.

Which is dwarfed as opposed to Trump hijacking the constitution and the conservative agenda.

You ought to post some real issues to be outraged about instead of telling everyone else what they should be outraged about.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Democrats are acting like Donald Trump is the worst thing that happened to the United States since Benedict Arnold.

If Benedict Arnold had been voted POTUS with the help of British propaganda, this might be true. As it stands, he's the worst thing EVER, in politics at least, Democrat or Republican. There's never been a president where so few people agree with him so narrowly. The vast majority of his supporters only really agree with about 20% of what he stands for on any given day. They forgive his reflexive lying on virtually EVERYTHING because they share feelings about a fraction of his concerns.

Perhaps Brazile is helping pave the way for a badly needed third party. I think a reasonable attempt at actually governing ALL of this country would be a refreshing change of pace, and a party that was interested in really helping the overall well-being of the citizenry might gather enough reasonable people from the two major parties to not only send a message, but make a serious go of it. Getting the People not to be distracted by the money is the hard part.

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps Brazile is helping pave the way for a badly needed third party.

My guess is you're correct here. The old divisions of liberal and conservative / right and left really don't apply anymore. If a 3rd party is going to rise to power, the tea leaves seem to suggest now is the time for that to happen.

[waitforufo]

35 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is silly to compare "rigging" a party nomination to what people are upset at Trump for. 

I made no mention of Trump.  It is you that are conflating the two issues.  I don't think they are related at all.  This issue is being brought to national attention by Donna Brazile not me.

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

It is unfortunate. It's also curious why Brazile would light this particular match right now. Is this another distraction? Hard to say. Will it help us come together in the long-term? Doubtful.

I'm all for fairness in our elections, which is why I'm also so frustrated by the Russian interference, Citizens United ruling, moving away from the Voting Rights act, the work being done to disenfranchise the poor and nonwhites, etc. For all the same reasons, I'm frustrated that Bernie didn't seem to get a fair shake by the DNC.

I"m not sure who your are referring to when you say "us".  Is it the American people or the Democratic Party.  From your previous post, I would say you have great respect and admiration for Elizabeth Warren.  If I recall correctly, you had hopes she would run for president.  She feels the primary was rigged.  Does her agreement that the process was rigged change your opinion of either Ms. Warren or Ms. Clinton?

I don't see Donna Brazile as a person seeking to distract from Trump issues.  Can you?  These issues are completely independent.  This primary rigging simply speaks to character of Hillary Clinton and those running the DNC.  Criminal?  I don't know that much about campaign finance law to know.

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ah, so the purpose of this thread was to give you another avenue to complain. Sorry I enabled you.

So all you got is an ad hominem attack?  Sad.   

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think Bernie was treated fairly and has been handled with kiddie gloves since. Democrats walk on egg shells over Sanders. It is a party nomination and Sanders is NOT a Democratic party member. He ran for Senate as an independent. He can't even be bothered to register as a Democrat yet expects a leadership role in the party; it isn't how it works.  

So why did Democrats even allow Bernie to compete?  Once he was allowed, don't you believe the competition should have been fair.

27 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If the argument is that primaries should be open to everyone and everyone treated the same why aren't people opposed to closed primaries? Why must millions be registered party members to vote in a primary? Why the slow bleed where specific states vote first? Why no calls to open all primaries and hold a national vote in all 50 states for Democrats and Republicans on the same day like the general? 

All good points, but irrelevant to the current situation.  The 2016 primaries followed an acceptable plan.  A plan the important Democrats are now calling rigged by Hillary Clinton.  Sanders voters won't think this was nothing.

30 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It seems to me that those complaining aren't really interested is ensuring equal treatment for all much as they just like having something to complain about. A loaded "whatabout" in their back pocket to toss out whenever convenient.  

So you feel this way about Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren?  How is it convenient for them to toss about "whatabout".

I don't think Mueller is being distracted by any of this, nor do I think he should be.  This is an independent issue that is coming from important Democrats.  So what is going on in the Democratic Party?  Why is Donna Brazile burning Hillary down?  Why is Elizabeth Warren joining in?  

The Democratic party is in bad shape.  The reports stemming from Brazile point to Obama leaving Democratic party finances in shambles.  Brazile claims this bad financial situation gave Hillary the opening to rig the primaries.  Why nothing but a yawn from the four commenting contributors so far?

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

My guess is you're correct here. The old divisions of liberal and conservative / right and left really don't apply anymore. If a 3rd party is going to rise to power, the tea leaves seem to suggest now is the time for that to happen.

1

Indeed but tea seems to be an unfortunate word to use.

[waitforufo]

26 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Which is dwarfed as opposed to Trump hijacking the constitution and the conservative agenda.

You ought to post some real issues to be outraged about instead of telling everyone else what they should be outraged about.

Off topic.

24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If Benedict Arnold had been voted POTUS with the help of British propaganda, this might be true. As it stands, he's the worst thing EVER, in politics at least, Democrat or Republican. There's never been a president where so few people agree with him so narrowly. The vast majority of his supporters only really agree with about 20% of what he stands for on any given day. They forgive his reflexive lying on virtually EVERYTHING because they share feelings about a fraction of his concerns.

Off topic.

24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps Brazile is helping pave the way for a badly needed third party. I think a reasonable attempt at actually governing ALL of this country would be a refreshing change of pace, and a party that was interested in really helping the overall well-being of the citizenry might gather enough reasonable people from the two major parties to not only send a message, but make a serious go of it. Getting the People not to be distracted by the money is the hard part.

This may indeed be her objective.  

[rangerx]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps Brazile is helping pave the way for a badly needed third party. I think a reasonable attempt at actually governing ALL of this country would be a refreshing change of pace, and a party that was interested in really helping the overall well-being of the citizenry might gather enough reasonable people from the two major parties to not only send a message, but make a serious go of it. Getting the People not to be distracted by the money is the hard part.

America shot itself in the foot protesting the parliamentary system. Two party polarization is toxic in America, bordering on extreme. The USA has no idea of the freedom they've given up by abolishing the non-confidence vote. The whole premise of party coalition is to prevent dictatorships.

America would be smart to develop a third party system, but the trenches are dug and no-mans-land will be continue to be the objective for the distant future.

Bernie Sanders and Ross Perrault have shown it's possible that an independent candidate can be a winner.

3 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Off topic.

Actually, it's not. It's your MO.

[waitforufo]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

My guess is you're correct here. The old divisions of liberal and conservative / right and left really don't apply anymore. If a 3rd party is going to rise to power, the tea leaves seem to suggest now is the time for that to happen.

Brazile seems to be starting out by driving a stake through the heart of the Clinton faction of the Democratic party.  About time in my opinion.  

[Arete]

 

14 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I made no mention of Trump.  

Yeah you did, in post #5, so subsequent calls of "off topic" would seem to be pretty disingenuous. 

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

...Democrats are acting like Donald Trump is the worst thing that happened to the United States since Benedict Arnold.  I'm sure all Democrats think that President Sanders sounds a lot better than President Trump.      

[Endy0816]

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a party nomination. It is not an open national democratic progress. The rules very by state with many having closed primaries where only party members can vote. The winner of a primary holds no specific office; they are merely a party nominee. No one is obligated to vote for or be a member of the Democratic party. It is silly to compare "rigging" a party nomination to what people are upset at Trump for. Also let's not forget that party Primaries weren't even national events allowing all 50 state participation until 1976 and unlike the General Election they are not outlined in the Constitution. Moreover people don't even need a party nomination to run for President. Sanders didn't need the Democratic nomination to run. He could have ran as an independent just has he did for the Senate. 

/\This +1

While I strongly disagree with the existence of Parties, I am not about dictate how they reach a decision amongst themselves.

Be like telling the Masons how to run their Lodges. 

People had and still have options going forward to enact real change and/or vote their heart.

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Off topic.

You brought up Trump like he'd simply arranged to leave Fort West Point unlocked for the British instead of encouraging Russia to disrupt our electoral process, and possibly being elected POTUS because of it. If Donna Brazile is pointing out hypocrisy, I think it's on topic to point out yours. 

[waitforufo]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You brought up Trump like he'd simply arranged to leave Fort West Point unlocked for the British instead of encouraging Russia to disrupt our electoral process, and possibly being elected POTUS because of it. If Donna Brazile is pointing out hypocrisy, I think it's on topic to point out yours. 

The context of my comment was that Bernie Sanders may have been president today had it not been for Hillary Clinton rigging the primary. Hillary Clinton was an unelectable candidate.  Her need to rig the primaries further proves that point.  the fact that the nation elected Trump shows the electorate's desire for significant change.  Hillary was simply a old boring mostly empty jar or mayonnaise.  Bernie had much greater appeal to the general electorate.  Had Bernie won, we wouldn't be talking about Trump would we? 

Now we have Hillary parading around on her book tour acting like the queen bee of the Democratic party.  Let's face it.  She is a loser.  She lost to Trump for Christ sake.  The Democratic party needs to be shuck of her.  Democrats like Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren want her to shut up and go away.  The Democratic party is having an internal war. Will it result in a third party?   My guess is a revamped Democratic party.  That however may not work out since the Democratic party has too much PC garbage to purge.  My guess is it will simply fade away and be replaced by a new more sensible party.     

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Donna Brazile and Elizabeth think it was unreasonable.  Discovering the dishonesty of her party made Donna Brazile cry.  I'm sure most Bernie Sanders supporters, who are Democrats, think it was unreasonable.  The Democratic party accepted Bernie Sanders as a presidential candidate.  Don't you think the Democratic Party should have simply rejected Bernie Sanders instead of rigging the primary against him? Democrats are acting like Donald Trump is the worst thing that happened to the United States since Benedict Arnold.  I'm sure all Democrats think that President Sanders sounds a lot better than President Trump.      

 

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

I made no mention of Trump.  It is you that are conflating the two issues.  I don't think they are related at all.  This issue is being brought to national attention by Donna Brazile not me.

Yes you did.

[iNow]

Who ya gonna believe? Me, or your own lyin' eyes?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Hillary Clinton was an unelectable candidate.

I know you didn't like her much because she rubbed you the wrong way (can't be because of any crimes she's been found guilty of all these years of trying). I'm not a fan of any politician that helps the wealthy lean further on the pool tables they already own, but this statement of yours is just plain horseshit, and you know exactly why.

And she would have made a much better POTUS than the current blot, but I'm actually glad she isn't. It gives us time to reflect on what's really wrong, if we'd stop listening only to how bad the other guys are. The Democrats and Republicans both are showing how badly they screw up the system when they dance to the partisan beat and forget they're supposed to work together to represent the People, not the Party. 

Maybe we should get Brazile and McCain together to start calling for a new constitutional convention.