[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

....

The DNC is a private organization. What are you smoking?

They are a political organization that is instrumental in the running of the US. They are not some country club

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

See that excuse would work if it was a unanimous yes, but there were plenty of nays as well.

And as I said earlier, Hillary was the Senator of New York, the prime target of the Al Qaeda attacks.

If she said no, she would be both ignoring her constituency and setting herself up to be lynched. At the time, considering the information they knew, it would be outright stupid to claim that backing the UN-sanctioned investigation against Iraq for MORE possible threats to New York was a wrong decision.

It's so hilarious to see people revise history and ignore the facts though.

[lilostolemycoke]

i remain wondering why former bernie supporters constantly stay focused on bashing hillary rather than bashing trump.


like, being the open minded individual that i am, i respect your opinion not to support hillary but the fact that most of the time spent is towards bashing her over a person like trump is very telling (and prob showing to ur sexism tbqh!! internalized sexism included)

[6_INCH_HEELS]

I don't even see why they're still making Bernie a topic of conversation. He's done. Like, move the hell on and stop wasting bandwidth discussing someone no longer in the race.

__________________________________________________ ___

I'll be glad when this election is over and all the racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes go back into hiding. And I can't wait to see how the GOP try to recover from letting Trump ruin their party.

[Aden]

Bernie Busters are the tea party equivalent of the Democratic party.

I still laugh at them saying Bernard "influenced" or "changed" the party's and/or Hillary's platform when their platforms were 93% similar to begin with.

[L.B GAGA]

Originally posted by lilostolemycoke

i remain wondering why former bernie supporters constantly stay focused on bashing hillary rather than bashing trump.


like, being the open minded individual that i am, i respect your opinion not to support hillary but the fact that most of the time spent is towards bashing her over a person like trump is very telling (and prob showing to ur sexism tbqh!! internalized sexism included)

Ummm because they are Trump supporters. They might as well vote for him. Its so transparent to see, that they are less concerned with what's at stake and more concerned with bashing their only ticket closer to the far left.

[Troye]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

See that excuse would work if it was a unanimous yes, but there were plenty of nays as well.

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

And as I said earlier, Hillary was the Senator of New York, the prime target of the Al Qaeda attacks.

If she said no, she would be both ignoring her constituency and setting herself up to be lynched. At the time, considering the information they knew, it would be outright stupid to claim that backing the UN-sanctioned investigation against Iraq for MORE possible threats to New York was a wrong decision.

It's so hilarious to see people revise history and ignore the facts though.

Scald ha with the tea.

It is hilarious honestly how they continually try to paint Hillary as a villain for voting on issues that at the time were serious enough to warrant it. And yet they ignore people like Jill and Trump who have no idea what they're doing and just pump out opinions/tweets that do nothing but reveal their ignorance.

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

They are a political organization that is instrumental in the running of the US. They are not some country club

The distinction is immaterial. People have no functional right for transparency in non-governmental agencies.

Wikileaks has released information about contributors to a private organization. Where do they come off doing that?

If Wikileaks wanted to be impartial, they'd be targeting the RNC as well. They haven't though. This is targeting one private organization.

Considering how much "common sense" you're supposedly espousing, one can see the direct link between Russia targeting the DNC to help Trump, and Assange leaking the information using the sources to satisfy his own stupid personal vendetta.

There's so much wrong in this, yet you support it because it justifies your own biases.

[midnightdawn]

Originally posted by Troye

People do change their stances on issues and considering the current state of affairs at home and abroad, I honestly doubt Hillary is going to repeat the same thing without more caution this time (even if it's a direct result of the email 'scandal').

Hillary changes her stance on things based on what will get her votes rather than principals. In a nutshell it's like how she said she "plead guilty to being a moderate", and then a few weeks later said she was a progressive.

[lilostolemycoke]

sanders supporters: "hillary needs to EARN our vote. change her opinions and become more progressive. support our movement that bernie started"
sanders supporters 30 days later: "hillary changes her stance based on things that will get her votes rather than principals. you cant trust her"

[Adonis]

Originally posted by midnightdawn

Hillary changes her stance on things based on what will get her votes rather than principals.

Ummm I hate to break it to you but as an elected official, that's her job. That's what she's supposed to do. People complain about congress not doing what the people want but then get mad at people for going with what the people want.

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

The distinction is immaterial. People have no functional right for transparency in non-governmental agencies. That's what Wikileaks was supposedly for.

Wikileaks has released information about contributors to a private organization. Where do they come off doing that?

If Wikileaks wanted to be impartial, they'd be targeting the RNC as well. They haven't though.

There's so much wrong in this, yet you support it because it justifies your own stupid biases.

The distinction is material. The Democrats are currently the ruling party in the government. They currently run the government. Who ever wins the nomination has a 50% of running the country. If you can't see the public interest then....

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by Aden

Bernie Busters are the tea party equivalent of the Democratic party.

I still laugh at them saying Bernard "influenced" or "changed" the party's and/or Hillary's platform when their platforms were 93% similar to begin with.

That's an insult to the tea party.

Bernie or Busters only joined the political process thanks to Bernie. The far left never actually voted and was never taken into consideration by the Democrats.

It would be wrong to say Bernie has had no influence. The mere fact that more people are comfortable with left views make the Democratic platform more capable in aggressively pursuing some of their original goals.

What's wrong is saying that Hillary's platform has changed. Her platform was actually already to the left of the Democratic Party when it came to socioeconomic issues.

[lilostolemycoke]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

The distinction is material. The Democrats are currently the ruling party in the government. They currently run the government. Who ever wins the nomination has a 50% of running the country. If you can't see the public interest then....

h8 to break it to you but that's not true

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by lilostolemycoke

h8 to break it to you but that's not true

The president is not a Democrat implementing the Democratic platform across the govt?

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

And as I said earlier, Hillary was the Senator of New York, the prime target of the Al Qaeda attacks.

If she said no, she would be both ignoring her constituency and setting herself up to be lynched. At the time, considering the information they knew, it would be outright stupid to claim that backing the UN-sanctioned investigation against Iraq for MORE possible threats to New York was a wrong decision.

It's so hilarious to see people revise history and ignore the facts though.

It's telling that she'd vote with the hopes of a future re-election rather than the right decision. Anything for power I guess.

[lilostolemycoke]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

It's telling that she'd vote with the hopes of a future re-election rather than the right decision.

uhhhhhhhhhh what lol?


she voted the way that the people she represented would want her to vote. that's why they elected her.

like yall twist everything

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Originally posted by Adonis

Ummm I hate to break it to you but as an elected official, that's her job. That's what she's supposed to do. People complain about congress not doing what the people want but then get mad at people for going with what the people want.

Its a double edged sword with a lot of the people. They complain about what HRC supported 10-20 years ago, blame her for changing her mind, call her villain, but them overlook what her opponents have done and how they've changed their minds over the course of a year or for some the course of an election cycle.

They want her to remain stagnant so they complain about her policies and cry "inconsistent" when she does make a change to garner the appeal of the public. Is that not what she's suppose to do as the leader of a Democratic country? Do they not know what democracy is? Of course they don't, they're Trump supporters.

[lilostolemycoke]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

The president is not a Democrat implementing the Democratic platform across the govt?

the president is not the only part of the government and in reality he doesn't have a lot of power compared to other branches in regards of getting things done

so no
the democrats are not ruling the government

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

The distinction is material. The Democrats are currently the ruling party in the government. They currently run the government. Who ever wins the nomination has a 50% of running the country. If you can't see the public interest then....

It's not a "ruling" entity. It's an organization representing those that share a common set of ideals, allowing them to run for the roles to "rule" the government.

It's similar to a union, not a monarchy.

There is no justice in this.

What about organizations with a lot of influence like Facebook or Google?

There is no argument you can make. None whatsoever, especially since the motive for this was outright stated to be vengeance by Assange.