DescentBB

Well, it seems all is not so peaceful over at the DNC. This also affirms what I've always suspected, that the DNC wants Hillary first and foremost, and no one else need apply, or be allowed to get in her way.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/s ... dnc-216942

Debbie Shultz is clearly angling for a job with the Clinton Whte House.

What kind of rinky dink application is the DNC using that would allow such access in the first place? If such a breach or bug or whatever is such a bad thing, why are both data sets even in the same system?

There was apparently some kind of glitch, whatever that means. Maybe it was a setup by the Clinton camp to frame Sanders?

It will probably make tonight's debate much more interesting this time around. About time too.

Vander wrote:What kind of rinky dink application is the DNC using that would allow such access in the first place? If such a breach or bug or whatever is such a bad thing, why are both data sets even in the same system?

I've heard folks whine that their systems are very outdated. What they have there is a large database which is open access to all candidates at all levels, and then separate servers for campaign data storage. Apparently, for about 5 hours, the whole thing was accessible to all camps.

Oopsie.

don't bet against someone in Hillary's camp accessing his database, and for a while the DNC tried to shut Sanders out of a huge database his team has assembled(getting over 2 million people to pony up money will get you a huge list). That didn't last long......

Well, I can't wait to watch the Dem debates tonight. Bernie's pissed off at the DNC and Clinton. Time for a little brawl since the Dems seem so intent of crowning Hillary.

meh, I'll likely be watching football. Therein lies a prime illustration of why the party committee is in the bag for Clinton. Despite A LOT of us complaining for months, they stuck to the idea of weekend debates up against football and holiday specials on TV. Note the placement of GOP debates. The DNC clearly doesn't wish anyone to watch, because that would help Sanders, with lesser name recognition.

I'm pretty amused by this epic screw up, it is like the democrats were jealous of the republican party getting all the news about self destructing and decided "hey guys! we need in on some of that action! there is no such thing as bad press, all attention we get over the GOP is good for us!".

If either party had a candidate worth a ★■◆● none of this would be happening, because the party with a decent candidate would be held together by that candidate, and the other party would quickly get their ★■◆● together to try to measure up. The reason this is happening is because Hillary is terrible and I seriously will not vote for her ever, which makes the democrat camp pretty much actively repelling. The republicans on the other hand have doubled down so far their density has gone critical and they have became a crushing singularity of awful who's tidal forces rip apart anything that even strays remotely close to their event horizon.

I'm so voting third party this election.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, I can't wait to watch the Dem debates tonight. Bernie's pissed off at the DNC and Clinton. Time for a little brawl since the Dems seem so intent of crowning Hillary.

It must of been a hum dinger as the WSJ headlines was Hillary was back from break late.

woody, that late arrival was entirely blundered by the moderators.....she actually handled it all pretty well. On the whole, there was a LOT deeper substance and nuance in the debate answers compared to the other throng(and the sheer numbers prevent the GOP from going into detail if they wanted to). I came away feeling supportive of Sanders on some points, Clinton on others. Her approaches to education, environment and integration of business and government in problem solving were strong. Sanders seems to grasp the whole idea of our foreign policy having been an ongoing blunder creating vacuums of power and not thinking about after effects of actions. He successfully tied Hillary to Obama's policy, in a sense. Further, his approach to medical insurance is the only course the nation should consider, and he seems pragmatic enough not to go wild on gun control, yet demand full enforcement and more stringent background regimens. O'Malley actually made a few solid, unique points. The one that sticks with me was the observation that while we dwell on a small region of the world, there are serious challenges on the horizon in Asia, Africa and Central America that could have serious consequences if the US doesn't pay enough attention. He is obviously campaigning for VP, to my mind, and not doing badly. I do wish he would stop constant reference to his term as Governor in Maryland. To hear him tell it, the freaking place should be a paradise on Earth, but seems pretty average to me, and I only live 20 miles away from the state.

I thought the debate last week was better run. Even with more people, I thought the moderators did a better job at conducting a dialogue to draw out the differences of opinion the candidates had. This debate seemed muddled, and the moderators often sought to move on when disagreement bubbled up. Thats the feeling I got on the whole.

Policy choices aside, Clinton appears to be the single most qualified candidate in decades. Knows all the players and all the games. She knows how the sausage is made. The insider's insider. Think of what she could accomplish if she used her powers for good.

O'Malley seemed a little out of his depth. Many of his answers were fluff, filler stories about how he met someone. I hate that. I liked that he seemed more active in trying to draw out the differences between the candidates than the moderators. By and large, he was playing "I'm here, too."

Sanders drives me nuts sometimes. I want to hear more nuance in his positions, but he only hints at it before returning to bumper sticker proclamations. Such a tease. I had a bit of a giggle when it put forth the "I gave you the emails, please give me this campaign data snafu" line.

The difference between Sanders and Clinton, for me, seems to boil down to what I want vs. what can actually get done. Sanders is aiming high, but it makes it that much harder to follow through. Clinton aims lower, so has a higher probability of success. Ideologically, I align most with Sanders. He'll be my choice in the primary. But I can already seem myself trying to justify my future vote for Clinton.

Vander wrote:...I can already see myself trying to justify my future vote for Clinton.

I think your assessment is correct and I feel that most people are thinking the same thing, including myself. I imagine when November 4th comes around I'll pull the level for Clinton with a hopeless sigh, shaking my head left to right.

Vander wrote: Policy choices aside, Clinton appears to be the single most qualified candidate in decades. Knows all the players and all the games. She knows how the sausage is made. The insider's insider. Think of what she could accomplish if she used her powers for good..

It doesn't bother any of you that she's a lying old hag that has gotten people killed and is actually under CURRENT and ACTIVE investigation for illegal activities?

None of the republican frontrunners share that distinction.

She was also running a racket to enrich herself (and supposedly her family) using the office of Secretary of State to do favors for foreign entities and not the interests of the people of the United States whom she was sworn to serve.

She's the insider's insider alright. She's the insider's corrupt politician of corrupt politicians.

It doesn't bother any of you that she's a lying old hag that has gotten people killed and is actually under CURRENT and ACTIVE investigation for illegal activities?

Not if it makes conservative's heads explode.

My comment was based on her resume of being close to the center of US and Global politics for decades as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. All of that experience comes with a lot of knowledge of how the world works at the highest levels. That doesn't mean she'd be a good president, just that she wouldn't need training wheels.

Vander wrote: she wouldn't need training wheels.

I forgot. Leftists value incompetence and criminal malfeasance in their candidates. It's a badge of honor.

Nightshade wrote:

Vander wrote: she wouldn't need training wheels.

I forgot. Leftists value incompetence and criminal malfeasance in their candidates. It's a badge of honor.

Oh, Irony. Such a close friend.

I forgot. Leftists value incompetence and criminal malfeasance in their candidates. It's a badge of honor.

I'll admit to giving a bit of leeway in my perception of the Clintons. It's not blanket immunity, but I do filter. I lived through the Clinton scandals where every crackpot idea of malfeasance was thrown at the wall to see if it sticked with little regard for the truth. There are probably times when I want the Clintons to just go away, as if they're a magnet for this stuff. But then I see it happen to Gore. Then I see it happen to Kerry. Then I see it happen to Obama. It's not some higher than normal level of malfeasance that attracts this stuff. It's a concerted effort to make people believe the worst rather than an honest accounting of facts. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't cry out BENGHAZI!

Is it possible I'm filtering out valid points? Absolutely! But until someone produces honest proof that the Clintons are actually lizard people, color me skeptical. They're centrist politicians in bed with the ruling class. Thats probably indictment enough for most.

aw ★■◆●, now you've done it Vander... you said the B word. Now it all goes downhill from here.

Lets see, Trump spouts lies constantly and then denies he's said them, or just plain says they're the truth, so we and the press should take what he says at face value and get on with it. Tough sh*t. The press makes lame attempts to call him out on them and all he does is smile and things just roll off of him like water off a duck, never any forced follow up or demand for proof every time he's interviewed.

Then during the debates, Hillary makes the claim that Trump videos are being used as recruiting tools by ISIS (right or wrong, I don't know, that's not my point here) and the press and right wingers hop all over it like stink on a turd and won't let it drop. Now I dislike Hillary as much as any right winger, but I think the metric she's being held to by the press is far more harsh and rigid than what Trump is being held to.

Nightshade wrote:

Vander wrote: she wouldn't need training wheels.

I forgot. Leftists value incompetence and criminal malfeasance in their candidates. It's a badge of honor.

You're mistaking what the DNC values for what real liberals value. It's too bad we're probably going to be stuck with a crooked Washington insider, who's NOT a liberal, as the Dem nominee. Time to vote for an independent.

attagirl!! That's the thinking that got you George W Bush!

Well, if the DNC is going to shove her down our throats as the nominee, I don't think in all conscience I can vote for her unless I have to. Now if either Trump or Cruz ends up as the Republican nominee and there are no viable independents, I might have to choke down my reservations, because both of those 2 idiots are just plain dangerous. At least Hillary is MOSS (More Of the Same Sh*t).

tunnelcat wrote:Well, if the DNC is going to shove her down our throats as the nominee, I don't think in all conscience I can vote for her unless I have to. Now if either Trump or Cruz ends up as the Republican nominee and there are no viable independents, I might have to choke down my reservations, because both of those 2 idiots are just plain dangerous. At least Hillary is MOSS (More Of the Same Sh*t).

depending on the issues you care about, the difference between parties is stark. If you think we ought to have SOME path for undocumented workers to become legal citizens, there is NO ONE in the GOP left that supports that(with the departure of Graham). If you think we ought to blunder around, utterly clueless, in the Middle East, every GOP candidate except one or two support that, and demonstrate the cluelessness every time they open their mouths. I'd admit, on economic issues, you may not see the policies of Bernie Sanders out of Clinton, but the spending priorities would be far different. Most of all, next year is a really important down-ticket election for a Presidential race, and, of course, SCOTUS appointments are in play over the coming years, as well. It matters a lot, and I hate to hear citizens say, 'I'm not going to bother voting' because, more than 'right' or 'left', the non-voters have gotten us to many of the quandries we now face.

This gave me pause slick. My husband has been watching that CSPAN series on major SCOTUS decisions. As dry as that sounds, the shows he watched were pretty interesting in a historical sense. What came up in the final show was that the next president will in all probability get to appoint 4 new Supreme Court judges. If it came down to Trump or Cruz and Clinton next year, I'd have to go with Clinton. It pains me to have to vote for her, but the alternative is downright scary.

precisely, TC.

Oh my goodness…lets just forget that any nominee must get Senate approval, and ideology only goes so far in the court, note the two decisions that went in the libs favor…ACA and same sex marriage.

But hey…fear is only the tool of Republicans…right.

Spidey wrote:Oh my goodness…lets just forget that any nominee must get Senate approval, and ideology only goes so far in the court, note the two decisions that went in the libs favor…ACA and same sex marriage.

But hey…fear is only the tool of Republicans…right.

no, remember my earlier point....that if Trump(and maybe even Cruz) win the GOP nod, the landslide loss they are looking at take the Senate and maybe even the House and delivers them to the Dems.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Oh my goodness…lets just forget that any nominee must get Senate approval, and ideology only goes so far in the court, note the two decisions that went in the libs favor…ACA and same sex marriage.

But hey…fear is only the tool of Republicans…right.

no, remember my earlier point....that if Trump(and maybe even Cruz) win the GOP nod, the landslide loss they are looking at take the Senate and maybe even the House and delivers them to the Dems.

You're awful confident that will happen. I'm not so sure. Hillary is very polarizing and she just might not win the main election if enough Clinton haters come out to vote against her.

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Oh my goodness…lets just forget that any nominee must get Senate approval, and ideology only goes so far in the court, note the two decisions that went in the libs favor…ACA and same sex marriage.

But hey…fear is only the tool of Republicans…right.

no, remember my earlier point....that if Trump(and maybe even Cruz) win the GOP nod, the landslide loss they are looking at take the Senate and maybe even the House and delivers them to the Dems.

You're awful confident that will happen. I'm not so sure. Hillary is very polarizing and she just might not win the main election if enough Clinton haters come out to vote against her.

she'd beat Trump or Cruz. Past that, I'm nowhere near as sure. However, if Cruz or Trump doesn't win, there will be so many pissed off wingnut fringe types on the right that will sit it out the result will be the same.