DNC Restructuring

[archibaldcrane]

i legit thought she was tan

https://twitter.com/katherinemiller/...47279930200064

[Day]

Haley 2024

[Andalusian girls]

wait did i seriously just see scaremongering over US deficits because of goddamned greece? does the ECB control our monetary policy now? is the US no longer monetarily sovereign?

you did not. you saw scaremongering over U.S. deficits because they're quite scary. the reference to Greece was to rebut the point that 'fiscal responsibility doesn't terribly matter when juxtaposed with human suffering' by pointing out the premier case of fiscal irresponsibility being an agent of human suffering.

Listen unclefucker, I don't believe your original post was clear in that regard and if you can take a break from all the gay incest maybe I could agree that on a complex level that kind of talk is reductionist and even the $4.1T price tag of 2 wars over 15 years (expected to reach closer to $10T) doesn't even touch the amount we've spent on healthcare in that same time, but the basic premise of healthcare spending > other spending will still hold true. If the government was going to make choices that drove us trillions of dollars into debt, investment in healthcare will see a return on that spending a lot faster than letting the wealthiest people get wealthier or dropping bombs on distant brown people.

fair enough siblingfucker. i did not mean to imply healthcare spending was less important or had a lesser ethical demand than other forms of spending, just illustrating that it already exceeds all other forms of spending, and is in need of serious structural reform because cutting back on other spending cannot provide for what it shall cost. indeed i believe the latest CBO projection shows Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest payments on the debt consuming 100% of the federal budget sometime between 2032(worst case) and 2044(best case).

[Gryffes]

Because, and I know this will shock many, there were many factors, including all the ones that you just mentioned.

Should the election have been as close as it was? No. Was the campaign she ran to blame for that? Yes, in many ways. In all ways? No, because there were extenuating circumstances beyond even their control.

It's almost like there's nuance to elections, especially ones with wide scale foreign interference. As for when she took responsibility for what she could, and not what she wasn't responsible for, here:

Firstly aint nobody watching a 40min vid for one sentence without a timestamp.
Secondly if she owns it once, but every other time she blames someone else, then writes a book about it... is it really owning it?

[EternityEnd]

I understand it was a long video, but damn, it took you a week?

Maybe you should actually listen to entire interviews with her, such as the Pod Save America one, rather than cherry pick sentences out to bitch about. Because there's multiple interviews where she talks about what she could have done better.

She takes responsibility for her campaign's failings and her personal mistakes (email server), she doesn't take responsibility for Comey, the media's extraordinarily unhelpful coverage to chase views, or the unprecedented Russian interference.

Not sure what's controversial about this, man. It's almost as if you want her to fall on a sword for everything wrong in the world. There's a reason "Thanks Obama!" became an ironic meme.

[EternityEnd]

edit: double post.

[Salodin]

I agree, listen to her pod save America interview. If you're actually listening to her, and not cherry picking tweet length quotes, you'd see she actually takes on a lot of the blame but rightfully throws it back at people that also deserve it. She makes a great case for Fuck Bernie.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Moridam]

if you'd just bask in her radiance, you'd understand the flawless magnificence of mother, whose sole mistake was being too pure of thought, trusting in fake people, and also occasionally being the most overwhelming genius who ever lived. a public intellectual of the cosmos, that's my mom, hillary r clinton, who might not have won the base contest of electoral votes, but who holds the respect of the biggest IQ players out there.

read mother's diary and understand how you have all failed her!

[Fiye]

All that's missing is a picture of Futurama's Mom.

[Gredival]

if you'd just bask in her radiance, you'd understand the flawless magnificence of mother, whose sole mistake was being too pure of thought, trusting in fake people, and also occasionally being the most overwhelming genius who ever lived. a public intellectual of the cosmos, that's my mom, hillary r clinton, who might not have won the base contest of electoral votes, but who holds the respect of the biggest IQ players out there.

read mother's diary and understand how you have all failed her!

"Is this dank enough so that I can ignore the evidence contrary to my pre-existing narrative?"

[Talint]

May the 2016 election never end.

[Talint]

Hillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election

But in an interview Monday with NPR's Terry Gross, Clinton raised that critique up a notch -- not only questioning the legitimacy of Trump's presidency but refusing to rule out the possibility of contesting the results if Russian collusion is proven by special counsel Bob Mueller.

Here's the full text of the back-and-forth, courtesy of CNN's Dan Merica:

Gross: I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?

Clinton: No. I would not. I would say --

Gross: You're not going to rule it out?

Clinton: No, I wouldn't rule it out.

!!!!

This a big deal. The 2016 Democratic nominee, who won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, is expressly leaving open the possibility that she would pursue legal action to invalidate the last presidential election.

Please qween please never let this election die hashtag the resistance hashtag still with her.

[Day]

anyone not willing to accept the election results is a direct threat to our democracy

[EternityEnd]

you think it's a threat to our democracy for the presidential candidate who lost to contest the election in the event that the Special Counsel investigating the Russian election interference proves collusion?

so we should have no checks and balances for foreign interference. sounds like more of a threat to our democracy, considering our various intelligence agencies have ruled that Russian election interference will only increase going forward.

no where did she say that's what's going to happen, considering she's not privy to mueller's ongoing investigation, nor did she say she would necessarily contest anything. I imagine she doesn't want to open that can of worms barring extraordinary findings.

it's almost as if the world's not as black and white as the same people on here continuously peddle.

[GoggleHead]

I want someone to lay out the specifics of the Russian interference. Is it anything more than Russian media going "hurray for Trump, boo Hillary, because we don't want America to drop bombs on us."?

[EternityEnd]

Pretty sure we'd all like the specifics laid out, but they're still coming out and being discovered.

In the event that Mueller's team finds direct collusion between Trump and Russia, and our intelligence agencies uncover increasing amounts of Russian targeted propaganda (including the recent Facebook discovery), and on the warning from our intelligence agencies that this type of subversion will only increase, yeah, I'd say it'd be time to have a national talk about how we fix and correct it.

Or would that be "detrimental to our democracy"? lmao. Democracy's something we have to protect, and continuing in this age of the internet, information, targeted ads, hacking, etc, that's going to take additional work, understanding, and legislation.

but I guess hey as long as it's republicans reaping the benefits now, we can put off that discussion about what happens when it's proven that a presidential candidate's entire campaign colluded with a foreign power to disinform our public and sway an election. hopefully it doesn't come up again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

something something founding fathers foresaw this digital age, our constitution will protect us.

[GoggleHead]

So a big fat goose egg of speculation and jumping at shadows then? That's what I thought.

[Salodin]

anyone not willing to accept the election results is a direct threat to our democracy

I know you like to half ass your comments from time to time, but even you can see the problem with your statement right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[arus2001]

Well, there are a few fields we'd need to consider:

1) Propaganda
2) Financial backing
3) Vote tampering

#1 may seem easily drowned out by general public sentiment, but any an all rumors, or alternative facts, that took root of Russian origin should be considered problematic. We know it's not a secret Putin hated Hillary. Thus, greenlighting anything and everything that could compromise her run isn't much of a stretch.

#2 probably shouldn't need much explanation. Some of it would entail funding for #1. Other aspects could include bribery or encouragement to (not) do things that could've hurt her chances.

#3 is something that shouldn't be ruled out due to the vulnerabilities of technology and mail-in voting. Yes, you'll get the old classics like dead people voting or Trump's ridiculous claim that millions of illegals voted for Hillary, but what if facets of #2 contributed to the closures of polling locations and gerrymandering that would've otherwise voted democrat and thus hurt her and the chances of other Dems in contested areas?

Unfortunately, even if there were a giant pile of evidence that confirmed compromise and corruption of the government, Hillary's contention will still be protested in large by those who have bought into the anti-hype, that she influenced the investigation, that sincerely believe a woman isn't fit for office, that she'll die the moment she catches her next cold, that WW3 is on her, all she cares about is the rich, Benghazi, emails, and so on. Installing her, at this point, would be chaos both within the White House and within the realm of public opinion. And while I would still consider it a win for the country, it'd be a metaphorically bloody one. And perhaps even literally.

[Day]

I know you like to half ass your comments from time to time, but even you can see the problem with your statement right?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Its a hillary quote my dude