The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Why bother with any other forum?
Forum rules
We once roamed the vast forums of Corona Coming Attractions. Some of us had been around from The Before Times, in the Days of Excelsior, while others of us had only recently begun our trek. When our home became filled with much evil, including the villainous Cannot-Post-in-This-Browser and the dreaded Cannot-Log-In, we flounced away most huffily to this new home away from home. We follow the flag of Jubboiter and talk about movies, life, the universe, and everything, often in a most vulgar fashion. All are welcome here, so long as they do not take offense to our particular idiom.
Post Reply
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

Space Tycoon wrote:I'd be inclined to feel the same, if it weren't for the bloody legacy of her husband.

I can only go by precedent.
It's a given that she thinks and behaves only as her husband did/would? She has no precedent of being president. (That one was for you, Goiter)
User avatar
Space Tycoon
ü83r l33t - 1338 Posts
ü83r l33t - 1338 Posts
Posts: 2429
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 12:16 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Soviet Canuckistan

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Space Tycoon »

Perhaps I was being sexist. It's been known to happen.

Or, perhaps I was being pessimistic. That too, has been known to happen.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

This shit's pretty brazen:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-hillary/

Seriously. I mean, seriously. They gotta be fuckin' with us.
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

See, I just did a quick Google of that and can't find it from anywhere other than the Washington Times, which is a pretty far right wing news site. Have you seen it from anywhere more mainstream than that?

If not, obviously there's a GIANT LEFT WING MEDIA CONTROVERSY TO HIDE THE TRUTH!!!!

But I'd still like to see it from somewhere not so right-leaning.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Here's something from Fortune's website (I don't think they profess a bias, but I'm not sure if there's a prevailing opinion on whether or not they have one):

http://fortune.com/2016/07/24/wasserman ... -campaign/

Here's something from the Washington Examiner (a conservative site, but I don't want to be that guy who dismisses a news site with a political bias out-of-hand, since that would result in dismissing many, many news sites):

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clint ... _click=rss

Here's something from Raw Story (I think most would consider Raw Story a liberal publication):

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/hillary ... ary-chair/

Here's something from Common Dreams, a site that self-describes as "progressive" (I suppose there's some wiggle room there, even if the majority of US progressives would probably consider themselves liberal):

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/0 ... z-top-post

There's also the original statement from hillaryclinton.com:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing ... n-schultz/

Here's the quote from Clinton as it appears on the above link:
Hillary Clinton wrote:I want to thank my longtime friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her leadership of the Democratic National Committee over the past five years. I am grateful to Debbie for getting the Democratic Party to this year’s historic convention in Philadelphia, and I know that this week’s events will be a success thanks to her hard work and leadership. There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie–which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and in other key states. I look forward to campaigning with Debbie in Florida and helping her in her re-election bid–because as President, I will need fighters like Debbie in Congress who are ready on day one to get to work for the American people.
That's what I was able to find with a single Google search. What search terms were you using?
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

I don't even remember. That was like 45 whole minutes ago now.

Just the statement from Hillary's site would've been fine, Goits. No need to get show-offy on me now.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I was trying to be somewhat balanced in my linking. A little from Column A, a little from Column B, etc.

Again, that shit's pretty brazen.
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

She'll campaign for her in Florida and have no real hand in the campaign of Democrats across the country, which is exactly how it would be were she just...well...a Congresswoman from Florida. I'm less than bothered by it. Not nearly as bothered as I was by her being allowed to keep her DNC job after the horrendous campaign results she delivered for the Dems in 2014.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I'm unsure why it would matter to you whether or not the site reporting it was a conservative site if you weren't bothered by it. I took your initial post in response to my Washington Times link as an indication that you thought Wasserman Schultz's agreeing to serve as honorary chair of Clinton's campaign’s fifty-state program was an example of right wing calumny. I own that I could have misread your intentions. Still, The Washington Times quotes Clinton directly, so I'm unsure why you'd use the kind of language you used in the original post unless you felt the article's claim that Clinton appointed Wasserman Schultz to the position somehow rang false to you.

The Washington Times does use some accusatory and snarky language in the article, but it may be warranted in this case. Wasserman Schultz was shown, thanks to WikiLeaks, to have taken an active and fairly vocal part in intraparty bias in Clinton's favor. And Wasserman Schultz apparently had to be strong-armed into resigning by President Obama. One would think her behavior, once exposed, would have led to her immediate and cowed resignation, and you'd think the response from the Clinton team would be one of embarrassment and distancing.

Instead, Clinton showed solidarity. This, I feel, is brazen. I suppose it's evidence of Clinton rewarding loyalty, but it's a fucked up and maybe even consciously illegal kind of loyalty. Wasserman compromised the integrity of her station (for quick access to evidence of this, go to the WikiLeaks page for the DNC database and do a search for all the "Sanders" material sent by hrtsleeve@gmail.com), she undermined the democratic process, and she chose not to condemn the DNC committee members who made pretty inflammatory remarks about Sanders's cultural heritage and religious leanings. The lack of professionalism, alone, is red flag enough, but when you add to this clear evidence of bias and system gaming, it gets to be serious business.

For Wasserman Schultz and Clinton essentially to shrug their shoulders at the WikiLeaks revelations shows a real lack of accountability. It's clear they believe themselves to have attained some level of unassailability, and like some kind of political aristocracy, it's almost as if they're rubbing the peasantry's nose in it. It's of a piece with Clinton shrugging her shoulders at the e-mail controversy.

Clinton did take some of the heat for the Benghazi attack, at least, and she did show some remorse for her actions early on, so there's that. Whether or not she took enough heat continues to be debated, but a segment of her supporters seem to want to downplay all of these things, along with her deep business ties, as being beside the point. Are they? I'm not sure they are, and I'm not sure it's healthy for a large segment of the left to try to deflect whenever any of these things are brought up. It's similarly unhealthy for a large segment of the right to try to deflect whenever their party's systematic racism, sexism, hawkishness, religious fervor, and bigotry are called into focus. (It's even more unhealthy when they deny they do these things. It's at its most unhealthy when they own up to it and seem proud of it.) Again, as I said in "The Batshit Crazy Republicans Roundup," I want to see more of the front runners' supporters acknowledging the existence of and showing even just a touch of uneasiness regarding the fucked up and/or shady shit done by the people they plan to vote for. I've already seen enough of "Well, the other one's way worse!" or "These things have been blown way out of proportion!" to last a lifetime. That's deflection. I'm more OK with people voting the way they're voting if I can be made to believe they're being honest with themselves.

(How much of Trump's and Clinton's actions, both past and present, are their supporters willing to excuse? How much of their behavior am I willing to excuse? These are questions of real interest to me as I look at the four candidates most likely to find their way on the ballot. There's a lot of "Vote the Person, Not the Party!" rhetoric being played on St. Louis radio at the moment. They mean it to apply to those running for smaller, local positions [I suppose the argument is that Candidate X's political leanings don't necessarily have any bearing on whether or not Candidate X can perform the small-potatoes task at hand], but I can't help but extend it to the presidential race. To what degree do these people even represent their parties? If they're representing them well, do I even like these parties?)

* * *

Some of the e-mails exposed by WikiLeaks also show how deeply and freely culturally insensitive some of the people in the US Democratic Party are. This is a party that, by and large, has built itself up on a PC platform, so it's regrettable that they'd be so cavalier about these things--especially while exchanging professional e-mails on a government server. Brad Marshall (in the infamous "No shit" e-mail) can actually be seen plotting to use Sanders's supposed secular Jew atheism against him by having someone plant a question in either Kentucky or West Virginia about Sanders's religious beliefs. The revelation, while in no way a surprise to me, would be comparable to finding out that RNC Committee members had actively been plotting to call attention to a pro-choice Republican's stance on abortion in hopes of hurting his campaign. (All right. This is an admittedly absurd example. I'm pretty sure all of the Republicans who went for the nomination this time around were self-professed pro-lifers--with occasional exceptions for rape, incest, and/or situations wherein the mother's life was threatened.)

Speaking of the RNC Committee, it would be interesting to see their e-mails emerge. My guess is that it would be an absolute shit show.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

In all serious, though, concerning the DNC Committee e-mail leaks, the whole idea that the Sanders campaign was being treated unfairly and that the DNC Committee was actively conspiring against the Sanders campaign was laughed off as a wacky conspiracy theory, and Sanders supporters were mocked for buying into it. It then turns out that the DNC Committee was actively and incontrovertibly conspiring against the Sanders campaign. There's documented proof and that no one's denying that these e-mails are real, and the majority of Clinton's supporters appear to be totally cool with it. Why? How? It's pretty fucked up.

Another thing that's pretty fucked up is the attempt to focus on how the Russians were probably responsible for the leak. This is another deflection. Instead of focusing on this truly fucked up thing the DNC Committee did--this thing that was once dismissed as a conspiracy theory--at least some corner of the media and some Clinton supporters have downplayed the thing as something that was more-or-less already known and not even that big a deal and have tried to shift the dialog to the question of Russian culpability in the matter. It's weird to me that the dialog has become "Bad, bad Russia!" instead of "Hey, Russia may have actually helped expose gross political corruption and the willful deception of Americans!"

I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans and Sanders supporters focusing on how incredibly fucked up this is, but I'd like to see more Clinton supporters acknowledging it. I realize that Clinton supporters want to see their candidate win at all costs, but when I see them shrugging their shoulders at things like this, and when I see them shrugging their shoulders at all the other shit, it makes me wonder how much they'll shrug their shoulders at.
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

The Swollen Goiter of God wrote:I'm unsure why would it matter to you whether or not the site reporting it was a conservative site if you weren't bothered by it. I took your initial post in response to my Washington Times link as an indication that you thought Wasserman Schultz's agreeing to serve as honorary chair of Clinton's campaign’s fifty-state program was an example of right wing calumny. I own that I could have misread your intentions. Still, The Washington Times quotes Clinton directly, so I'm unsure why you'd use the kind of language you used in the original post unless you felt the article's claim that Clinton appointed Wasserman Schultz to the position somehow rang false to you.
I just have an inherent distrust of conservative news sites like that since so many of them have a long, well documented history of, at very least, stretching the truth to fit their ideology. There's a reason why them, Breitbart, Fox, the Glenn Beck site, Drudge, Newsmax, et al.. are so often taken by right wingers as gospel-they write in such a way as to give people of that mindset exactly what they want to hear. It's even at a point now where I'll try to track down a direct quote from a middle ground and/or left leaning site when I see one on a right wing blog, just to be sure.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

If you ever wanted proof that left-leaning sites were shaping narratives and were doing so at the behest of higher-ups on the left, you just got it from WikiLeaks. I don't know that it will make you equally distrustful of both left-leaning and right-leaning media sites, but if you weren't already distrustful of left-leaning media sites, you now have some cause to be.
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

Oh of course they are. There's a reason why I try to look at both sides. I'm as distrustful of, say, The Daily Kos as I am of The Washington Times.

Well, honestly, I try to stick to middle of the road sites for my news since I don't anticipate a bias in their reporting, but if I do see something like that story you posted from the Times, I'm going to turn elsewhere to make sure it's true. Same as if I'd seen it on the Daily Kos.
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

My apologies, by the way. Not trying to ignore the rest of what you wrote up there, I'm just posting from work and not able to fire off long replies at the moment.
User avatar
Scotia
Money Bag Polisher - 100 Posts
Money Bag Polisher - 100 Posts
Posts: 216
Joined: April 10th, 2014, 6:03 pm
Location: New Scotland, according to the Romans

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Scotia »

You know, this just goes to show you how far removed from the filthy masses the professional political class really is. Does the Clinton campaign seriously not realize how unethical it is to be associated with Wasserman Schultz right now? Surely Democratic handlers would advise to put a barge pole between her and them. It smacks of nepotism and just dirty politics. Same with Ailes being connected to the Trump camp.

It brings to mind a not so dissimilar event concerning Justin Trudeau, the current boy wonder of hipster politics. He ardently campaigned on a platform that concentrated on the rich vs have-not wedge that most Canadians find themselves supplanted within. One policy that he focused on in particular was a chid tax credit to all Canadians based on household income. A revamped baby bonus if you will that is much more generous to the poor than the well off. He stumped that millionaires like himself should not qualify for this cash since folks like him don't need it. This policy helped him get elected. It was popular, it was fair, and hell it was free fukin’ money.

Ahh, but what does our shiny new PM do within the first month of office? He clouds the water by hiring not one but two full time nannies to assist with his own childcare. Paid for by Canadian tax payers. He is a self professed millionaire. The son of a millionaire and former Prime Minister. How far from the regular joe do you have to live to understand how fuked up this looks? Is there no one in his squad or in his family that could have tapped him on the shoulder and said, "hey Justin, this is going to make you look like a tool, don't do it man.” It simply screams hypocracy and insincerity.

I guess my point is we are no longer surprised by the decisions and appointments made by politicians anymore. The bar has been dropped so low in the last year or so that anything goes. It's a shitshow.
User avatar
Space Tycoon
ü83r l33t - 1338 Posts
ü83r l33t - 1338 Posts
Posts: 2429
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 12:16 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Soviet Canuckistan

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Space Tycoon »

Well said, Scot.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Dalty »

Over here it's the left-wing politicians who campaign against selective schools then won't send their own children into state education and go Private instead.
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

I remain unbothered by the ethics of the Clinton campaign being involved with DWS right now. I'm incredibly bothered by the intelligence of it. All she's done nationally was drive the party into the ground in 2014. No one should want anything to do with her and it's completely bizarre both that she was allowed to lead the DNC this far or that Clinton would still cling to her in spite of this scandal and her demonstrable incompetence at politics.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

You're unbothered by the ethics of a campaign that publicly embraces someone who actively undermined the democratic process?
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

I don't see it that way.
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

This more or less says it how I see it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/truth-debbie ... 00091.html

Of course she was underhanded. But she was also the head of the Democratic National Committee. Bernie has spent a career reminding people he's not actually a Democrat, should it come as a shock that the head of the DNC wanted to elect a lifelong Democrat with both a solid resume and decades of party loyalty?

The methods were underhanded and as the article says, some of the schemes they plotted were straight up dumb, but it makes sense and you can bet that Reince Preibus has a few thousand emails stored up showing him doing everything imaginable to stop Trump for the exact same reasons. She was just more effective at achieving her end goal, even if the methodology was sloppy.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Dalty »

To appease the Sandernistas she has had to talk upping the minimum federal wage, end capital punishment, legalise marijuana and commit to a poorly defined climate change agenda. Doesn't all of that knock her chances of recruiting centre right drifters from the GOP who were doubting being able to vote for Trump??
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

Nah. Most center-right people are in favor of all those things.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Dalty »

I genuinely think the only chance we have is that a lot of Repubs decide they just can't bring themselves to do it.
User avatar
Adam54
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 3506
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:13 pm
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Re: The 2016 Sleazy Elitist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Post by Adam54 »

The Bernie supporters appear to be quickly falling in line and there are plenty of those Republicans. I'm back up to a solid 80% confidence he won't win.
Post Reply