Are you?
Serious question. What could possibly change your mind about her? How does one prove a negative?
Well again, I see absolutely nothing, as in zilch, nada, with bias that has not been acted upon, and in fact you have earlier agreed that such is unavoidable. That anyone leaps from bias existing in several DNC staff to therefore Clinton deserves to be “dogged by charges of corruption for her tenure” is to me something I expect from the same people who brought us Vince Foster and Birtherism but it is of the same ilk.
I have attempted to start a broader discussion regarding whether or not some bias actually is a feature or a bug but there appears to be no interest. I personally see the arguments to be made on both sides.
Not toast.
13.6% margin of victory. She warn’t even stale bread.
The OP defined toast as stepping down or being removed as DNC Chair. By that standard she’s been toast for a while now.
I’m glad she won her primary. I don’t think she did anything wrong and toasted herself to avoid becoming a distraction.
Yep. I was solely talking about her stepping down or being dumped as the chair of the DNC. And that happened.
If she had lost her seat in the primary I doubt I would have shed a tear.
My mind HAS been changed about her. I didn’t start off thinking this way. I wasn’t in the tank for Hillary but I fully supported her. I had no questions about her after the Benghazi hearing, she killed that. The Republicans were doing more damage to themselves than they could ever do to her. Then came the allegations from the Bernie campaign, I dismissed those because everyone said “That’s ridiculous”
Then evidence emerged that the Democratic National Party was biased and people here seemed to think that not only was the bias OK, it would have been OK to tilt the playing field in Hillary’s favor.
It makes all the other stuff that questions her honesty and character seem more likely.
I don’t know. Trust is hard to restore after it has been lost. What would change your mind about Bernie or Trump?
Why? Was there ANY evidence that Hillary killed Vince Foster? Or that she even wanted to kill Vince Foster? No.
Is there any evidence that Obama was born in Kenya? Is there any evidence that the Birth Certificate issued by Hawaii might be fraudulent?
Is there any evidence that there might have been bias in the primary process? Why yes, the head of the DNC and the DNC staffers expressed their bias against Bernie and for Hillary in private emails. If we saw these sort of emails being passed around the Ferguson police station, would you ask for evidence that they acted upon that bias or would you suspect that that such action might have occurred without actually seeing it on film?
I am very interested in the notion that several of the posters here have that its a feature. A notion that they believe strongly enough to accuse anyone questioning the bias of doing so because they are conservatives. A notion they believe strongly enough to say that the only reason anyone even cares about this bias is because Julian Assange leaked the emails.
Bernie’s fundraising and vendetta against DWS seems to be pretty useless. Hopefully, this shows his Senate colleagues that Bernie can be ignored in the next congress.
I’m on record as liking a lot of Bernie’s policies. My issues with him were primarily electability and the ability to get anything done if he were elected. I wasn’t particularly thrilled with the angry old man stuff he pulled during the primary, but I long ago accepted that there is no such thing as the perfect candidate.
Trump would need a brain, attitude, and knowledge transplant for me to believe that he’s anything but an egomaniacal, narcissistic sociopath. And the evidence pretty much bears me out.
Wait a second… you don’t trust Clinton now because of actions of some members of the DNC?
There is no evidence that there was bias in the the primary process. There is evidence that some people involved in the process had personal biases that they did not act on. Personal biases are unavoidable. These are people and not robots.
There were emails that showed bias in the investigation of the Ferguson PD. There was also a mountain of other evidence that there was systemic bias exercised by the Ferguson PD. Here’s the report.
When reports of the hacked DNC emails came out I thought, “Oh, this looks bad.” But when I looked closer I came to the conclusion that one guy at the DNC is a giant douchebag. There is not one shred of evidence that the DNC tilted the playing field in Clinton’s favor.
Clinton had advantages in the primary from being a life long Democrat with near universal name recognition. These advantages were not put in place by the DNC and these advantages are a feature not a bug.
Tim Canova acting exactly like you’d expect a Bernie Bro, “I concede that DWS is a corporate stooge.”
One of the many reasons I despised Bernie was the sour grapes every time he lost. Looks like Canova is following in his footsteps
Your entire post is well-argued. I’d add that the Ferguson PD makes a poor analogy with the Democratic National Committee, because the Ferguson PD are sworn to see all they deal with as being equal before the law. But the DNC are not sworn to see all candidates as equally likely to win a general election.
The points have been addressed by others.
I’ll play the PD example but let’s use say Vancouver. There are e-mails revealed between two police officers that document some prejudiced beliefs that they have, say they are anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim. There is no evidence that those individuals or any other individuals of the force ever acted in biased manner in their actual duties. Is it rational to go from there to suspecting, let alone strongly suspecting, the Vancouver PD of significant biased actions against Jews or Muslims?
Cause I am pretty sure that if you hacked all of the Vancouver PD officers’ emails and taped all their conversations you find a few expressing some anti-Semitic and some anti-Muslim beliefs.
The fact is most if not all PDs have at least as many with various prejudices as the general population. Having individuals on the force with prejudices of various sorts is regrettable but unavoidable. Finding that it exists would not shock; being unable to find any OTOH would. Acting on it is what is forbidden.
No but under the rules they are required to make the primary process fair and equitable. They most likely did but only because Clinton was a shoo-in. It’s an open question of what they would have done had there been a chance of Sanders winning.
Since people seem to need reminding, here is Symone Sanders:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoPomsiVUAEnTno.jpg
(read from bottom, up)
Of course. If a Trump supporter did something like this would you simply dismiss it or would you link it to Trump despite the fact that it wasn’t Trump himself that did it.
It perpetuates the impression that the system is rigged.
They are supposed to be impartial. If they cannot be impartial then they shouldn’t take the goddam job.
And how do you know they didn’t act on their bias? Because they said so?
And there are emails that showed bias at the DNC. The Bernie Bros will tell you that there is a mountain of evidence that there was bias exercised throughout the primary process.
I suspect that the defenders of the Ferguson police department could say something similar. “Oh it was just a few bad apples that sent those emails, they were jerks and we have gotten rid of them” So problem solved, nothing more need be done here and no need for there to be a crisis of confidence in the Ferguson police department
Clinton’s name recognition is not what people were upset about. And people were not saying that Clinton’s name recognition were a feature, they were saying that the exercise of bias towards a long time Democrat and against a recent alleged convert with some electability issues is a feature not a bug. Regardless of whether or not people acted on their bias, people in this thread said that acting on that bias would have been a feature not a bug.
Yes, that makes all the problems go away. The DNC never swore to be fair so its ok if they’re not. :rolleyes: