Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Not with a bang but a whimper

The Corner: "Bernie Sanders' 2016 story comes to an end"
Bernie Sanders fans have every reason to be disappointed and angry. We now know, thanks to WikiLeaks, that not only did the Democratic National Committee staff strongly prefer Hillary Clinton, but they sat around thinking up new ways to hit Sanders, including contemplating making him elaborate on his religious beliefs. They scheduled the minimal number of early debates and put them in the most inconvenient timeslots. In a party without super delegates, the entire narrative throughout the primary would be different.
Not only did Sanders suffer from DNC shenanigans, it turns out the Clinton campaign was siphoning campaign money that was supposed to be split with state campaigns.  Bernie and his followers have every right to rage against a system rigged against him, but he folded like a card table.


Anonymous said...

Not that I doubt the result would have been different had another fringe Democrat challenged Hillary, but Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, he's been an independent for the past 35 years. Why should the Democratic party support him in the same manner as a lifelong "true believer"?

Lets not be hypocritical here. If the RNC emails were made public, you can be damn sure that the RNC was trying to do the same thing to Trump, they just failed miserably because they didn't have an alternate candidate worth a damn. Particularly since Trump isn't any more of a Republican than Bernie is a Democrat. I seriously doubt Trump even wants to be President, but his ego drove us to where we are now.

If Ginsburg croaked, instead of Scalia, I'd probably have even voted for Hillary over Trump since Hillary getting elected guarantees the usual midterm Republican gains in Congress and political gridlock is what we need to counterbalance the Hillary crazy and the tea party crazy.

Anonymous said...

including contemplating making him elaborate on his religious beliefs

The sincerity of Republicans on this subject is touching, as they rally behind a man who didn't merely "sit around thinking," but has openly questioned Hillary Clinton's religion, Barack Obama's religion, Mitt Romney's religion, and Ted Cruz's religion.

The "political correctness" criticism, it comes and it goes as needed.

Anonymously unclear on the concept said...

Um, a candidate questioning opponents' religion is sort of (how shall I say this?) "different" than a supposedly neutral intra-party organization doing so within its own internal pool of candidates in order to put its thumb on the scale for one of them.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and it's more than different (or "different"), it's worse.

Actually doing it is different from proposing doing it. That concept's not to your taste, obviously.

When the DNC guy proposed it, his idea went nowhere. After his suggestion was exposed and the DNC guy was widely condemned, he apologized. When Trump was widely condemned for doing it, he reiterated his comments, and later applied the tactic to additional people.

Amen, and Amen said...

...the DNC guy...

I love it. "The DNC guy" just happened to be the CFO of the entire organization. Was his suggestion condemned by others at the top? Well, does getting a response of "AMEN" from the CEO of the entire organization sound like condemnation? Does the fact that the DNC guy subsequently denied that the email was even about Sanders after it was exposed, sound like someone who's feeling apologetic? Only after holy hell rained down on his head from people outside the DNC did he finally (a) stop lying, and (b) "apologize", for what that was worth.

"But Trump actually did it!" you protest. Yes, he questioned Hillary's religious faith, and that of others. So what? That's him, directly, saying, "We don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion." Whether a candidate should go there is something on which people will disagree. But he didn't propose, like the DNC's CFO, to sneakily get a planted questioner to broach the subject so that it didn't seem to come from him.

Hell, it would have been a huge story if plotting to "get someone to ask questions," was revealed by their emails as a strategy against Trump. "Dirty tricks," I believe that would be called. But what on earth do you call it when it's against one of your own friggin' candidates?

Anonymous said...

Wow. Who knew Trump's ass tasted so good?

[Thwap!] said...

It's been too long since your last good towel throw. Thanks for a nice one.

Just as a suggestion so you don't have to embarrass yourself unnecessarily in the future: You may want to consider staying out of threads where it's obvious you're not going to be able to argue yourself out of a paper bag. It's really just about the art of picking and choosing your spots.

Think of it this way: the damage you're trying to prevent, and the points you're trying to distract away from, only end up getting enhanced when you allow yourself to hope you can get away with it. Smh.

Anonymous said...

Your house must look like a men's locker room, with all the towels you've gloriously collected.

What entertains me this morning is that I'd initially added, but dropped the following:
Best of all, you don't even honestly believe that a proposal, let alone an unused proposal, is worse than actual behavior. But there are imaginary online battles to pretend to win.

Must you always live down to expectations?

Post Towel-Throw Infraction said...

The reason you dropped the italicized portion cited is because you realized it was a fallacy that I had already demolished, towel-breath.


Anonymous said...

Your sincere reasoning process above - "So what?" - was the demolishiest demolishing ever. BIG win for you. I'm still reeling. Best of all, that newest victory towel will be perfect for wiping the orange ass tan off your soft, puckered lips.

Tip: If you're determined to troll, try to at least be an interesting one.