Late Night Open Thread: Trump Campaign Still Courting Sanders Voters

… Or so I assume, since the Observer is owned by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.

A percentage of every advertisement purchased was paid to Old Towne Media and Devine Mulvey Longabough for brokering the media contracts. The latter was run by Sanders’ senior strategist, Tad Devine, who also received a cut for deals brokered through Old Towne. Devine’s cut totaled at least $10 million by the end of May 2016, according to an investigative report by Slate—in addition to over $5 million paid to his firm. (This would be over half a million average donations to the Sanders campaign.)…

Each dollar that went to Devine and the other political insiders reaping millions off of the Sanders campaign meant less money for progressive grassroots organizers and activists on the ground. One of the greatest strategizing errors of the Sanders campaign was not focusing more money and efforts on creating a new grassroots method of campaigning. Instead, Sanders relied on traditional methods that made a few elite political consultants millions off the generosity of everyday Americans who supported him. Structures within presidential campaigning are designed to preserve the status quo, benefiting those who charge exorbitant fees for their services in the political world. Sanders’ political revolution failed to change how presidential campaigns are run.

While Sanders’ chief of staff, Jeff Weaver, embodied the revolutionary spirit of the campaign, Devine represented the establishment voice of the Democratic Party…

Nice job of finger-pointing away from Jeff ‘Comic Book Guy’ Weaver, but maybe not the best publicity for Bernie Sanders, now that questions are being raised about the formerly little-noticed entity Old Towne Media LLC and its ties to someone rather closer to Senator Sanders than even his old buddy Jeff.

Now that the Senator is no longer useful as a weight around Hillary Clinton’s ankle, the media seems to have decided he’s more fun as a target…






49 replies
  1. 1
    Kat says:

    Two ‘must reads’:

    Inside the conservative push for states to amend the Constitution — just posted at NYTimes.com.

    And Inside the Deadly World of Private Prisoner Transport

    Tens of thousands of people every year are packed into vans run by for-profit companies with almost no oversight.

  2. 2
    Amir Khalid says:

    Would more media coverage really have helped Bernie’s campaign? Or would it have exposed his flaws as a candidate that much sooner?

  3. 3
    bjacques says:

    I’m less than impressed that most of my $27 widow’s mites went to one of Bernie’s cronies in a media company that didn’t exist for very long. I would think that Bernistas tempted for go for Trump would have similar feelings knowing that he funnels expense money to his family, and at inflated rates.

    (I repeated the link from the earlier thread since it seems even more appropriate here.)

  4. 4
    Kay says:

    Great reporting. Good for them for funding out where the money went instead of just looking at where it came from.
    There’s two reasons we don’t reform campaign finance- people are buying access with donations AND a lot of people are making a lot of money when the donations are spent.
    Maybe Sanders didn’t want to actually run a “clean” campaign- I don’t know- but if someone DID they’d have to completely bypass the system and start from scratch- they’d have to reform SPENDING.
    Sanders was running almost back to back tv ads in Ohio and there was no way he was going to win. It was a waste of money.
    To really do something “revolutionary” on the campaign finance front you’d have to rethink the whole approach- not just donations but media and the intermediaries. Maybe if they reduced the flow of money thru regulation people would have to get creative and they would find a way, although that didn’t happen with Sanders- he was funded by small donations and labor unions but his campaign spending was ultra-conventional, including the grifters and tens of millions in tv ad buys.
    I don’t know how one would do it. I once volunteered for a “no money from nobody” OH Supreme Court candidate. The cycle I volunteered he lost. He eventually won (he’s a justice now and he’s really liberal- as promised) but that was almost a fluke. I don’t know why he won on the 3rd try. People were probably just familiar with his name because he ran so many times.
    He handed out fliers he produced in his garage because it was no money from nobody- he didn’t even take small donations.

  5. 5
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    I wouldn’t trust Jane Sanders with my lunch money. Like a vampire with fresh blood, she’s developed a nice little taste for the finer things, and seems to always be looking around for some new cookie jar. That whole Vatican junket thing was her idea.

  6. 6
    Cat48 says:

    Mr. Kushner lays out Sander’s funny money, while his in law Trump is in debt to the Bank of China &’running for prez. Ughh

  7. 7
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @Kat:

    Inside the conservative push for states to amend the Constitution — just posted at NYTimes.com.

    It always pays to read the last paragraph of any article because that’s were the writer admits the truth

    “The very terms of Article 5 state that proposals aren’t valid unless they’re ratified by three-fourths of the states,” he said. “There’s no controversial idea on the left or the right that won’t have 13 states against it.”

    Which means what ever Conservretard self pollution The Movement(tm) tries, will never become law. But…

    The groups are an amalgam of free-market, low-tax and small-government proponents, often funded by corporations and deeply conservative supporters like the billionaire Koch brothers and Donors Trust, whose contributors are mostly anonymous

    Grifters got a new grift.

  8. 8
    Aardvark Cheeselog says:

    One difference between progressives and RWNJs is that the former get pissed off when their campaign contributions get used up in this kind of grift.

  9. 9
    Bailey says:

    @Aardvark Cheeselog:

    One difference between progressives and RWNJs is that the former get pissed off when their campaign contributions get used up in this kind of grift.

    I would generally agree with that statement.

    What are the odds any of the front pagers will be upset by trails of emails indicating that big donors to the Clinton Foundation were getting access to the Secretary of State?

  10. 10
    msdc says:

    This strikes me as a legitimate story, not a Trump plant. Al Giordano was on Old Towne Media (“the extra E stands for douchebags”) months ago. Good for the Observer for following up on it.

    I don’t have any thoughts on how to reform campaign spending, but not spending any money on Tad Devine would be a great start.

  11. 11
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bailey: What are the odds that this “access” stuff, like every other Clinton “scandal” other than BJ City, proves – after an obscene amount of money, noise-making, and smoke blown up our collective asses expended in “investigating” – turns out to be a big old nothing burger?

  12. 12
    nutella says:

    @Bailey:

    What are the odds any of the front pagers will be upset by trails of emails indicating that big donors to the Clinton Foundation were getting access to the Secretary of State?

    Pretty low, I’d say, since this is another totally fake CDS “scandal”.

  13. 13
    Bailey says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    What are the odds that this “access” stuff, like every other Clinton “scandal” other than BJ City, proves – after an obscene amount of money, noise-making, and smoke blown up our collective asses expended in “investigating” – turns out to be a big old nothing burger?

    If you seriously think that the fall out of HRC not being transparent, forthright, remotely in concert with the findings of the FBI, and her resulting trustworthy numbers a “nothingburger” than I think you are not paying attention. Running against anyone with a pulse other than Donald Trump and she would be having her clock cleaned this election.

    Beyond that, there are certainly, objective and obvious, chains of emails that have people from the Clinton Foundation describing large donors as “friends” and asking SoS to meet with them, which she did. This is absolutely paying for access to government and a huge blur between Clinton’s “private” emails that she did not hand over and what she needed to preserve for government work.

    So again, given that the above scenario actually happened, is this a “nothingburger?”

    Or are you describing “nothingburger” as anything that doesn’t result in actual criminal charges?

    Because the front page topic isn’t going to result in an indictment, either. If anything, the disappointment is because it is an example of “business as usual”, a disappointment coming from Team Bernie.

  14. 14
    Bailey says:

    @nutella:

    Pretty low, I’d say, since this is another totally fake CDS “scandal”.

    What’s “fake” about real emails undercovered demonstrating foundation payment for government access? Unless, of course, you think that is a good, defensible thing?

  15. 15
    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony says:

    @Bailey:
    Maybe because they don’t actually have to pay for access. Billionaires the world over all know each other, hang out once in a while, and donate to each other’s charities. Clinton Foundation or not, that would still be true. Nothing Sanders proposed to do would have made the slightest change in that large network of informal relationships.

  16. 16
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bailey: What a tiresome concern troll it is. Honestly, too tiresome to bother arguing with. “If she were running against anyone else than Trump, this would be a HUGE ISSUE11!!” Yeah, and if my great-aunt had balls, she’d be my great-uncle. So what?

    Yeah, right, nope. For one thing, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you here, and I don’t think the poor little conditional is up for it. For another, there’s no “there” there. There were no “meetings”. Pro-tip, junior: Stop drinking your nymsake for breakfast and PAY ATTENTION: as Dave Weigel said, “if the headline reads, “X Sought Meeting”, that means the *story* is that there WAS NO MEETING.” Got that?

    Try milk on your Cheerios tomorrow morning before you start posting again.

  17. 17
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    @Bailey:

    What’s “fake” about real emails undercovered demonstrating foundation payment for government access?

    I dunno. Seems to me more like a bunch of very wealthy or connected people doing what they do–schmoozing and using their associations with those they know to ask for meetings, streamline processes,etc. Do you really think Bono had some kind of ulterior motive for asking for help from the State Department “broadcasting a live link to the International Space Station during concerts” and that’s the only reason why he donated to the Clinton Foundation?

    Because that’s the kind of stuff we’re talking about. That and things that would have happened anyway, just no emails to Huma Abedin first just to see if there was a shortcut to going through “official” channels. Is anyone really surprised that this is how things go down at that level of society? How do people think the international Uber-wealthy and connected function, anyway? They have the balls to ask for what they want, and know who to go to. It’s the way of this ugly, cold world. The big fish in the small pond wealthy, connected board members in my community get special access all the time to their “friends” in business and government for the same basic things: meetings, advice, assistance navigating the system. Truth is, unless laws are broken, they really don’t get anything much more than anyone else willing to push or inquire. It’s annoying, but it is what it is.

    The real issue is, were proper boundaries followed, were things done ethically. It’s if the “favors” really were favors, and if they were granted and would not have been otherwise without a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I’ve seen no laws broken, no untoward or inappropriate favors granted so far in what’s been reported. And don’t forget–this access thing works both ways. Many times can be a really good thing that it happens, if it gives the US an insight or a benefit in our foreign policy dealings.

    I really don’t see anything illegal or unethical in these emails happened. It’s just political business as usual. What Trump is doing, on the other hand, is outright stealing money from his donors to make himself richer, his kids richer, and associate with known enemies of the United States in order to throw an election. THAT is something I have an issue with. I’d advise you to worry about that shit way more than Hilary’s emails.

  18. 18
    Bailey says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    What a tiresome concern troll it is. Honestly, too tiresome to bother arguing with. “If she were running against anyone else than Trump, this would be a HUGE ISSUE11!!” Yeah, and if my great-aunt had balls, she’d be my great-uncle. So what?

    What an incorrect comparison. It isn’t that if she was running against anyone other than Trump it would be a huge issue. It’s a huge issue either way. If she were running against anyone other than Trump, voters would select the person that had even slightly higher favorables and whom more than 30% of the public found trustworthy. Trump having even higher unfavorables and being pretty much the death knell of the Republic is the only thing that keeps her in the running.

    Yeah, right, nope. For one thing, “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you here, and I don’t think the poor little conditional is up for it. For another, there’s no “there” there. Pro-tip, junior: Stop drinking your nymsake for breakfast and PAY ATTENTION: as Dave Weigel said, “if the headline reads, “X Sought Meeting”, that means the *story* is that there WAS NO MEETING.” Got that?

    Try milk on your Cheerios tomorrow morning before you start posting again.

    Perhaps you should try posting again when you’re not surly and nasty? If you can’t respond like an adult, don’t respond at all.

  19. 19
    Bailey says:

    @Ella in New Mexico:

    I dunno. Seems to me more like a bunch of very wealthy or connected people doing what they do–schmoozing and using their associations with those they know to ask for meetings, streamline processes,etc. Do you really think Bono had some kind of ulterior motive for asking for help from the State Department “broadcasting a live link to the International Space Station during concerts” and that’s the only reason why he donated to the Clinton Foundation?

    Because that’s the kind of stuff we’re talking about. That and things that would have happened anyway, just no emails to Huma Abedin first just to see if there was a shortcut to going through “official” channels. Is anyone really surprised that this is how things go down at that level of society? How do people think the international Uber-wealthy and connected function, anyway? They have the balls to ask for what they want, and know who to go to. It’s the way of this ugly, cold world. The big fish in the small pond wealthy, connected board members in my community get special access all the time to their “friends” in business and government for the same basic things: meetings, advice, assistance navigating the system. Truth is, unless laws are broken, they really don’t get anything much more than anyone else willing to push or inquire. It’s annoying, but it is what it is.

    The real issue is, were proper boundaries followed, were things done ethically. It’s if the “favors” really were favors, and if they were granted and would not have been otherwise without a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I’ve seen no laws broken, no untoward or inappropriate favors granted so far in what’s been reported. And don’t forget–this access thing works both ways. Many times can be a really good thing that it happens, if it gives the US an insight or a benefit in our foreign policy dealings.

    I really don’t see anything illegal or unethical in these emails happened. It’s just political business as usual. .

    But what is the affirmative case for Huma working for the State Department and the Clinton Foundation and Doug Band’s consulting group, all simultaneously? To me that appears there were no boundaries at all.

    And if there are no ethical issues presented in the above relationship, then why should Bill Clinton suddenly announce that when HRC is president, they will take no more foreign donations and he’ll step aside his role? Wouldn’t that have been the proper thing to do when she was SoS? If there was no conflicts of interest, that is?

    I guess I just find this a far more relevant topic (that is sure to be ignored on front pages) than the endless banging on about Tad Devine.

  20. 20
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    @Bailey:
    What is the affirmative case for any trusted advisor to serve elite-level politicians like the President, VP, SOS in more than one capacity? It’s just the way things happen, have always happened, and will continue to happen.

    I also could care less about the “Tad Devine” thing, in the sense that until we can find a way to completely overhaul this awful way we fund political campaigns in this country, including how we monitor spending by candidates and stop them from being able to set up their own “consulting firms” to pay relatives and friends with donations, this shit will continue to happen.

    We cannot ask our candidates to unilaterally disarm in the middle of an election campaign, nor can we blame them for doing what you pretty much would be an idiot NOT to do.

  21. 21
    gwangung says:

    @Ella in New Mexico: I’m bothered more by the unilateral Clinton/Democrat rules than anything else.

  22. 22
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bailey:

    And if there are no ethical issues presented in the above relationship, then why should Bill Clinton suddenly announce that when HRC is president, they will take no more foreign donations and he’ll step aside his role? Wouldn’t that have been the proper thing to do when she was SoS? If there was no conflicts of interest, that is?

    Because of Clinton Rules, guy. Because of people like you saying, “oh, no, the MSM and right-wing nutjobs keep saying there’s something fishy about the Clintons, so it must be true!” They know it. They know that even the *appearance* of scandal is going to get blown up, discussed, talked about, *as if there really were a scandal*.

    Meanwhile, the Bushes? An actual crime family in the White House? Owners and operators of the Bush Foundation? Which actually did all the stuff that people are accusing the Clintons of doing? Was anyone concerned about the fact that Bushes were running it while Bushes were in the White House? Nah. IOKIYAR. If you’re a Clinton – well. That’s different. “Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny”.

    So, how does it feel to be carrying the right-wing’s water for them?

    ETA: “I guess I just find this a far more relevant topic (that is sure to be ignored on front pages) than the endless banging on about Tad Devine.”

    And there’s the tell, right there. It’s “irrelevant” if it’s Bernie Sanders’s people. But if it’s the CLINTONS, oh, boy…there must be something to it!

  23. 23
    Bailey says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    Because of Clinton Rules, guy. Because of people like you saying, “oh, no, the MSM and right-wing nutjobs keep saying there’s something fishy about the Clintons, so it must be true!” They know it. They know that even the *appearance* of scandal is going to get blown up, discussed, talked about, even if *it’s not there*.

    Meanwhile, the Bushes? An actual crime family in the White House? Owners and operators of the Bush Foundation? Which actually did all the stuff that people are accusing the Clintons of doing? Was anyone concerned about the fact that Bushes were running it while Bushes were in the White House? Nah. IOKIYAR. If you’re a Clinton – well. That’s different. “Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny”.

    So, how does it feel to be carrying the right-wing’s water for them?

    Still nasty, huh? Default setting?

    I don’t need to be carrying anyone’s water to note that a situation looks shady as hell. The defense of “oh, but they did it, too!” isn’t terribly impressive to me. I vote left because I think we have a better moral case to make. The Clintons frequently shatter that concept and I, personally, don’t think the rest of the Democratic Party needs to constantly make excuses or downgrade their own ethics to accommodate that.

    Clearly, from the vociferous tone of your replies, you feel differently.

  24. 24
    Bailey says:

    @Ella in New Mexico:

    We cannot ask our candidates to unilaterally disarm in the middle of an election campaign, nor can we blame them for doing what you pretty much would be an idiot NOT to do.

    I agree with this.

    The problem with Clinton is that she manages to get herself into scenarios that truly only idiots do. And for the life of her, she can’t find an obvious way out of them. What fun to look forward to!

  25. 25
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bailey: I’m saying, you don’t seem to understand that despite all the hand-wringing that you’re doing over “the optics”, there ISN’T an issue here. There was no quid pro quo. No one did anything wrong. The Clinton Foundation is transparent about its finances.

    I’m saying, that a “leftist” who persists in believing that there must be something fishy about something – anything, that the Clintons are doing when it ISN’T, in fact, fishy – but saying “oh, I wish people would stop talking about Tad Devine” – because why? He worked for Bernie Sanders? And Bernie Sanders was morally superior in some way to the Clintons because…why, he said so? – is not so much a leftist as a Clinton hater. Haters gonna hate, I guess, but stop trying to pretend that this is a real issue. It’s a ginned-up issue intended to cast shade on the Clintons, and you are gulping it down, asking for more, pressing it on the rest of us and then wondering why we’re looking at you funny. If you haven’t noticed, BJ isn’t a forum for taking Clinton conspiracy theories seriously. There are others. you can find them. Where people will cluck sympathetically when you talk about how AWFUL this all looks, because CLINTONS!

  26. 26
    jl says:

    The story in the twitter link is BS, or at least, the headline is BS. The problems are not unprecedented. In fact, from what I read in the story, GOP aligned ‘social welfare’ fundraising groups do what Sanders wants to do routinely. But when a Democrat wants to do the same, then there are ‘unprecedented’ problems. Funny how that works.

  27. 27
    Bailey says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    I’m saying, you don’t seem to understand that despite all the hand-wringing that you’re doing over “the optics”, there ISN’T an issue here. There was no quid pro quo. No one did anything wrong. The Clinton Foundation is transparent about its finances.

    The first “issue” I see is HRC’s sworn testimony that she handed over all work related emails. Clearly this is not the case. Nor is it the opinion of the federal judge who has ordered the release of another extensive batch of documents.

    I’m saying, that a “leftist” who persists in believing that there must be something fishy about something – anything, that the Clintons are doing when it ISN’T, in fact, fishy – but saying “oh, I wish people would stop talking about Tad Devine” – because why? He worked for Bernie Sanders? And Bernie Sanders was morally superior in some way to the Clintons because…why, he said so? – is not so much a leftist as a Clinton hater.

    Your arguments, such as they, are incredibly juvenile. I shouldn’t bother to respond to them, but surely even you can see that 1.) Bernie Sanders is no longer in this race 2.) Tad Devine was never a candidate for office 3.) In your previous post you were actually suggesting that the comparison was with the Bushes and if they were doing it, it was okay for the Clintons to have the same ambiguous relationships between foreign donations, charitable works, government works and access to officials. And then somehow you childishly conclude that anyone who questions this arrangement is, de facto, a “Clinton Hater.” Yeah, I’m such a hater I voted twice for Bill and even went to his inauguration.

    Haters gonna hate, I guess, but stop trying to pretend that this is a real issue. It’s a ginned-up issue intended to cast shade on the Clintons, and you are gulping it down, asking for more, pressing it on the rest of us and then wondering why we’re looking at you funny. If you haven’t noticed, BJ isn’t a forum for taking Clinton conspiracy theories seriously. There are others. you can find them. Where people will cluck sympathetically when you talk about how AWFUL this all looks, because CLINTONS!

    Excuse makers are excuse makers. Hey, as long as it’s our guys doing it, it must be fine!

  28. 28
    Horatius says:

    Fuck off Bailey.

  29. 29
    Bailey says:

    @Horatius:

    Fuck off Bailey.

    Ah yes. Balloon Juice commentary at its finest. Your contribution is oh so valuable.

  30. 30
    horatius says:

    @Bailey: @Bailey: It looks like you didn’t understand me the first time. Let me repeat that. ‘

    Go fuck yourself Bailey. MissBianca is too nice to say it, but I’m not.

  31. 31
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bailey: You know, I’d call you an idiot, but that would actually be an insult to idiots.

    I presented you with evidence that the Bushes ACTUALLY committed the crimes and misdemeanors that the Clintons are ACCUSED of committing. The point is, you never heard about these things when the Bushes were in office, and even when it’s pointed out to you now, your response is not, “Wow! So that’s what ACTUAL criminal behavior in the White House looks like! I wonder why this wasn’t a bigger issue at the time? I wonder why the APPEARANCE of impropriety on the part of the Clintons is such a red-hot issue? Could it be…MEDIA BIAS?” And by picking up on this shit and uncritically repeating it, even in the face of rational opposition, could I be…perpetuating it?”

    I’m really, really sick of leftists who have decided that “insufficent appearance of purity” on the part of Democrats that they don’t like is the REAL crime, and that losing elections with “purity” intact is better than actually winning, and doing some actual good, in such a morally tainted landscape as American politics. Fuck that shit. I can’t afford to feel that level of moral outrage over bullshit – I have too much actually to lose under a Republican regime.

  32. 32
    Bailey says:

    @horatius:

    It looks like you didn’t understand me the first time. Let me repeat that. ‘

    Go fuck yourself Bailey. MissBianca is too nice to say it, but I’m not.

    LOL. I understood you just fine. Your thoughts are simply not that complicated and are the common results of someone with nothing of value to contribute at all. You are, however, a terrible representative of Balloon Juice commentariat. But I suspect you adore that about yourself.

  33. 33
    Bailey says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    You know, I’d call you an idiot, but that would actually be an insult to idiots.

    Yes, you’ve been so civil throughout this discussion. Wouldn’t want you to veer off-brand, after all.

    I presented you with evidence that the Bushes ACTUALLY committed the crimes and misdemeanors that the Clintons are ACCUSED of committing. The point is, you never heard about these things when the Bushes were in office, and even when it’s pointed out to you now, your response is not, “Wow! So that’s what ACTUAL criminal behavior in the White House looks like! I wonder why this wasn’t a bigger issue at the time? I wonder why the APPEARANCE of impropriety on the part of the Clintons is such a red-hot issue? Could it be…MEDIA BIAS?” And by picking up on this shit and uncritically repeating it, even in the face of rational opposition, could I be…perpetuating it?”

    Who was the government employee during the Bush administration that also kept employment at the Bush Foundation during W’s time in office?

    You seem to think that the issue is a charitable foundation soliciting foreign investment. It isn’t. (And no, charitable organizations do not have to disclose their donors.) However, the Clintons have seemingly intentionally created a very murky relationship with members of their own staff serving dual roles. If you have information on this regarding the Bush’s, please let me know. Your posted articles certainly concluded no such thing.

    Clinton has been not at all forthright or truthful regarding the private server she kept in her house that facilitated content for both Foundation and Government work. And she certainly was not truthful in how much information she turned over to either the State Department or the FBI investigators. This is actual, not the “appearance” of anything. To date, she’s yet to have any interview with the media or conversation with the public (or testimony) that hasn’t been tortured or contradictory. This really has nothing to do with the Bushes and everything to do with her and the murky network she presided over.

    I’m really, really sick of leftists who have decided that “insufficent appearance of purity” on the part of Democrats that they don’t like is the REAL crime, and that losing elections with “purity” intact is better than actually winning, and doing some actual good, in such a morally tainted landscape as American politics. Fuck that shit. I can’t afford to feel that level of moral outrage over bullshit – I have too much actually to lose under a Republican regime.

    I’m really, really sick of leftists who have decided that “insufficent appearance of purity” on the part of Democrats that they don’t like is the REAL crime, and that losing elections with “purity” intact is better than actually winning, and doing some actual good, in such a morally tainted landscape as American politics. Fuck that shit. I can’t afford to feel that level of moral outrage over bullshit – I have too much actually to lose under a Republican regime.

    I really don’t care what you’re “sick” of. And who said she’s “losing?” I mean, she’d be losing if the GOP had managed to put up any other person than Trump, but they didn’t, so she’ll win big. But that doesn’t mean she’s either responded to investigations adequately, been honest with the public, nor provided all required documentation.

    And the initial decision — to keep her own private server — had jack squat to do with winning elections, with or without purity. It was a power play without advantage except to her personally and right now it’s dragging her down unnecessarily.

    PS–Your intermittent all-cap rants are hysterical. Spittle rage at its finest.

  34. 34
    AnonPhenom says:

    @Ella in New Mexico:

    We cannot ask our candidates to unilaterally disarm in the middle of an election campaign, nor can we blame them for doing what you pretty much would be an idiot NOT to do

    So…
    Bernie should have used Ted Devine?

  35. 35
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    @Bailey:

    The problem with Clinton is that she manages to get herself into scenarios that truly only idiots do

    The right wing narrative that Hilary has not been truthful re: emails and such is bunk.

    Look, I’m not sure you even really care, or if you truly are a troll. But you know exactly what this is about. As much as I wish the Clintons were more like the Obamas–aka, boring as shit–they’ve been on too many RWNJ organizations radar for too many decades for anyone to think that if she just does things “right” that somehow they won’t ever have to deal with these kinds of “scandals”.

    The Clintons particular destiny is to always be “caught” doing things that are really not all that different from any other people at the top of the political food chain. And then be dragged through hell and back. The standards for them ARE different, and Miss Bianca is absolutely right: just go back and review pretty much every president in history starting with the juicy goodness of the frigging Bush family and you’ll find equal, and often far, far more egregious offenses.

    When certain people’s entire livelihoods are founded in snooping and harassing and trying to bring down a Clinton, this shit is gonna happen. Why do you think things come to light in the first place? Because Hilary doesn’t really try to hide or deceive in her activities (because there’s nothing really wrong with them, given her status and the demands of her job) she just goes about her business and that often means doing things politicians do–but that when held to a magnifying spotlight, can look unseemly. I mean, really, Trump tried to make her look somehow bad for going to the restroom during a break in a debate. He called her disgusting, and just by bringing it up–which no decent person would have–he made everyone picture poor Hilary in the bathroom taking a whiz. What the hell is she supposed to do with that kind of idiocy?

    Name one person in politics you couldn’t do that to if you were on them, like a laser, focused on burning them for something, ANYTHING, 24/7 and you’ve got a frigging miracle in front of you.

  36. 36
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Ella in New Mexico:

    Name one person in politics you couldn’t do that to if you were on them, like a laser, focused on burning them for something, ANYTHING, 24/7 and you’ve got a frigging miracle in front of you.

    yeah, this.

    @Bailey: THIS -a capitalization for emphasis – is not an “all-caps rant”, maroon. THIS IS ALL CAPS. Do I really need to point this out to you? Of course I do. You’ve proven yourself to be wilfully obtuse about substance, so why not style as well?

    You’re mistaking “contempt for concern trolling” for “spittle-flecked rage”. It’s a commom mistake lefty purity trolls make. particularly men, for some reason.Because they imagine that they’re actually worthy of some Internet stranger’s “rage”. Sad!

  37. 37
    horatius says:

    @Bailey: I adore the fact that I don’t suffer fools who are so stupid they don’t see false equivalences, and can’t follow basic logic. And telling them to go fuck themselves is a much better use of my time.

  38. 38
    horatius says:

    @Miss Bianca: Troll be trollin’

  39. 39
    Bailey says:

    @Ella in New Mexico:

    The right wing narrative that Hilary has not been truthful re: emails and such is bunk.

    You’re kidding, right? The very fact that there are, indeed, even more emails being released already suggests that she hasn’t been wholly honest about her emails.

    And she’s never had a logical rationale for initially setting things up as she did.

    Look, I’m not sure you even really care, or if you truly are a troll.

    I’m not a troll and, presumably, neither is the federal judge ordering the release of additional information. More than that, that anyone who can spot a rather obvious conflict of interest is now considered a “troll” is not powerful evidence of the Democrats actually being a smarter party.

    As much as I wish the Clintons were more like the Obamas–aka, boring as shit–they’ve been on too many RWNJ organizations radar for too many decades for anyone to think that if she just does things “right” that somehow they won’t ever have to deal with these kinds of “scandals”.

    It’s okay to admit that HRC actually makes some very poor decisions without either a.) being party of a vast right wing conspiracy or b.) a troll.

    When certain people’s entire livelihoods are founded in snooping and harassing and trying to bring down a Clinton, this shit is gonna happen. Why do you think things come to light in the first place? Because Hilary doesn’t really try to hide or deceive in her activities (because there’s nothing really wrong with them, given her status and the demands of her job) she just goes about her business and that often means doing things politicians do–but that when held to a magnifying spotlight, can look unseemly.

    Nothing about her email setup looks good. And, in fact, her team was very much trying to hide it, which is a problem. They are on the record as deliberately not doing things the way State would want them done. This really is not debatable.

    The Clintons particular destiny is to always be “caught” doing things that are really not all that different from any other people at the top of the political food chain. And then be dragged through hell and back. The standards for them ARE different, and Miss Bianca is absolutely right: just go back and review pretty much every president in history starting with the juicy goodness of the frigging Bush family and you’ll find equal, and often far, far more egregious offenses.

    I’m not a fan of the Bush family at all, but Miss Bianca’s meritless post said only that the Bushes, too, have a foundation. What was missing was additional context: Did the Bushes have employees that simultaneously served the foundation while they were working in an official government capacity? That doesn’t seem to be true, although I’d welcome evidence to the contrary. If I am reading AP reports correctly, the fact that such a high percentage of people HRC met with as SoS were also Foundation donors is suspect and, apparently, unprecedented.

    Does this mean the Foundation doesn’t do good work? No. But if left leaning voters seriously can’t call out a conflict of interest for what it is without being labeled “trolls’ or “haters” then something is very wrong with the party ranks.

    Name one person in politics you couldn’t do that to if you were on them, like a laser, focused on burning them for something, ANYTHING, 24/7 and you’ve got a frigging miracle in front of you.

    So given HRC’s vast experience in this regard, what’s the affirmative argument that she made a good, transparent, decision about keeping servers in her house and not keeping the personal and professional separated? You don’t even have to look too hard to find this one. I would hope that after 25 years, HRC could start making some common sense decisions and not keep wandering into bear traps.

  40. 40
    Bailey says:

    @horatius:

    I adore the fact that I don’t suffer fools who are so stupid they don’t see false equivalences, and can’t follow basic logic. And telling them to go fuck themselves is a much better use of my time.

    I suspect you don’t even bother to read much, false equivalences or no. And don’t kid yourself — obviously “fuck off” is about as extensive as your vocabulary gets. It’s okay, we can all see that.

  41. 41
    Bailey says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    THIS -a capitalization for emphasis – is not an “all-caps rant”, maroon. THIS IS ALL CAPS.

    You’ve definitely emphasized that you’re a rage-a-holic with insults instead of arguments.

    Do I really need to point this out to you? Of course I do. You’ve proven yourself to be wilfully obtuse about substance, so why not style as well?

    You’ve offered nothing in the way of “substance.” Unless rage is your substance. That could be, I suppose.

    You’re mistaking “contempt for concern trolling” for “spittle-flecked rage”. It’s a commom mistake lefty purity trolls make. particularly men, for some reason.Because they imagine that they’re actually worthy of some Internet stranger’s “rage”. Sad!

    Project much? And what on earth makes you think I’m a man? Are you making assumptions based on zero evidence which is precisely what you’ve done throughout this thread? You’ve thrown out so many accusations that fall flat on their face—are you done yet? You must be exhausted.

  42. 42
    horatius says:

    @Bailey: That’s the only thing you understand. So fuck off concern troll. Even a 5 year old can see the false equivalence you are trying to push. In your entire time on this post, you haven’t made a single point, but have filled the comments section with lots of words. Whatever point you think you have made has been repeatedly refuted using extensive references.

    You don’t have a leg to stand on, and you are wasting our time. Your call for civility, (one your bad faith arguments did not earn), is even more proof that you are a concern troll and do not have any point left to make, if you had any in the first place.

    So, fuck off is the best thing I can say to you.

  43. 43
    tones says:

    @Bailey: you got your answer, didn’t you?
    Not one of them would care one whit even if all of it was true.

  44. 44
    Bailey says:

    @horatius:

    That’s the only thing you understand. So fuck off concern troll. Even a 5 year old can see the false equivalence you are trying to push.

    Really? Perhaps the AP, Slate, Vox — are they all 5 year-old “concern trolls” too? Or can they spot an obvious conflict of interest? Something that is apparently out of your ability?

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....3-14-35-04

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the.....ation.html

    http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8.....nors-State

    So, fuck off is the best thing I can say to you.

    Who are you kidding? You’ve repeatedly shown that’s the only thing you can say. Quelle surprise

  45. 45
    redshirt says:

    @Bailey: If you’re still feeelin’ the Bern, I suggest you get that checked out by a doctor.

  46. 46
    Bailey says:

    @redshirt:

    If you’re still feeelin’ the Bern, I suggest you get that checked out by a doctor.

    LOL. What does “Feelin’ the Bern” have to do with any of the conflicts of interest that HRC demonstrates?

  47. 47
    Bailey says:

    @tones:

    you got your answer, didn’t you?
    Not one of them would care one whit even if all of it was true.

    Clearly. Fealty towards the leader is taking precedence over common sense. Distressing enough to see it as a feature of the right. If there’s no pushback now I can’t imagine her presidency will be remotely successful. At best she’ll be “not Trump.”

  48. 48
    redshirt says:

    @Bailey: You were a Sanders supporter in the Primary, yes?

  49. 49
    Bailey says:

    @redshirt: @redshirt:

    You were a Sanders supporter in the Primary, yes?

    Feel free to come to any pre-drawn conclusion point when you feel like it.

Comments are closed.