2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIllegal Hacking
that does not show much. If we want to debate the merits and demerits, and if everyone is as pure as snow, let's open up bernie campaign's emails and Trump emails. Don't want to show your emails? Then probably should not talk about personal thoughts of personal people expressed in personal emails that were not supposed to be aired out aloud. However, if there were ANY actions, that were unfair (not ideas discussed), then they are fair game.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)well suited to scoundrels only doing what -everyone- else does?
zenabby
(364 posts)This is like a court of law where only one side is expected to show evidence, and not the other side. Since we are after truth, let's make it real. I have confidence in Hillary's character and Bernie's character. Wait, what are you suggesting? That Bernie side might have done something to be criticized or unfair?
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)From zenabby -
However, if there were ANY actions, that were unfair (not ideas discussed), then they are fair game.....Case closed...
Scuba
(53,475 posts)did they do it too? Bernie's team I mean? Or who ever is criticizing...Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy? Isn't that why evidence obtained by not the right means is not allowed to be presented in the court of law?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)No one cares what the SBS & HRC staff said about one another.
The dnc was supposed to be an honest broker. They failed at that.
Furthermore, what are voters of minority religions to think about the dnc, and by extention, the Democratic Party, when the dnc was going to use a candidate's beliefs or non-beliefs against them? Hypocrites maybe? Unethical for sure.
We are better than that.
glennward
(989 posts)Not ALL staffers did this and no actions were taken by anyone to DO anything unfair against Bernie. People have opinions and thoughts and feelings. Staffers don't become machines when they are working. The real issue is what, if anything did they do to act upon their feelings? As far as I can tell NOTHING!! Certainly nothing like gaining access to one campaign's contributor list and sharing it with the opposing team. If anything, it appears that DNC actual actions hurt the Hillary campaign more than the Sanders' campaign.
katsy
(4,246 posts)Bringing up a candidate's beliefs as a way to garner a couple of points in the polls is playing to people's bigotry. It is unethical, against dnc charter and not how we, as Democrats, operate. Full. Stop.
We are a big tent party. How can you even think this is ok? Maybe next election cycle we should alienate the jewish, native americans, eastern indians? What? This was monumentally insulting and stupid.
Making excuses for it is wrong.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)You realize you just tacitly agreed that the DNC was acting as HRC's campaign, don't you?
You should think this line of thought through some more before pushing it.
that Hillary was a true democrat, and Bernie was independent-democrat. Hillary has years of relationship building with these people. There is no doubt they preferred her personally. However is there any proof of action that was biased and enabled Hillary to win? No.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)speeches to Wall Street too since we're talking about seeing how "pure as snow" our candidates are? Would seem like a good idea to me....a gesture of "see, I have nothing to hide". They are fair game...as you so eloquently put it.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)the transcripts be released in the vein of openness and honesty, or not? Since you believe all emails should be released for that purpose from both camps, why stop there?
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)thought you were the OP poster. That being the case, why stop at just tax returns? To be honest with you I am far more interested, as a voter, in what the candidates said in high paid speeches to Wall Street, than I am in what their tax returns say....this being an anti-Wall St. election and all. Wass TPP offered to them in the form of a guarantee? Who knows...the voters sure as hell don't. What we need is full disclosure requirements for all of our candidates.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)When Sanders didn't do it, it makes you wonder ... what is he hiding ... I feel the same way about tRump.
No candidate has EVER been required to release paid speeches. And if those speeches didn't reveal what her opponents wanted, they'd probably then reach for something else to be released. I feel it's best to stop the fishing expeditions right up front. Seeing that you want something done that has NEVER been asked before, but seem to have few issues with not releasing something that has become standard practice is highly partisan of you.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)pretty confident the speeches contained guarantees for support of TPP and such so i probably really don't need to hear them to figure out what they contained. Aside from that though, the OP calls for transparency. Why not include the speeches/ If my assumptions are correct, don't you think that is pertinent information to voters before they head to the polls?
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)zenabby
(364 posts)All DNC emails, all Bernie emails, all Hillary campaign emails, all tax returns, all campaign fund usage, all speeches ever given by Hillary and Bernie so far. Either that or nothing. Half truths, extrapolations and half exposures mean nothing.