Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:13 PM Jul 2016

All the Sunday Morning talk shows referenced the wiki leaked emails and every show repeated

ONE and only ONE email related to Sanders whereby the guy questions the fact that we don't know whether Sanders is Jewish or an atheist. I assume that since this was the ONLY email discussed on EVERY Sunday Morning Talk Show this a.m. that this had to be the most scandalous and salacious. Are we now in a point in time as Democrats where NO ONE can say anything about someone running for the highest office in the land? Particularly among those people who are running the DNC. I happen to think that the comment was no BFD to raise at the DNC level where people are making decisions about who to throw their support behind among candidates running for office. You can bet your last dollar that the opposition (the 17 Repugs that were running for president) weren't going to be so politically correct. Sanders had a major part of his adult life unaccounted for between leaving college and resurfacing to run for mayor of Burlington, VT. He was raised in the Jewish faith and many on this board and elsewhere had raised the issue that he had spent time living in a Russian commune, and had renounced Judaism. At some point during this time, he dabbled in erotic writings. Heck, half of what I learned about Sanders during his campaign, I learned here on DU, complete with sources and links. And we should know everything of significance which might influence our decision on which candidate to support in the primaries and GE. So why is it okay to discuss this matter here on DU, but grounds for firing at the DNC HQs? What was so wrong about raising this issue in a discussion at the DNC level? Obviously nothing much came of it, since they allowed him to run as a Dem even though he has always maintained his independence even as he caucused with the Dems. But because something has come to light, (something so horrific - NOT REALLY) has now surfaced in emails stolen by the Russians in their quest to get the most unqualified candidate to every run for the presidency elected, all the Dems are running for cover.

This is the thing that disturbs me the most about the Dems. They are so quick to throw their fellow Dems under the bus. The Repugs, not so much. The Repugs (that matter) have all gotten in line behind Trump no matter what outrageous thing he has said over the past 17 months. The Evangelicals don't give a DAMN that he has had three wives, doesn't know that 2 Corinthians is pronounced Second Corinthians which shows he has no familiarity with the BIBLE, his favorite book; set up a fraudulent 'university' that scammed people of their hard earned money, manufactures his own overpriced crap in 8 foreign countries while criticizing other companies who have shipped jobs overseas and has NO PLAN legitimate or otherwise for how he is going to create MILLIONS and MILLIONS of new jobs in this country. He keeps up the lie that he can't reveal his tax returns like every past presidential nominee had done since Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon has done to keep the electorate from nominating and electing a president who turns out to be a tax cheat.

But the scaredy cat Dems, at the first sign of a scandal, no matter how inconsequential will throw their Mother under the bus, if the GOP plays the 'scandalous' card and everyone runs for cover. I applaud DWS for stepping aside so that she doesn't continue to dominate the News cycle for a Press in search of a scandal. As for the Dems who ran screaming "hair on fire" this a.m. on the Sunday shows, I wish they would grow a spine.
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
All the Sunday Morning talk shows referenced the wiki leaked emails and every show repeated (Original Post) politicaljunkie41910 Jul 2016 OP
Did DWS send or receive the disputed email? yallerdawg Jul 2016 #1
Kinda like we never knew exactly who was aware of the data breach. annavictorious Jul 2016 #2
According to the email played around the world, this a.m., politicaljunkie41910 Jul 2016 #3
She neither sent nor received (in most cases). But regarding Hortensis Jul 2016 #7
False equivalency much? Bias violates the DNC's own charter and the religious crap violates merrily Jul 2016 #4
The same way people slammed HRC and now Kaine for having faith? Hmmmmm. bettyellen Jul 2016 #8
Which of those people were under a duty NOT to "slam" HRC and Kaine? Hmmmm? merrily Jul 2016 #11
The ones who signed the TOS here. bettyellen Jul 2016 #12
The only remedy for that is alerting and that is still a massively false equivalency. merrily Jul 2016 #15
Good eye. Rex Jul 2016 #14
Thanks, Rex. merrily Jul 2016 #16
I am great, hope you are too. Rex Jul 2016 #17
Glad to hear you're great! I am almost always in good spirits, but, lately, I've been bordering on merrily Jul 2016 #18
Anytime someone brings up TOS, it is because their is no rebuttal or it is a TOS violation. Rex Jul 2016 #19
At the time of that email, who says that they were discussing the Dems platform. politicaljunkie41910 Jul 2016 #10
I noticed that Chris Hayes made a very quick passing remark that in that e-mail it was either glennward Jul 2016 #5
Here is one report on how deceptive the Wiki accusations are.... bettyellen Jul 2016 #9
hmmmmm, the same MSM who told us there were WMDs in Iraq. F**k em still_one Jul 2016 #6
Did anyone mention that hacking computers is a crime? We were attacked!!! L. Coyote Jul 2016 #13
Morning Joe has read that email twice today--they are ragging on and on about it. riversedge Jul 2016 #20
He lived on a kibbutz in Israel...not a "Russian commune". Ken Burch Jul 2016 #21
I wonder how the story morphed from kibbutz into "Russian commune" n/t eShirl Jul 2016 #22
And they all referred to a "massive email leak," implying that there were massive numbers pnwmom Jul 2016 #23
The election at this moment has swung by two false e-mail "scandals" Cosmocat Jul 2016 #24
 

annavictorious

(934 posts)
2. Kinda like we never knew exactly who was aware of the data breach.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:25 PM
Jul 2016

In that case, the two employees involved lost their jobs, and we all moved on. *Someone* at the top got the benefit of the doubt.

So the stupid strategy that two people talked about was never carried out. And there's no evidence that DWS even knew about it. And if she did know about it, maybe she was the one who shut it down because it never got done.

The MSM wants ratings, and Rapey Julian is the pawn of someone who wants Trump.

And the progressive pure, pwned and played, thinks it won a moral victory.

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)
3. According to the email played around the world, this a.m.,
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:33 PM
Jul 2016

she wasn't listed as one those it was addressed to. But that didn't seem to matter. They were out for scalps this morning and DWS had to go.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
7. She neither sent nor received (in most cases). But regarding
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:15 PM
Jul 2016

the OP's bash on Democrats (me among many millions), "But the scaredy cat Dems, at the first sign of a scandal, no matter how inconsequential will throw their Mother under the bus, if the GOP plays the 'scandalous' card and everyone runs for cover":

Hillary has immediately appointed Wasserman Schultz to a high-level position in her campaign, and her decision and DWS have already been praised by President Obama and VP Biden. And there'll be others no doubt.

I stand with their opposition to the cynical, and in some cases depraved, attempt to destroy the career of one person for political gain.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
4. False equivalency much? Bias violates the DNC's own charter and the religious crap violates
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:56 PM
Jul 2016

the Democrats own platform. Not to mention that the US Constitution expressly says there shall be no religious test for the office of President.

It's not a matter of no one's being able to make any criticism of Sanders. Lord knows, anyone who read DU during the last two years know what bs that claim is.

BTW, I just heard Ed Rendell discussing more than one religiously bigoted email and my understanding is that we have not seen all of them yet. Marshall's apology (on Facebook, to all Marshall offended, but not directly or specifically to Senator Sanders!) references more than one email. So, I am not sure there was just one, but the number is irrelevant. And, campaign surrogates did mention the possibility of Sanders' atheism on Sunday talk shows. So did some DUers, calling it either atheism or pantheism. There were also anti-Semitic posts and, IMO, all of it was shameful.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
11. Which of those people were under a duty NOT to "slam" HRC and Kaine? Hmmmm?
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:20 PM
Jul 2016

You replied to a post about false equivalency with what seems to be a false equivalency.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
15. The only remedy for that is alerting and that is still a massively false equivalency.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:31 PM
Jul 2016

Much as some DUers think posts on DU determine election outcomes, DU posters were not in a position of power.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
17. I am great, hope you are too.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:34 PM
Jul 2016

See, they threaten you but don't alert on your post because they know they have nothing.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
18. Glad to hear you're great! I am almost always in good spirits, but, lately, I've been bordering on
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:43 PM
Jul 2016

euphoria.

I'm fine if they alert, even though many of Bernie's supporters are no longer jurying. I don't like unfairness and I would consider a banning for what I post unfair.The TOS did not forbid criticism of Hillary during a primary and mine was always factual. Since the TOS I have not posted much, if anything, that is negative about Hillary. Marshall's email is on Marshall.

All that aside, if I get banned, I get banned. I would miss our exchanges, my board friend, but I could still read your posts now and again.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
19. Anytime someone brings up TOS, it is because their is no rebuttal or it is a TOS violation.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:50 PM
Jul 2016

I've never seen you 'slam' anyone. I wouldn't worry too much about it. BS is out, DWS is out and we are all onboard with defeating Trump. Those that still want to cause resentment between the two groups should take notice.

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)
10. At the time of that email, who says that they were discussing the Dems platform.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:19 PM
Jul 2016

The US Constitution doesn't discuss perverts, but i doubt that we as Dems would want to nominate someone who was a known pervert. FTR, I'm not insinuating that Sanders is a pervert either, but the fact that people at the highest levels of the Democratic Party cannot even discuss matters that might potentially doom a candidacy, is deeply troubling. BTW, these are the people who were working hard to raise money for the various campaigns. They have a right to make decisions based on what they perceive to be the viability of the candidates considering that financial resources are limited.

As far as Ed Rendell discussing emails that we haven't seen, I will avoid discussing things that I have not seen. When such emails do surface, we can discuss them then based on what we know, not whats being speculated upon.

 

glennward

(989 posts)
5. I noticed that Chris Hayes made a very quick passing remark that in that e-mail it was either
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:59 PM
Jul 2016

stated or responded to that attacking Sanders on religion "would be wrong." I haven't heard about that from anyone else.

Is there a link to the actual e-mails? Thanks.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
23. And they all referred to a "massive email leak," implying that there were massive numbers
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 06:46 AM
Jul 2016

of terrible emails -- instead of one really nasty one and several not-so-nice (but maybe justified in the context.)

One of the emails I saw criticized simply said: LOL. It was in response to a Bernie campaign announcement that they disagreed with (they disagreed that a California debate had been agreed on.)

Why is the media whipping this nothingburger into a huge story? If we end up with a President Trump it will be because they were complicit.

Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
24. The election at this moment has swung by two false e-mail "scandals"
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 07:32 AM
Jul 2016

They hit Clinton HARD two weeks ago with the Comey hatchet job, now this.

Now this ...

Donald Trump ... No more need be said, but the dynamics of the race now are completely flipped over two completely ginned up e-mail "controversies."

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»All the Sunday Morning ta...