Continuing the discussion from Why (or why not) to vote for Bernie Sanders:
link: In wake of email leak, Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down as DNC chair
More:
Have a happy convention. 
Oh, and the Clinton SuperPAC scum thatās attacking our single payer in Colorado? I just wanted to say hi.
keywords: dncleak #dncleak dnc leak wikileaks dnc done goofed backtraced
So you think that turmoil at the convention will somehow end with Sanders as the nominee? How would that work? Or do you envision some other endgame?
We created Bernieās campaign (and momentum) ā and he served his purpose for us. Many corrupt people and organizations are now exposed and weakened. I stated from the beginning in these forums that Bernieās campaign was a long, difficult path and was a small (yet important) part of a much larger grassroots movement puzzle.
Bernieās campaign helped (and continues to help) create inroads thatāve been needed in order for our greater grassroots movements to reach new levels of infiltration into corrupt corridors of American power and corporate media control.
What youāre about to see in the coming months and years is the grassroots movements aligning themselves with hacktivists in more dynamic ways to bring down a corrupt, violent, corporatist aristocracy. Itās already in process and we wonāt be stopped.
Global climate change isnāt waiting for the worst elements of humankind to get its shit together ā therefore, the best of us are acting now.
It wasnāt necessarily just Bernie Sanders that the hubristic assholes shouldāve been afraid of all this time.
The shakeup of the party by its Democratic wing is already well underway (for example in my state), and certainly it should continue, but I was just wondering what benefits you see specifically in convention turmoil.
Thanks for curating a couple of stories here. There were a lot of emails dumped and Iāve been just seeing bits and pieces of information.
Of course it just confirmed what we already knew. This dump isnāt giving us info, itās taking away deniability.
Whatās honestly a little scary about the whole thing is just how stupid they are. If I were in on that conspiracy, I would be meeting people in private saying, āListen, morons, never say anything in an email that you wouldnāt want the public to see.ā Their stupidity and lack of understanding of hacking and leaking makes me think Trump is seriously going to win the presidency.
Great, so they gave Trump his dream candidate, didnāt they?
Bernie would have SHREDDED him once we started Debates, now weāve got Hillary with all this baggage that she made herself by being a typical dishonest politician.
I swear if theyād just put up some no name person they would have crushed Trump. The only obstacle to a Clinton win is that people donāt like Clinton and the stands for exactly the kind of thing that people think their Trump votes can destroy. Someone who people were largely neutral towards would easily defeat someone as odious as Trump.
Iām mobile @ the moment so canāt watch embedded vids, but I caught some video from the Nevada Democratic Convention. The Bern here had totes prepared on the ground well ahead of time.
Anys, @ the convention, Debs did voice votes on a couple of things, the one i particularly remember was the one to end the convention which went a lot like this:
Debs: those in favor of closing convention say aye
Convention: lots of Boos
Debs: those opposed
Convention: even more Boos (significantly more)
Debs: the ayes have it (slams gavel, walks away)
Convention: goes nuts
It was patently offensive.
Yeah, Trevor Noah kind of nailed it.
Clintonās still better than Trump, but at this point weāre going to have a lot of nose-holding in the swing states, arenāt we?
Too bad we canāt have a do-over, eh?
My conservative friends (I think we all have āless enlightenedā people that we care about despite their ignorance on some topics) all want to vote for Trump.
The main complaint they have for the Hilligator is that they donāt trust her - specific item most commonly refereced pertains to āThe Emailsā - but also in general.
How best to overcome that?
One friend I asked him if he truly trusted Drumph &, after thinking about it, his reply was a kind of ānooooā with a ābutā.
After asking him whatās more dangerous:
I left him lost in thought on that. Yet itās ālack of trustā which is the common thread amongst everyone I know which falls into this category.
Edit: gd automangle
I was watching Samantha Bee ask people why they supported Trump and she found one very excited (i.e., not reluctant) Trump supporter who supported Trump because he was like a teenager having a tantrum. āRemember when you were a teenager, how angry you felt at the hypocritical adults around you?ā
So I think there is a different standard being applied. For Clinton people are applying their, āPoliticianā standard, and they are sick of politicians they canāt trust because it seems like you should be able to trust politicians - that politicians you canāt trust should lose office and trustworthiness should be evolved in. But for Trump they are apply a āRebelā standard. They know they canāt trust him, but they donāt expect to be able to trust him. They trust him to do what they want him to do, which is stick it to untrustworthy politicians.
Clinton has to show that sheās worth voting for. Trump has to show that Clinton isnāt worth voting for. Heās the default for those who are angry.
Agree.
I saw something this morning - I think it was the British Wiesel 
- where he was digesting some statements from Cleveland where those who were giving speaches equated āfeelingsā with ātruthā, while the left has their āfactsā the right has their āfeelingsā and they are continually pushing the concept that āfeelingsā are every bit as valid as ātruthā, so if you āfeelā things are worse, even tho the facts not only donāt support that but directly contradict it, the conclusion drawn ābecause feelingsā is every bit as valid (if not more so) and correct and factual as that which is merely drawn from āfactsā.
Well I am fucking angry as hell but not rock stupid either. Do I want a better choice? Hell fucking yes! Do I want to watch Trump burn it all to the ground? Fuck no, not in a million years.
Clinton may be āEvilā but at least it is a cold calculating evil that we will know which way it will jump. Trump is a crapshoot of all kinds of bad outcomes.
You mean into war with Russia? Yeah, thatāll be greeeeaaat. I wonder how many more leaders (including democratically elected ones) sheāll have deposed or assassinated for getting in the way of corporate American interests.
I genuinely donāt know which one is more likely to get into a war with Russia. If I knew, I think I would support the one less likely to do it on that fact alone. I can speculate about the difference in the reasons they would get into war with Russia, but itās very hard to say how likely that is.
Why do you think Clinton will get us in a war with Russia? Of the things Iād see as likely, thatās at the bottom of the list next to āinvents solution to Global Warming in the White House Labs.ā Am I missing some crucial data here?
Would it be better for Trump to be elected and have the US serve as a client state to Russia?
Iāve seen multiple articles about NATOs ability to defend Lithuania and Estonia from Russian aggression. People genuinely think Putin might try to further expand Russian territory and think that the solution to that problem would be military conflict. Clinton is a, when it comes to war, a neo-con hawk.
That relates to what was on my mind. I donāt trust Clinton, but she is at least a shady egotistical self-serving politician. Trump is shady, egotistical, and self-serving - but not even a politician of any sort. If I had to pick between those two, it is obvious to me that Clinton is better qualified, if not a good choice on her own merits.
I saw that ep; I literally had the urge to smack some sense into the idiot.
But I ended up only figuratively smacking my laptop screen.
Russia will be belligerent, but I guess I see the Clinton WH and her tenure as Sec. State as being happy to rain bombs on small non-Western nations (usually with a coalition), or back pro-Western corporate regime-changes (Trump would be a puppet as likely to do this), but unless thereās an explicit call for NATO action due to Russian hostilities I donāt see her doing anything outside that domain. Weāre also not saying sheās a hawk here, so much as someone who would stand up in a coalition to respond to a nation invading another nation.
Letās say Russia starts invading even more countries, our options are Trump dropping out of NATO and letting Russia encroach more and more into Europe, or Clinton backing NATO and joining the rest of Europe in pushing them back. I honestly think the latter would be my preference, since Putinās trouble.
Iād doubt thereās a high likelihood of a hot war, but Iād much, much, rather see NATO intact so Putinās scared of NATO destroying their already crumbling military, than see Trump handing over countries to Putin willy-nilly to let them go the way of the war-torn mess of human rights violations we have in Ukraine.
