With Hillary's ties to them, by then the banker class would be so established it would be almost impossible to untrench. So, be careful what you wish for, as you might get it. Also, keep in mind that a Hillary Presidency makes the likelihood of the next President being a Republican much higher (yes, the reverse could probably be said of a Trump Presidency, but that isn't really relevant to your stance).
The problem with Trump being president is that he won't be president. Mike Pence, the raging social conservative will be president AND economically he's just as much 'status quo' as Hillary. Trump will be out and about doing his bunga bunga parties and having twitter wars with black celebrities. He will be the Silvio Berlusconi of North America.
This points out the issue: responses to flaws in Hillary as a candidate can't be addressed directly, they have to be deflected to criticism of Trump. And the convention made it pretty clear that the Republicans are going to lay out a pretty strong case that Hillary is hardly a safe choice. When it comes down to it, are independents going to pick a candidate with a known record of failure, dishonesty, and corruption? They might, but that is the hurdle Trump needs to cross, and Hillary and the DNC keep lowering that hurdle. Trump, on the other hand, seems to have steadied the ship a bit, and made himself a more viable candidate for the mainstream. So, while the Dems have the same issue, simply needing to paint a picture of Hillary being a safer choice than Trump, that bar seems to be rising.
Why? You say this but it seems as if it's pure conjecture. The RNC convention helped fortify the notion that Trump is a white nationalist panderer. His 1hr long fascist like diatribe that pandered to fear irked pretty much every independent voter I personally know. Hey, maybe polls and the public at large doesn't reflect my anecdote but I just don't see how the convention helped Trump.
We are not getting the elite out of power. They will continue to buy both sides. The elite bought Hillary. The question is, why? Is it because she has no ethics what so ever? Its hard to say with Trump. Personally I think he is a massive troll and doesn't believe a word he spews. But the same can be said about Clinton too ... minus the trolling. I am not sure where you get the idea that people believe Obama is the least respected president. Its pretty well known most of the world loves Obama more than its own people.
Known record of failure? Absolute utter partisan horse****. And Trump is a more viable candidate? Yeah right. The day after, he is still quoting the ****ing National Enquirer as a reliable source. Are you so desperate for a Republican to take back the White House that you ignore how completely stupid this candidate is? Did Clinton make a mistake? Yep. Do I trust that she won't make the same mistake? Absolutely, because she is a smart, experienced and mature candidate who was actually very well liked and respected by numerous Republicans before all the election nonsense took place. And don't BS and say all that came crashing down bc iof the email thing. Let's be truthful here and call it what it is: a party so desperate to get an R in the White House that they support an obviously much worse candidate. These are the same clowns who b**** constantly about Obama's executive orders- and support Mr. I'll Do It Alone. I wish you all would just come out and be honest for once this election season and admit that you want Trump in the White House bc you can't stand another 4 years of a Democratic President. It won't happen, but it would be nice.
The issue here is with the DNC, and not with Hillary's campaign itself. The DNC has been shown to be biased and therefore corrupt. The fact that Hillary was the favorite of the conspirators within the DNC may be another slight mark against her. If we want to compare corrupt connections amongst the candidates, it plays out much worse for Trump. 1. He ran a fraudulent "University" and is guilty of ripping people off of their hard earned money and savings. In fact he targeted those most at risk. 2. Trump's company had to settle a court case (remember Trump saying he never settled court cases) in which they were accused of discriminating against black tenants 3. The only part of the GOP platform Trump wanted to change was the part about Russia and making sure that it was known he wouldn't armed the Ukrainians actually fighting against Putin's troops that invaded. 4. Trump signaled to Putin that a Trump presidency would abandon members of a pledged alliance within NATO. 5. Trump's senior aid Paul Manafort took millions of dollars from Yanukovych who later had to flee the Ukraine and has ties to Putin. The possible corruption and ties amongst Trump are far more dangerous and sinister than this DNC corruption and it's ties to Hillary. None of that excuses anything the DNC has done. The head of the DNC needs to be gone. She can wait until after the convention if it is deemed to be less disruptive. But Trump is so bad, and so corrupt that he doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding Hillary's many awful flaws.
I don't get it - is Hillary well liked by Republicans or have they been spending their days and nights trying to ruin her for 25 years?
I just want to make a point that many seem to be forgetting. I don't really care for the DNC but keep in mind both the DNC and RNC are private organizations that can choose what ever candidate they want with any method they want. I can make my own political party committee and make any arbitrary rules that I want in my selection process. It's my party.
I can't wait for this "Russian" Leak Clinton Foundation Said to Be Breached by Russian Hackers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/clinton-foundation-said-to-be-breached-by-russian-hackers "It was the Russians" will be the catch phrase which replaces "thanks Obama" when something goes wrong in everyday life. Liberal Logic: Blame the Russians for trying to influence an election by leaking a DNC plot to influence the election... Whether it was the Russians or the Liechtensteinians "What difference at this point does it make!" The DNCLeaks show corruption in DNC! People whose fault this is other than the DNC leadership: Sexists, Donald Trump, Millennials, Russians, Aliens... Hillary is laughably blaming Russians for the DNCLeaks as when Hillary blamed Benghazi on the video Poor libtards, Hillary and dnc, their unethical behavior was exposed. They should be able to cheat behind our backs. Blame the Russians! How dare the Russians expose our corruption of the voting process & our outright control over the media. Clinton really telling us to ignore that she bribed delegates and rigged the media in her favor because the 'Russians' exposed her. WTF?
The timing of this makes me think this was only meant to embarrass or bruise Hillary rather than take her down for trump. If they really wanted Bernie to stay though, leaking this a month or two before would've been big.we had already heard of hacks and whispers of guccifer then. it would've caused deeper fractures and people might not have rolled over so soon I guess at best, more reform concessions can be made from the fallout. I'm more interested in the Clinton foundation inner dealings. **** fake philanthropy
I will admit to not reading all of the leaked emails but what exact corruption have they shown? That the DNC didn't like Sanders and supported Clinton is no secret. As noted repeatedly Sanders wasn't even a Democrat until last year while Clinton has been one for decades and more importantly raised a lot of money and campaigned for Dem candidates for years. Also as has been noted repeatedly the Sanders campaign had a lot of issues with the rules of how the Democratic primaries were conducted when those rules where known well before 2016. That certainly didn't endear him to the DNC. Emails showing that the DNC didn't like Sanders is hardly a revelation. Just to note on the Republican side. If the argument is that the DNC emails are so damaging since they show that party leadership loathed one of the candidates we don't need leaked emails to show how much RNC leadership loathed their candidate who is now their standard bearer.
Let me get this straight: You're calling the act of a person who was Secretary of State, the highest diplomatic post in our nation, who set up a private server for 4 YEARS in direct violation of State Department Policy which she was informed of, a MISTAKE?? And you're accusing him of partisan crap?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/03/dnc-violates-their-own-rules-to-promote-hillary-clinton/ It was officially a secret that the DNC was supporting Clinton over Sanders. The DNC was on the face an impartial organization. It's why when someone from the DNC joined Sanders campaign she resigned her position at the DNC. Like Howard Dean mentioned when he called for Wasserman Schultz to go, that when he was chairman, he made it a point to make sure nobody working for the DNC would take a side in the Hillary-Obama race. The party rules state that officers at the DNC will not take sides during a primary. So while it was suspected that the DNC had favorites it was actually against official party rules. When party rules are flagrantly and knowingly violated it is a corruption of the system the rules govern. Whether or not Hillary is life-long Democrat and Sanders only joined the party for this election is irrelevant. That doesn't change the rules that supposedly govern the system. It isn't a valid point to even bring that up right now regarding the violation of rules by the DNC. There was already a revelation that this rule had been broken before the recent leaks. But this only reenforces the evidence that the DNC had become corrupt.
The key term there is officially. Nothing I've heard out of the DNC emails say that officially took a stand on the election. Like any organization the DNC is made up of individuals who have their own opinions. That these individuals didn't like Sanders isn't a secret. If it is corruption that the individuals in the DNC likes some candidates more than others then O'malley, Webb and Chafee would have a far bigger argument given they were given far less access to DNC resources than even Sanders was.
If officers of the DNC are taking sides to help one candidate over another that would be official. They are officials of the DNC. They are taking sides against DNC rules. Again, that's why the DNC officer who went to work for Sanders resigned from the DNC. She wasn't going to work for Bernie while she was part of the DNC.
Fox News report: Wasserman resigning as DNC chair at end of the Democrat Convention. Man...I would love to be a fly on the wall inside the DNC and Clinton campaign backrooms.
