politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Hillary was obviously the better choice given the 2, but DNC shafted Bernie on record, which caused a lot of people to go 3rd party, against both RNC and DNC.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
As a dem. Vote in Sofla this made me chuckle.
And this just shows how easy it is to manipulate Democrats as well as Republicans. Realistically the DNC did not give him the shaft. But that is forever the only narrative you will ever retain.
This is revisionist history:
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/bernie-sanders-calls-wasserman-schultz-resign-wake-dnc/story?id=40824983
It's not. Your article actually points to the exact same things I've been saying. Debbie Wasserman Schultz despite being the chair of the DNC is not the whole dnc. Even culty gabbard who was a member of the DNC at that time called her out and is probably the one that helped leak the emails. Wasserman Schultz is a horrible piece of s*** for her actions but she's not the entire DNC. Because even they were calling her out.
Oh look the Hilary apologist here to tell us it's everyonea fault but the terrible candidate who lost.
LOL I voted for Bernie in the last two primaries. Thank you for proving my point. Programmed and wound so tight you can't even help yourself.
Voting for Bernie doesn't make you not able to be a Hilary apologist. She ran a shit campaign and she lost. I voted for her, doesn't make me blind to the reality.
Actually it does. Because I never apologize for Hillary. That was just a straw man. A baseless accusation that you made. Because you don't have anything to actually rebut what I said. I absolutely blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And believe that Clinton constantly made optically bad moves throughout the campaign. Especially letting her join after what she did.
Sanders was never really running to actually be president. He was running as a change candidate. To push Democrats towards the center. Which he succeeded at spectacularly. It's the reason he's still in the party. He just did much better than he ever thought he would do. If you actually knew anything about him. You'd understand all this. Or at least be curious to understand why he's stayed with the party even after they supposedly did him so wrong. Did you ever wonder while being so outraged for him why he wasn't equally outraged as you? No you never asked yourself that question did you.
I'm definitely not a fan of the DNC overall. I think they choose not to fight when they should. Don't spend time supporting or bringing up good new candidates through the ranks. And also supporting poor candidates out of institutional momentum. But realistically outside of Wasserman Schultz actions which are on her. The DNC didn't really do anything unexpected, surprising, or out of the ordinary. As a party they're allowed to have favorites. And if you don't like that well then we should push to change the DNC and their rules. But Bernie knew what he was going into. Maybe you should take a cue from him.
Cool, keep going around and making excuses for why Hilary lost. That's not being a Hilary apologist though got it.