222
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

None of those sources substantiate why they would want him to win.

Nobody's saying that the Hillary campaign wanted Trump to be president. As for why they wanted him to be the nominee, there's no way that none of the sources say why.

Especially since the Dem party leadership apparently learned nothing and are still using the same pied piper strategy to support far right candidates in Republican primaries for the exact same reason.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

Excellent. That’s honestly how all of the implications read in Ozma’s, Anticolonialist’s, and your comments. Not a single one of you completed your thoughts, leaving open inference that I perceived as motive to get Trump elected. I’m glad you hear that’s not your claim.

I can see how they’d ply Trump to run, and perceive him as an easy target in the election.

That doesn’t change the source of the failure. No matter how much pressure Hillary put on Debbie, it was Debbie’s job to remain impartial. It’s a candidate’s job to try to gain favor from the convention, just as it’s the convention’s job to remain impartial.

The blame for Trump’s presidency still falls on the shoulders of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the abstaining voters.

[-] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

It’s a candidate’s job to try to gain favor from the convention, just as it’s the convention’s job to remain impartial.

"No you don't understand, political candidates are supposed to be slimy and dishonest!"

Your insufferable attitude aside, that's an insane position to take and it's ridiculous you said that without providing anything to defend it like it's common knowledge or something to be desired in a presidential candidate - especially after you were so anal about things that were explicitly spelled out for you and which you still struggled to understand

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It’s the job of a candidate to self-advocate in every avenue. It’s the job of the committee to ensure a fair and impartial primary. Which one failed to do their job?

I assume you also blame Netanyahu for taking your tax dollars instead of the government for providing them?

[-] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You're not making sense, dude. And your analogy is wack, too.

It's their job to break the rules/cheat? Is it a sportsball player's job to try and break their rivals' legs?

Do you blame workers when they lose their jobs when factory jobs are shipped overseas?

I'd be happy to place some blame on lazy/disinterested citizens, complicit corporate media networks, the effect of legalized bribery in politics, but to go the other way and actually say you support candidates doing whatever it takes to win is gross

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Your analogies don’t fit this scenario at all.

Have you ever worked with a kiss-ass? Someone who constantly sucks up to the boss and is always trying to impress them, even if they’re not the best at their job? Imagine the boss giving that employee preferential treatment over the other employees. More breaks, days off, buys them lunch, etc.

Who is wrong? The leader or the employee?

A politician’s job during a campaign is self-promotion. Of course they would try to ply favor from their convention. It’s absolutely expected behavior from a person in that position. It’s the conventions job to say no and keep it fair.

I’m not saying Hillary was ethical, but that Debbie was responsible.

this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
222 points (81.9% liked)

politics

18072 readers
3017 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS