GatewayRedbirds.com

Honest question. How fair and impartial do political parties need to be? Up until last year, Sanders wasn't even registered as a Democrat. Then he decided that he wanted to seek the party's nomination. Does the party--as a private enterprise--have an obligation to be completely open to his candidacy? Can they not have a bias towards someone who has worked with them for decades?

Did the Republicans have that same obligation for Trump, who crashes their party while not following many of the party's pretty established platform planks over the years?

Personally, I don't know if the parties should have that obligation to be fair and impartial to everyone. The federal government has an obligation to provide fair elections. I think parties can nominate whoever they want.

wart57 wrote:

Radbird wrote:

wart57 wrote:Don't look at what was in the e-mails, look at who hacked in to the server to find that e-mail. Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain.

Does that mean we shouldn't care how it occurred, why it occurred, who was involved? Pay no attention, it was only the Ruskies.

The content of the emails has been scrutinized. Bad [expletive] in them? Yep. Dems took a hit for it too. Rightly so. Would that kind of [expletive] be found in RNC emails? Don't know because nobody targeted them. But I imagine there might have been just a few things said about the nominee that the GOP would not like to have leaked.

They both need to be looked at. It just seems the DNC is doing the deflect thing again. An investigation in to the hacking needs to take place. If Trump and the Ruskies are in bed together, that is a bad. Proof is needed though, just not allegations.

Of course they're deflecting, they're a political organization. It's what they do.

Popeye_Card wrote:Honest question. How fair and impartial do political parties need to be? Up until last year, Sanders wasn't even registered as a Democrat.

That is what I have been thinking. Bernie isn't even a Democrat.

Of course they're allowed to do that. I don't think that's what the people want though, and in a multi party system it would be less of a big deal. The people have a right to be angry at the farce that is American democracy though.

Schlich wrote:Of course they're allowed to do that. I don't think that's what the people want though, and in a multi party system it would be less of a big deal. The people have a right to be angry at the farce that is American democracy though.

They certainly do. But if Bernie truly has the type of support that the hardcore Bernie folks think he has, then they should be somewhat upset that he didn't just make a go of it on his own.

We all know he couldn't though. He needed the hard left and Hillary distrusting factions of the Democratic party to have a shot. He ended up pulling a lot of support. How much was from voters who truly agreed with his positions vs. those who simply wanted someone besides Hillary? I'd guess 50/50, but I could be wrong.

Hell, I'm probably way wrong. I still cannot grasp how Trump made it out of a Republican field that had several weak candidates, but surely someone could have knocked him off. So my gut instincts of the American public are way off.

anyone remember the Mad Magazine slogan "What me worried?"

Jennifer Palmieri is a dedicated follower

wart57 wrote:Don't look at what was in the e-mails, look at who hacked in to the server to find that e-mail. Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain.

Can you imagine what Fox News, Infowars, Glenn Beck, etc would be saying if the Russians hacked the RNC?

All I'm saying is Trump's conflict of interest with his Russia ties is more concerning than what somebody wrote in an email they thought would never see the light of day.

wart57 wrote:

Radbird wrote:

wart57 wrote:Don't look at what was in the e-mails, look at who hacked in to the server to find that e-mail. Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain.

Does that mean we shouldn't care how it occurred, why it occurred, who was involved? Pay no attention, it was only the Ruskies.

The content of the emails has been scrutinized. Bad [expletive] in them? Yep. Dems took a hit for it too. Rightly so. Would that kind of [expletive] be found in RNC emails? Don't know because nobody targeted them. But I imagine there might have been just a few things said about the nominee that the GOP would not like to have leaked.

They both need to be looked at. It just seems the DNC is doing the deflect thing again. An investigation in to the hacking needs to take place. If Trump and the Ruskies are in bed together, that is a bad. Proof is needed though, just not allegations.

Again, the conflict of interest is all you need. It just needs to look bad for it to be enough. You'll never be able to prove that he changed his Russia policy because he owes them money. Never. Because we are talking about a decision he made inside his head. The conflict of interest is plenty bad enough.

Trump is going to be in my town Thursday.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule/r ... nport-ia1/

I'd love to try to give him one of these.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/221697367/ ... -butt-plug