How and will Dems
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
By nominating a candidate.
True, but you haven't heard Nancy Pelosi or any other Democratic Representative or Senator say that they couldn't endorse either one.
The same way they united the party in 2008, the losers accepted their loss and supported the winner. And that's how the GOP unified the party in 2008 and 2012 too.
But those winners were much less vitriolic than Trump was this year. And after the won their nomination they acted like they wanted to unify their party, unlike Trump so far this year.
But the superdelegates are unfair and there's gonna be a riot at the convention!
Really...the last clip I heard (which was from last night) was that he something to the effect that he's in it til the end and to the WH. I don't think he's a liar like Hillary.
And yet, there's no dem mayhem about it. That's because everyone understood and agreed to the rules coming in.
Like I said, when the time comes, he will be very gracious about it and fall in line. He's that kinda guy.
He may stay as long as it's feasible to do so but there will come a point when it's not feasible and he'll drop out then and say nice things about Hillary. How many of his followers will go to the polls in November and vote for Hillary is another question but my guess is that most will because of the opponent and also because Hillary hasn't been too mean to Sanders.
As I recall, it wasn't until May in 2008 that Hillary dropped out.
No doubt. Hillary grumbling about Trump's tax returns is an example.I don't think "faux outrage" is one-sided.
But this entire thread is nothing but empty drama. There is nothing to see here. And it stems from media and politicians on the right who are pissed that the GOP is engulfed in flames and can't stand the fact that the dems are not. Dems are perfectly content, quirky primary format and all.
Misery loves company.
I have no doubt post convention the divisions on both side will all but dissipate.
LOL orchestrated by Trump's buddy #Putin -- or is it his handler?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing
So what you're saying is: The DNC's e-mail system (that had a high degree of security attached to it) was easily hacked while Sec Clinton's private e-mail system (with no security) was left untouched? Wow........
Why am I not shocked that the libs are lapping up this excuse? Lets just ignore the simple fact that the emails exist and were written. Putin hacked these and released them to help trump? Should you and the rest of your lib buds be a little upset that your party is not only a sham, but that it broke the law and discussed it in emails?
It's so funny that one speech where Cruz didn't endorse, but spoke eloquently was a train wreck, yet cats and dogs not living together is perfect harmony. I can't figure out if the Bernie supporters or the Hillary supporters are the cats or dogs yet though.
Cruz DIDN'T endorse Trump (nor did a lot of others, the list is long).
Bernie IS endorsing Hillary.
See the difference?
The problem with creating a mob is that it's uncontrollable. The Bernie mob that I saw this morning was going off on Hillary.
That's not what I'm saying at all. But there's no evidence that Hillary's e-mail server had no security, that's just the oft-repeated line because it wasn't inside State's firewall -- which by the way didn't protect our unclassified system from being hacked by the Russians in the fall of 2014. And I've asked this before: why would anyone sit on e-mails it had from Hillary's private network if it had them?
That's incorrect. There's no evidence her servers (plural and important) were breached. They knew the level of security on them and Comey commented about how poor the security was.
Most systems are hacked through social engineering, not through brute force.
Regardless, she skated when at the very least she should have clearances revoked.
Wikileaks says they will be releasing Server pertinent e-mails. I'm not sure what that means. Could just be DNC e-mails ABOUT the issue, not actual server e-mails. Guess we'll see.
Minor point, but she may not have a current security clearance at all. Those lapse after a handful of years, and her initial investigation would have been in the 2008-2009 time frame.