2016 Democratic National Convention

NorthReport wrote:

That's Democrat spin. Why the focus on the leak rather than the despicible stuff that was in the emails?

Many people are now being left with the impression Clinton stole the nomination

Donna Brazile has made a huge personal and public apology to the Sanders people  - that is the story, and it does not look good on Clinton.

 

Solomon also said while it was okay to vote third party in blue or red states – it was not okay in swing states – with the imperative being to defeat Donald Trump.

But the Bernie delegates are not as convinced.

While Solomon might want Bernie delegates to vote for Hillary, Bernie delegates have a different take.

They have forced DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz out.

Now they have bigger fish to fry....Russell Mokhiber, counterpunch

iyraste1313 wrote:

Solomon also said while it was okay to vote third party in blue or red states – it was not okay in swing states – with the imperative being to defeat Donald Trump.

But the Bernie delegates are not as convinced.

While Solomon might want Bernie delegates to vote for Hillary, Bernie delegates have a different take.

They have forced DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz out.

Now they have bigger fish to fry....Russell Mokhiber, counterpunch

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PPXYSmG2Qkg

NorthReport wrote:

Overall a brilliant first day Chris Matthews made a glowing tribute saying the Democrats had a better first day than the GOP had on their last day

I wonder how bad things would have had to have been for him to say the Dems had a worse night.

I reserve judgement(to see what the polls says) but I have to say he did not hold back in giving the nod to hilliary.  When she loses Bernie can not be blamed.  I have to watch 4 key states.

I Wonder.

I haven't even heard Trump speak, I just see the odd things he says come up on news sites.  I watched the Democratic National Convention for the first time a bit yesterday from a live stream.  For me, it is a lot like when I watch mainstream TV news which I really can't watch anymore.  It's all so so so fake.

There was a politician with a comedian Bernie supporter and they just weren't funny.  It's a show.  It's all fake.  The camera pans around the convention with spots on aging celebrities watching the show.  The speakers call for unity, and they can't get enough people to start cheering Hillary.  The camera pans some more and they show some of the Bernie supportors, the man in a suit with "Feel The Bern" lights glowing through the back.  I like the signs that say "Love Trumps Hate" (clever double entendre.)  The final "joke" is that Paul Simon is going to sing "Bridge over Troubled Water."  And someone shouts "bullshit."  The audience has been waiting for Paul Simon.  I hear a musician playing a Rodriguez riff before they come on -- it's "I Wonder."  Paul Simon comes on and sings his song.

That's two of those today.  Are you experiencing double-posts?  Or are you trying to make that a "thing", where you show your disagreement using Morse Code for "O"?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The real story is what was in the emails not who dumped them

The real story is what was in the confession, not how it was obtained.

Yeah that analogy doesn't work. A confession obtained through coercive means may be falsified. This is not the case with the dumped emails...Unless you're suggesting the DNC emails are falsified (which I haven't seen suggested anywhere). The focus on Russia is more like saying "who cares about the dead body, care about the person who found the dead body."

Of course, if you ARE suggesting the emails were falsified...good luck with that narrative

Michelle Obama gave quite the speech.  I'm betting that if we see her run for Senator of a state or political office of some sort, to gain experience, that eventually we'll be seeing her make a go for POTUS.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Yeah that analogy doesn't work. A confession obtained through coercive means may be falsified.

Perhaps.  Or maybe through a wiretap that just somehow lacked a warrant.  Then what?  What do we do with that?

The problem is that criminal evidence rules are for deciding the guilt of those accused of crimes. They are not applicable in general to discovering the truth of any non-judicial matter. They are more concerned with assuring a fair system than with discovering the truth.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So...  a "fair system" is more important, or "the truth" is?

For a criminal justice system, it has been the overwhelming opinion of those who have drafted due process provisions in constitutions and bills of rights around the world that fairness trumps truth.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Because lots of people would tell you that if someone confesses to a crime in an illegal wiretap, "the truth" should be what we concern ourselves with.

"Lots of people" would be foolishly consigning their countrymen to an easily abused police state, where Cardinal Richelieu's dictum applies: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

The truth is most important in science, engineering and other mostly objective fields. Fairness and other moral considerations are more important in law and other social institutions.