fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3490 ]

[ SECRET POST #3490 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3490 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 52 secrets from Secret Submission Post #499.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Resigns from DNC. Immediately hired as honorary chair of Hillary's campaign.

Oh, thank God, what a worthless, worthless political figure. Anyone would be an improvement for the whole party. Even if you set aside the ideological differences the left of the party has with her, she's just hideously useless from a practical point of view. Good fundraiser but that's it.

And I expect the role with the Hillary campaign is mostly a sinecure to get her to agree to leave peacefully.

I have to give you props for managing to write a comment of relief that completely ignores the entire reason for her resignation. Scared of being called a Bernie bro?

I haven't paid much attention to that whole scandal. As far as I can tell, it's mostly just embarrassing and dumb.

Yeah, being informed is so overrated.

if I spent all my time obsessing over every detail of horserace politics in America, i would go absolutely insane

Half of it is embarrassing and dumb and people overreacting to... people being dumbasses like people always are. Oh no someone in the DNC said "no homo" once!! Sure it's kind of shitty but it doesn't mean the DNC as a group is promoting homophobia.

On the other hand, there are some seriously concerning things in there that prove they're leaning hard on media to stop them from criticizing Hillary and the DNC and to shut up certain reporters that "go too far" in their criticism.

Sorry, serious question: what role do you think the Democratic National Committee should have to the press? Because if your issue is that they're talking to the press, that seems like it's part of their job, and part of the way sausage gets made in Washington.

If your issue is that they had their thumb on the scales for Hillary, I mean, I agree that it's bad but it's also not exactly a stunning revelation that's going to make me rend my clothes.

Talking to the press is cool, that's what campaign managers are there for and campaign press is there for. That's what Hillary's campaign manager and staff are there for.

When the DNC who is supposed to be neutral starts contacting the owners of news media to get specific reporters to shut up in favor of one candidate, that's concerning to me. It's not a surprise, but now there's proof.

The fact that there's proof doesn't really change anything to me.

DA - If the media had kowtowed to Trump's campaign that way, would it matter to you?

They might not have kowtowed to the Trump campaign the same way, but they gave him endless months of free publicity 'cuz it drove ratings. Is that any better?

No, it's absolutely not, but hey, no reason to take anyone seriously when they complain about the media!

I'm not saying that I like the role the DNC played, I'm saying that I accepted it.

And I assume the Trump campaign was pressuring journalists the same way, probably worse.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-24 23:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-24 23:20 (UTC) - Expand

I suppose if you were okay with the idea of it from the start, it doesn't matter to you.

I wish the DNC had refused to support Bernie from the start, instead of burning their bridges with a lot of liberals by pretending to be neutral. What good did pretending do for them?

Well, first, I wouldn't say that I was okay with it. I wish they hadn't. I would say that I've made my peace of it and I think it's mostly just how politics is.

Second, I don't think it's accurate to say that they refused to support Bernie. Because Bernie lost. He lost the primary. They didn't stop him from winning, they didn't stop him from getting the nomination. I think it's inaccurate to blame Bernie's loss on the DNC. I mean, I wish they'd been more neutral in part because I don't think it would have made a huge difference. I don't think they would have refused to support him if he had won. Don't think he would have won.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-24 22:44 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-24 22:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-24 22:51 (UTC) - Expand

Why do I feel like you're just OP, who posted this just so you could reply to yourself to rant in the comments?

Because you're a troll?

Captain Cold would have frozen it all in overreaction if it even looked slightly like that.

Honorary fucking chair. What a self-absorbed piece of shit Clinton is. Who gives a fuck about corruption, right? Mommy paid big money for the Oval Office, mommy gets the Oval Office.

Getting personally mad at Hillary Clinton for corruption is stupid. Corruption is endemic to American politics on a systemic level.

DA

So, basically, to answer AYRT's question, you don't give a fuck about corruption.

I think eliminating corruption from American politics is going to require a long and bloody battle, and angrily rejecting individual politicians for taking part in the broadly corrupt system is not, I think, usually going to be productive. Particularly if you're only getting mad at one specific corrupt politician. I don't think "Fuck Hillary Clinton" - as a policy - is going to make anything better, in terms of corruption.

At the end of the day, I think it's better to engage with the system - even if it is corrupt - and try to do as much good as you can with the system, and try to move it towards a less corrupt state at the same time. I really do believe that.

I'm not the anon(s?) you were replying to, but even though I'll vote for Hillary, I don't see how normalizing having to hold one's nose while voting is a good thing, either. Like, Trump is cartoonishly, obviously evil; if he actually were a cartoon he would be an obvious caricature of a corrupt businessman. Hillary is no cartoon, but she has no actual interest in ending political corruption since it benefits her. I'm voting for her because she horrifies me less than Trump and her stated political opinions aren't super divorced from mine, but I don't like feeling like my only two choices are to step in dog shit or on a landmine.

I don't think it's normalizing the existence of corruption and all these things in American politics. I think that has been the normal state in American politics for a pretty long time already. Which is kind of my point: Hillary is a product of a system.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only