[ SECRET POST #3490 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, being informed is so overrated.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[dethtoll]

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?

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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)]

Well, I don't accept it. I think the media has an ethical obligation to be unbiased in their reporting.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

They certainly do.

The fact is that they have been abdicating that for years, not just in the case of Hillary vs Bernie.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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?

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

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)]

Sorry, did you misread my comment? I said I wish they had officially refused to support Bernie on the Democratic ticket instead of lying and saying they were neutral when they weren't. I don't know how you read what I said, but I don't see how the latter half is a response.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

I took the comment to mean you thought what the DNC had actually done was functionally equivalent to officially refusing to support Bernie.

I apologize if I misread you.

Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[(Anonymous)]

No, they functionally heavily favored Hillary, but I don't think they didn't support Bernie at all. I just wish they had done what I mentioned and not even pretended to be fair.