[ 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)]

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.