Comic Strips

12570 readers

3625 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

[email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
[email protected]: memes (you don't say!)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

176

The Year 2100 (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -15 points 2 days ago (12 children)

Because the DNC put their thumbs on the scales and did everything they could to lock him out of the process while doing the opposite for Clinton.

Source? The way I remember it Bernie didn’t get enough votes.

If the chosen, status quo DNC candidates are so popular, why do they keep losing or nearly losing all their elections?

Out of the last 5 elections they won 3.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (9 children)

The DNC was out of money and severely in debt after Obamas 2012 campaign. They conspired with Hillary because she paid off 80% of the debt and was funding the DNC. She had control of their finances and decisions because the DNC would go under without her

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Wow I’ve never heard that. Do you have a source where I can verify?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

...

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Interesting read. I was hoping for evidence though instead of anecdote. Also, I don’t see how it supports this claim:

Because the DNC put their thumbs on the scales and did everything they could to lock him out of the process while doing the opposite for Clinton.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That would be every running primary candidate shifting their votes towards Hillary instead of distributing them evenly. In addition there was the Bloomberg run "out of nowhere" when Bernie was looking to be the headline candidate.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don’t see how the decisions of each individual candidate would be considered a decision of the DNC.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Then you don't understand US politics.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The majority of voters in America are moderate, not far right or left. For all the candidates to support the person with the best chances of winning is called strategy. For you to claim that the DNC made that decision for each candidate is a conspiracy theory.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That is simply not true. Stop spreading misinformation. In addition I did not claim they made the decision for each candidate. What they did was run a first-past-the-post cacus that allowed candidates with conflicting interests to allocate their political weight against a clearly popular candidate. If they'd done ranked choice voting from the start, it would not be an issue, instead they allowed candidates (like Bloomberg) to spend millions, gather significant support, and then cast that support to a vastly unpopular candidate. You're literally trying to argue Hillary was a good candidate with the best chance of winning but both polls, exit polls, and the caucus itself showed that not to be the case. Without the collaborative actions against Bernie by the other candidates allowed by the DNC Hillary would've never headlined the 2016 ticket.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

But they didn’t do ranked choice. So for most of the primary it was Clinton VS Sanders. So we don’t know who would’ve won in ranked choice if all the other candidates stayed in. We only know that Sanders didn’t get as many votes as Clinton.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)