• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN cuts ties with Brazile

She should have pleaded the 5th...it worked for all of Hillary aids.
 
Way too late to be meaningful, I doubt CNN can save face enough here.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Way too late to be meaningful, I doubt CNN can save face enough here.
Click to expand...

AS with all liberal-related orgs./people, their dishonesty is meaningless in the face of the fight against conservatism. This will be ignored by most on the left and nothing will ever change...
 
Another liberal is found to be a lying dirtbag.
Dog bites man.

LOL
 
Hayleygola said:
https://gongsters.com/topicf/breaking/s/47b4b285bfaf98aa8e84ad9f39bf3fe5

So apparently Donna Brazile has handed in her letter of resignation to CNN. CNN claims they had nothing to with Brazile giving questions to Clinton's team a head of time, and that Brazile had no access to questions.

I don't even know who to listen to first anymore.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Obviously she had access to at least some of the questions, so CNN isn't being honest. Plus her leaving CNN at this point is irrelevant. Shes going to head the DNC so she was going to leave anyway, and it seems CNN didn't even fire her. So they aren't all that broken up about what happened.
 
I'm sure CNN did one of those "excuse me while I go out and get a bottle of water out of my car" moments.
 
Fletch said:
Obviously she had access to at least some of the questions, so CNN isn't being honest. Plus her leaving CNN at this point is irrelevant. Shes going to head the DNC so she was going to leave anyway, and it seems CNN didn't even fire her. So they aren't all that broken up about what happened.
Click to expand...

The best explanation I've seen so far is what Donna Brazille said when interviewed by Rachel Maddow. She claimed that CNN lets contributors submit questions that are taken by CNN and might be picked for the debate. And Donna said she submitted that question but also wanted to get the campaigns answers to them, so she'd be able to answer what the campaign positions are regarding them if they come up while Brazille is on a discussion panel etc. I thought this explanation kinda made sense for the first email that was released. With the release of this other email it seems this explanation is pretty unsatisfactory. The only thing that would make Donna seem less hackish is if she also sent all of this information to the Sanders campaign. I wouldn't be that shocked if a political commentator went out of their way to make their party look better, but to pick one over the other like that in such an obviously unethical way is pretty crazy.
 
faithful_servant said:
AS with all liberal-related orgs./people, their dishonesty is meaningless in the face of the fight against conservatism. This will be ignored by most on the left and nothing will ever change...
Click to expand...
True in this case, and I'm sure others.

But liberals don't have a lock on dishonesty; not by a long shot.
 
Fletch said:
Obviously she had access to at least some of the questions, so CNN isn't being honest. Plus her leaving CNN at this point is irrelevant. Shes going to head the DNC so she was going to leave anyway, and it seems CNN didn't even fire her. So they aren't all that broken up about what happened.
Click to expand...

Or they could be telling the truth. As I recall, the townhall was a collaboration between CNN and a station called TV One - which is oriented around black programming. They selected participants and played a role in selecting questions. She could have been provided a list of possible questions by them.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The best explanation I've seen so far is what Donna Brazille said when interviewed by Rachel Maddow. She claimed that CNN lets contributors submit questions that are taken by CNN and might be picked for the debate. And Donna said she submitted that question but also wanted to get the campaigns answers to them, so she'd be able to answer what the campaign positions are regarding them if they come up while Brazille is on a discussion panel etc. I thought this explanation kinda made sense for the first email that was released. With the release of this other email it seems this explanation is pretty unsatisfactory. The only thing that would make Donna seem less hackish is if she also sent all of this information to the Sanders campaign. I wouldn't be that shocked if a political commentator went out of their way to make their party look better, but to pick one over the other like that in such an obviously unethical way is pretty crazy.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Brazile is a long time pal of Hillary. She wanted her to win the primary and wants her to win the general. That's ok. But she crossed a line here. She shouldn't be feeding her friend questions and would be outraged if someone had been tipping off Sanders. And honestly, I think Bernie would have been pissed if someone had tried to feed him questions. Hes a stand up guy. I don't agree with him on much, but hes a stand up guy
 
Napoleon said:
Or they could be telling the truth. As I recall, the townhall was a collaboration between CNN and a station called TV One - which is oriented around black programming. They selected participants and played a role in selecting questions. She could have been provided a list of possible questions by them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. CNN may have thought she had no access but somehow did through no fault of CNN itself.
 
Chomsky said:
True in this case, and I'm sure others.

But liberals don't have a lock on dishonesty; not by a long shot.
Click to expand...
:thumbs:
Absolutely not, but at least there has been some effort (Tea Party) by the right to address it. My tin foil hat side has occasionally considered that this might have been a big part of the reason why the TP got so hammered on the left. They don't want to take a chance on a group demanding more honesty getting traction in this country. I'd love to see a social/political revolution demanding integrity from our elected officials and people actually voting out the culls. If this happened, I'd predict about a 95% turnover in Congress and 80% in State legislatures and local offices.
 
The revolving door of cronyism and politics; out with the corrupt trash at CNN, in with it at the DNC (of course; some 'reform' huh? The establishment once again taking care of its own independent of and unconcerned with any ethical standard) to replace the morbidly debased DWS with someone who promises to be equally unscrupulous.
 
faithful_servant said:
:thumbs:
Absolutely not, but at least there has been some effort (Tea Party) by the right to address it. My tin foil hat side has occasionally considered that this might have been a big part of the reason why the TP got so hammered on the left. They don't want to take a chance on a group demanding more honesty getting traction in this country. I'd love to see a social/political revolution demanding integrity from our elected officials and people actually voting out the culls. If this happened, I'd predict about a 95% turnover in Congress and 80% in State legislatures and local offices.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not sure I agree in entirety about the Left vs T-Party, but I do agree with your post in general, so I'll just kindly thank you for the reply! :thumbs:
 
roughdraft274 said:
The best explanation I've seen so far is what Donna Brazille said when interviewed by Rachel Maddow. She claimed that CNN lets contributors submit questions that are taken by CNN and might be picked for the debate. And Donna said she submitted that question but also wanted to get the campaigns answers to them, so she'd be able to answer what the campaign positions are regarding them if they come up while Brazille is on a discussion panel etc. I thought this explanation kinda made sense for the first email that was released. With the release of this other email it seems this explanation is pretty unsatisfactory. The only thing that would make Donna seem less hackish is if she also sent all of this information to the Sanders campaign. I wouldn't be that shocked if a political commentator went out of their way to make their party look better, but to pick one over the other like that in such an obviously unethical way is pretty crazy.
Click to expand...

Her explanation to Maddow is balderdash. First, she denied doing it at all, and kept with the DNC's talking point that all the emails were either written by or changed by Russia before Putin gave them to WikiLeaks, which was also balderdash.
 
Hillary
Brazile
Wasserman
Huma
Mills
Lynch

They are women, hear them roar. It's like the Sopranos without the Adam's apples.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, I'm not sure I agree in entirety about the Left vs T-Party, but I do agree with your post in general, so I'll just kindly thank you for the reply! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Not all of the TP's efforts were directed that way, but there was some and it was a start (something ENTIRELY missing from the left).
 
Remember when Donna Brazile on CNN kept referring to how she was "feeling the love" during the primary in order to reframe the heated primary as a healthy intellectual exercise among Democrats?

That's a bit amusing now in retrospect.

Nevertheless, even if we want to argue that Brazile helped keep Sanders from the nomination (which I don't think is accurate), she did the country a service by saving us from a democratic socialist.
 
Hayleygola said:
https://gongsters.com/topicf/breaking/s/47b4b285bfaf98aa8e84ad9f39bf3fe5

So apparently Donna Brazile has handed in her letter of resignation to CNN. CNN claims they had nothing to with Brazile giving questions to Clinton's team a head of time, and that Brazile had no access to questions.

I don't even know who to listen to first anymore.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Good. She's horrific at her job in politics and not any better as a political commentator. I can't stand her work. CNN is doing the right thing.
 
faithful_servant said:
AS with all liberal-related orgs./people, their dishonesty is meaningless in the face of the fight against conservatism. This will be ignored by most on the left and nothing will ever change...
Click to expand...

"It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this mother****er." - Clinton Operative in the Okeefe videos.
 
faithful_servant said:
Not all of the TP's efforts were directed that way, but there was some and it was a start (something ENTIRELY missing from the left).
Click to expand...
I agree completely.

There's still a lot to promote about the TP.

I think the Koch Bros alliance relatively early-on was not in their best interest, but there's a lot to admire in their basic ideology.

Modern Liberalism has gotten greatly corrupted. Classical Liberalism actually has a fair amount in common with the TP ideals, and is Libertarian in nature.

I'm not sure what much of modern Liberalism is today; it seems to be all over the place. And campus safe-place zones? Wha??? We've come a long way from the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the Liberalism of the '60's! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom