I'm not sure if it's fraudulent but it certainly isn't ethical. The DNC is creating the illusion of choice. Maybe they have the right to choose whomever they want but to fool voters into thinking the DNC is impartial is wrong. I can guarantee this. In 4 years there are going to be large discussion about whether voting in the democratic primary will matter or even if the DNC represents the party. If Bernie is still alive by then he might stand a chance as an independent.
Bernie Sanders was sent millions of dollars from poor people that could barely spare it. This was with the understanding he has a equal shot at the DNC nomination. We now know that wasn't going to happen. The DNC actively facilitated mail and wire fraud. If a few Italians ran this scheme it would be racketeering and prosecuted under RICO. But in politics just soft apologies and excuses. Ruling class has no rules.
Notice how you're saying that an on-going investigation is the equivalent of an actual scandal. That's one of the strategies for duping the American public: just constantly run "investigations" and it doesn't matter if they ever find anything due to how gullible a significant percentage of the population is. Also notice that you're accepting the idea that the head of the FBI is the equivalent of the Attorney General and it's okay for them to make prosecutorial style statements about the subjects of investigations. That isn't their role. They're supposed to collect evidence and make recommendations to the Justice Department, not throw accusations around like "extreme carelessness" etc. Harry Reid called them out on that total hypocrisy by noting that the FBI refused to comment on their investigation of Trump's Russian connections. No inflammatory statements about Trump's judgement have been made. No notes to Democratic members of Congress divulging new leads. Comey should never had said anything more about Clinton than "here's what we found after concluding the investigation" and "we didn't recommend charges".
No, the DNC is not required to be impartial at all when it comes to nominating their own candidate. They're a private organization. Choosing the candidate can be done ANY way that they want to do it. Besides, Hillary Clinton was a career Democrat and Bernie Sanders was not. The fact that they allowed Sanders to run as a Democrat with zero previous history of supporting the party was actually very reasonable. Super-delegates and all that stuff were introduced decades ago. That is nothing specific to Sanders.
Party officials in the Green and Libertarian parties just choose the candidate they want to run. Explain how that is actually seen as being more ethical than Hillary Clinton winning both the delegate count and the popular vote in a DNC primary?
THE CHARTER & THE BYLAWS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES ARTICLE FIVE National Chairperson Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process. http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf
Uh huh...but that's their own charter. It's not legally binding. It's like a business that circulates info about "company values" etc. to employees. General goal? Sure. Total compliance? No. And at the end of the day, you're talking about a candidate that won the popular vote in both the party primary and the national election. The idea that Clinton was forced on people by machinations within the DNC is not accurate at all.
They violated their own charter to try to ram an extremely unlikable candidate down our throats, and it backfired on them spectacularly. Just accept it and move on. And Hillary is just making herself even more unlikable by taking part in this recount shit.
What were the violations? I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and the complaints that I saw were basically: A. Super delegates supporting Clinton before popular voting started (not a violation; super delegates make an individual choice as to who to support and it does not need to be based on popular vote…but it's effective as a purely political criticism, which is why Sanders used it). B. Number of debates/specific debate schedule (this is believable as a possible machination, but technically it still applies to each of the candidates equally…so that one is a technical washout vs. the charter). C. Sequence of states in primary (not a violation…pretty much the same as it's always been, and Sanders didn't even come close in terms of the popular vote through the entire primary). D. Wasserman-Schultz badmouthing Sanders (fair to say that's a violation, but she did end up losing her position as well). As for the recount, Clinton's legal counsel has basically said they're participating in it as a formality. They said that the margin is beyond the percentage that could likely be changed by a recount, and that their own assessment was that they hadn't noticed irregularities of any major significance. You're basically blaming Clinton for Stein's own initiative to do recounts.
"Do it 804 more times"...White House trolls Trump. http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/white-house-carrier-trump
Carrier will just wait until they are out of the 24 hour news cycle, and then outsource those jobs anyway when no one is paying attention.
It's all publicity. Pence is still governor of the State and was able to offer huge tax breaks to the company. When the incentives go away so does the company and in the mean time you piss off other companies that aren't getting the same breaks. Trump even mocked the States that do this and said it doesn't work.
My post was was meant to show how erratic the guy is. Dangerous intentions over trivial shit, but also something more productive and likable. I'm curious to know what deal was made. Bernie Sanders was encouraging them to hold back $5 billion in govt contracts. That alone should've been enough leverage to save all 1400 jobs without further concessions. Lol at all the Obama is a socialist Tumpster.
Not only is Mnuchin a former Goldman partner, but his father was a former Goldman partner…so you've got some nepotism icing on the shit sandwich.
lol Goldman Sachs infiltration of the govt is almost impressive. Most of the regional locations are also led by ex-GS executives.
The details are in. Only 800 jobs are being saved, plus 300 that weren't getting outsourced. They are giving $7M over 10 years in tax rebates, with the expectation of $16M investment. So, basically $875 rebate per job per year to stay. Mathematically it makes stupid simple sense. The employees would've probably happily take a $875 pay cut to keep their jobs. Overall though. Seems like a missed opportunity to smack the shit out of company to set an example. They are still outsourcing more than they are keeping.
Many think there may have been threats made to the parent company which gets about $6 billion a year in federal defense contracts. Usually republicans are publicly against this kind of thing. They certainly raised a stink when Obama helped a solar panel company. Picking companies to win is the same as picking companies to lose. Carrier now has a government provided advantage over other air condition manufactures. That in itself isn't so bad but when it's used for personal political gain it's crony capitalism.
The Solandra stuff is more analogous to Tesla. Companies almost entirely dependent on govt funding. Carrier got a standard incentive to keep business local. Granted, it's SOP and not the tough talk Trump was spewing on the campaign trail. It is crony capitalism, but I'm not as idealistic as I once was. What is the alternative? Other companies aren't getting $700k, but also not required to spend $1.6M in Indiana either. This either didn't happen, or Trump is a terrible negotiator.