Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has announced she will resign as chair of the Democratic National Committee. The resignation is to become effective after the party's convention. The organisation's e-mail system was hacked; leaked e-mails appear to confirm accusations that Wasserman-Schultz had taken action favouring Hillary Clinton in her contest against Bernie Sanders to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Sanders had previously called for Wasserman-Schultz to resign, a request he reiterated in light of the leak.
Wasserman-Schultz said in a statement:
I know that electing Hillary Clinton as our next president is critical for America's future. I look forward to serving as a surrogate for her campaign in Florida and across the country to ensure her victory.
coverage:
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 25 2016, @11:51PM
Epic failure to read the electorate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:42AM
Not really, gun control, climate change, energy and economic policy; most Americans aren't right of center on those.
If they were, then how do you explain the revolts going on both in the GOP and Democratic base? The only people that really buy into the lunacy are low information voters and the people paying the politicians off. Most voters in both parties are very much aware of how little representation they have in congress.
But yes, I'm the one that's misinterpreting 90% of voters wanting gun control and neither party actually giving out to them. That sounds like a right of center position with popular support.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 26 2016, @01:39AM
If you think that's what the revolt in the GOP is about, you are way, way too far from the event to see what's going on. The GOP revolt is about Washington insider people with an R by their name not being conservative. Ponder for a moment how many of Obama's pet bills got through a Republican House and Senate, then consider why conservatives might be pissed off at their elected representatives.
And if you think for even a moment that 90% of voters want gun control, you've lost your mind. A full third of us here in this nation are gun owners ourselves and most of us see "common sense gun control measures" for what they are, a bit by bit chipping away of that which shall not be infringed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by AssCork on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:51PM
And if you think for even a moment that 90% of voters want gun control, you've lost your mind. A full third of us here in this nation are gun owners ourselves and most of us see "common sense gun control measures" for what they are, a bit by bit chipping away of that which shall not be infringed.
Hold still, let me pin this "Internet Hero" medal on your chest.
To expound upon your point - there is already 'gun control' that the "zOMG! We need MOAR Gun Control!" crowd knows nothing about;
This is the utopia Gun-Control-Nuts want for all people, all guns.
This is why "Gun-Nuts" get their dander up when someone spouts 'softened phrases' like 'common-sense gun-control' and 'most people want blah, blah'.
Anyone who's out for more 'common-sense gun-control' that 'most people want' really needs to go out and try to get a silencer (suppressor) and a matching short-barreled rifle so they can hunt w/o their dog going deaf.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 27 2016, @11:13PM
It's like the nation has utterly forgotten or chose to ignore that private citizens owned the very same arms that the military did, including cannons and warships, at the time the 2nd was written.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 26 2016, @02:00AM
But yes, I'm the one that's misinterpreting 90% of voters wanting gun control and neither party actually giving out to them.
Yes, you are. I'm not surprised to see such delusional thinking from someone so partisan. If 90% of voters really wanted that, it'd happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:14AM
It's also completely irrelevant. Mere popularity can't (or rather, shouldn't) override the constitution. Until the constitution is amended, all this gun control nonsense (both existing gun control and proposed gun control) is totally unconstitutional, but a grand majority of people don't seem to care about that as long as they like the unconstitutional policy in question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @05:56AM
Except thats not true at all. Restricting firearms to only active members of the military and reserves would be 100% constitutional, thanks to literally half of the amendment that you're pretending doesn't exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @06:37AM
It's pretty odd that the founding fathers crafted a constitutional amendment whose only purpose was to remind us that the government has the power to give members of the military guns. What an oversight!
You seem to be saying that the "well-regulated militia" part of the amendment restricts the right to bare arms, rather than merely presenting one justification for the amendment. That's just not the case. Just because they present a reason for the amendment's existence doesn't mean the right vanishes in other instances; the amendment says no such thing. And even many gun control advocates don't say that you can outright ban everyone except for active members members of the military from owning guns, because that would be laughable from a historical standpoint.
You don't seem to care about the history of the amendment or how the text is structured, so this is probably a waste of time.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:44PM
thanks to literally half of the amendment that you're pretending doesn't exist.
Words mean things. The half you refer to is a nonbinding justification for the half that is binding, and simply doesn't mean what you think it means.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:59PM
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:16PM
Not really. It doesn't happen because people don't vote on single issues in the US. Also the manufacturers spend a ton of money lobbying and bribing to keep it from happening.
But I'm sure that I'm the one that's delusional here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:13AM
Not really. It doesn't happen because people don't vote on single issues in the US. Also the manufacturers spend a ton of money lobbying and bribing to keep it from happening.
Always an excuse, eh? So why are there manufacturers anyway? Making guns doesn't generate a profit, if there aren't buyers.