Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday July 25 2016, @06:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the another-election-season-trainwreck dept.

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:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 25 2016, @11:51PM

    Especially for the majority of Americans that think the Democrats are too far right.

    Epic failure to read the electorate.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:42AM

    by Francis (5544) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @12:42AM (#380119)

    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

        by AssCork (6255) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:51PM (#380812) Journal

        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;

        • Gun Registry (for actual assault weapons - things that have burst/full-auto) - this was closed in May 1986, and no new ones can be obtained by private citizens. Costs have skyrocketed to the tens of thousands of dollars
        • Restricted Item Registry (for silencers, short-barreled rifles & shotguns, etc) - also known as "NFA Items" - anyone wanting to acquire one has to pay the price of the item, the 'tax stamp' price (as high as $200), and bear an average six month wait.
        • Both of these require background checks and fees for any transfer from person-to-person (buyer/seller). There is no "Gun Show Loophole"
        • Both of these are regulated by the BATFE, which is a 'regulatory body' who's rules carry the force-of-law. If they decide to go knocking on doors to inspect NFA registered items, it is a federal felony to deny them access.

        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: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 26 2016, @02:00AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 26 2016, @02:00AM (#380138) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:14AM (#380159)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @05:56AM (#380204)

          Until the constitution is amended, all this gun control nonsense (both existing gun control and proposed gun control) is totally unconstitutional

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @06:37AM (#380212)

            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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:44PM (#380326) Journal

            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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 26 2016, @03:59PM (#380332) Journal
          If you have 90+% backing, you can get that constitutional amendment.
      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:16PM

        by Francis (5544) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:16PM (#380494)

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:13AM (#380517) Journal

          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.