Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Democratic Party Chair to Resign Over Wikileaks Emails

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

butthurt writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Democratic Party Chair to Resign Over Wikileaks Emails | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 114 comments | Search Discussion
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: 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.