Slashdot Mirror
Top DNC Staffers Leave Following WikiLeaks Email Scandal (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via USA Today: Following the leak of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails and the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, several more staffers are leaving their positions. USA Today reports Amy Dacey, the chief executive officer of the DNC, Luis Miranda, the party's communications director, and Brad Marshall, chief financial officer, are all leaving the DNC. The statement announcing the staff changes praises the outgoing aides and makes no mention of the email issue. "Thanks in part to the hard work of Amy, Luis, and Brad, the Democratic Party has adopted the most progressive platform in history, has put itself in financial position to win in November, and has begun the important work of investing in state party partnerships. I'm so grateful for their commitment to this cause, and I wish them continued success in the next chapter of their career," said Donna Brazile, the party's interim chairwoman. Some of the leaked emails from party staffers depicted officials favoring now-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during their primary campaign.
No, progressive always meant this (pick up a dictionary and take a civics class):
adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
As you've mentioned, it doesn't mean anything. Anyone can claim a specific item/label/statement; it doesn't make it true. It is completely disingenuous to use the adjective of "progressive" and attach it to things you don't like so you can demonize the word. Try again.
Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?
Yes I do. And the Pulitzer-Prize-winning site Politifact confirms the extent of his habitual lying.
(And for comparison, you can see the record at Politifact for Hillary.)
I can't speak to "hatred", because that requires knowing what Trump is feeling, which is a superpower I do not have.
However, Trump's "general bad mouthing" is legendary, and it's puzzling how self-destructive he allows himself to be as he continues to inexplicably bad-mouth people. The latest example is his flamboyant bad-mouthing of Mr. and Mrs. Khan, which has been widely disavowed by many of his fellow Republicans in the past few days. Other particularly egregious examples include his bad-mouthing of the war service of John McCain, and his comments against Judge Curiel, which were called a "textbook definition of racism" by Republican Paul Ryan.
So, yes, I do remember his extensive bad-mouthing of many people over the past 9 months or so. Thanks for asking.
Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?
Yes I do. And the Pulitzer-Prize-winning site Politifact confirms the extent of his habitual lying.
Here's politifact dilligently checking Jeff Sessions' comment "there are about 350,000 people who succeed in crossing our borders illegally each year,".
[politifact:] The number of immigrants illegally in the country is staying the same or getting smaller. We rate Sessions’ statement False.
Let's go see what Wikipedia says about illegal immigration:
[DHS, from Wikipedia] Numbers of new illegal immigrants per year crossing the border illegally are not directly countable, and are estimated from the number who are caught trying. For FY 2015, DHS reported 337,117 apprehensions. [3] Using an estimated catch rate of 33%, the number crossing without detection would be 510,000 per year (337,000 / 0.67).
So, he's basically citing DHS numbers and being conservative, yet Politifact determined it was "false".
Additionally, note that the previous paragraph is not in the current version of the Wikipedia article, it was removed *after* Sessions' speech!
I took the trouble to look at the edit history right after the speech (wondering myself how many illegals come into this country each year), and noted that the page had not been substantially edited in over a month, and that paragraph had been there for quite a long time.
So I don't really see Politifact as a neutral observer any more.
I mean, they didn't even *bother* to look at Wikipedia pages that are available when they write their results!
What other things do they get wrong, and do they have a hidden agenda?
The Daily Show pointed out that we have the two luckiest presidential candidates ever: they're both running against the only opponent they could conceivably defeat.
After his badmouthing of the Khans
You mean the same Khans that operate a E2 and EB5 visa law firm. The most corrupt and scam heavy immigration visas available to enter the US? Oh and that he's suddenly scrubbed the website from existence after it came to light. Sure is race baiting...pointing out that they're being scummy people.
Om, nomnomnom...