The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

So the thing hasn't even started yet and the head of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz being fired/resigning over allegations that the party favored Clinton over Sanders (duh). Will be interesting to see if those that were feeling the Bern will in the end show up for this election, or just stay home.

Will be interested to see polls post DNC. And how they are "explained" once in.

Polls don't mean anything until September. Lots of time for Trump and friends to explain how Russian hackers shared DNC emails with them.

Basically, the emails (selectively released from what appears to be Russian hackers) seem to indicate many within the DNC wanted Hillary over the Bern. Or, to put it another way, they wanted the established life-long DNC party member over the Independent to run their little club. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

The Bern did well. He got attention to his issues and changed the party platform. While I'd prefer him over Hillary, the party royalty didn't by a margin of 3:1 and the party voters didn't by ~15 points. I don't think party shenanigans had too much to do with it, seems he got his message out just fine.

That said - stupid behavior results in stupid outcomes. If DNC staffers played referee unfairly, suffer the consequences.

Another interesting angle, both the Russians and Julian Assange want Trump to win (one to lesson American influence, one because Hillary supported his extradition to Sweden on rape charges [in order to shut down leaks of US documents] when she ran the State Department) - both have a proven ability to get into system they aren't supposed to be in, and the willingness to release the information. I assume if there is laundry that can be hung out to dry, it will come out.

Gonna be an ugly election. Can we call a mulligan?

Ugly also equates to interesting.   

And in this case, high risk...sadly it's a "head's they win, tails we lose" proposition no matter what.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoPchuJUMAEmwb3.jpg)

Lol...You sound like the deflecting DNC'rs....

Story this morning was saying that all the emails originated after the voting was done....Hillary already had the numbers she needed.

What was your source? I also read on a Facebook group that all of the e-mails in question were in response to perceived negative attacks from the Sanders camp. Nonetheless, there is no indication that anyone acted on their comments/feelings. Unfortunately in politics perception is reality.

The content isn't really the story. Russia's intervention and Trumps failure to release taxes that might show fiscal involvement with Russia are the real story.

I think I was listening to NPR....but may have been on tv before going to work - that would have been Faux News, but doesn't sound like them to report something like that.


I don't care about emails - either DNC 20,000 or Hillary's several hundred.  If we aren't gonna even blink an eye at Baby Bush and Karl Rove using a private email server in the White House.  As President.  Deleting 22 million emails.   The rational, sane, perspective thought is that none of the rest of them mean anything.

The emails were from April and May, after the race was out of reach. The worst email was in the aftermath of the Nevada Democratic Convention and the riot by the Bernie Bros, who were actually trying to subvert the will of the people that had voted weeks earlier in the Nevada Caucus.

You trash a group of people (the DNC) over and over for a year and then your people riot when they don't get their way, you might just see some backlash.

Bernie has never been held accountable for his actions.

Is the "Taco Bowl" happening inside or outside the 4 mile fence around the DNC.....

That email was mocking Trump's stupid Taco Bowl comment on Cinco de Mayo, the racist in this exchange still is Trump.

That's funny....!!!

#Demexit....

I love it!  Bill Clinton was characterized as serving as a “character witness” for Hillary in the Tulsa World story this morning.

Because we know Bubba knows all about good character when he sees it!

He could recognize it without having it....

Has the whole issue of in kind donation not been discussed as it relates to "DNC emailgate" or whatever we are calling it?

Is this not a potential violation of the current (woeful) campaign finance laws? Not that anything will happen. They're too busy looking for the Russians hackers who are apparently so stupid they couldn't mask their own identity, yet were able to gain access to all these secure servers.

So how about the Donald soliciting donations from overseas which is a direct violation of campaign finance law?  That's pretty convenient to forget about.

So I'm guessing that is a yes then. "Since Trump did" should be a phenomenal defense.

Pretty much modus operandi for Trump defenders is to pivot to Hillary.  So why not?  The Cheeto Jesus has nothing substantive to provide except "Crooked Hillary".  This is gonna be a fun election season leading up.  May have to put Trump on suicide watch.

Self reflect much.

Actually, that's pretty insightful. Narcissists cannot fathom that they may be suffering from delusions. It isn't in their make-up. They will explode, lash out and blame others rather than consider themselves as flawed in some way. Even when faced with overwhelming failure.

So what should we expect if/when Trump loses? I'd think there will be the usual accusations of election fraud as well as institutional bias against him from within the Republican party. And the party faithful will complain that he wasn't a true conservative.

It'll be worse if he wins.

Here’s a good read on Trump's narcissism, comparing and contrasting to Obama’s brand of it.   ;D

https://drhurd.com/2015/11/29/is-trump-a-narcissist-what-about-obama/

Is Dr. Hurd wrong, or was I detecting the divisiveness that I was discussing earlier? They are all that one. How else does one distinguish themselves from the other sub-standard candidate?

Look, Obama may very well NOT be the most divisive, but to argue that he is not at all is dishonest. He does the same thing Trump does. He has opponents with different views, and he characterizes them by calling them un-American, pushing grandma over the cliff, or economic terrorists...

And people with differing views are “deniers”, “mouth breathers”, “racist”, etc.

I am quite certain any policy of Obama’s I have disagreed with has had zilch to do with the color of his skin much like my opinion of Sleepy Ben not being cut out to be POTUS had nothing to do with his skin color either.

I'm thinking the DNC is winning over the RNC due to the stars.

The RNC was like an updated version of battle of the network stars...but really really sad.  Duck Dynasty guy and Charles in Charge.

The DNC has Oscar Winners and other up-to-date entertainers. 

Yup...this shouldn't matter worth a crap...but it does to many voters.  "My favorite TV star likes Clinton!  That must be the right way to go."

Anyway...Trump was a TV star.  Adam Sandler is a republican...

And you see where his career went when he made that public.

Am I saying that's right?  Nope.  But it's reality.  It cracks me up to hear my conservative friends and family complain about Hollywood/Movie/TV Stars are so liberal.

You ever wonder why?

I've said the same thing. It's no coincidence that all the "celebs" at the republican convention were either past their prime or in their twilight. If there is a group of people more thin skinned than politicians, its those in Hollywood.

Are any of you as tired of the "it's the greatest ever" mentality of our media? and society for that matter? Are our memories that short. Greatest football game ever this week (the previous greatest was last week).

Obama says Clinton is the most qualified person every to run. He's not alone in this sentiment but I will say that I do not recall hearing that once on this board (except maybe from Davideinstein  ;D)

Apparently all these guys below were missing was estrogen from what I can tell. It just gets old.

(https://media2.wnyc.org/i/800/0/l/80/1/foundingfathers.jpg)

That one - yes!  Sick and tired of it.


Also, when anyone says, "...so this never happens again...."    Anyone more than about 2 years old should know that it always happens again!

I never know if you're serious. That guy really mixes his politics with his work. He was okay till he did the very thing he admonished others not to do-diagnose a public figure without ever meeting them. Now, just another hypocrite. One thing for some guy in Podunk Tulsa on a forum to make an observation of a public figure. Quite another for a Phd in Psychothapy and another in Philosophy to show his donkey on his own website.  Even then he did it so poorly it was laughable. Apparently all progressives are narcissists in his book. And I assume he sells a lot of them!

Bunch of angry white men clinging to religion and muskets.  Each probably owned a fleet of colored people as well.

I found it telling that so many Conservative pundits were tweeting praise to this 'divisive' President's message last night.

Like this one:

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/758514549339414528

And this one:

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/758510075925368834

It's not just Erickson.

http://www.attn.com/stories/10276/republicans-praise-obamas-dnc-speech?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=direct-share&utm_campaign=shares

I was torn as to whether to create a new topic, or keep it in this one since some of the reporting is based at the conventions.

I find it ironic that it would seem that the (apparent) death of the old GOP seems to be aligning itself with the (apparent) demise of Fox News as we know/remember it.  Evidently much internal strife going on there.  If one of the Murdoch sons gets hold of it, I suspect a lot of change might be afoot.  Right now however Pops has taken over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/business/media/after-ailess-departure-a-stony-silence-at-fox.html

Was curious, so looked it up. (Sorry if I was the only one who didn't immediately recognize all the people.) Picture is of the leaders of the Continental Congress:  John Adams, Gouverneur Morris, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

Of the two,  John Adams and Gouveneur Morris did not own slaves.   Gouvenour Morris by the way, does not get enough play in the history books.  Really interesting guy.   Was probably the most "liberal", by today's standards, of all our founding fathers.