DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists
 

The left sure is a confusing, somewhat schizophrenic lot.

One moment they're foaming at the mouth about Citizens United and the next they're pulling shit like this:

Thank God that at least the RNC still ban them!

Equivocation!

How predictable!

If I were a Bernie Sanders supporter I'd be pretty f-ing pissed off right about now. Although I don't share their views I do have a fraction of an iota of sympathy for them.

The people of NH (my state) gave Bernie a 20 point win the other night yet Hillary got the same amount of NH delegates.

The moderators in the debate the other night were Clinton campaign contributors and did not even dare to question Hillary about the FBI investigation. If it were a Republican or even Bernie under investigation it would have been the first question our of their mouths. He and his acolytes believe in equality of outcome whereas I believe in equality of opportunity and never shall the twain meet.

The DNC has limited the debates to protect Hillary.

The DNC just rolled back this campaign contribution rule to help Hillary.

The Dem establishment is doing everything in it's power to undermine Bernie and give this to Hillary even if that means completely disregarding the will of the Dem voters. To be fair the GOP is doing the same thing to Trump, they're just much more inept in the way they're going about it.

In some weird, perverse, bizarro world way I actually respect Sanders. I believe he truly cares about the welfare of the American people. But his ideas are the same old collectivist crap that represents the perfect antithesis of man's innate desire to be a free, unique individual, succeeding or failing on his or her own merit. He and his acolytes believe in equality of outcome whereas I believe in equality of opportunity and never shall the twain meet.

I am grappling with the use of goose and gander in the same sentence.

I don't think equivocation means what you think it means.

What is predictable is you ignoring the actual point.

As is your faux outrage over a practice near and dear to the party you support. You have no "standing" on this issue.

For the record, this pisses me off and is just another reason for me to support the removal of Rep. Schultz as DNC Chair.

Lastly, this was a policy adopted by candidate Obama for the 2008 campaign and one that the DNC was more or less compelled to adhere to for that campaign season and, since Obama ran for a second term, the next one in 2012. Since Obama isn't running this time, the DNC is under no obligation to honor his decisions on whose contributions to accept or refuse.

And now here you are!

Funny, that.

You're correct. I meant to say equivalency.

Faux outrage? I barely support the party. If there was a mainstream libertarian candidate running that was taken seriously I'd vote for them in a second and abandon Trump but I have to be pragmatic. And the GOP didn't claim to be against this type of thing only to turn around and use it when they felt it necessary to meet their agenda. You can go on and on about technical details of what the DNC can and cannot do but the simple fact is that liberals and progressives are always whining about money in campaigns, lobbyists etc etc and then it's their party that does this. IF you had an ounce of objectivity you'd admit that the hypocrisy is stunning.

Actually that makes nearly as little sense. Perhaps you meant "false equivalency". That would be slightly better, though untrue.