Right. I was speaking in terms of it's effect on the election. If nobody knew about it, it wouldn't have been a factor. Not "it's not important" as in "it doesn't matter in any regard".
I agree that it was a good spotlight on the potential corruption of politics - although I don't think it was nearly as crazy as what some people do - but at least some people assumed the corruption anyway but it was good evidence.
The problem is that the Democrats aren't seeming to take responsibility and acting like they'll change and become trustworthy to their voters. As someone who is on the verge of just accepting the title "Liberal" and "Democrat" just to get everyone to shut the fuck up as if they're actually insulting me, it concerns me that the DNC will just fuck themselves in the next election by not putting up a person the constituents truly believe in.
Gotcha, I see what you're saying.
Now, while I am sure that there are a good number of left leaning "liberals" who have voted Democrat because that's what they've always done, and there are those who vote for them because they don't understand the way government is supposed to work, the voters are only a symptom of the problem. Those in power of the DNC are the real issue. They have capitalized on the fact that a huge amount of the voters vote D because it's what they've always done. They may disagree with a large number of their stances on issues, but they've voted Democrat for so long they can't not vote Democrat. Add to it a great many people are VERY lazy, don't do any research and take whatever information is spoon fed to them, and it shows why the DNC has gone the way they have. They really do hold themselves as more intelligent than everyone else, really think people need to be backwoods rubes to vote Republican, etc. Never mind that they have said that they need to have a "public face" and a "private face" to keep the people from seeing who you really are, nevermind they are more than willing to steamroll over another (equally unviable in my opinion) candidate to promote their "chosen one", they simply think that the general public is too stupid to make a reasonable choice, so they're going to force it on them. That in my opinion is one of the reasons they cannot bear to lose, why they fight so hard to change the rules when cheating doesn't work. The DNC does learn more quickly than the RNC though... They probably won't admit why they're wrong, but they'll adapt faster than the RNC.
The only reason the RNC "adapted" is because a liberal democrat ran as a republican. He played by DNC rules and it really pissed them off. By doing so, he helped bring to light all of the corruption inside of the group, and if we're lucky the people will remember that and work to change it.
As far as labeling yourself, why bother? I don't consider myself a republican even though I tend to vote republican. I vote based on the long term results of the elections. I don't get caught up in petty shit like overturning Roe v Wade (which really, the RNC should just drop. It's a stupid fight, much light gun bans and the DNC, but I digress). What I do is look at the history of the people running, I look at how they've voted, what their ideals are, etc. Clinton was in my opinion a horrible choice for president. The DNC always talks about furthering our rights, being the champion for them, yet they are always the first to curtail them. The primary reason I have not voted for a Democrat in a national election is since I have been able to vote, I have yet to see one I think is worth electing. Take Bill Clinton for example. I was 18 when he ran, and I was geared up to vote for him until he said something that made me lose ALL respect for him. Bear in mind, I thought he was the coolest guy to run for president yet. He had all the women cooing over him, he seemed cool, and then his lying stupid mouth said when asked about smoking pot, "Well, I put the cigarette in my mouth, but I didn't inhale."
BULLSHIT! LYING POLITICIAN BULLSHIT! It not only insulted my intelligence, but it was the stupidest, most asinine thing to say. Had he said something along the lines of, "Well, it was the 60's and yes I tried it as many people did. But I didn't care for it, so I don't smoke it anymore." then my respect of him would have remained intact as that would have been a "more honest" if not completely honest answer.
By answering in that cagey, lying manner, then everything else that came out of his mouth became recognizable as a lie. All his answers were non-answers like that. Well I did A but did not do B. Yes I knew that woman, no I didn't have sex with her. All the women coming out of the woodwork claiming to have been raped by him (most of which had actually reported it to some form of law enforcement when it actually happened, unlike the accusations against Trump during the campaign) suddenly seemed much more convincing to me.
Once you spot HOW someone lies, it's easy to spot the lies. And both Bill and Hillary lie in nearly every sentence they speak.
Notice when Obama was asked about smoking pot, he answered that he did at one point. I respected that. Didn't vote for him because I didn't like his ideals, but I respected that of him. His lies are also easy to spot. "Let me be clear..." That means he's lying.
I personally would love to get people of good character into politics. I don't see it happening though, because the voters are petty, whiny, petulant idiots. Good people in politics are a rarity.