NIKV69 wrote:Really? Where's the leak from the RNC? Where are the leaks that expose the Republicans? Bipartisan? Doubt it. And by the way, be careful what you wish for.One thing about Wikileaks, the are bipartisan. I can't believe they shed light and let the people make a choice last November based on real facts and not rigged outcomes.
NIKV69 wrote:If only Bernie was given a real chance. Who knows?
einsteinboricua wrote:If there's one thing that sets me aside from you (in addition to our preferences in the political spectrum) is that I don't attempt to defend the indefensible. This was a blatant disregard of the rules, a dangerous show of favoritism, and I'm glad she's no longer at the helm. I'm disappointed that the party is still dealing with fallout from the election and is still uncovering favoritism that goes beyond just saying "I support X over Y". Cut them loose and never let them get a vote again.NIKV69 wrote:Really? Where's the leak from the RNC? Where are the leaks that expose the Republicans? Bipartisan? Doubt it. And by the way, be careful what you wish for.One thing about Wikileaks, the are bipartisan. I can't believe they shed light and let the people make a choice last November based on real facts and not rigged outcomes.NIKV69 wrote:If only Bernie was given a real chance. Who knows?
You'd probably be screaming the way Hillis is on how Bernie is gonna tax you to death.
ltbewr wrote:Look, I don't think this is the first time it happened, I bet it has happened before but here she got caught. Was what she did illegal ? Likely not but it probably violated contracts which is a civil penalty, not criminal. It was unfair, but in politics, you look for any unfair advantage you can get away with, that is its nature of real politics, especially with the stakes so high.
einsteinboricua wrote:This was a blatant disregard of the rules, a dangerous show of favoritism, and I'm glad she's no longer at the helm. I'm disappointed that the party is still dealing with fallout from the election and is still uncovering favoritism that goes beyond just saying "I support X over Y". Cut them loose and never let them get a vote again.
salttee wrote:einsteinboricua, you've let the drip drip of the constant accusations against Hillary take over your thinking. This "scandal" is on the same level as blaming Hillary for Benghazi, of reacting in horror because she did the same as everyone else who has an ounce of competence and technical ability and used her own server. In fact this Wikileak proves her right on that issue, if she had used a State Department server we would have been reading her E-Mails on Fox news. There was nothing to Whitewater, she didn't kill Vince Foster, Obama wasn't born in Nigeria, it's all Republican bullshit and you've bought into it.
einsteinboricua wrote:NIKV69 wrote:Really? Where's the leak from the RNC? Where are the leaks that expose the Republicans? Bipartisan? Doubt it. And by the way, be careful what you wish for.One thing about Wikileaks, the are bipartisan. I can't believe they shed light and let the people make a choice last November based on real facts and not rigged outcomes.
vikkyvik wrote:How does this:
...possibly deserve this response:
????
vikkyvik wrote:In the end, Bernie did siphon off just enough good will for Hillary to cause her to lose the Presidential election.If Hillary was going to win anyway, why the need to try and sabotage Bernie?
salttee wrote:vikkyvik wrote:In the end, Bernie did siphon off just enough good will for Hillary to cause her to lose the Presidential election.If Hillary was going to win anyway, why the need to try and sabotage Bernie?
salttee wrote:einsteinboricua, you've let the drip drip of the constant accusations against Hillary take over your thinking. This "scandal" is on the same level as blaming Hillary for Benghazi, of reacting in horror because she did the same as everyone else who has an ounce of competence and technical ability and used her own server. In fact this Wikileak proves her right on that issue, if she had used a State Department server we would have been reading her E-Mails on Fox news. There was nothing to Whitewater, she didn't kill Vince Foster, Obama wasn't born in Nigeria, it's all Republican bullshit and you've bought into it.
vikkyvik wrote:The ends don't justify the means. If Hillary was going to win anyway, why the need to try and sabotage Bernie?
salttee wrote:And this is why Bernie sunk to a new low with me. Yes, you didn't win the nomination and yes, certain DNC officials colluded against you, but Bernie would have remained high on my list if he decided to remain a Democrat. In the end, if you were gonna switch back to Independent, why bother joining a party to get the nomination? And for 2018, he's seeking reelection as an independent.But the salient thing is that he wasn't even a Democrat, he was an independent trying to run as a Democrat.
seb146 wrote:Because giving a couple of debate questions is far worse than Deutchebank Cypres loans or the former head of ExxonMobil (current Secretary of State) trying to ignore sanctions....
EDIT:
That someone gave Hillary some debate questions makes Hillary a terrible choice for president, in the minds of righties. You all would not believe her if she said she tore them up without looking at them. Even if, at the very second she was handed the questions, she destroyed them without looking at them in front of God, her microwave and Sean Hannity. That is the real tragedy.
Flighty wrote:What is this microwave thing? I don't get it.
einsteinboricua wrote:That's all in your, NIKV69 and vikkyvik's minds. Look at who the OP is, look at who is stirring this pot!it does not bode well for the party to still be licking its wounds
einsteinboricua wrote:certain DNC officials were favoring Clinton beyond a statement of support.
Flighty wrote:Hillary was a nonviable candidate, and would have lost to any opponent. Her nomination was when the hubris of the Democrats, the most elite organization in the country, went fully toxic.
Hillis wrote:A technical quibble here: a "useful idiot" is someone who acts to support a manipulator without knowledge or malice. We have a good example of that right here on this page; NIKV69 however, is as malicious as they come.He's one of those "useful idiots", that are famous in their defense of strongmen and dictators
salttee wrote:That's all in your, NIKV69 and vikkyvik's minds.
salttee wrote:You are trying to hold Hillary and Schultz to an ethical standard which is inappropriate for the position Hillary was seeking. If they would have bought into yours and NIK's childish ethical standard, they would have been naive idiots in the matchup with Trump, let alone rulers like Putin. If you are in need of faulting her, fault her for trusting the security of somebody else's E-mail server.Look at the irony behind a Trump supporter making this OP.
vikkyvik wrote:So what you're saying is that because both parties do it, it's OK
tommy1808 wrote:
salttee wrote:Do what?
vikkyvik wrote:salttee wrote:Do what?
Be unethical.
salttee wrote:You haven't made the case that Hillary did anything that rises to the level of being unethical, whereas Trump's wholesale lies are unquestionably unethical.
vikkyvik wrote:salttee wrote:You haven't made the case that Hillary did anything that rises to the level of being unethical, whereas Trump's wholesale lies are unquestionably unethical.
I wasn't making any case about Hillary being unethical. The thread is about people in the DNC, not Hillary.
You even mentioned Schultz in your post.
salttee wrote:Well if that's the case then you appear to be arguing that if any Democrat anywhere parks their car at a meter without putting a nickle in the meter, that gives Donald Trump as POTUS license to sell out this nation to the Russians.
If that's not your argument, then please be clear about what you are saying.
salttee wrote:You are trying to hold Hillary and Schultz to an ethical standard which is inappropriate for the position Hillary was seeking.
salttee wrote:If they would have bought into yours and NIK's childish ethical standard, they would have been naive idiots in the matchup with Trump, let alone rulers like Putin.
vikkyvik wrote:So what you're saying is that because both parties do it, it's OK and we shouldn't hold them to any ethical standards? Or rather, we should hold them to Trump's ethical standards?
seb146 wrote:What if (I know righties will not think this scenario is even plausible because their party is above reproach and everyone else is pond scum) what if Donna Brazile gave questions to Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and was told to give those questions to Hillary. Schulz gave the questions to one of Hillary's assistants who thought "geez, this is highly unethical" and shredded the questions so that Hillary never saw them?
I know you righties believe only what you want to believe, but it needs to be asked...
socalgeo wrote:seb146 wrote:What if (I know righties will not think this scenario is even plausible because their party is above reproach and everyone else is pond scum) what if Donna Brazile gave questions to Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and was told to give those questions to Hillary. Schulz gave the questions to one of Hillary's assistants who thought "geez, this is highly unethical" and shredded the questions so that Hillary never saw them?
I know you righties believe only what you want to believe, but it needs to be asked...
I don't know why you are disparaging the Republicans in a thread about Donna Brazile and how she conspired with the Clinton campaign to cheat during the 2016 presidential election. But crappy deflections is what you do.....sigh......
Anyway, your made up bullshit question is unnecessary. This is because she was let go by CNN for her "interactions with the Clinton campaign."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ing-214406
From the article...
"In a statement, CNN said it was "completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."
CNN said it "never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate." "
Your fantasy question would shed no light on this situation...... there is absolutely no question WHATSOEVER that she and Hillary Clinton cheated. PERIOD
salttee wrote:vikkyvik you've built a castle in the sky. You can move in and live there, not me.
seb146 wrote:Don't get me wrong: she has done some shady stuff, but I (nearly the whole world, really) would much rather see her in the White House than the oaf that is in there now! IF she did start this, at least she kept it in the country and didn't have to go begging for help from Russia!
salttee wrote:seb146 wrote:Don't get me wrong: she has done some shady stuff, but I (nearly the whole world, really) would much rather see her in the White House than the oaf that is in there now! IF she did start this, at least she kept it in the country and didn't have to go begging for help from Russia!
You're another one who has fallen for the years long constant drumbeat by the pubbies. What has Hillary done that's "shady"? From Whitewater to the server it's all been a big nothing, including being handed the debate questions. Put things into perspective, go back and look at what her peers have set as the standard: Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush and now Trump!
Hillis wrote:NIK is one of those people who will look for that one nugget that tries to deflect away from anything that doesn't look good for his point of view. He's not unlike 45, to be honest. He'll try to drag up Hillary, when she isn't the subject. He'll drag up the once-in-a-blue moon story on a person of color being racist to a white person, while all the time denying that it is whites that are more racist than anyone in America.
He's one of those "useful idiots", that are famous in their defense of strongmen and dictators, who would be singing their praises even as he's being put up against the wall by those he's praising. He doesn't warrent any attention on here.