Since none of you can give me any real clarification on how Russia leaking authentic emails written by members of the DNC who where caught trying to steal the primary from Bernie and rigging the general for Hillary. I give you a great leader of the DNC, superdelegate and media rabble rousing darling.

Donna Brazile.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.3002221

By attempting to get actual debate questions Hillary would have an unfair advantage in the debates (even though Trump wiped the floor with her) it was an attempt to "interfere" in an election. By artificially giving a candidate an unfair edge that was against the rules.

It's so nice that she is admitting it even though Julian Assange exposed it awhile ago and we got to see the true colors of the Democrats. Who speak of letting the people have a voice in the media but in the backrooms conspire and practice cronyism and many others forms of dirty politics.

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.

If only Bernie was given a real chance. Who knows?

Does flogging dead horses get you off?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

I don't scream. I rarely use caps.

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.

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.

Exactly, "in politics, you look for any unfair advantage you can get away with". This is the way politics work, it's called realpolitik. Look at how the guy who won won! To pretend that Hillary was operating in some bubble of chivalry is insanity. The Democratic party at the time of the convention was a closed club with a task of nominating Hillary Clinton and winning the Presidential election. Bernie Sanders was never in contention to win the Democratic nomination. The absolute height of his support was about 33% if you believe the polls were that accurate. That's 33% for Bernie vs 67% for Hillary; Bernie was dead meat The only thing propping him up was the media attention because the whole thing on the Dem side was so boring without him. The media needed a controversy, each individual journalist needed something to write about. He never had a sliver of a chance in the actual election in November, he would have been a repeat of the George McGovern show in the general election and all the experienced polls knew that.

But the salient thing is that he wasn't even a Democrat, he was an independent trying to run as a Democrat. Joe Biden could have actually challenged Hillary, but not Bernie. He needed to be shown the door.

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.

How does this:

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.

...possibly deserve this response:

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.

????

The ends don't justify the means. If Hillary was going to win anyway, why the need to try and sabotage Bernie?

einsteinboricua wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

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.

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.

And even more telling, where is the bomb, they are on record saying they have and have been about to set of, about Russia?

Best regards
Thomas

vikkyvik wrote:

How does this:
...possibly deserve this response:
????

Because the "fallout from the election" comes from the other side. And it will be never ending, just like the Vince Foster allegation.

vikkyvik wrote:

If Hillary was going to win anyway, why the need to try and sabotage Bernie?

In the end, Bernie did siphon off just enough good will for Hillary to cause her to lose the Presidential election.

salttee wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

If Hillary was going to win anyway, why the need to try and sabotage Bernie?

In the end, Bernie did siphon off just enough good will for Hillary to cause her to lose the Presidential election.

Well, acording to Fox News he is the most popular politican.


Also good to see that Trump is now less popular than even sanctuary cities and a lot less popular than Obama care With his approval rate, mind you this is FOX data, dropped further to just 43%.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... oving.html

Eight years is about as realistic as Jesus 2nd coming in our lifetime.

Best regards
Thomas

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.

I don't know what you're even talking about here. I have never bought into the Republican lines of attack against Clinton. Even with all her baggage, she earned my vote (not that it would have mattered in sapphire blue Maryland). But if she was going to win the nomination, I wanted it to be a clean race. Did I prefer Bernie? No. Clinton still earned my vote in the primaries as well. But it does not bode well for the party to still be licking its wounds and uncover the fact that certain DNC officials were favoring Clinton beyond a statement of support.

Like vikkyvik said:

vikkyvik wrote:

The ends don't justify the means. If Hillary was going to win anyway, why the need to try and sabotage Bernie?

If this was Clinton's race to lose, there was no need for the DNC to meddle beyond officials (in their elected capacity, not as DNC officials) stating their preference. Those who know me know that I was never in favor of DWS at the helm of the DNC and that as DNC chair she (and the rest of the board) needed to stay neutral.

This is not a conspiracy...this is not a lie...this is not a leak and most certainly it's not fake (especially when Donna herself admits to having done so after denying it). I just hope that Tom Perez and Keith Ellison (who was my preferred choice for DNC chair) can bring all sides together and move beyond the 2016 election, but taking note of the mistakes as lessons learned.

salttee wrote:

But the salient thing is that he wasn't even a Democrat, he was an independent trying to run as a Democrat.

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.

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.

What is this microwave thing? I don't get it.

Anyhow, 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. Her nomination was cyanide for the party nationally in 2016. It will take some years to recover.

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.

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.

einsteinboricua wrote:

it does not bode well for the party to still be licking its wounds

That's all in your, NIKV69 and vikkyvik's minds. Look at who the OP is, look at who is stirring this pot!

einsteinboricua wrote:

certain DNC officials were favoring Clinton beyond a statement of support.

So what!!

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.
Yuch!

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.

Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million.

Hillis wrote:

He's one of those "useful idiots", that are famous in their defense of strongmen and dictators

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.

salttee wrote:

That's all in your, NIKV69 and vikkyvik's minds.

You have no idea what's in my mind.

I may not agree with NIK on a lot of stuff, but he's right, this shouldn't have happened.

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.

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?

vikkyvik wrote:

So what you're saying is that because both parties do it, it's OK

Do what?

tommy1808 wrote:

Well, according to Fox News he is the most popular politician.

Well, FOX seems to have gotten it half right.

Bernie and Mitch are fairly equal in my sight. Both belong at the bottom of the list. A couple of political pariahs in my opinion, albeit for somewhat different reasons.

salttee wrote:

Do what?

Be unethical.

vikkyvik wrote:

salttee wrote:

Do what?

Be unethical.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

I don't know where you're getting that. I'm not arguing anything about Trump. You said:

salttee wrote:

You are trying to hold Hillary and Schultz to an ethical standard which is inappropriate for the position Hillary was seeking.

My reading: they don't need to be what some of us would consider ethical, considering their position.

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.

My reading: it's OK that the DNC acted unethically, because Trump is also unethical. Also, allowing two candidates to have a fair fight is childish.

Hence, my question:

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?

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...

vikkyvik you've built a castle in the sky. You can move in and live there, not me.

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

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

So, that means you believe that Hillary instigated this. Again I ask: what if Hillary did not instigate this? What if Brazile just decided or was asked by Debbie Wasserman-Schulz? Can you righties grasp that concept that Hillary might not be as bad as you all have been led to believe?

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:

vikkyvik you've built a castle in the sky. You can move in and live there, not me.

Just quotin' ya and asking a question. Ah well, your response is expected.

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!

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!

She is a politician. Politicians are shady by nature. Other than that, my question still stands.

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.

Wow someone didn't take their meds this morning. This toxic partisan rubbish is over the top even for you I have to admit but as usual you are somewhere in left field. I applaud your attempt to make light and even dismiss what wikileaks exposed but it does show the DNC conspired to make the electoral system for their candidate null and void and to destroy Sanders. Then to move the goalposts in the general.

Thankfully thanks to Assange and the good people of the US they didn't succeed in the General. As for Sanders he has to deal with what happened to him.

If I was you I would want to forget it too but the truth is your parts is crooked bro.

And at first she said she was being "persecuted."