|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 02 2017 21:17 farvacola wrote:
I just now saw at the bottom that Brazile has a book coming on the 7th. Damn good appetizer piece if I ever saw one lol.
That and she's trying to play dumb and that the whole DNC was oblivious... As if she hadn't cheated to help Hillary, lie excessively, or couldn't have done something before the convention.
Thank god she thinks this can help save herself/others. It's vindicating.
|
On November 02 2017 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this? Show nested quote +The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. SourceThe DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS. This part too: Show nested quote +He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
No the reason you are crazy is you are acting like it accomplished anything. Hilary won the nomination for the same reason Obama did and thats the southern states just overwhelmingly voted for her and she won against Bernie by more than Obama won against her which means that at best maybe Bernie would have made his defeat slightly closer.
|
It's definitely her "What Happened" minimize my role in things showpiece, but she needn't be welcomed back into the fold for folks to understand the significance of her refusing to hold on to Clinton secrets.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Feels a lot like a "DNC colluded to help Hillary - I would know, I was part of it" situation with Brazile.
|
On November 02 2017 21:23 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this? The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. SourceThe DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS. This part too: He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?” No the reason you are crazy is you are acting like it accomplished anything. Hilary won the nomination for the same reason Obama did and thats the southern states just overwhelmingly voted for her and she won against Bernie by more than Obama won against her which means that at best maybe Bernie would have made his defeat slightly closer.
lol. She literally funded her campaign by circumventing FEC fundraising law using the DNC, but yeah that didn't help her or anything.
I know that you probably think it only went as far as Donna admits but there's 0 reason to think that she didn't have similar relationships at the state levels ("Do what I say or go broke"), or that DWS didn't pass the hint along.
It's not even about whether he would have won or not though.
|
On November 02 2017 21:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 21:23 Adreme wrote:On November 02 2017 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this? The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. SourceThe DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS. This part too: He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?” No the reason you are crazy is you are acting like it accomplished anything. Hilary won the nomination for the same reason Obama did and thats the southern states just overwhelmingly voted for her and she won against Bernie by more than Obama won against her which means that at best maybe Bernie would have made his defeat slightly closer. lol. She literally funded her campaign by circumventing FEC fundraising law using the DNC, but yeah that didn't help her or anything. I know that you probably think it only went as far as Donna admits but there's 0 reason to think that she didn't have similar relationships at the state levels, or that DWS didn't pass the hint along. It's not even about whether he would have won or not though.
The whole system is set up to benefit people with the resources to circumvent the law. Its a part of why political establishment is so corrupt, there's nothing surprising about it. Bernie wouldn't have been able to win anyway because its not a level playing field.
Its just a shame that neither Bernie or Hilary could see how many votes you win if you're willing to mock the disabled during a speech.
|
On November 02 2017 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 21:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 21:23 Adreme wrote:On November 02 2017 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this? The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. SourceThe DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS. This part too: He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?” No the reason you are crazy is you are acting like it accomplished anything. Hilary won the nomination for the same reason Obama did and thats the southern states just overwhelmingly voted for her and she won against Bernie by more than Obama won against her which means that at best maybe Bernie would have made his defeat slightly closer. lol. She literally funded her campaign by circumventing FEC fundraising law using the DNC, but yeah that didn't help her or anything. I know that you probably think it only went as far as Donna admits but there's 0 reason to think that she didn't have similar relationships at the state levels, or that DWS didn't pass the hint along. It's not even about whether he would have won or not though. The whole system is set up to benefit people with the resources to circumvent the law. Its a part of why political establishment is so corrupt, there's nothing surprising about it. Bernie wouldn't have been able to win anyway because its not a level playing field. Its just a shame that neither Bernie or Hilary could see how many votes you win if you're willing to mock the disabled during a speech.
Shouldn't be, but people swore up and down it wasn't happening or was acceptable, here we have the person picked BY HILLARY to run the DNC , AFTER she cheated for her, saying it was unethical and violated the DNC charter and almost brought her to tears.
|
On November 02 2017 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 21:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 21:23 Adreme wrote:On November 02 2017 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this? The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. SourceThe DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS. This part too: He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?” No the reason you are crazy is you are acting like it accomplished anything. Hilary won the nomination for the same reason Obama did and thats the southern states just overwhelmingly voted for her and she won against Bernie by more than Obama won against her which means that at best maybe Bernie would have made his defeat slightly closer. lol. She literally funded her campaign by circumventing FEC fundraising law using the DNC, but yeah that didn't help her or anything. I know that you probably think it only went as far as Donna admits but there's 0 reason to think that she didn't have similar relationships at the state levels, or that DWS didn't pass the hint along. It's not even about whether he would have won or not though. The whole system is set up to benefit people with the resources to circumvent the law. Its a part of why political establishment is so corrupt, there's nothing surprising about it. Bernie wouldn't have been able to win anyway because its not a level playing field. Its just a shame that neither Bernie or Hilary could see how many votes you win if you're willing to mock the disabled during a speech.
Also why the party was filled with so many terrible candidates and lack luster staff. Quality candidates don’t want to be completely beholden to Clinton and her underlings, so they get funding cut off or loss support. Just think of the number of candidates that got cut off because they wouldn’t play ball for god knows how long.
|
On November 02 2017 21:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2017 21:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 21:23 Adreme wrote:On November 02 2017 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this? The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. SourceThe DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS. This part too: He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?” No the reason you are crazy is you are acting like it accomplished anything. Hilary won the nomination for the same reason Obama did and thats the southern states just overwhelmingly voted for her and she won against Bernie by more than Obama won against her which means that at best maybe Bernie would have made his defeat slightly closer. lol. She literally funded her campaign by circumventing FEC fundraising law using the DNC, but yeah that didn't help her or anything. I know that you probably think it only went as far as Donna admits but there's 0 reason to think that she didn't have similar relationships at the state levels, or that DWS didn't pass the hint along. It's not even about whether he would have won or not though. The whole system is set up to benefit people with the resources to circumvent the law. Its a part of why political establishment is so corrupt, there's nothing surprising about it. Bernie wouldn't have been able to win anyway because its not a level playing field. Its just a shame that neither Bernie or Hilary could see how many votes you win if you're willing to mock the disabled during a speech. Also why the party was filled with so many terrible candidates and lack luster staff. Quality candidates don’t want to be completely beholden to Clinton and her underlings, so they get funding cut off or loss support. Just think of the number of candidates that got cut off because they wouldn’t play ball for god knows how long.
It also explains why when the DNC did such a shit gotv effort during the primary. Most of their efforts typically target audiences that skewed heavy to Bernie, so they just didn't do it. Brilliant long term planning.
When you take into consideration that Hillary's campaign (and now we know with the DNC's help) intentionally elevated Trump and undermined the Democratic base by unethically corrupting the DNC, her share of the blame for Trump had to go up pretty significantly today.
|
On November 02 2017 21:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 21:54 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2017 21:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 21:23 Adreme wrote:On November 02 2017 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this? The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. SourceThe DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS. This part too: He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?” No the reason you are crazy is you are acting like it accomplished anything. Hilary won the nomination for the same reason Obama did and thats the southern states just overwhelmingly voted for her and she won against Bernie by more than Obama won against her which means that at best maybe Bernie would have made his defeat slightly closer. lol. She literally funded her campaign by circumventing FEC fundraising law using the DNC, but yeah that didn't help her or anything. I know that you probably think it only went as far as Donna admits but there's 0 reason to think that she didn't have similar relationships at the state levels, or that DWS didn't pass the hint along. It's not even about whether he would have won or not though. The whole system is set up to benefit people with the resources to circumvent the law. Its a part of why political establishment is so corrupt, there's nothing surprising about it. Bernie wouldn't have been able to win anyway because its not a level playing field. Its just a shame that neither Bernie or Hilary could see how many votes you win if you're willing to mock the disabled during a speech. Also why the party was filled with so many terrible candidates and lack luster staff. Quality candidates don’t want to be completely beholden to Clinton and her underlings, so they get funding cut off or loss support. Just think of the number of candidates that got cut off because they wouldn’t play ball for god knows how long. It also explains why when the DNC did such a shit gotv effort during the primary. Most of their efforts typically target audiences that skewed heavy to Bernie, so they just didn't do it. Brilliant long term planning. When you take into consideration that Hillary's campaign (and now we know with the DNC's help) intentionally elevated Trump and undermined the Democratic base by unethically corrupting the DNC, her share of the blame for Trump had to go up pretty significantly today.
When people dig into this more, they are going to find out that Clinton and others kept the details of the finances from anyone who would raise the alarm or object. In Clinton’s mind the DNC has failed to keep its finances in order, so now she was in charge and would use the money to keep people in line.
|
On November 02 2017 22:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 21:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 21:54 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 21:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 02 2017 21:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 21:23 Adreme wrote:On November 02 2017 21:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Remember when people tried to make it out like I was crazy for telling you guys this? The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. SourceThe DNC wasn't just favoring Hillary, they were literally in her pocket. The funny thing is this is still the pro-Clinton spin but they are trying to put it on DWS. This part too: He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?” No the reason you are crazy is you are acting like it accomplished anything. Hilary won the nomination for the same reason Obama did and thats the southern states just overwhelmingly voted for her and she won against Bernie by more than Obama won against her which means that at best maybe Bernie would have made his defeat slightly closer. lol. She literally funded her campaign by circumventing FEC fundraising law using the DNC, but yeah that didn't help her or anything. I know that you probably think it only went as far as Donna admits but there's 0 reason to think that she didn't have similar relationships at the state levels, or that DWS didn't pass the hint along. It's not even about whether he would have won or not though. The whole system is set up to benefit people with the resources to circumvent the law. Its a part of why political establishment is so corrupt, there's nothing surprising about it. Bernie wouldn't have been able to win anyway because its not a level playing field. Its just a shame that neither Bernie or Hilary could see how many votes you win if you're willing to mock the disabled during a speech. Also why the party was filled with so many terrible candidates and lack luster staff. Quality candidates don’t want to be completely beholden to Clinton and her underlings, so they get funding cut off or loss support. Just think of the number of candidates that got cut off because they wouldn’t play ball for god knows how long. It also explains why when the DNC did such a shit gotv effort during the primary. Most of their efforts typically target audiences that skewed heavy to Bernie, so they just didn't do it. Brilliant long term planning. When you take into consideration that Hillary's campaign (and now we know with the DNC's help) intentionally elevated Trump and undermined the Democratic base by unethically corrupting the DNC, her share of the blame for Trump had to go up pretty significantly today. When people dig into this more, they are going to find out that Clinton and others kept the details of the finances from anyone who would raise the alarm or object. In Clinton’s mind the DNC has failed to keep its finances in order, so now she was in charge and would use the money to keep people in line.
People in the local parties figured it out pretty quick based on what efforts would get support from the DNC. Particularly right after they sent a bunch of money to the DNC and then the DNC told them they didn't have it to give it back.
This was a secret like Weinstein was a secret.
|
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances.
|
On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances.
Sit down.
|
On November 02 2017 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. Sit down.
Be humble?
...I could not help myself.
But really, stop trying to make Uranium One a thing xDaunt, it's never going to happen
|
On November 02 2017 14:36 Adreme wrote:Im actually surprised that number is not higher for African-Americans and Hispanics. I dont share that view but I get how a group of people would not exactly be happy to support a rally with the sole purpose of telling them they are lesser human beings. Being able to say "yes I support there right to do that" while important for our country to function cannot be easy to do. Having said that if someone who worked for me participated in one of those rallies if I legally could I would fire them on the spot. I support there freedom to do that, but actions do have consequences. I would not have someone in my employ who did not hold the view that all humans are deserving of the same respect and rights and treatment. By the way, when i say all I mean all which has shocked some of my friends when I dont give preferential treatment to a gender or group.
One of the few times I’ll completely agree with you.
|
On November 02 2017 21:30 LegalLord wrote:
Feels a lot like a "DNC colluded to help Hillary - I would know, I was part of it" situation with Brazile.
She doesn’t come clean with her involvement in rigging it. The parts that could easily be disproved if flat wrong are a pretty searing indictment of the Clinton campaign.
I wonder if the usual Hillary shills will say Clinton herself had no idea what her campaign and DNC was doing in this case.
|
On November 02 2017 22:25 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. Sit down. Be humble? ...I could not help myself. But really, stop trying to make Uranium One a thing xDaunt, it's never going to happen
The similarity is unavoidable. Instead of $80 million being funneled from the states to the Hillary campaign, we have roughly $145 million being funneled from individuals connected with Rosatom to the Clinton Foundation.
|
On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances.
She likes money. She’ll accept money from donors abroad that her own campaign thinks is politically toxic (as revealed in the book on her campaign, Shattered).
|
On November 02 2017 22:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 22:25 IyMoon wrote:On November 02 2017 22:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 22:21 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: consider the Uranium One scandal in light of what we now know about Hillary’s dealings with the DNC and her under the table draining of its finances. Sit down. Be humble? ...I could not help myself. But really, stop trying to make Uranium One a thing xDaunt, it's never going to happen The similarity is unavoidable. Instead of $80 million being funneled from the states to the Hillary campaign, we have roughly $145 million being funneled from individuals connected with Rosatom to the Clinton Foundation.
Oh man, the DNC had 8 other political groups agree to do it as well? Shit now I totally see it
|
On November 02 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 21:30 LegalLord wrote:
Feels a lot like a "DNC colluded to help Hillary - I would know, I was part of it" situation with Brazile. She doesn’t come clean with her involvement in rigging it. The parts that could easily be disproved if flat wrong are a pretty searing indictment of the Clinton campaign. I wonder if the usual Hillary shills will say Clinton herself had no idea what her campaign and DNC was doing in this case.
Adreme was basically the consensus of the first round of hot takes. Basically "but he still wouldn't have won though" as if that's the problem. They think everyone only cares about winning, and not that the DNC being corrupted as was told to anyone who would listen and plenty that preferred not to.
She's about an hour or so from being a BernieBro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
