|
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 04 2017 01:55 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: Looks like Donna's doing some olympic-grade backpedaling or "clarification". I'm gonna say it again, but there are a bunch of FEC disclosures and a bunch of leaked emails. Neither have anything about this alleged arrangement.
Why do people keep saying she's backpedaling? It's not her fault people didn't read what she wrote in the first place.
|
On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777
This is an argument of definition, not of fact. The definitions of rigged that you have put forward are not sufficient for me. Same with Brazile. I am not interested in what the DNC defines as rigging. I am interested in the decisions made by the DNC and how they relate to what I view as "fair" and "neutral". In my eyes, if someone has done a bunch of fundraising etc etc as Clinton has, it increases, not decreases the importance of making sure both her and Bernie were treated 100% the same. Whether Bernie has openly declared disdain for the party or not, once the DNC accepted his involvement in the primary, Bernie and Clinton needed to be treated identically in accordance with my definition of proper democracy. You can disagree and hold another definition of proper democracy. I am not going to say you can't disagree with me regarding the role of seniority, fundraising, party influence and whatnot. I am saying that the way the DNC conducted itself in the primary, as described by Brazile and others, is considered a violation of democracy by my set of ethics. With the core value of democracy being the equality of every person's vote, it is extra important that each of those votes are influenced as minimally as possible by the party/states running each primary. This extends not only into messaging, but even small organizational things. No amount of difference in treatment is acceptable by the governing body in an election.
|
On November 04 2017 00:59 xDaunt wrote:
The thing that always strikes me about the Warren/Pocohontas thing is how it so perfectly illustrates the insane degree to which the American Left values diversity for diversity's sake. Think about it. Warren is a Harvard law professor and a nationally recognized leader in her field of expertise. She's clearly no dummy. Furthermore, she has indisputable progressive bonafides. Yet despite all of that, she still felt compelled to make up some horseshit about her being part Native American, supposedly to check some box with her supporters. That's mental illness territory.
Or, and this is why I've always found heritage itself to be stupid, she was told she came from x, y, and z growing up and to be proud of all her heritage so come college form time you check boxes x, y, and z then you later find out you obly came from x and y or maybe you came from just and also a and b. Your life did not change in any meaningful way, but what you fill out on a form does.
I say this is most lilely because my version isn't an original story. It happens all the time and everytime people are shocked and consider it life altering.
|
On November 04 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 01:55 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777 Looks like Donna's doing some olympic-grade backpedaling or "clarification". I'm gonna say it again, but there are a bunch of FEC disclosures and a bunch of leaked emails. Neither have anything about this alleged arrangement. Why do people keep saying she's back peddling? It's not her fault people didn't read what she wrote in the first place.
you probably oversold what she said as being more than it was; thus it would seem like backpedalling.
at any rate; it's looking like this is all a whole lot of nothing, as usual.
|
On November 04 2017 00:59 xDaunt wrote:
The thing that always strikes me about the Warren/Pocohontas thing is how it so perfectly illustrates the insane degree to which the American Left values diversity for diversity's sake. Think about it. Warren is a Harvard law professor and a nationally recognized leader in her field of expertise. She's clearly no dummy. Furthermore, she has indisputable progressive bonafides. Yet despite all of that, she still felt compelled to make up some horseshit about her being part Native American, supposedly to check some box with her supporters. That's mental illness territory.
yeah i dont know the whole story (mostly because i dont really care), but you have imputed this odious "making up some horseshit about her being part native american" to her as if the whole thing were a deliberate deception. seems more likely she just repeated "horseshit" she has heard without getting her DNA tested or demanding documentary evidence from her family
|
On November 04 2017 02:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 01:55 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777 Looks like Donna's doing some olympic-grade backpedaling or "clarification". I'm gonna say it again, but there are a bunch of FEC disclosures and a bunch of leaked emails. Neither have anything about this alleged arrangement. Why do people keep saying she's back peddling? It's not her fault people didn't read what she wrote in the first place. you probably oversold what she said as being more than it was; thus it would seem like backpedalling. at any rate; it's looking like this is all a whole lot of nothing, as usual.
How in the world is this not a problem?
From
Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.
I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.
So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.
Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.
By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
|
On November 04 2017 02:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 01:55 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777 Looks like Donna's doing some olympic-grade backpedaling or "clarification". I'm gonna say it again, but there are a bunch of FEC disclosures and a bunch of leaked emails. Neither have anything about this alleged arrangement. Why do people keep saying she's back peddling? It's not her fault people didn't read what she wrote in the first place. you probably oversold what she said as being more than it was; thus it would seem like backpedalling. at any rate; it's looking like this is all a whole lot of nothing, as usual.
lol. I'm not just talking about Ticklish, though it's still not an excuse.
"whole lot of nothing: how to lose to an orange buffoon... Twice!"
|
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual.
|
That this wasn't a truely fair primary was clear from day one and no one really disagreed. The votes weren't bought or changed, the outsider ran from an outsiders position and lost. Fucking deal with it and try to reform the system.
HRC isn't a saint or even a likeable Person by any means and she tried and did everything she could to win. What a shocker.
|
On November 04 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777 This is an argument of definition, not of fact. The definitions of rigged that you have put forward are not sufficient for me. Same with Brazile. I am not interested in what the DNC defines as rigging. I am interested in the decisions made by the DNC and how they relate to what I view as "fair" and "neutral". In my eyes, (1) if someone has done a bunch of fundraising etc etc as Clinton has, it increases, not decreases the importance of making sure both her and Bernie were treated 100% the same. Whether Bernie has openly declared disdain for the party or not, once the DNC accepted his involvement in the primary, Bernie and Clinton (2) needed to be treated identically in accordance with my definition of proper democracy. You can disagree and hold another definition of proper democracy. I am not going to say you can't disagree with me regarding the role of seniority, fundraising, party influence and whatnot. I am saying that the way the DNC conducted itself in the primary, as described by Brazile and others, is considered a violation of democracy by my set of ethics. With the core value of democracy being the equality of every person's vote, it is extra important that each of those votes are influenced as minimally as possible by the party/states running each primary. This extends not only into messaging, but even small organizational things. No amount of difference in treatment is acceptable by the (3) governing body in an election.
(1) What? Why? Parties are actual things. You may not like parties, but contributing to and joining them is important. Obama took over the Democratic party in a profound way and commanded the votes of the Democrats to get ACA, Stimulus, Dodd-Frank, judges, etc. passed. Trump also took over the Republican party, but look at all the R defections and no votes. We should clap when leaders show up and lead the parties and condemn weak leaders who can't get their own party behind them. This is a big reason why I hated Bernie from the beginning. He was never a team player and never even tried to get non-RT Democrats behind him.
(2) I think this whole argument stems from a warped sense of fairness amongst the Bernie defenders. Somehow Bernie's total lack of contribution to the Democrats and refusal to join the party should entitle him to equal affections from the party to someone who actually put in decades of work to support the party. No, socialist Bernie should not get freebies. I propose a different notion of fairness. People who put in work to gather the backing of others in politics should be rewarded with the backing of others. Bernie isn't entitled to anything beyond an equal shot at the elections/caucuses (which he got, see Brazile).
(3) The DNC isn't a governing body. They run zero elections. If you think your sense of fairness has been violated by some actions, I repeat my challenge: show your work. The best you have is the debate scheduling.
EDIT: -Velr- Wow someone here actually gets it. Politics is a tough game and you have to play to win. Outsiders have to overcome entrenched allies of the status quo. It can be done (see: Obama, Trump), but it is hard.
|
Maybe I'm disillusioned or something but it baffles me when I see grown people being genuinely surprised to the extend of outrage when it turns out a political party did something unethical or illegal when the politics in itself is built upon shady and morally dubious activities. People say "this is huge/outrageous/unbelievable" and I say "this is pretty much what I'd expect from them". I'm not saying what the politicians do isn't bad or that we shouldn't aspire to higher standards of public life, but all the pearl-clutching is really baffling to me.
|
On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual.
And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right.
I just find your position amusing.
@Wulfey
We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass.
What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do"
Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole.
|
On November 04 2017 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:18 zlefin wrote:On November 04 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 01:55 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777 Looks like Donna's doing some olympic-grade backpedaling or "clarification". I'm gonna say it again, but there are a bunch of FEC disclosures and a bunch of leaked emails. Neither have anything about this alleged arrangement. Why do people keep saying she's back peddling? It's not her fault people didn't read what she wrote in the first place. you probably oversold what she said as being more than it was; thus it would seem like backpedalling. at any rate; it's looking like this is all a whole lot of nothing, as usual. lol. I'm not just talking about Ticklish, though it's still not an excuse. "whole lot of nothing: how to lose to an orange buffoon... Twice!"
i've not seen a single counterargument to my point about there being no proof besides the Word of Donna, even though there are two great, very detailed sets of data in the FEC disclosures and the leaked emails.
come on people. donna didn't magically wake up one day free of the clinton spell. also, since no one has mentioned this, that bit about the scented candle is the most ridiculous tripe i've read since peer-editing in high school creative writing class.
|
On November 04 2017 02:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:18 zlefin wrote:On November 04 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 01:55 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote:Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777 Looks like Donna's doing some olympic-grade backpedaling or "clarification". I'm gonna say it again, but there are a bunch of FEC disclosures and a bunch of leaked emails. Neither have anything about this alleged arrangement. Why do people keep saying she's back peddling? It's not her fault people didn't read what she wrote in the first place. you probably oversold what she said as being more than it was; thus it would seem like backpedalling. at any rate; it's looking like this is all a whole lot of nothing, as usual. lol. I'm not just talking about Ticklish, though it's still not an excuse. "whole lot of nothing: how to lose to an orange buffoon... Twice!" i've not seen a single counterargument to my point about there being no proof besides the Word of Donna, even though there are two great, very detailed sets of data in the FEC disclosures and the leaked emails. come on people. donna didn't magically wake up one day free of the clinton spell. also, since no one has mentioned this, that bit about the scented candle is the most ridiculous tripe i've read since peer-editing in high school creative writing class.
So nothing on walking it back?
Presuming you're right and the politico article outlining how money was being funneled only captured a snapshot and not the outcome, couldn't they shit all over her by just saying she completely fabricated this arrangement (which yesterday people were saying we all knew about because of the politico article in 2015), and sue her or just embarrass her into the ground?
Also Donna wrote this putting what she says Clinton did in the most favorable light possible without sounding like the people who think buying the DNC is a-okay
|
On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer.
Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements.
|
warren takes self-care very seriously, ticklish. haven't you been reading any of the intersectional feminist missives sent from the frontline of The War on Women?
i for one am loving these pumpkin lattes and fall colors even if i cant break out my winter coat and scarves yet
|
There does seem to be some effort within the DNC to shoot down the claim, but they seem very careful to avoid calling Brazile a liar.
|
On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements.
There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court.
|
On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court.
There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you.
|
On November 04 2017 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2017 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2017 02:23 zlefin wrote:
mohdoo -> because I don't trust Brazile; and want more than her words to actually back up her claims.
it's very easy to paint a bad picture with half-truths.
I'd asked yesterday what there was beyond brazile's word; and was told there wasn't anything.
gh -> your claims about the dnc's status are worth nothing.
and your edited anti-trump note means you've still got nothing but your own bias to prove your case, as usual. And when it gets confirmed this agreement happened (as anyone with eyes could tell you was happening and many state Dems complained of long ago) you'll still say my claims are worthless even though I'm right. I just find your position amusing. @Wulfey We get it, you think of the Democrats like a private club, fine. Just don't be surprised when millions of people tell you to shove your country club (D) up your ass. What Democrats don't understand is their base (outside of the 8% of Democrats that hate Bernie) don't like being tricked into thinking their votes couldn't be overridden by some assholes in a smokey room (doesn't matter that it didn't happen, it matters they argued it's their right). Because some tools would come and say "well you didn't know politics isn't beanbag and of course we're a political party don't you know what we do" Democrats are like some asshole arguing about how he's right that the woman he's talking to is objectively fat. It doesn't matter if you're right, you look like an asshole. A broken clock is right twice a day. Proclaiming a bunch of stuff and being proven partially right on one long after doesn't make you a seer. Its easy to make a bunch of bullshit statements to paint a narrative, see what Trump is constantly doing. So no, we won't believe you without evidence to back up your statements. There's plenty of evidence, it's just not evidence without potential alternative explanations. What you guys want is enough evidence to convict (a white woman) in criminal (not civil) court. There is evidence now, and I commented on that before. There was no evidence before and that's why people dismissed you.
Again, there was evidence before, you guys just didn't accept it as such.
But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
I suspect they'll be returning to those sources soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
