Please do tell what I specifically choose not to believe. Because the use of superdelegates, firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil slipping questions prior to debates, etc. etc. actually happened.
Not sure who you're talking to. Still just waiting for you to explain how cheating happened during the primaries, since the use of superdelegates, firing Wasserman, and a couple of obvious general questions being volunteered to Clinton during the general campaign aren't instances of cheating.
Yes it is. They are instances of cheating the voters, cheating the system, cheating the election which is supposed to be fair and democratic.
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
Whatever the Democrats and the DNC did or didn't do to Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with whether or not the Russians involved themselves in our election.
No, it sure doesn't.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It appears beyond supposed rigging to me. The whole superdelegate thing is designed so they can elect whoever they want. Bernie had enough votes where he could have won if they voted for him instead of her. Essentially they got the deciding vote. The DNC even announced a public apology to Bernie after the leaked emails disclosing their biased tactics. Members of the DNC were involved with releasing debate questions as well. It is well beyond "supposed rigging."
That's right. If people want to excuse the DNC for questionable behavior, that's on them. The fact is, The leaked emails and the Podesta emails just showed exactly how corrupt the party is. Some here, may think that's legal along with biased journalists, and journalists releasing questions prior to debates in interviews ( is this even legal?) Shady shit right there, pulling fast ones on the public, the voters, the ELECTION. Everyone pointing fingers at Russia need to point fingers at who exactly corrupted this election. It was the DNC and Trump. Looking at Russia for our troubles and our problems is just us pretending there's nothing wrong with our leaders and biased media.
Sure an investigation should happen but the focus should strictly be on Trump and not the DNC like they're making it out to be.
I can't see how it would be considered illegal to leak questions. Definitely immoral and journalists have lost careers over less.
It is quite telling that despite the shitty way Bernie was treated by DNC he still chose to work his ass off to defeat Donald Trump. He didn't see the election as choice between two equally bad choices. Far from it.
Yep...I admit that I was surprised at how stupid the dems were. The Bernie or Bust crowd really fucked things up.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Please do tell what I specifically choose not to believe. Because the use of superdelegates, firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil slipping questions prior to debates, etc. etc. actually happened.
Not sure who you're talking to. Still just waiting for you to explain how cheating happened during the primaries, since the use of superdelegates, firing Wasserman, and a couple of obvious general questions being volunteered to Clinton during the general campaign aren't instances of cheating.
Yes it is. They are instances of cheating the voters, cheating the system, cheating the election which is supposed to be fair and democratic.
HOW? I ask for the third time. Members of the DNC picking a horse isn't cheating, let's start there. Firing Wasserman? How's that cheating? And something that happened after the primaries were over? Nope. I understand that you don't like how the system is set up, and agree with you on that.... But that doesn't mean that working with and under that flawed system is cheating.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It is quite telling that despite the shitty way Bernie was treated by DNC he still chose to work his ass off to defeat Donald Trump. He didn't see the election as choice between two equally bad choices. Far from it.
Yep...I admit that I was surprised at how stupid the dems were. The Bernie or Bust crowd really fucked things up.
They played a role in fucking things up for sure. They weren't alone in that though.
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
Go ahead and Google "Russia DNC" and see how many articles in the last 12 - 24 hours you come up with.
It appears beyond supposed rigging to me. The whole superdelegate thing is designed so they can elect whoever they want. Bernie had enough votes where he could have won if they voted for him instead of her. Essentially they got the deciding vote. The DNC even announced a public apology to Bernie after the leaked emails disclosing their biased tactics. Members of the DNC were involved with releasing debate questions as well. It is well beyond "supposed rigging."
That's right. If people want to excuse the DNC for questionable behavior, that's on them. The fact is, The leaked emails and the Podesta emails just showed exactly how corrupt the party is. Some here, may think that's legal along with biased journalists, and journalists releasing questions prior to debates in interviews ( is this even legal?) Shady shit right there, pulling fast ones on the public, the voters, the ELECTION. Everyone pointing fingers at Russia need to point fingers at who exactly corrupted this election. It was the DNC and Trump. Looking at Russia for our troubles and our problems is just us pretending there's nothing wrong with our leaders and biased media.
Sure an investigation should happen but the focus should strictly be on Trump and not the DNC like they're making it out to be.
I can't see how it would be considered illegal to leak questions. Definitely immoral and journalists have lost careers over less.
Well what I'm thinking is that it has nothing to do with the DNC. A reporter chose to pass that info along. The DNC didn't even ask for her to do that. So that is definitely not cheating on the part of the Clinton campaign (not sure why people care about that so much anyway - weren't the questions just super vague ones about super basic issues anyhow? I remember thinking that anyone would have assumed those questions would be asked at any one of those debates anyhow. It had no impact AND it was simply bad behaviour on the part of a journalist, and I agree that woman should have been fired for that).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
Go ahead and Google "Russia DNC" and see how many articles in the last 12 - 24 hours you come up with.
It appears beyond supposed rigging to me. The whole superdelegate thing is designed so they can elect whoever they want. Bernie had enough votes where he could have won if they voted for him instead of her. Essentially they got the deciding vote. The DNC even announced a public apology to Bernie after the leaked emails disclosing their biased tactics. Members of the DNC were involved with releasing debate questions as well. It is well beyond "supposed rigging."
That's right. If people want to excuse the DNC for questionable behavior, that's on them. The fact is, The leaked emails and the Podesta emails just showed exactly how corrupt the party is. Some here, may think that's legal along with biased journalists, and journalists releasing questions prior to debates in interviews ( is this even legal?) Shady shit right there, pulling fast ones on the public, the voters, the ELECTION. Everyone pointing fingers at Russia need to point fingers at who exactly corrupted this election. It was the DNC and Trump. Looking at Russia for our troubles and our problems is just us pretending there's nothing wrong with our leaders and biased media.
Sure an investigation should happen but the focus should strictly be on Trump and not the DNC like they're making it out to be.
I can't see how it would be considered illegal to leak questions. Definitely immoral and journalists have lost careers over less.
Well what I'm thinking is that it has nothing to do with the DNC. A reporter chose to pass that info along. The DNC didn't even ask for her to do that. So that is definitely not cheating on the part of the Clinton campaign (not sure why people care about that so much anyway - weren't the questions just super vague ones about super basic issues anyhow? I remember thinking that anyone would have assumed those questions would be asked at any one of those debates anyhow. It had no impact AND it was simply bad behaviour on the part of a journalist, and I agree that woman should have been fired for that).
Of course it is on the Clinton campaign, she chose to go along with it. She could have refused the leaks, she chose to accept them and use them to her advantage. She chose to stage fake interviews. Again, not illegal, but completely dishonest. And I think members of the DNC and her campaign were aware of some of the situations. Didn't she leak the questions to Clinton through the DNC, or at least her campaign?
And it matters because it shows the extent of the media bias. It has been denied, but that is about as bias as you can get. And people are getting their panties in a bunch over leaked emails probably from Russia that did nothing but expose the truth, but don't even care about the dishonesty going on right here.
Don't get me wrong, I think steps should be taking to prevent Russia from hacking emails and leaking them. But the dishonesty and manipulation going on here at home seems like a bigger deal to me.
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
Go ahead and Google "Russia DNC" and see how many articles in the last 12 - 24 hours you come up with.
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
It appears beyond supposed rigging to me. The whole superdelegate thing is designed so they can elect whoever they want. Bernie had enough votes where he could have won if they voted for him instead of her. Essentially they got the deciding vote. The DNC even announced a public apology to Bernie after the leaked emails disclosing their biased tactics. Members of the DNC were involved with releasing debate questions as well. It is well beyond "supposed rigging."
That's right. If people want to excuse the DNC for questionable behavior, that's on them. The fact is, The leaked emails and the Podesta emails just showed exactly how corrupt the party is. Some here, may think that's legal along with biased journalists, and journalists releasing questions prior to debates in interviews ( is this even legal?) Shady shit right there, pulling fast ones on the public, the voters, the ELECTION. Everyone pointing fingers at Russia need to point fingers at who exactly corrupted this election. It was the DNC and Trump. Looking at Russia for our troubles and our problems is just us pretending there's nothing wrong with our leaders and biased media.
Sure an investigation should happen but the focus should strictly be on Trump and not the DNC like they're making it out to be.
I can't see how it would be considered illegal to leak questions. Definitely immoral and journalists have lost careers over less.
Well what I'm thinking is that it has nothing to do with the DNC. A reporter chose to pass that info along. The DNC didn't even ask for her to do that. So that is definitely not cheating on the part of the Clinton campaign (not sure why people care about that so much anyway - weren't the questions just super vague ones about super basic issues anyhow? I remember thinking that anyone would have assumed those questions would be asked at any one of those debates anyhow. It had no impact AND it was simply bad behaviour on the part of a journalist, and I agree that woman should have been fired for that).
Of course it is n the Clinton campaign, she chose to go along with it. She could have refused the leaks, she chose to accept them and use them to her advantage. She chose to stage fake interviews. Again, not illegal, but completely dishonest. And I think members of the DNC and her campaign were aware of some of the situations. Didn't she leak the questions to Clinton through the DNC, or at least her campaign?
And it matters because it shows the extent of the media bias. It has been denied, but that is about as bias as you can get. And people are getting their panties in a bunch over leaked emails probably from Russia, but don't even care about the dishonesty going on right here.
She ran a dishonest campaign, was a weak candidate, and conned the American public that she was a fair and honest candidate for presidency.
Not saying that Trump is any better. This is why they're known as the two most unpopular candidates in US history.
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
Go ahead and Google "Russia DNC" and see how many articles in the last 12 - 24 hours you come up with.
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
Again...nothing the DNC did or didn't do has anything at all to do with what the Russians did or didn't do. As far as the Russian question goes the Democrats and their primary are a complete red herring. The DNC can be shady and the Russians can have inserted themselves in this election. Neither one precludes the other.
Superdelegates aren't cheating, as they get to write their own rule book and they wrote it. Just seems really dumb. At least the electoral college, although not completely obligated to vote for anyone, would be completely unheard for more than 1 or 2 to not vote according to the vote. They (in theory) represent the voter. Superdelegates represent no one. They have a system designed that as long as the race is within about 10-15%, they can chose the winner of the election. Faking interviews and staging debates could be seen as "cheating," especially if the committee is aware of it.
So Bafoon was praising the FBI for the take down of HC and now the CIA is not to be trusted lol on its findings !
Please do tell what I specifically choose not to believe. Because the use of superdelegates, firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil slipping questions prior to debates, etc. etc. actually happened.
Not sure who you're talking to. Still just waiting for you to explain how cheating happened during the primaries, since the use of superdelegates, firing Wasserman, and a couple of obvious general questions being volunteered to Clinton during the general campaign aren't instances of cheating.
Yes it is. They are instances of cheating the voters, cheating the system, cheating the election which is supposed to be fair and democratic.
HOW? I ask for the third time. Members of the DNC picking a horse isn't cheating, let's start there. Firing Wasserman? How's that cheating? And something that happened after the primaries were over? Nope. I understand that you don't like how the system is set up, and agree with you on that.... But that doesn't mean that working with and under that flawed system is cheating.
Wasserman Schultz cheated. She got fired for being exposed. She was then hired as an honorable campaign manager for Clinton. Brazile was exposed for cheating and passing questions along to the candidate before debate. they let her go to as they should.
Superdelegates aren't cheating, as they get to write their own rule book and they wrote it. Just seems really dumb. At least the electoral college, although not completely obligated to vote for anyone, would be completely unheard for more than 1 or 2 to not vote according to the vote. They (in theory) represent the voter. Superdelegates represent no one. They have a system designed that as long as the race is within about 10-15%, they can chose the winner of the election. Faking interviews and staging debates could be seen as "cheating," especially if the committee is aware of it.
So Bafoon was praising the FBI for the take down of HC and now the CIA is not to be trusted lol on its findings !
Was I quoted for a reason? Because this has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Superdelegates aren't cheating, as they get to write their own rule book and they wrote it. Just seems really dumb. At least the electoral college, although not completely obligated to vote for anyone, would be completely unheard for more than 1 or 2 to not vote according to the vote. They (in theory) represent the voter. Superdelegates represent no one. They have a system designed that as long as the race is within about 10-15%, they can chose the winner of the election. Faking interviews and staging debates could be seen as "cheating," especially if the committee is aware of it.
So Bafoon was praising the FBI for the take down of HC and now the CIA is not to be trusted lol on its findings !
Was I quoted for a reason? Because this has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Let's take bets on when Bafoon will hold a news conference remember he just cancelled one ...
A Hilary supporter is criticizing Trumps lack of a news conference? Lay off the pot.
Trump is going to be President. No President-elect in recent history has gone this long without giving a press conference. The last time he did give one he begged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton.
Let's take bets on when Bafoon will hold a news conference remember he just cancelled one ...
A Hilary supporter is criticizing Trumps lack of a news conference? Lay off the pot.
No I think you better lay off the bottle or did you already forget all the whining from Clinton oppositions as to why she never did news conferences, well now it's Bafoon's turn to take the heat ..
Let's take bets on when Bafoon will hold a news conference remember he just cancelled one ...
A Hilary supporter is criticizing Trumps lack of a news conference? Lay off the pot.
Trump is going to be President. No President-elect in recent history has gone this long without giving a press conference. The last time he did give one he begged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton.
No DNC nominee had gone as long as Hilary did without one either.
Let's take bets on when Bafoon will hold a news conference remember he just cancelled one ...
A Hilary supporter is criticizing Trumps lack of a news conference? Lay off the pot.
Trump is going to be President. No President-elect in recent history has gone this long without giving a press conference. The last time he did give one he begged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton.
No DNC nominee had gone as long as Hilary did without one either.
Hillary was running to be elected. Trump was elected. responsibilities are quite different.
Let's take bets on when Bafoon will hold a news conference remember he just cancelled one ...
A Hilary supporter is criticizing Trumps lack of a news conference? Lay off the pot.
No I think you better lay off the bottle or did you already forget all the whining from Clinton oppositions as to why she never did news conferences, well now it's Bafoon's turn to take the heat ..
I'm about 1 hour away from my first drink today. Supervisor kind of frowns upon that.
Let's take bets on when Bafoon will hold a news conference remember he just cancelled one ...
A Hilary supporter is criticizing Trumps lack of a news conference? Lay off the pot.
Trump is going to be President. No President-elect in recent history has gone this long without giving a press conference. The last time he did give one he begged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton.
No DNC nominee had gone as long as Hilary did without one either.
2 classy, functioning presidential candidates. (and now President elect) Yay, us.
Let's take bets on when Bafoon will hold a news conference remember he just cancelled one ...
A Hilary supporter is criticizing Trumps lack of a news conference? Lay off the pot.
Trump is going to be President. No President-elect in recent history has gone this long without giving a press conference. The last time he did give one he begged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton.
No DNC nominee had gone as long as Hilary did without one either.
And she isn't going to be President. He is. He needs to act Presidential. The "Yeah...but...Hillary!" deflections have no value anymore. He won. She didn't.
Let's take bets on when Bafoon will hold a news conference remember he just cancelled one ...
A Hilary supporter is criticizing Trumps lack of a news conference? Lay off the pot.
Trump is going to be President. No President-elect in recent history has gone this long without giving a press conference. The last time he did give one he begged Russia to hack Hillary Clinton.
No DNC nominee had gone as long as Hilary did without one either.
Trump won. Let's accept it and speculate why he hasn't done a press conference. I'll start: he has no idea what he's doing.
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
She chose to stage fake interviews. Again, not illegal, but completely dishonest. And I think members of the DNC and her campaign were aware of some of the situations. Didn't she leak the questions to Clinton through the DNC, or at least her campaign?
And it matters because it shows the extent of the media bias. It has been denied, but that is about as bias as you can get. And people are getting their panties in a bunch over leaked emails probably from Russia that did nothing but expose the truth, but don't even care about the dishonesty going on right here.
Don't get me wrong, I think steps should be taking to prevent Russia from hacking emails and leaking them. But the dishonesty and manipulation going on here at home seems like a bigger deal to me.
Not saying that Trump is any better. This is why they're known as the two most unpopular candidates in US history.
What?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."