you are really good at this
Thank you.
What did Hillary do wrong and what's next for her?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
Thank you.
I see the 'You're-anti-Clinton-and-DNC-corruption-ergo-you-love-Trump' brigade are out in force again.
Yawn.
Yawn.
People think you like Trump because you keep defending him. Lots of people on here are anti-Clinton, including me, yet the connection is not made.
I said before that I'll defend him, or anyone else for that matter, on issues which I feel are exaggerated or ridiculous. I think we can all agree that there's been instances of that in the last eighteen months.
Sure I agree, but it's the same for Hillary and anyone else in the spotlight in US politics. Yet here you are, attacking her at every turn and defending Trump at every turn.
That's hardly fair. There's been things mentioned here to sleight Hillary by other posters which I never commented on, e.g. blaming Hillary for her husband's infidelity and how that impacted her candidature. There's many more factors which made her a poor candidate without bringing that up.
As for defending Trump at every turn, that's also unfair. I never condoned his behaviour and attitude towards women in those leaked tapes last year. Also, whatever about having an issue with illegal/undocumented immigrants, I think his border wall campaign promise was medieval and will do nothing to quench the racial tension along the border states.
You are obsessed with her @Buchan
I stand corrected. Well done for not blaming Hillary for Bill getting a blowey.
There are posters here with many more posts in this thread than I.
She does, however, deserve scrutiny for her actions towards accusers of Bill for years but made a huge deal out of 'Every woman deserves to be believed' when it was Trump's turn last year. (For the record, she wasn't wrong last year - every accuser does deserve the benefit of the doubt whilst investigations are in place.) However, like she is on most issues, Hillary conveniently flip-flops when it's politically advantageous to do so (same-sex marriage, military action, trade agreements such as NAFTA etc.)
omg it's so weird that a politician would do something like that
You attack her more than anyone I’ve seen here. It’s almost as if you can’t help yourself.
Just because it's prevalent, it doesn't mean we have to put up with it.
That doesn't make me wrong, does it? I respectfully voice my opinion here like everyone else.
You’ll have to see how others are reacting to your posts to answer that question. It sure come see across as crazy obsessed though.
One unnamed source and no evidence whatsoever of the original document with the omission of 'Confidential' on it? Hmmm...
I'm not saying it's impossible but at the minute it's Wikileaks and leaked documents v. unnamed sources with no evidence to hand.
I appreciate that but at the same time, going against the grain and general consensus here (but particularly other threads) doesn't make me wrong either.
The original is actually on wikileaks without the word confidential, and the edited Guficifer one was spread by Trump supporters and Russian trolls.
Last edited:
How can Wikileaks be held accountable for that, then?
The doc goes way above and beyond what a candidate should have agreed with the DNC before the primaries, and is clearly unethical. But it's still not, in any understanding of the word, rigging, which is what gets bandied around all the time.
He/she really isnt
You know you can get medication for that
Possibly, but let's pretend, for a second, that Sanders won the primary. How would the DNC break those contracts with the Clinton team? The ones which state all DNC personnel in positions of power must be pre-approved by Clintonworld.
It would have been extremely messy and they obviously didn't want to have those inconvenient stray ends.
With the Clinton camp digging the DNC out of monstrous debt, they, of course, felt indebted to the Clinton team. It's not a stretch to join the dots and assume it's a 'rigging' (of sorts).
It wasn't a wikileaks project. They've been taken over by the Kremlin, who gave them all the documents and and chose where and when to report them (sometimes publishing indepth articles in the minutes before/after an actual wikileaks leak). Those articles, which often exaggerated or falsified things were then picked up by the likes of Fox and Breitbart, and are now being regurgitated by people like yourself. And most vociferously when there are new developments in the Trump-Russia case.
Eh? Donna Brazile's article and upcoming book, which started this whole conversation again, was only published the other day. The Trump/Russia thing has got nothing to do with this.
You can assume plenty, but there's still no real mechanism they could've used to actually rig the process. She won because she had too great an advantage on the demographic front.
Perfectly reasonable to say they behaved terribly and treated Bernie like crap without suggesting rigging, which isn't backed up by anything.
Weaver is telling porkies here. His emails from well before the conclusion of the primary show him and his team were aware of the Clinton team circumventing campaign finance regulations.
Thats lovely. Im talking about your affliction. Its called being a contrarian. My brother was like that and he was an annoying bollocks too. Fortunately for him he was cured.
Superdelegates, a system ripe for abuse and corruption, played a large role in Clinton's primary victory. With the DNC as an entity in her debt to the tune of millions, how are we to know it was ALL above board?
Charming.
No they didn't, she'd have won without them, or if they'd been doled out according to state results.
He can be
Which Weaver emails?
There are some spicy ones in the wikileaks thing where the Clinton team is deciding how to spin their fundraising deal with the DNC (when it came out last year). They settled on something like "not technically illegal" or some such bs.
I agree with @Ubik that you can't still use the word rigged.
Loaded? Sure! Biased? 100%. They didn't change votes, they influenced them beforehand.
Again, anyone who had an idea of what Bernie was trying and whom he was taking on should have expected something exactly like this. Even at the absolute zenith of labour power in the US, there was a corrupted political convention that resulted in a popular leftist VP getting the boot, leading to a change in world history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection,_1944
I think everyone knew there was mutual sympathy between the party and the campaign, and informal collaboration, what none of us knew beforehand was that it was in contract form.
I deleted it because I wrote it replying to another post but it saved it in my browser when I was replying to @Silva's post. Nothing more than that.
Why would you screenshot it anyway? You have issues. Seriously.
Now you agree they haven’t broken any laws. Can we get back to the Indictment Season? You know, the one where laws were broken and some have already pled guilty?
Because @Ramshock's comment 'You can take medication for that' suggested I wasn't of sound mind/making it up that you deleted your post.