Donna Brazille breaks rank and blames Hillary

[Jesus Chrysler 29]

Why is Donna surprised at this? None of this is shocking. Hillary is an unethical person and only cares about herself. She is scum.

Why do you only seem to dislike unethical egomaniacs who are liberal? Trump's ego blows hers away. And he's the most unethical person on the planet. Yet, I never see you post a negative thing about him.

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

Ah. Missed that. Still missing it.

That is alright.

 

No worries. Safe spaces everywhere.

Only at lunch time and in the evenings, then it is back to work. No safe spaces there.

 

Sounds very liberal.

I always equated donating money as being Christian which would be conservative. To each there own.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

Why do you only seem to dislike unethical egomaniacs who are liberal? Trump's ego blows hers away. And he's the most unethical person on the planet. Yet, I never see you post a negative thing about him.

Lets talk ethics after he hauls a young intern into the Oval Office, has her strip naked, slides a cigar into her VJ, puts it in his mouth and says mmmm that tastes good while he is getting a hummer.

 

The bar has been set.

 

#orangemeathead

[DankNuggs 305]

Why do you only seem to dislike unethical egomaniacs who are liberal? Trump's ego blows hers away. And he's the most unethical person on the planet. Yet, I never see you post a negative thing about him.

The issue is that our system puts absurd power in these two national committees to essentially decide who gets the most powerful position in the world. And the whole thing is rigged...

 

I'd imagine these joint fundraising agreements are standard on both sides as it just makes all the donations fungible and renders campaign finance laws as generally moot.

 

Its really sick when you realize the implications of it.

 

One thing you can say about trump is that the RNC wanted no part of him and probably did everything it could to make sure he didn't win.

[IMMensaMind 459]

That is alright.Only at lunch time and in the evenings, then it is back to work. No safe spaces there.I always equated donating money as being Christian which would be conservative. To each there own.

Tell you what.

 

You donate $1000 to me first, and then I'll donate it back to you. That way, you convince yourself that we're both Christian and conservative.

 

And you can take credit for instigating it.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

The issue is that our system puts absurd power in these two national committees to essentially decide who gets the most powerful position in the world. And the whole thing is rigged...

 

I'd imagine these joint fundraising agreements are standard on both sides as it just makes all the donations fungible and renders campaign finance laws as generally moot.

 

Its really sick when you realize the implications of it.

 

One thing you can say about trump is that the RNC wanted no part of him and probably did everything it could to make sure he didn't win.

 

It is called The Swamp!

[IMMensaMind 459]

It is called The Swamp!

Saw a tweet yesterday. It said that calling DC 'The Swamp' is an injustice to swamps. Swamps have an ecosystem which self-purifies.

 

What it really is, is a sewer.

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

Tell you what.

 

You donate $1000 to me first, and then I'll donate it back to you. That way, you convince yourself that we're both Christian and conservative.

 

And you can take credit for instigating it.

Deal.

 

Post your name and full address.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Deal.

Post your name and full address.

 

First I'm gonna need that bank account info, for "tracking purposes".

[Jesus Chrysler 29]

Lets talk ethics after he hauls a young intern into the Oval Office, has her strip naked, slides a cigar into her VJ, puts it in his mouth and says mmmm that tastes good while he is getting a hummer.

 

The bar has been set.

 

#orangemeathead

She loved every minute of it. Still proud of it today. Pretty sure he didn't do any hauling. Just held the door and she walked in.

[wiffleball 4,640]

She loved every minute of it. Still proud of it today. Pretty sure he didn't do any hauling. Just held the door and she walked in.

Actually, if anybody would read a f****** book around here, they would find out that she loved being able to waltz Inn and get instant access to the president. Virtually nobody has that. She would throw a f****** hissy fit if the president secretary wouldn't let her just Waltz in.

 

Just like a woman. Enjoy all the benefits and claim none of the responsibility. F****** little homewrecker. But we can't call her that because that would be s***-shaming! Waah

[Mr. Hand 482]

Why do you only seem to dislike unethical egomaniacs who are liberal? Trump's ego blows hers away. And he's the most unethical person on the planet. Yet, I never see you post a negative thing about him.

How is your day going, newbie?

[IGotWorms 3,312]

You know I could kind of understand people having a tough time getting over an election where their candidate lost. I mean at some point you just have to move on but I get it, that can be hard.

 

But whats completely insane about the Trump folk is THEIR GUY WON!

 

You got what you wanted!

 

Hillary Clinton aint president. Barack Obama aint president. Neither are Donna Brazille or John Podesta or any of the other characters you keep harping on about.

 

So seriously: WHAT THE FOCK, PEOPLE?!!!

 

Snap out of it!!

[wiffleball 4,640]

Back to the original premise of Donna brazile allegations.

 

There is literally no news there. This has been discussed ad nauseam.

 

Was the DNC in the bag for Hillary? Of course they f****** were. But if anybody had any f****** intellect around here, maybe read a book or two? Parties are under no guidance whatsoever to be fair to individual party members running for president. Hell, some of them have been ruled out on the basis of a f****** coin toss at the convention. On the flip side, others have been chosen to be their Party's candidate because four or five of the wealthiest contributors said so.

 

I know for a fact this was discussed when it was found out that Brazil fed a single question to Hillary ahead of time for the Bernie debates.

 

Why is it so f****** hard for some people to understand that there's a difference between what goes on during a Party primary process and what should go on during a general election process?

 

Again, as I've said before. Once the meuller indictment came closer and closer to being handed down, Trump and his minions literally threw every old story at the wall hoping one of them would stick. This isn't news, uranium deal isn't news, just a matter of time before Vince Foster and Lewinsky start getting thrown around by Hannity et al too.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Back to the original premise of Donna brazile allegations.

 

There is literally no news there. This has been discussed ad nauseam.

 

The DNC was not in the bag for Hillary, she was running the DNC. This hasn't been discussed at all until Brazille's article today.

[drobeski 3,061]

You know I could kind of understand people having a tough time getting over an election where their candidate lost. I mean at some point you just have to move on but I get it, that can be hard.

 

But whats completely insane about the Trump folk is THEIR GUY WON!

 

You got what you wanted!

 

Hillary Clinton aint president. Barack Obama aint president. Neither are Donna Brazille or John Podesta or any of the other characters you keep harping on about.

 

So seriously: WHAT THE FOCK, PEOPLE?!!!

 

Snap out of it!!

yes, the left has completely moved on and accepted and respected his win. Nutzo

[IMMensaMind 459]

You know I could kind of understand people having a tough time getting over an election where their candidate lost. I mean at some point you just have to move on but I get it, that can be hard.

But whats completely insane about the Trump folk is THEIR GUY WON!

You got what you wanted!

Hillary Clinton aint president. Barack Obama aint president. Neither are Donna Brazille or John Podesta or any of the other characters you keep harping on about.

So seriously: WHAT THE FOCK, PEOPLE?!!!

Snap out of it!!

You should tell Donnna Brazile. She seems to think there's something still to address as well.

 

Derp.

 

We're battling your ridiculous ideas, and the rank cognitive dissonance on display here. You whined that no one should pay attention to Obama or Clinton anymore, and you have it plainly pointed out that they are making themselves germane because of their influence in DNC activity, and the accusations directed against them for past crimes.

 

You're in the way, and if you insist on remaining there, we'll be forced to continue to battle your inanities.

 

Your choice.

[supermike80 1,285]

You know I could kind of understand people having a tough time getting over an election where their candidate lost. I mean at some point you just have to move on but I get it, that can be hard.

 

But whats completely insane about the Trump folk is THEIR GUY WON!

 

You got what you wanted!

 

Hillary Clinton aint president. Barack Obama aint president. Neither are Donna Brazille or John Podesta or any of the other characters you keep harping on about.

 

So seriously: WHAT THE FOCK, PEOPLE?!!!

 

Snap out of it!!

I sincerely don't get it. But again, I am not on the far end of either political spectrum. There MUST be something there for the hard core right to want her jailed so badly.

[wiffleball 4,640]

The DNC was not in the bag for Hillary, she was running the DNC. This hasn't been discussed at all until Brazille's article today.

I'm picturing you with your hands over ears going lalalala lalalala.

[DankNuggs 305]

You know I could kind of understand people having a tough time getting over an election where their candidate lost. I mean at some point you just have to move on but I get it, that can be hard.

 

But whats completely insane about the Trump folk is THEIR GUY WON!

 

You got what you wanted!

 

Hillary Clinton aint president. Barack Obama aint president. Neither are Donna Brazille or John Podesta or any of the other characters you keep harping on about.

 

So seriously: WHAT THE FOCK, PEOPLE?!!!

 

Snap out of it!!

you realize that these election thingys keep happening every 4 years for potus...

 

It would be really nice if the next one had candidates that people wanted to vote for. I think the general consesus from '16 was that people didn't like either of the candidates. And the election was decided by people (middle 30-40%% of the country) holding their noses and voting one way or the other.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I'm picturing you with your hands over ears going lalalala lalalala.

That would have been the appropriate reaction to your nonsense. Find someone to read you the article.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

The DNC was not in the bag for Hillary, she was running the DNC. This hasn't been discussed at all until Brazille's article today.

Exactly.

 

But alas the left wants to lick their wounds and say 'Hillary is gone'.

 

She won't go away much to the left's dismay.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Maybe in 2020 the Dems will run a fair game and try to actually be Democratic.

[Jesus Chrysler 29]

Hillary. Whaaaaaa!

[drobeski 3,061]

Hillary. Whaaaaaa!

is that directed at Donna ? I don't think she posts here.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

I sincerely don't get it. But again, I am not on the far end of either political spectrum. There MUST be something there for the hard core right to want her jailed so badly.

 

It was the DNC National Chairwoman who brought this up, not the conservatives.

[supermike80 1,285]

It was the DNC National Chairwoman who brought this up, not the conservatives.

So? I saw that. That explains the rights obsession with Hillary?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Exactly.

 

But alas the left wants to lick their wounds and say 'Hillary is gone'.

 

She won't go away much to the left's dismay.

The right's "obsession" with Hillary pales to the left's necessity to deflect a MONSTER story about her, started by a former DNC Chairwomen. This isn't FOX or Breitbart. It's not "russian hackers" This is someone who actually witnessed the events.

 

Why are they defending this woman after she totally hijacked the party, took the money meant for all the candidates and kicked the other nominee to the curb? And newbie talks about a hysterical vantage point. He should sit where I am sitting.

[Strike 3,968]

So? I saw that. That explains the rights obsession with Hillary?

 

This story isn't about Hitlery. It's about a candidate basically controlling their party. It would be one thing if she were the nominee. It's expected for the party to support their nominee. But during the primaries? It's supposed to be an open contest for all who are running for the party's seat. If this had been run fairly there's a good chance she doesn't win her party's nomination, and Bernie goes on to defeat Trump. Then we wouldn't have this buffoon in the White House. If I were a Dem i'd be extremely pissed about this revelation. I mean, they pay money to the party hoping to get a valid candidate with a chance to win to enact their ideals in to law. But due to corruption they got stuck with a losing candidate. Not sure how ANYONE isn't outraged at this story. But some of you are partisan hacks and some of you don't care about the direction of the country. So be it. But don't begrudge those of us who do actually care.

[Mr. Hand 482]

Hillary. Whaaaaaa!

Every time I see you post I laugh because you got banned from here for being an idiot. That is so awesome.

[Cdub100 3,380]

No refunds

[supermike80 1,285]

 

This story isn't about Hitlery. It's about a candidate basically controlling their party. It would be one thing if she were the nominee. It's expected for the party to support their nominee. But during the primaries? It's supposed to be an open contest for all who are running for the party's seat. If this had been run fairly there's a good chance she doesn't win her party's nomination, and Bernie goes on to defeat Trump. Then we wouldn't have this buffoon in the White House. If I were a Dem i'd be extremely pissed about this revelation. I mean, they pay money to the party hoping to get a valid candidate with a chance to win to enact their ideals in to law. But due to corruption they got stuck with a losing candidate. Not sure how ANYONE isn't outraged at this story. But some of you are partisan hacks and some of you don't care about the direction of the country. So be it. But don't begrudge those of us who do actually care.

Who's begrudging? I'm asking.

 

As a rule i don't understand the political obsessions here--just like i don't understand the celebrity obsession in america. So I ask the question.

[Vince44 202]

Dems should have thrown all support behind Bernie.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Dems should have thrown all support behind Bernie.

They couldn't. Hillary's camp had been given control of the DNC bank account and was paying the DNC bills.

[wiffleball 4,640]

 

This story isn't about Hitlery. It's about a candidate basically controlling their party. It would be one thing if she were the nominee. It's expected for the party to support their nominee. But during the primaries? It's supposed to be an open contest for all who are running for the party's seat. If this had been run fairly there's a good chance she doesn't win her party's nomination, and Bernie goes on to defeat Trump. Then we wouldn't have this buffoon in the White House. If I were a Dem i'd be extremely pissed about this revelation. I mean, they pay money to the party hoping to get a valid candidate with a chance to win to enact their ideals in to law. But due to corruption they got stuck with a losing candidate. Not sure how ANYONE isn't outraged at this story. But some of you are partisan hacks and some of you don't care about the direction of the country. So be it. But don't begrudge those of us who do actually care.

God, this is been asked and answered repeatedly. I don't know how else to explain it. There is nothing that says that picking a nominee has to be in your words fair. This isn't some lollipop world. Literally candidates have been chosen by coin tosses, by a handful of key contributors you name it.

 

That's just the way our f*****-up system works. Tons of side deals and ;-) nod nod. Now, should Dems be pissed off? Well yeah. But they still had a chance to vote for Bernie and still didn't. And the debates for example a relatively meaningless these days with the internet.

 

So, the pro Bernie types can and should be justifiably pissed. But in the end Bernie came across as an old crank who just couldn't pull the numbers.

 

I'm not trying to defend that count Hillary. Just tap down a little bit of the stupid here. It had nothing to do with the general election. And obviously, if the DNC felt so strongly the Bernie give them a better shot they should have stepped up. Not bring some b**** who got fired months ago to the table to sell a book or whatever today.

[supermike80 1,285]

God, this is been asked and answered repeatedly. I don't know how else to explain it. There is nothing that says that picking a nominee has to be in your words fair. This isn't some lollipop world. Literally candidates have been chosen by coin tosses, by a handful of key contributors you name it.

 

That's just the way our f*****-up system works. Tons of side deals and ;-) nod nod. Now, should Dems be pissed off? Well yeah. But they still had a chance to vote for Bernie and still didn't. And the debates for example a relatively meaningless these days with the internet.

 

So, the pro Bernie types can and should be justifiably pissed. But in the end Bernie came across as an old crank who just couldn't pull the numbers.

 

I'm not trying to defend that count Hillary. Just tap down a little bit of the stupid here. It had nothing to do with the general election. And obviously, if the DNC felt so strongly the Bernie give them a better shot they should have stepped up. Not bring some b**** who got fired months ago to the table to sell a book or whatever today.

No no. See the political process has been squeaky clean until Hillary.

 

To quote: " Not sure how ANYONE isn't outraged at this story. But some of you are partisan hacks and some of you don't care about the direction of the country. So be it."

[wiffleball 4,640]

Well, THIS pretty much ends the whole "Hillary STOLE ALL THE MONEY FROM BERNIE AND THAT'S WHY SHE WON!"

conversation:

 

 

With Bernie Sanders lopping hundreds of staffers from his campaign this week, it's easy to forget he has outraised and outspent Hillary Clinton every month this year. And not by just a little.

 

Sanders described his campaign as the "underdog" early on, but it certainly hasn't been the case the past three months. Federal Election Commission reports for January, February and March of 2016 show Sanders outspending Clinton by more than 50 percent, $121.6 million to $80.2 million.

 

 

Just a few snippets;

 

Bernie's monthly payroll was approximately TWICE that of HRC's. His $ per vote? MORE than twice that of HRC's. And, he took in and spent over 20 MILLION dollars MORE than HRC on a given month. (or, almost twice as much)

 

...And still gathered far less delegates, won far less primaries. Hell, he couldn't even crack 45% at any given time.

 

I know a HELL of a lot of candidates that would like to be in such ca 'rigged' conundrum. Poor guy only had and spent more than twice as much as the 'cheater'. - And STiLL couldn't muster?

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016

[wiffleball 4,640]

Next week;

 

was Seth rich killed because he murdered Vince Foster?

 

Did Hillary secretly pay photographers DNC money to make Monica Lewinsky look fat?

 

Are the children seen getting much-needed vaccinations in Africa thanks to the Clinton Global initiative the same children we saw at Sandy Hook?

[crackattack 513]

Well, THIS pretty much ends the whole "Hillary STOLE ALL THE MONEY FROM BERNIE AND THAT'S WHY SHE WON!"

conversation:

 

 

Just a few snippets;

 

Bernie's monthly payroll was approximately TWICE that of HRC's. His $ per vote? MORE than twice that of HRC's. And, he took in and spent over 20 MILLION dollars MORE than HRC on a given month. (or, almost twice as much)

 

...And still gathered far less delegates, won far less primaries. Hell, he couldn't even crack 45% at any given time.

 

I know a HELL of a lot of candidates that would like to be in such ca 'rigged' conundrum. Poor guy only had and spent more than twice as much as the 'cheater'. - And STiLL couldn't muster?

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016

That article concentrated on 3 months, and mostly looked at March 2016. Yes, Bernie outspent her for a couple of months. Clinton on the other hand out raised him by over 100 million by June of 2016. So, while Bernie spent more from Jan to March, she killed him on the amount brought in. Maybe, just maybe, she knew she wouldn't need to spend as much since it was a lock.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html&ved=0ahUKEwjZnMW7t6HXAhUE6SYKHSBXDZwQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw00H2CXW9OXdyD6-XLZ8_v1

[wiffleball 4,640]

That article concentrated on 3 months, and mostly looked at March 2016. Yes, Bernie outspent her for a couple of months. Clinton on the other hand out raised him by over 100 million by June of 2016. So, while Bernie spent more from Jan to March, she killed him on the amount brought in. Maybe, just maybe, she knew she wouldn't need to spend as much since it was a lock.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html&ved=0ahUKEwjZnMW7t6HXAhUE6SYKHSBXDZwQFggmMAA&usg=AOvVaw00H2CXW9OXdyD6-XLZ8_v1

I don't want to be a jerk about this, and I've already told you I hate Hillary so I'm sure as hell not going to defend her, but what do I have to do? Hold your nose to the screen? The article isn't that long.

 

Of course it focuses on the first 3 months. The article was written when Bernie Sanders basically threw up the White Flag in late April. Nobody's going to contribute to a campaign that has quit. So they focus on the first three months in order to do an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

It's a pretty common mistake to sit there and look at everything that Hillary pulled in in 2016 vs Sanders. But it's stupid. Hillary was pulling in money for the general election at a time when Sanders all but quit after the first quarter of 2016.

 

So this is the only paragraph you really need to read. Bernie outspent her to 2-1 in the three months where it was straight up heads up competition. And even then Hilary 1 enough delegates to effectively lock the primaries in. As the article says, there were only two more big primaries left after that.

 

So Bernie blue her doors off in terms of money collected and money spent and still couldn't stay competitive with her.

 

The point being, it sure as hell isn't the Hillary won because she outspent the guy. And it sure as hell isn't because she out collected the guy. The numbers are right there.

 

You are adding another 6 or 7 months of collection and spending by Hilary after Bernie basically laid off the majority of his staff and started coasting. Nobody keeps placing bets on a horse they quits running after the first turn.