Then we need to stop tarring any group on our side with the sins of the worst members of those groups.
Sure, but tarring one group is how the fire throwers get attention.
Golly, IĀ“ve just been reading it all these years. Who knew it could be a sex toy?
1 Like
Oh, shoot. Thanks. Grabbed from 4 links on google search, will delete - donĀ“t want to give him clicks. But the gist of my post is seconded by others:
1 Like
In addition, he has bad breath. No, really, he does. Iām not quite sure it smells of brimstone, but maybe. That would explain a lot.
Iām not sure how you can state that as fact.
āWe donāt know what her communications were with the Sanders campaign. The Russians either didnāt hack the campaign, or didnāt find anything that would help their aims.
āA senior advisor to the Sanders campaign said he communicated with her frequently, and that āshe was fair and square with usā
āWe can see that, even in the communications selected by the Russians, Brazile did not have the questions. She had some tidbits of info about who would be asking, and what the topics would be. If she had anything more than that, donāt you think it strange that she sent hints only about one question in each case, and that they were about questions that Clinton could easily anticipate and/or easily handle with no assistance from Brazile?
4 Likes
The Devil smells like rotting meat, they say.
1 Like
In hindsight, yeah, I agree. I also think it was big mistake not to focus on tearing apart his business record. My dad is one of my political weathervanes and he still has a hard time accepting that PP is really a terrible businessman. Just as 30 years of being trashed hurt Clinton, 30 years of being told PP is an amazing, self-made businessman has had the exact opposite effect. Itās ingrained in the american psyche. Again, this is all in hindsight which of course is always 20/20. Sigh.
2 Likes
I believe she mentioned that her political career is now over, so why would the DNC be filling the rules committee with her supporters? Surely there are other candidates who might actually run, and it might be wise to get things set up to support not-Hillary now rather than later?
I think itĀ“s logical to assume that had there been similar help from Brazile for the Sanders campaign, you would have heard about it by now from either Sanders, or Brazile, or someone associated with them.
Patently false, as was just explained to you.
5 Likes
Hereās one- Perez doesnāt like people with different politics than Obama and Clinton in the DNC so heās firing them. So the Democrats will just keep running on the moderate, āresponsibleā policies that got Bill Clinton elected in 1992 and will be far less effective than if Ellison had won. Oh well, Iāll always vote Democratic, but weāll never outmuster the kooks in enthusiasm with this crap
1 Like
Thanks for reading.
Hereās the thingā¦ She was the nominee of the party. She was Sec of State, a senator, and FLOTUS before that. There are very, very, very few non-supporters in the upper echelon of our party just as, I imagine, there are very few Barack Obama non-supporters. That doesnāt mean sheās running again, sheās made it clear sheās not. And Iād bet that quite a few of the people who are characterized as Clinton supporters would happily support another candidate in 2020 if she were to run.
6 Likes
When it looked like Hilary was winning, it made sense not to give Kasich a seat to fill. And Kaine ended up being a bigger dud than seemed possible. Who loses a debate to Mike Pence, holy shit?!
2 Likes
You donāt know that such is the caseāyou just swallowed the story whole, without thought.,
And Hillaryās supporters make up the vast majority of the party in any event.
3 Likes
Sure. But sheās not President, and sheās not running for 2020. Someone else will be the candidate, someone else will be shaping DNC policy. So, if nothing else, that rules committee should have members with a broad range of views, NOT just one very narrow view.
Right?
Well, I would presume that they are Democrats who were Democrats even before HRC ran. So, the article referring to them as āHillary supportersā is kind of a meaningless/divisive distinction. They were likely chosen because they are Democrats, not specifically because they supported Clinton.
Would you be upset if the article had referred to those same people as āObama supportersā? I would guess that that moniker would apply to them as well.
2 Likes
Please provide empirical evidence to support your silly claim.
Again, please provide the empirical evidence to back up your silly claim.
Because you say it doesnāt make it so.
Who says it doesnāt?
Why should we believe your highly biased opinion?