They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yes, within the CONTEXT of a trans woman winning an election....defeating the guy who wrote the bathroom bill. Context is something you completely ignore nowadays.

Ah, so is that why you said "This election turned its back on Trump and his hate issues."
Tell me, what is specific about "hate issues"?
Sounds like generalizing.
The implication is that Trump is anti-LGBQT, which is false.

[The_Noble_Cause]

That is bullshit.

See below. Nuff said.

Monker vs. Hillary - Can you tell the difference?

HILLARY: “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

MONKER: “This has nothing to do with Democrats but the entirety of our intelligence community saying that it happened. If you want to argue against it, you are arguing against the: FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security...and on and on.”


HILLARY: "There's no doubt they influenced the election."
MONKER: "Yes, if Putin had not been trying to influence the election, including hacking, I don't think Trump would have won."

HILLARY: "What I did was allowed by the State Department. It was fully above board."
MONKER: "That's just not true. She had permission to use it."

Bullshit again.

See above. Nuff said.

Bullshit again. I had a very specific logical reason for using that example. You just don't like it.

To defend DNC debate cheating, you were quoting a DNC official (Donna Brazille). You have been caught red-handed doing this multiple times. There is not an original thought in your head.

Go back and read the quote I posted. It was in DIRECT RESPONSE to questioning why I do not read WikiLeaks. I say it is biased bullshit with an agenda....and I was using Brazille's words as an example.

Yes, Wiki is so so so biased that George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton hated them equally for exposing war crimes. Hillary even wanted Assange droned. Sounds to me like they are pissing off the right people, regardless of party.

I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT.

YES .YOU. ARE.

Yeah, "dumps" is a good word for them. One sided bullshit with an agenda is another.

By that logic, I guess the Pentagon Papers were one-sided and had an agenda also. Maybe Ellsberg only released half of them to make Nixon look bad, right?

Bottom line is - you just don't like transparency that exposes corruption. If Wiki had an agenda (or even a full staff) they would only release relevant emails - not thousands upon thousands that volunteers have to tirelessly sift through.

YES. Did you read what Brazille said to the other candidates? Do you have ANY idea what those conversations were? No, you don't. Therefore, you only know half the story. That is the fact.

1) Forwarding debate questions in advance is still cheating. PERIOD.

2) Wikileaks can only release what they've got. Brazille's cheating was exposed because of the Podesta hacks. If you want dirt on Bernie or O'Malley, go hack their campaign emails.

3) If Donna cheated equally (as you claim), Donna could very easily release those emails. She hasn't. They don't exist. Just like your invented "Hillary had permission to use a private server" emails.

You are now saying she had no Email conversations with the other candidates. That is just illogical and nuts.

I ask again, if she used her position at CNN to submit questions to ALL candidates (not just Hillary), why doesn't she simply release those emails? If it wasn't cheating, why did CNN fire her ass over this?

Yep...because having two dozen debates was FAR too many in past elections. Six seems like a much better number, and that was moved up to nine. People stop caring when there are so many debates, I do anyway. I also believe scheduling three of them on weekends having fewer viewer is way exaggerated. Nowadays the highlights show up repeatedly on all types of news and on Youtube. On top of all of that, the candidates who are behind ALWAYS want more debates and whine about these things. It happens in EVERY election I have seen. So, NO, I do not believe the debate scheduled was "rigged" for Clinton. I believe Clinton was ahead and the others had to whine about it.

LOL. Both Brazile and Debbie Wasserman got fired/demoted when their corruption was exposed. You are a Hillary dead-ender living in dream land.

[Monker]

Bullshit again. I had a very specific logical reason for using that example. You just don't like it.

To defend DNC debate cheating, you were quoting a DNC official (Donna Brazille). You have been caught red-handed doing this multiple times. There is not an original thought in your head.

Now you are just flat out lying. "DNC debate cheating" had NOTHING TO DO with the conversation I posted that to.

Go back and read the quote I posted. It was in DIRECT RESPONSE to questioning why I do not read WikiLeaks. I say it is biased bullshit with an agenda....and I was using Brazille's words as an example.

Yes, Wiki is so so so biased that George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton hated them equally for exposing war crimes. Hillary even wanted Assange droned. Sounds to me like they are pissing off the right people, regardless of party.

I don't give a fuck what YOUR opinion is. *I* was being asked about why I do not read WikiLeaks. THAT WAS MY ANSWER DUMBASS. Get over yourself already.

[/quote]

I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT.

YES .YOU. ARE.[/quote]

No I'm not. I will never, EVER, register as a Democrat or Republican. If I were to ever register, I would register as a Libertarian...as I have said.

You are now saying she had no Email conversations with the other candidates. That is just illogical and nuts.

I ask again, if she used her position at CNN to submit questions to ALL candidates (not just Hillary), why doesn't she simply release those emails? If it wasn't cheating, why did CNN fire her ass over this?

I don't really care....NONE of this matters to me. Fire Brazille...I don't care. As for the Emails, I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM. But, the FACT is, you only know HALF the story...you do NOT know what was said to Sanders. THAT is a fact. All you are doing is throwing up a bunch of speculation and asking for more speculation.

Yep...because having two dozen debates was FAR too many in past elections. Six seems like a much better number, and that was moved up to nine. People stop caring when there are so many debates, I do anyway. I also believe scheduling three of them on weekends having fewer viewer is way exaggerated. Nowadays the highlights show up repeatedly on all types of news and on Youtube. On top of all of that, the candidates who are behind ALWAYS want more debates and whine about these things. It happens in EVERY election I have seen. So, NO, I do not believe the debate scheduled was "rigged" for Clinton. I believe Clinton was ahead and the others had to whine about it.

LOL. Both Brazile and Debbie Wasserman got fired/demoted when their corruption was exposed. You are a Hillary dead-ender living in dream land.

[/quote]

I'm stating my opinion. It is not 'defending Hillary". I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the debate schedule. I do not see it as biased. I do not see it as rigged. I think it was a proper schedule for only three candidate, one of whom dropped out early.
Dozens of debates were simply NOT NEEDED for only two candidates to get their agendas out there and contrast each other.

I also think you are stretching your imagination if you think the debate schedule is why either were fired. If you read what Brazille wrote, she said when she took over she found that the DNC was indebted for tens of millions of dollars under Wasserman's mismanagement and she made a 'bad deal' with Clinton to get them out of debt. So, if you want to blame anybody for the DNC's issues, it's Wasserman. She was bad with DNC finances and she signed deals with the Clinton campaign that gave them too much power. And, BTW, Brazille also said she went from department to department and office to office and could find no corruption anywhere. So, even though Clinton had all this power in the DNC, it was not being used in a corrupt way (ie: rigging an election), it was used in a strangling way...giving them just enough $'s to survive and keeping the rest for her own campaign. Also, NOTHING was stopping Bernie from donating to the DNC as well and allowing them to do more than barely get by.

The whole thing wreaks to me as Wasserman as a failed political leader and manager. Brazille as a whiny baby who took over in the middle of a DNC financial crisis. And, Clinton taking advantage of a weakened DNC, not to 'rig an election', but to have complete control of the party after she was elected...which everybody assumed was going to happen.

[Boomchild]

“The seriousness of the charge mandates that we investigate this.
Even though there is no evidence, the seriousness of the charge is what matters.”

-- Tom Foley (1929-2013) former Democrat Speaker Of The House

The short version: Innuendo is all it takes.

[steveo777]

No I'm not. I will never, EVER, register as a Democrat or Republican. If I were to ever register, I would register as a Libertarian...as I have said.

There you have it, not registered to vote, so did not vote. Monker has zero qualification, nor any credibility to bash the President. Those who do not help make the meal have no room to complain and you get whatever crumbs happen to be thrown your way.

Monker is a fraud.

[Monker]

Not a fraud Steve, but a liar. You busted him.

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinf ... ation.html

Oh, please. I have been registered since 1986. But, I have NOT been registered to any party.

Steve put a smilie at the end of his paragraph, so I took it as a sarcastic rant. But, you are such a naive dumbfuck that you believe everything you read that you can agree with. This is why you believe all kinds BULLSHIT from Hannity and crew...you have no common sense nor an ability to understand when you are being bullshitted into believing something that isn't true. The above is a perfect example of how naive and stupid you really are.

[Monker]

Oh, NRA, get over it.

https://youtu.be/a-o9pwWUzz0

[Boomchild]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-told-abbas-to-accept-trump-peace-plan-or-resign-report/

Explain to me again just why the U.S. has to create a "peace plan"? With all the domestic issues needing to be addressed this is what the administration needs to work on? My guess it won't pan out. Just like all the other attempts. In my opinion this is a lost cause and a waste of time and money.

[Boomchild]

Well well well. Speaking of Saudi's.

https://medium.com/@zachhaller/saudi-ro ... 30a548984a

I think people are dreaming if they think this is going to implicate the first African American President in any substantial way.

[Boomchild]

Pressure is building Boomchild.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/ ... -more.html

Not gonna happen as long as Sessions is AG. Even if it did, I would question the legitimacy of the investigation with the "oversight" of Sessions. I'll say it again, a politician should NEVER, EVER be appointed head of our justice department. It should be considered a conflict of interest and disqualify them from consideration.

[Boomchild]

[Monker]

President Donald Trump announced Thursday roughly $250 billion in deals between American businesses and China.

On his final day in Beijing, Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping oversaw a ceremony in which corporate giants such as Boeing and Qualcomm signed multibillion-dollar deals.

“This is truly a miracle,” China’s Commerce Minister Zhong Shan said at a news briefing in Beijing.

https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-re ... a-miracle/

And, in the real world, an article is published linking Wikileaks and Jr., colluding and helping each other.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ks/545738/

Pppbblllllltttttzzzz (the sound of a giant orange head deflating.)

[Boomchild]

Maybe not with all the liberals like Monker that simply stick their heads in the sand, or what ever, when something liberal looks bad.

Nobody is going to touch that. Even with a ten foot pole. I can just imagine the shit storm that would erupt from the African American community alone if this was to happen. Then you have all the other people that were involved and are still in our government. Lastly, our judicial system is so corrupt at this point I don't expect the powerful to be held accountable.

[Boomchild]

Heard this morning there is talk in Congress about just that. Many now are pissed that Sessions is not doing his job. He'll start getting pressure, as well as Trump, to step down or be replaced. Also talk about Mueller being too personally involed with the Clintons and his removal.

And how much of this is just the typical "dog and pony" show for the public? Remember this is the do nothing Congress. Also remember there are people still in Congress that may have ties to this stuff. They're not going to take measures that could end up getting themselves prosecuted. Trump's description of swamp is spot on.

[Monker]

Pressure is building Boomchild.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/ ... -more.html

Not gonna happen as long as Sessions is AG. Even if it did, I would question the legitimacy of the investigation with the "oversight" of Sessions. I'll say it again, a politician should NEVER, EVER be appointed head of our justice department. It should be considered a conflict of interest and disqualify them from consideration.

Heard this morning there is talk in Congress about just that. Many now are pissed that Sessions is not doing his job. He'll start getting pressure, as well as Trump, to step down or be replaced. Also talk about Mueller being too personally involed with the Clintons and his removal.

More proof that you live in a fantasy and are so naive that you believe everything you read.

Sessions won't be fired because whoever Trump hires will have to be confirmed by congress...he can not simply hire someone who will do his bidding.

Trump can NOT fire Mueller. The only person who can fire Mueller is Rosenstein. Rosenstein has said he will NOT fire Mueller without cause. Good luck convincing him. So, Trump has to do exactly what Nixon did...Fire Rosenstien and keep firing replacements until he finds someone in the chain who will fire Mueller for him. Good luck with all of that...and good luck with the political aftermath - that was essentially the end of the Nixon Presidency.

[steveo777]

For those of us who can't get our head around how Clinton continues to skate free, this is probably as close to the truth as it gets!

[Monker]

Why can't you accept the FACT that Benghazi was investigated SEVEN times without any criminal fault to be dealt out towards Hillary? And, the last one was pretty much a REPUBLICAN investigation. You all are not just kicking a dead horse, but a horse that has been killed, burred, exhumed, kicked some more and reburied SEVEN TIMES. It is simply ridiculous.

Then to justify it, you INVENT some type of huge left wing Clinton conspiracy. Do you think it is any less INSANE compared to a huge RIGHT WING conspiracy against the Clintons? If she had so much power at her command, there is NO WAY she would have lost to Obama, let alone a complete dumb-ass like Trump.

For those of us who can't get our head around how Clinton continues to skate free, this is probably as close to the truth as it gets!

[Monker]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11 ... ction.html

Lied too again by your sources Monker.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10 ... ing-video/

[/quote]

Sorry, but Jr. is a liar. He lied in every statement made about meeting the Russians at Trump tower, including the statement his daddy wrote for him. And, he is lying here, too. This is MISSING TWO MESSAGES....including one where WikiLeaks says his daddy should not concede the election if he loses.

How can any of you believe a family of pathological LIARS?

Your other line about Clinton is just a huge 'nobody gives a damn' outside of the alt-right and fans of the state run TV at FOX.

[Monker]

Why can't you accept the FACT that Benghazi was investigated SEVEN times without any criminal fault to be dealt out towards Hillary? And, the last one was pretty much a REPUBLICAN investigation. You all are not just kicking a dead horse, but a horse that has been killed, burred, exhumed, kicked some more and reburied SEVEN TIMES. It is simply ridiculous.

Then to justify it, you INVENT some type of huge left wing Clinton conspiracy. Do you think it is any less INSANE compared to a huge RIGHT WING conspiracy against the Clintons? If she had so much power at her command, there is NO WAY she would have lost to Obama, let alone a complete dumb-ass like Trump.

For those of us who can't get our head around how Clinton continues to skate free, this is probably as close to the truth as it gets!

Why can't your pea brain understand it was a stacked deck. She lied under oath.

Because it is bullshit conspiracy theory invented by state run FOX news and spread by the alt-right.

[Monker]

Well, he's being drug there kicking and screaming, but getting there. againb, Monker proven a liar.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11 ... unsel.html

Which "certain issues"?

[Monker]

Which "certain issues"?

Like I've said, only an idiot would believe the investagations under Obama were not a stacked deck.[/quote]

Only an idiot would say such a thing about congressional investigation in a REPUBLICAN congress.

Do I need to post the list of lies proven that clinton told under oath?

If that is all you got than, no, you don't.

You can't even answer my question without a bunch of BULLSHIT.

[The_Noble_Cause]

And, in the real world, an article is published linking Wikileaks and Jr., colluding and helping each other.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ks/545738/

Pppbblllllltttttzzzz (the sound of a giant orange head deflating.)

Jr. answered a few private messages from the Wiki twitter account over Twitter. So what? *I* have exchanged private messages with Assange over Twitter. Should I be locked up? If there is a nefarious Russian conspiracy afoot, would they really be talking over Twitter? So dumb.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Now you are just flat out lying. "DNC debate cheating" had NOTHING TO DO with the conversation I posted that to.

Sending debate questions in advance to Hillary is cheating. Your response is that Donna may have also sent debate questions to Bernie, O'Malley. Guess what? That's also cheating. And if Donna did that, she could very easily release those emails. They don't exist.

I don't give a fuck what YOUR opinion is. *I* was being asked about why I do not read WikiLeaks. THAT WAS MY ANSWER DUMBASS. Get over yourself already.

You sound testy because you keep getting caught in lies. This is Andrew's site, not yours. I am entitled to my opinion.

No I'm not. I will never, EVER, register as a Democrat or Republican. If I were to ever register, I would register as a Libertarian...as I have said.

LOL. Standard bearers of the Libertarian movement, like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, openly laugh at the Russia nonsense. They are not on here propagating it chapter and verse like YOU. They are also talking about hard money and the Fed policy. When was the last time you discussed the fed? All you do is slobber the DNC's knob on a daily basis.

As for the Emails, I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM.

EXCEPT she used her own email account -"donna@brazileassociates.com" - to send out the debate questions.

Why would CNN own that?

You are on here masquerading like you know what you're talking about. You haven't a clue.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

But, the FACT is, you only know HALF the story...you do NOT know what was said to Sanders. THAT is a fact.

So why didn't Donna release those emails? Why didn't Bernie or his people release those emails? Furthermore, cheating is cheating. Why are you condoning it?

I'm stating my opinion. It is not 'defending Hillary".

Making up lies out of whole cloth such as “She had permission to use a private server!” is not giving an opinion. Everybody here knows exactly what you are.

I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the debate schedule. I do not see it as biased. I do not see it as rigged

*Ahem* Back to Wikileaks…

“Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over;…”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5688

I also think you are stretching your imagination if you think the debate schedule is why either were fired.

The debate schedule was just the tip of the iceberg. All sorts of corruption exposed. Not going to recap it here. You are simply ignorant.

Also, NOTHING was stopping Bernie from donating to the DNC as well and allowing them to do more than barely get by.

I think your true “I’m With Her” colors are slipping again. Bernie has been prolific fundraiser for the Dems forever.

[The_Noble_Cause]

TNC a simple he's stupid, just won't see because he keeps his head up would do. I'm glad you have time to respond to ALMOST all of his lies and bullshit. His best tatic is cherry picking and ignorring most of whats posted.

Yup. Claiming that Donna can't release emails because "CNN owns them" is such a breathtaking lie. The debate questions were sent from her Ipod using her personal account. Monker has no shame. He will say any lie, no matter how egregious, to cover for the Democratic Party. What a tool.

[Monker]

And, in the real world, an article is published linking Wikileaks and Jr., colluding and helping each other.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ks/545738/

Pppbblllllltttttzzzz (the sound of a giant orange head deflating.)

Jr. answered a few private messages from the Wiki twitter account over Twitter. So what? *I* have exchanged private messages with Assange over Twitter. Should I be locked up?

I don't know. I'm sure it depends on the content and the context of the exchange. Congress has tried to get the current administration to declare them a hostile intelligence service. Earlier this year, Mike Pompeo criticized Wikileaks using that same language. So, I would say at the very least you are putting yourself at risk of treason by communicating with them,

If there is a nefarious Russian conspiracy afoot, would they really be talking over Twitter? So dumb.

Do you really think those few Emails were the extent of the relationship? So dumb.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't know. I'm sure it depends on the content and the context of the exchange. Congress has tried to get the current administration to declare them a hostile intelligence service. Earlier this year, Mike Pompeo criticized Wikileaks using that same language. So, I would say at the very least you are putting yourself at risk of treason by communicating with them...

Ooooo scary. The government always tries to censor speech it hates.

Do you really think those few Emails were the extent of the relationship? So dumb.

Yes I do. Same with Roger Stone's Twitter correspondences with Guccifer. This is very weak sauce.

[Monker]

Now you are just flat out lying. "DNC debate cheating" had NOTHING TO DO with the conversation I posted that to.

Sending debate questions in advance to Hillary is cheating. Your response is that Donna may have also sent debate questions to Bernie, O'Malley. Guess what? That's also cheating. And if Donna did that, she could very easily release those emails. They don't exist.

There is a difference between saying someone is "cheating" and saying an entire election was 'rigged'. My argument is that it was NOT RIGGED. There was obvious favoritism shown towards Clinton and Clinton set herself up to take over the party, but I do not see the election being "rigged" for her to win.

I don't give a fuck what YOUR opinion is. *I* was being asked about why I do not read WikiLeaks. THAT WAS MY ANSWER DUMBASS. Get over yourself already.

You sound testy because you keep getting caught in lies. This is Andrew's site, not yours. I am entitled to my opinion.[/quote]

No, I feel like I have to treat you like a child and repeat things over and over again, quote them over and over again. And, you still can't hear or read what is right in from of you. The only person who was caught in a lie is YOU. I was not defending Donna Brazille. That conversation had NOTHING TO DO WITH HER. I was explaining why I do not read Wikileaks.

No I'm not. I will never, EVER, register as a Democrat or Republican. If I were to ever register, I would register as a Libertarian...as I have said.

LOL. Standard bearers of the Libertarian movement, like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, openly laugh at the Russia nonsense. They are not on here propagating it chapter and verse like YOU. They are also talking about hard money and the Fed policy. When was the last time you discussed the fed? All you do is slobber the DNC's knob on a daily basis.

I do not identify enough with the Democratic party to register with them. Period. I indentify more with LIbertarian than either party. NOBODY here talks about the Fed. I *KNOW* Ron Paul has been very critical of Trump. But, that is irrelevant. I see Republicans as being incredibly hypocritical by saying they are for liberty, except when it comes to things like burning the flag, or sex, or sexual orientation, and all types of other topics which are personal moral issues that the government has no business getting involved with. And, Democrats, or liberals more specifically, want to use government to fix EVERYTHING...and spend way too much money in the process. Then there is foreign policy where again Republicans are hypocritical in they call themselves fiscal conservatives but want to spend outrageous amounts of money on war. Liberals seem to want it both way, to fight "moral" wars but also cut the military. The Constitution says to provide for the commen DEFENSE...not an offense to go abroad and "fix" everything, or to be a "super power" that spends more money on the military then the other top ten nations COMBINED.

As for the Emails, I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM.

EXCEPT she used her own email account -"donna@brazileassociates.com" - to send out the debate questions.

Why would CNN own that?

You are on here masquerading like you know what you're talking about. You haven't a clue.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205
[/quote]

And, that is assuming she only used that one Email account. You can argue this until your fingers bleed...the simple FACT is you do not know if she Emailed Sanders. You can imagine all of these scenarios but the fact still remains that you don't know.

That is my very point about CNN. If you actually READ what I said and you quoted, "I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM." If she Emailed from CNN, they own them. If she Emailed from some other company, they own them. If that mail domain you quoted above is owned by CNN, they still own them. I don't know, you don't know, nobody really knows but her.

But, the FACT is, you only know HALF the story...you do NOT know what was said to Sanders. THAT is a fact.

So why didn't Donna release those emails? Why didn't Bernie or his people release those emails? Furthermore, cheating is cheating. Why are you condoning it?[/quote]

I don't care "why". The FACT is you do not know if she did.

You WERE saying it was evidence that the election was RIGGED. But, now that you can't PROVE that, you are saying "cheating". Maybe if you would stop changing the point of things then arguments you start would make sense.

I'm stating my opinion. It is not 'defending Hillary".

Making up lies out of whole cloth such as “She had permission to use a private server!” is not giving an opinion. Everybody here knows exactly what you are.

This has NOTHING to do with the LIE YOU MADE up that I was defending Clinton.

I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the debate schedule. I do not see it as biased. I do not see it as rigged

*Ahem* Back to Wikileaks…

“Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over;…”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5688

That is EXACTLY what I would expect the front runner of any election to say. There is probably an Emaol floating around saying that Bernie wants as many debates as possible, spread evenly during the primary season. It proves nothing other than Clinton was confident that she would win.

And, she didn't even get what she wanted since THEY ADDED THREE ADDITIONAL DEBATES.

I also think you are stretching your imagination if you think the debate schedule is why either were fired.

The debate schedule was just the tip of the iceberg. All sorts of corruption exposed. Not going to recap it here. You are simply ignorant.

The debate schedule is nothing.

Also, NOTHING was stopping Bernie from donating to the DNC as well and allowing them to do more than barely get by.

I think your true “I’m With Her” colors are slipping again. Bernie has been prolific fundraiser for the Dems forever.

[/quote]

How much did he donate during the campaign? Next to nothing? Or, just plain nothing? According to Brazille, the DNC was over $10,000,000 in debt...and HILLARY paid it off to gain control. Then, she kept paying the DNC enough to keep it afloat. According to Brazille, the DNC was desperate for more cash but Clinton was keeping it for her campaign. I am sure the DNC would have LOVED a few million dollars a month from Bernie...but I bet he was keeping it ALL for his campaign.

[The_Noble_Cause]

There is a difference between saying someone is "cheating" and saying an entire election was 'rigged'. My argument is that it was NOT RIGGED. There was obvious favoritism shown towards Clinton and Clinton set herself up to take over the party, but I do not see the election being "rigged" for her to win.

Splitting hairs now. Favoritism means the DNC was not impartial. If they are not impartial, then it wasn't a fair contest.

No, I feel like I have to treat you like a child and repeat things over and over again, quote them over and over again. And, you still can't hear or read what is right in from of you. The only person who was caught in a lie is YOU. I was not defending Donna Brazille. That conversation had NOTHING TO DO WITH HER. I was explaining why I do not read Wikileaks.

You keep referencing some "specific conversation", but you have defended Donna and the DNC countless times on here. So it's meaningless.

I do not identify enough with the Democratic party to register with them. Period. I indentify more with LIbertarian than either party. NOBODY here talks about the Fed. I *KNOW* Ron Paul has been very critical of Trump. But, that is irrelevant. I see Republicans as being incredibly hypocritical by saying they are for liberty, except when it comes to things like burning the flag, or sex, or sexual orientation, and all types of other topics which are personal moral issues that the government has no business getting involved with. And, Democrats, or liberals more specifically, want to use government to fix EVERYTHING...and spend way too much money in the process. Then there is foreign policy where again Republicans are hypocritical in they call themselves fiscal conservatives but want to spend outrageous amounts of money on war. Liberals seem to want it both way, to fight "moral" wars but also cut the military. The Constitution says to provide for the commen DEFENSE...not an offense to go abroad and "fix" everything, or to be a "super power" that spends more money on the military then the other top ten nations COMBINED.

Zzzzzz. I don't need a personal manifesto to know you are a Hillary shill.

And, that is assuming she only used that one Email account. You can argue this until your fingers bleed...the simple FACT is you do not know if she Emailed Sanders.

Oh sure. And maybe she emailed Jeb Bush and Trump. Y'know, CNN has Republican debates also.

That is my very point about CNN. If you actually READ what I said and you quoted, "I do not know if she has the ability to "release" them since CNN OWNS THEM." If she Emailed from CNN, they own them. If she Emailed from some other company, they own them. If that mail domain you quoted above is owned by CNN, they still own them. I don't know, you don't know, nobody really knows but her.

Laughable spin. Now you are claiming Donna can't legally release emails because debate questions are the property of Time Warner/CNN?

-If so, how come CNN didn't submit a copyright claim against Wiki for posting her emailed questions?

- How come Donna doesn't leak these other emails to the press to report on?

- Furthermore, why didn't Bernie or O'Malley say they also received debate questions in advance from her? O'Malley is a loyal Democrat. Even he said the whole thing was rigged.

I don't care "why". The FACT is you do not know if she did.

You can make this claim about ANY leak to the press. You could argue that Ellsberg only released some of the Pentagon Papers to make Nixon looks evil. Let's focus on what we do know -Donna Brazile emailed debate questions in advance to Hillary. When exposed, she was condemned by CNN and fired.

You WERE saying it was evidence that the election was RIGGED. But, now that you can't PROVE that, you are saying "cheating". Maybe if you would stop changing the point of things then arguments you start would make sense.

You have now gone from denying the election was rigged to playing semantic games. Give me a break.

This has NOTHING to do with the LIE YOU MADE up that I was defending Clinton.

Sure it does. The idea that Donna cheated fairly (what an oxymoron!) with all the candidates has as much basis in reality as your "private server" lie.

That is EXACTLY what I would expect the front runner of any election to say. There is probably an Emaol floating around saying that Bernie wants as many debates as possible, spread evenly during the primary season. It proves nothing other than Clinton was confident that she would win.

Nothing says "confidence" like limiting the debates, delaying them, and dumping them on lowly-watched Saturdays.

How much did he donate during the campaign? Next to nothing? Or, just plain nothing? According to Brazille, the DNC was over $10,000,000 in debt...and HILLARY paid it off to gain control. Then, she kept paying the DNC enough to keep it afloat. According to Brazille, the DNC was desperate for more cash but Clinton was keeping it for her campaign. I am sure the DNC would have LOVED a few million dollars a month from Bernie...but I bet he was keeping it ALL for his campaign.

A dark horse candidate from Vermont with no name recognition is supposed to financially support the party? You're insane.

[Boomchild]

I don't know. I'm sure it depends on the content and the context of the exchange. Congress has tried to get the current administration to declare them a hostile intelligence service. Earlier this year, Mike Pompeo criticized Wikileaks using that same language. So, I would say at the very least you are putting yourself at risk of treason by communicating with them...

Ooooo scary. The government always tries to censor speech it hates.

Do you really think those few Emails were the extent of the relationship? So dumb.

Yes I do. Same with Roger Stone's Twitter correspondences with Guccifer. This is very weak sauce.

It's amazing how Monker seems unfazed by the actions of HRC and the DNC during the primary. In addition to Brazile's admissions you have the secret agreement between HRC org and the DNC. Which the DNC gave HRC the ability to "approve" positions for DNC operations. The document showed that it was directly tied to HRC's org contributions to the DNC. Hmmm....sound familiar? Can you say "pay to play" anyone? Now Monker's so concerned about Trump Jr communicating with Wkilleaks. Perhaps Monker has forgotten about or is unaware of what was discovered in HRC\Podesta email dump. It showed clear DIRECT communication between journalists and HRC staff about content of news stories. I believe it was journalists from both the NYT and TWP. In those emails the journalists were supplying information about articles they were going to publish and were looking for approval and\or input from HRC staff.

The only reason Congress and our justice department is looking to declare Wikileaks a hostile agency is because Wikileaks has been releasing information that shows the corruption in our government and it's actions that are not in the best interest of the citizens. In other words, Wikileaks is pulling back the curtain and showing the public what is really going on. I can see why our corrupt government doesn't like that.

[Boomchild]

Yes I do. Same with Roger Stone's Twitter correspondences with Guccifer. This is very weak sauce.

Speaking of this, Stone was never given the chance to address his accusers directly. However, in a statement read to the investigative committee he set the record straight on this stuff. To the best of my knowledge no one has come forth with evidence that rebuts Stone's statements.