- Mar 14, 2015
- 2,682
- 1
- 0
Well, then we get to look forward to the next email dump together, pass me that pipe....
Well, then we get to look forward to the next email dump together, pass me that pipe....
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,615
- 17,191
- 136
Frankly nobody's actually surprised by this. The clintons are basically democratic party machinery and they've always played political hardball.
Most of the people indignant at this aren't really naive as they pretend to be.
Personally I find it interesting that on numerous occasion you've claimed to be a democrat, yet never actually show any party loyalty as that would imply. Now it's perfectly normal to shun loyalty to a political party, for example I wouldn't call myself a democrat, but then why would someone keep bringing up their affiliation as if it meant something.
Most of the people indignant at this aren't really naive as they pretend to be.
Personally I find it interesting that on numerous occasion you've claimed to be a democrat, yet never actually show any party loyalty as that would imply. Now it's perfectly normal to shun loyalty to a political party, for example I wouldn't call myself a democrat, but then why would someone keep bringing up their affiliation as if it meant something.
- Mar 14, 2015
- 2,682
- 1
- 0
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,615
- 17,191
- 136
Have you seen some ties to the Clinton's that indicate the DNC was doing something other than what it is supposed to do? There is no doubt that the Clinton's have a strong political machine working for them but you appear to be implying that there is a stronger connection between the DNC and the Clinton's other than what a normal candidate would get from the DNC. Or am I reading too much into your post?
The only loyalty I've noticed is to the cause of the NRA & to tearing down the Democratic Party.
The clintons have been influential in the party for a long time, long & influential enough to turn the ship towards centrism. When someone's been responsible for steering the boat, it's not unreasonable to assume they command enough loyalty through the chain of command to avoid a mutiny.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,615
- 17,191
- 136
There is a difference between influence of a platform and corruption of the process. I'm specifically asking about the corruption of the process.
- Mar 14, 2015
- 2,682
- 1
- 0
shady28
Platinum Member
- Apr 11, 2004
- 2,520
- 397
- 126
They can't understand what's going on, it's beyond their comprehension. It's like trying to explain a transistor to a cave man. If the tables were reversed, I could've voted for Bernie against Cruz or Bush.
They call that trolling because they can't comprehend it. It's something Robert Reich and Bernie Sanders recognized a while back. So did Trump.
The old GOP party is all but gone. The old Dem party should be gone, but they suckered their electorate.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/24072016-robert-reich-does-hillary-get-it-oped/
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,615
- 17,191
- 136
Yep, we are just too stupid to be able to read into things to validate conspiracies we make up.
Its not you though, it's everyone else.🙄
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
I doubt any of this matters in the end.
In the end people will have either Trump or Hillary.
At some point people will disregard the baggage of both Trump and Hillary and simply go by who they believe would actually lead the country the best.
And seeing how Trump has not much going for him other than a big mouth, and Hillary has actually been a first lady, a US senator, and a secretary of state, I'm betting people will go with Hillary as the better bet regardless of servers or emails.
If GW Bush could survived 9/11 happening on his watch, and remember he was re-elected, I doubt Benghazi or email servers will amount to much on Hillary's part to most of the people come November 8th.
People will look at these two and decide, with what they have to go on, which of the two would better get them through the next four years?
It's a crap shoot, but the odds are in Hillary's favor.
Trump doesn't have a record to go by or the experience for people to put their trust in. Frankly, Trump is a complete unknown.
When people make a bet, they want at least a little solid ground to stand on.
A little proof in the pudding.
Something they can hold in their hand and actually feel for themselves.
Hillary has all that. Trump does not.
With Trump, all we have to go by is his word. Hillary has some substance behind her words.
People will go with Hillary for the sake of their job security, their retirement security, and their health security.
The economy may not be all Tom Terrific, but at least with Hillary no one will expect another disaster like we had in 2008, nor another taxpayer bailout under a Hillary Clinton administration.
With Donald, we really have not one single clue as to what he might do.
And how what Trump might do could affect people and their families.
I doubt many people, including the republicans, would believe that Hillary or her policies would crash the economy or mess up the country.
Trump on the other hand could try out crap off the top of his head, and with disastrous results for the economy and the country.
And once you burn down that house, it takes a long long time to rebuild.
No one believes Hillary would burn down the house.
Especially that house Obama has repaired since 2008 after GW Bush nearly burnt it to the ground, that little old firebug.
So, if people want any substance, solid ground, experience to go by in their decision making, I wager they will go with the more sound choice of Hillary Clinton.
One fear that bothers most people is buyers remorse.
We really and truly have no idea as to what Trump is trying to sell us. What the ingredients are in his bottle of snake oil.
However with Hillary, there we have a fairly good idea she will not toss the baby out with the bath water. Her snake oil ingredients are fairly bland, we have all tasted her snake oil before and at least we know it won't kill us.
In the end people will have either Trump or Hillary.
At some point people will disregard the baggage of both Trump and Hillary and simply go by who they believe would actually lead the country the best.
And seeing how Trump has not much going for him other than a big mouth, and Hillary has actually been a first lady, a US senator, and a secretary of state, I'm betting people will go with Hillary as the better bet regardless of servers or emails.
If GW Bush could survived 9/11 happening on his watch, and remember he was re-elected, I doubt Benghazi or email servers will amount to much on Hillary's part to most of the people come November 8th.
People will look at these two and decide, with what they have to go on, which of the two would better get them through the next four years?
It's a crap shoot, but the odds are in Hillary's favor.
Trump doesn't have a record to go by or the experience for people to put their trust in. Frankly, Trump is a complete unknown.
When people make a bet, they want at least a little solid ground to stand on.
A little proof in the pudding.
Something they can hold in their hand and actually feel for themselves.
Hillary has all that. Trump does not.
With Trump, all we have to go by is his word. Hillary has some substance behind her words.
People will go with Hillary for the sake of their job security, their retirement security, and their health security.
The economy may not be all Tom Terrific, but at least with Hillary no one will expect another disaster like we had in 2008, nor another taxpayer bailout under a Hillary Clinton administration.
With Donald, we really have not one single clue as to what he might do.
And how what Trump might do could affect people and their families.
I doubt many people, including the republicans, would believe that Hillary or her policies would crash the economy or mess up the country.
Trump on the other hand could try out crap off the top of his head, and with disastrous results for the economy and the country.
And once you burn down that house, it takes a long long time to rebuild.
No one believes Hillary would burn down the house.
Especially that house Obama has repaired since 2008 after GW Bush nearly burnt it to the ground, that little old firebug.
So, if people want any substance, solid ground, experience to go by in their decision making, I wager they will go with the more sound choice of Hillary Clinton.
One fear that bothers most people is buyers remorse.
We really and truly have no idea as to what Trump is trying to sell us. What the ingredients are in his bottle of snake oil.
However with Hillary, there we have a fairly good idea she will not toss the baby out with the bath water. Her snake oil ingredients are fairly bland, we have all tasted her snake oil before and at least we know it won't kill us.
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
Undeniable proof how the "D"NC and thus the entire election system is rigged, and proof for what a crook DWS is:
http://us.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/index.html
It's actually *INCREDIBLE* that this is going on in the US and that the crooks of the "D"NC shamelessly use words like "democratic".
I haven't agreed with Trump on anything ever and I am sure not agreeing w/ his lame attempt to pull Sanders supporters onto his side, however I agree with him that Sanders was f*cked over from the beginning, as (many) Sanders supporters said anyway.
That the head of the DNC and many of their stuff clearly supported Clinton and try to out the other...for me this is nothing less than a scandal...and renders this entire election process a farce and actually invalidates it.
http://us.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/index.html
It's actually *INCREDIBLE* that this is going on in the US and that the crooks of the "D"NC shamelessly use words like "democratic".
I haven't agreed with Trump on anything ever and I am sure not agreeing w/ his lame attempt to pull Sanders supporters onto his side, however I agree with him that Sanders was f*cked over from the beginning, as (many) Sanders supporters said anyway.
That the head of the DNC and many of their stuff clearly supported Clinton and try to out the other...for me this is nothing less than a scandal...and renders this entire election process a farce and actually invalidates it.
wow
Did the efficiency of this machine start with the Koch Brothers or had it always been this crooked?
Did the efficiency of this machine start with the Koch Brothers or had it always been this crooked?
Most entertaining thread I've read in months. It's a shame artdeco got banned.
If you have an issue with moderation, you know where to complain.
It's not in the thread.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
If you have an issue with moderation, you know where to complain.
It's not in the thread.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
Last edited by a moderator:
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
What for? I haven't seen any mod edits of any of his posts citing an infraction or whatnot.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
From the other thread:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/detailed-list-findings-wikileaks-dnc-document-dump/
DNC calling Hispanics "taco bowls" hahaha.
http://www.mediacircus.com/2016/07/democrats-refer-to-latino-voters-as-taco-bowl-engagement/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/detailed-list-findings-wikileaks-dnc-document-dump/
and
DNC calling Hispanics "taco bowls" hahaha.
http://www.mediacircus.com/2016/07/democrats-refer-to-latino-voters-as-taco-bowl-engagement/
Since you failed to correct or remove it in this thread, (like the other one I posted basically the rest of this response in) the first email description you posted appears to be a clear misrepresentation of the facts by the way upon checking. (I'm not spending the time to check all the rest.)
That email is about the DNC checking the background of a potential donor to the DNC who appears to have been rejected by the DNC after details including the horse killing for insurance money came up when they ran a background check for him before accepting a potential donation from him and allowing him to attend an event with President Obama as a guest. (In other words he definitely does not look like a DNC member.)
If you didn't create this list but someone else did, they were either very lazy or dishonest about checking if there was something actually truly scandalous about the DNC before posting the emails and descriptions of them.
The Gateway pundit is a right wing hatchet job. Click on the author.
Details cherry picked from 19,000 emails, served up by Putin to damage the Democrats. Luvs him some Donald, bet on that.
Details cherry picked from 19,000 emails, served up by Putin to damage the Democrats. Luvs him some Donald, bet on that.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
The issue is that the DNC even had to vet such an obvious scumbag which shows how stupid/unethical some of their members are like Regional Director Clayton Cox. Sad that you couldn't figure this out from the emails.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article91623012.html#storylink=cpy
Read the emails for yourself. Calling hispanics "taco bowls" doesn't help their cause.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 143
- 106
So which of the emails are "hatchet jobs"? I've read through the bolded ones and they appear legit. Be more specific.
Shit is already starting to hit the fan. Politico just apologized for running an article by the DNC before publishing hahahaha:
https://twitter.com/mlcalderone/status/757326404723810304
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter