They were taken out of context and really showed nothing. Yes, the DNC will get behind and support the candidate who has won by any mathematical certainty. Surprise, surprise surprise.:rolleyes:
The problem is that this isn’t true.
It’s a Clinton Truth.
What I like is that some people in this thread are incredulous that anyone could possibly think of Hillary Clinton as a typical lying politician, but when confronted with documentary evidence that the DNC conspired to give her an unfair advantage in debates, her defenders will, with a straight face, throw out an ‘out of context’ defense. That’s a standard ploy for lying politicians when they get caught, and doesn’t convince anyone who isn’t already going to be behind that politician anyway.
Nah, I don’t do ‘sky is blue’ cites. The various DNC-Hillary shenanigans have been discussed ad nauseum, if someone doesn’t believe they happened (or that they’re all “out of context”) nothing that I do is going to convince them that they did. If I put in real effort on a post it will just be a waste of time, if I write something off the cuff from memory it will result in a swirl of nitpicking over anything I summarize or mildly misremember and any word choice that doesn’t fit the Saint Hillary narrative.
In the interest of fairness, I really don’t want to think too much about what underwear any presidential candidate is wearing.
Well, I found one person who agreed Hillary ran well:
"So, Hillary called, and it was a lovely call, and it was a tough call for her, I mean, I can imagine," Trump said. "Tougher for her than it would have been for me. I mean, for me, it would have been very, very difficult. She couldn’t have been nicer. She just said, ‘Congratulations, Donald, well done.’ And I said, ‘I want to thank you very much, you were a great competitor.’"
Is your argument that voting for a candidate is somehow different than choosing a candidate? Or is it something else?
Check Damuri Ajashis posts and get back to me with your findings. There are more than enough.
Why are you involved in this again? Didn’t you start out saying you didn’t care? Yet you can’t seem to seize any opportunity to prove it.
Oh, really? Has Bernie been riding his husband’s name for years?
Good grief! There is no such thing as a national or popular vote! It doesn’t exist, period, except in some people’s minds. There are 50 individual state elections plus another in the District of Columbia. And unlike the case with the so-called popular vote, these votes carry legal weight and result in determining who won and who lost that state’s election. More voters in certain states voted for Hillary, and the only significance those votes have is in regard to winning the states where those votes were cast. To add up all the votes cast in all 51 elections and contend that the candidate who comes out ahead overall is the actual winner is is not only specious but divorced from both reality and logic.
I’m aware that many if not most people in this country are unaware of all this, and as a result they can somewhat legitimately lay claim to the belief that Hillary Clinton ‘won the popular vote’.
But you have had it explained to you time and again, both factually and by spot-on analogy, that no such vote exists, and that to total up all the votes cast by voters in states all over the country and claim a popular vote winner is not only meaningless but contrary to the very way the nation’s elections were deliberately designed to be held. And yet you persist not only in making this claim but in arguing it over and over again.
Why is that?
Its been a while, so maybe I don’t remember. But this Sooper Seekret bombshell of a question the Donna tipped Hillary about…what was the subject? (My memory isn’t what it used to be. Or maybe it is, and I just don’t remember.)
Presumably, it was a real toughy. About what? Why would anyone expect Hillary to be totally surprised and flummoxed by it?
There’s no such thing as a popular vote?
Then what are we talking about right this second?
The thing twitler keeps talking about? It doesn’t not exist just because he cites it, although that would be true for many things. Nobody is always wrong.
There are definitions of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy in most dictionaries too.
One of the questions was regarding lead poisoning. Like yourself I would expect the old loon to be capable of answering it without preparation, but Miss Brazile did not have that confidence and fed it to her. That’s our Hillary !
Flummoxed old creature indeed.
Although obviously it was not so much that she fed Hillary questions she denied Hillary’s competitors, but that she got this information not as DNC Chair, but as CNN newsperson.
And the very newsthings themselves rose up and cried shame.
*On October 31, 2016, The New York Times reported: “CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on October 14, adding: “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”
*
On November 1, 2016, an internal call about the collusion was initiated by CNN President Jeff Zucker. Zucker informed his staff that, while the instances have been fully investigated and the perpetrators dealt with, the perception that campaigns could receive questions in advance “hurts all of us,” adding that, “I have no tolerance for her behavior or that kind of behavior,” going on to describe former network commentator Brazile’s interactions with the Clinton campaign as “unethical” and “disgusting.”
Wikipedia as above
It really is impossible for any Clinton thing to run straight.
I’m doing it because some people are trying to create a false narrative.
It’s not enough for some people that Trump won (which he did). They want to pretend that he won based on a wave of widespread popular support (this did not happen). They also want to pretend that the Democrats didn’t just lose the election (they did) but also that the Democrats had their platform generally rejected by the public (which didn’t happen). People are trying to pretend this was a replay of the 1984 election (it wasn’t).
So I’m reminding people of what actually happened.
I had already checked when I said you were wrong - that’s how I knew you were wrong. He made 3 or 4 posts about cheating.
I remember more. maybe it’s because they seemed wildly out of touch and not having to do with any honest discussion about anything. A few things like that go a long way…towards nothingness. But go ahead and prove how much you don’t care some more.
Here you go. You’re welcome. Try again.
I think you’ve now posted more about it than Damuri Ajashi has.
You have too, buddy.
First, I wasn’t talking to you. And to top that, when you chime in you make the assertion that you “don’t care.” You’re obsessed with me. It’s OK. It happens.
BTW there is some small distinction between his constant hillary prosecution, and context-free cry of “cheating!” and my calling it out as shallow BS.
Distinctions are not your thing, huh?