Or what-you bring in…The Comfy Chair!?
I’ll make sure all the stuffing is at the corner of the pillow. See if I don’t!
When the ulterior motive is based on eliciting a particular response from you and the ulterior motive is something you absolutely, positively, do not want to happen, it sure as fuck should matter.
The idea that you’re just going to go along with their plan and do exactly what will bring about the thing that’s way worse than the “cheating”, is beyond stupid.
Whatever, it’s not like women need rights.
How many years do we need to endure your idiocy before we call it idiocy? More than eight apparently.
Then they give you a petrol bomb and tell you to burn your house down with your spouse and kids still in it. And you do it. And then cry for eight years because your spouse killed your kids.
What? This is weird and disturbing. I have no idea how you got here.
This has to be intentionally obtuse.
Does it matter who spilled the beans on Trump to prosecute him? If person-A says Trump committed a crime/wrongdoing but they had ulterior motives does that mean we should ignore the crime/wrongdoing?
The crime or wrongdoing (not quite a crime) was committed. It was found out. While the crime/wrongdoing may have been revealed by people with bad intentions the crime was still committed and still needs to be addressed. Do you get that?
This is exactly how MAGAts argue this shit. You can’t prosecute Trump because the people who accused him have something to gain! It’s a witch hunt! It’s rigged! And sure as shit you should never, ever dare accuse my preferred candidate of wrongdoing! That’s not how this is supposed to work. Clinton’s campaign and the DNC did those wrong things. Why are you insistent that it be hidden?
Can you point to where in the law a defendant gets away because the accuser has something to gain?
Also…what? How did you get to that?
Let’s just skip right past the “Is this source reliable? Does this source have a reason to spread lies?” part of the thinking process. 
Yet Clinton’s campaign and the DNC did what was alleged. There was compelling evidence. It wasn’t just a he said/she said thing. There was no shortage of reporting and investigation about this by reputable news outlets. It was not, “Putin said XYZ and you should believe him. Leave it at that.”
First off, it wasn’t a fucking crime, Hillary had conversations with people and got them to agree to vote for her.
Second, what is at issue is Bernie’s little crybaby stunt. Yes, Bernie, it’s terrible that the party insiders of the party you refuse to join aren’t lining up to kiss your ass. If Bernie wants to change how the Democrats run their party, he can start by agreeing to be in the party longer than 2 months every 4 years.
If her wrongdoing was a thing to be addressed, then you address it in a way that doesn’t give Trump the Presidency, 3 Supreme Court Justices, and Roe v. Wade thrown in the trashcan. But maybe that’s just me trying to act like an adult.
Because your reaction to the Russian hacking was to burn down your country.
What is disturbing is that you are either actually this dense or maybe you’re just pretending to be obtuse.
Your performative concern about my personality is just bullshit. No one is fooled.
Correct, just like you they falsely accuse Hillary of crimes, comrade.
You’re correct. You came out of the gate swinging. That’s who you are. No one is fooled.
What stunt? (really…I do not know what you are talking about)
The Clinton campaign did the things they were accused of. Whether actually criminal or just deeply unethical I do not know.
Those here who are mad that this was made public are every bit as deplorable as MAGAts. Anything is ok as long as your candidate does it. Anyone pointing out their short comings deserves nothing less than a pile on and abuse.
I want no part of any party that does that. Democrats should be better. Not just the other side of the same, shitty coin.
Sanders abided by party rules. Rules the DNC wrote. After 2016 the DNC could have made a change. Sanders ran again in 2020. Per the DNC rules. Why is that Sanders’ fault?
Shame on all of you for trying to make it ok for Clinton’s campaign to break the rules because that is your preferred candidate. We KNOW they seriously fucked with the campaign. I am shocked you are all ok with that.
Letting the evil orange menace win does not pass muster. If the dems become a party of manipulation to win by hook-or-crook then they do not deserve to win either. That is a race to the bottom.
Demand better.
Then stop throwing bullshit around because it invalidates everything you’re saying. If you don’t know it’s criminal stop saying it is.
I mean, I could just say Bernie colluded with Russia because he benefited from their interference and was even mentioned in the Mueller report. Except I wouldn’t because that’s also bullshit.
But hey, go fling your insinuations around when you clearly don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and see how well that works for you.
(And for the record she wasn’t my preferred candidate, I didn’t even vote for her.)
Demand better of yourself.
I said criminal/wrongdoing many times precisely because I do not know.
I would be surprised if it was not criminal. It should be. At the very least it is deeply unethical. Maybe that is better in your mind.
Yes, I prefer truth.
If you object to what she (and her campaign and the DNC) did because it was unethical I won’t argue with you because I didn’t care for it much either. But there’s a huge difference between that and calling her a criminal.
That’s an excellent point. What rule did she break? I’m having trouble digging it up.
She talked to long time DNC supporters about having their support in the convention, and she got that support, because she has spent decades supporting the party and her main opponent hasn’t. Literally zero of the superdelegates were required or forced or threatened to give her support.
You call it unethical, I call it the way to not get a shitbird like Trump to be your party’s nominee. Having hundreds of people who are deeply knowledgeable and committed to the process holding actual influence is better than having a naked popularity contest about who can be the most aggressively partisan nominee.
This is the stuff I consider unethical.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
She basically controlled the DNC while theoretically trying to earn its nomination. It’s not much different than Trump winning the golf tournaments he holds at his own golf courses.
In Brazile’s words:
The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.
She had conversations with somebody other than the (pleb) voters, trying to sidestep the actual “democracy” part of this whole voting thing. You do you, but I find that skeevy as hell.
ETA: Which, if I remember the script right, makes me some sort of sexist or something.