More proof the fix was in for Hillary to win the primary

[dezii]

Oct 31, 2017 19:04:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 31, 2017 6:17:38 GMT -5 Opti said:

Both the DNC and the RNC wanted real party candidates to win. The DNC was successful in that and the RNC wasn't. Bernie is an independent. The goal of the DNC and RNC is to survive, not to be fair.

Bernard Sanders is an American politician who has been the junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007. Sanders is the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional history. Wikipedia

The RNC tried pushing a narrative as well. They failed, so rallied behind Trump.

The fact that they wanted a "true believer" is irrelevant to my point though... the point was "the fix was in, at the DNC, for Hillary". You can't honestly argue against that reality.

And many Democrats did NOT want her... so much so that they voted in the primaries (43.14% {from Wikipedia}) for an Independent over her, and then many defected the Party when she was the Heiress apparent. You can't argue against that reality either.

As far as meeting the goal of "survival"... how's that turning out for both sides? Less voters (by percentage) want anything to do with either side than ever before.

Again..."the point was "the fix was in"...Not a fix except in your mind...Definitely a preference by many in the DNC...as has been explained previous...and perfectly ok by the rules regarding at large delegates and all [Bernie] knew the rules..

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2017 0:39:22 GMT -5 dezii said:

Oct 31, 2017 19:04:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The fact that they wanted a "true believer" is irrelevant to my point though... the point was "the fix was in, at the DNC, for Hillary". You can't honestly argue against that reality.

And many Democrats did NOT want her... so much so that they voted in the primaries (43.14% {from Wikipedia}) for an Independent over her, and then many defected the Party when she was the Heiress apparent. You can't argue against that reality either.

As far as meeting the goal of "survival"... how's that turning out for both sides? Less voters (by percentage) want anything to do with either side than ever before.

Again..."the point was "the fix was in"...Not a fix except in your mind...Definitely a preference by many in the DNC...as has been explained previous...and perfectly ok by the rules regarding at large delegates and all [Bernie] knew the rules..

LOL... I only wish it were just "in [my] mind"... maybe if it hadn't been reality, we wouldn't have Trump as President.

Remember: Trump is president BECAUSE Hillary was that much of a worse option to so many people (whether they were correct in their assumptions or not. Personally, I believe that they were correct). Bernie would have easily walked away with a win, if he had been the candidate, because wile he was too liberal for Conservatives, at least he wasn't despised by any sub-groups of Liberals.


(for the record, I never said "fixing" the nomination was against the rules... I just think it's a stupid idea... especially if they get caught... which they did)

[dezii]

Nov 1, 2017 4:31:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 1, 2017 0:39:22 GMT -5 dezii said:

Again..."the point was "the fix was in"...Not a fix except in your mind...Definitely a preference by many in the DNC...as has been explained previous...and perfectly ok by the rules regarding at large delegates and all [Bernie] knew the rules..

LOL... I only wish it were just "in [my] mind"... maybe if it hadn't been reality, we wouldn't have Trump as President.

Remember: Trump is president BECAUSE Hillary was that much of a worse option to so many people (whether they were correct in their assumptions or not. Personally, I believe that they were correct). Bernie would have easily walked away with a win, if he had been the candidate, because wile he was too liberal for Conservatives, at least he wasn't despised by any sub-groups of Liberals.


(for the record, I never said "fixing" the nomination was against the rules... I just think it's a stupid idea... especially if they get caught... which they did)

"Personally, I believe that they were correct".

[Opti]

Oct 31, 2017 19:04:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 31, 2017 6:17:38 GMT -5 Opti said:

Both the DNC and the RNC wanted real party candidates to win. The DNC was successful in that and the RNC wasn't. Bernie is an independent. The goal of the DNC and RNC is to survive, not to be fair.

Bernard Sanders is an American politician who has been the junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007. Sanders is the longest serving independent in U.S. congressional history. Wikipedia

The RNC tried pushing a narrative as well. They failed, so rallied behind Trump.

The fact that they wanted a "true believer" is irrelevant to my point though... the point was "the fix was in, at the DNC, for Hillary". You can't honestly argue against that reality.

And many Democrats did NOT want her... so much so that they voted in the primaries (43.14% {from Wikipedia}) for an Independent over her, and then many defected the Party when she was the Heiress apparent. You can't argue against that reality either.

As far as meeting the goal of "survival"... how's that turning out for both sides? Less voters (by percentage) want anything to do with either side than ever before.

Are you arguing just to argue? The DNC preferred Hillary this round and preferred Obama over her in the past.

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2017 8:09:21 GMT -5 dezii said:

Nov 1, 2017 4:31:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

LOL... I only wish it were just "in [my] mind"... maybe if it hadn't been reality, we wouldn't have Trump as President.

Remember: Trump is president BECAUSE Hillary was that much of a worse option to so many people (whether they were correct in their assumptions or not. Personally, I believe that they were correct). Bernie would have easily walked away with a win, if he had been the candidate, because wile he was too liberal for Conservatives, at least he wasn't despised by any sub-groups of Liberals.


(for the record, I never said "fixing" the nomination was against the rules... I just think it's a stupid idea... especially if they get caught... which they did)

"Personally, I believe that they were correct".

Okay... and?

It's no secret that I believe Hillary was a worse option than Trump... why did you pick that out and then bold it?

[zibazinski]

Who cares anymore? Because of the stupidity, trump is president. If trump fails to deliver and the dems come up with someone who isn’t putrid, they’ll win.

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2017 8:18:36 GMT -5 Opti said:

Oct 31, 2017 19:04:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The fact that they wanted a "true believer" is irrelevant to my point though... the point was "the fix was in, at the DNC, for Hillary". You can't honestly argue against that reality.

And many Democrats did NOT want her... so much so that they voted in the primaries (43.14% {from Wikipedia}) for an Independent over her, and then many defected the Party when she was the Heiress apparent. You can't argue against that reality either.

As far as meeting the goal of "survival"... how's that turning out for both sides? Less voters (by percentage) want anything to do with either side than ever before.

Are you arguing just to argue? The DNC preferred Hillary this round and preferred Obama over her in the past.

I never "argue just to argue". If I'm reposting my point{s}, it's because someone has made either a false statement, or they are misinterpreting (sometimes deliberately, I believe) the point I was making.

Like here... The point isn't that they did it for Obama (if they did... I haven't seen proof that they did). The point is that they did it. Period. Who they did it for is almost irrelevant to the point that it's a bad practice.

It's like the DNC is saying: "We don't give a damn who you, the individual members of the Democratic Party, want. It's more important for our version of democracy, to us, that we pick someone we like... even if that person is someone a majority of America loathes."

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2017 19:45:54 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Who cares anymore? Because of the stupidity, Trump is president. If Trump fails to deliver and the dems come up with someone who isn’t putrid, they’ll win.

Agreed. 

I was just answering a question.

[dezii]

Nov 1, 2017 19:34:21 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Nov 1, 2017 8:09:21 GMT -5 dezii said:

"Personally, I believe that they were correct".

Okay... and?

It's no secret that I believe Hillary was a worse option than Trump... why did you pick that out and then bold it?

Actually...after cut / pasting...phone call came in...never got back to the thread..moved on...giving u a pass so to speak...suggest u too move on. Actually lost my train of thought..forgot what was going to post....

[billisonboard]

Nov 2, 2017 9:30:41 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Donna Brazile has a new book out that claims:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman.

The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed-sanders-dnc-brazile-699421

Further evidence of the established fact that the DNC was supporting Clinton.

[thyme4change]

Nov 2, 2017 9:59:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 2, 2017 9:30:41 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Donna Brazile has a new book out that claims:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman.

The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed-sanders-dnc-brazile-699421

Further evidence of the established fact that the DNC was supporting Clinton.

I didn't know it was in dispute.

[billisonboard]

Nov 2, 2017 10:25:31 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Nov 2, 2017 9:59:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Further evidence of the established fact that the DNC was supporting Clinton.

I didn't know it was in dispute.

Me neither. I considered it an established fact.

[dondub]

  Who didn't think the DNC would support the Democratic Party candidate. Bernie is not a member therein, and although there was a groundswell of support

from the left for his candidacy, the DNC is NOT going to support an independent Democratic Socialist over a party standard bearer.

 Time for this thread to die.

[thyme4change]

Nov 2, 2017 11:26:59 GMT -5 dondub said:

  Who didn't think the DNC would support the Democratic Party candidate. Bernie is not a member therein, and although there was a groundswell of support

from the left for his candidacy, the DNC is NOT going to support an independent Democratic Socialist over a party standard bearer.

 Time for this thread to die.

Of course it won't die. Some people need to continue to convince us of something that we already agree is true. But, they feel compelled to push evidence on us, and we keep saying "Yes, we agree." And then they say something that indicates how stupid we are for not knowing what we already have stated we know.

[dondub]

Benghazi.

[Value Buy]

Nov 2, 2017 9:59:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 2, 2017 9:30:41 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Donna Brazile has a new book out that claims:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman.

The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed-sanders-dnc-brazile-699421

Further evidence of the established fact that the DNC was supporting Clinton.

What is so freaking funny about Brazile is, she was forced to remover herself from the DNC because she too was colluding with Hillary to win the primary election........Remember the debate questions?

[verrip1]

Perhaps AG Jeff Sessions should prosecute the DNC board members for acting as a criminal enterprise under RICO for selling the presidential nomination to the highest bidder, thus defrauding the American people of the possibility of defeating Trump.  Brazile can be the star witness for the prosecution.  She'd undoubtedly demand immunity for her own personal involvement - which is expected since when a ship is sinking, it's every rat for him/her self.

[billisonboard]

Nov 2, 2017 12:41:53 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Perhaps AG Jeff Sessions should prosecute the DNC board members for acting as a criminal enterprise under RICO for selling the presidential nomination to the highest bidder, ...

Is it illegal for a political party to do that?

[verrip1]

Nov 2, 2017 13:04:57 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 2, 2017 12:41:53 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Perhaps AG Jeff Sessions should prosecute the DNC board members for acting as a criminal enterprise under RICO for selling the presidential nomination to the highest bidder, ...

Is it illegal for a political party to do that?

Does RICO specifically exempt political parties?

[thyme4change]

Nov 2, 2017 12:41:53 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Perhaps AG Jeff Sessions should prosecute the DNC board members for acting as a criminal enterprise under RICO for selling the presidential nomination to the highest bidder, thus defrauding the American people of the possibility of defeating Trump.  Brazile can be the star witness for the prosecution.  She'd undoubtedly demand immunity for her own personal involvement - which is expected since when a ship is sinking, it's every rat for him/her self.

That would be funny. They get to beat up the DNC, but have to admit that Trump is damaging.

If we want to really clean up politics, it will take this kind of thinking and action. No president can drain the swamp, even if he tried. To really drain it, you need Congress to make big changes to laws that make their lives harder, so it won't happen. The executive branch and the judiciary together could force the issue.

[verrip1]

"Political associations" are specifically included in the list of RICO enterprises in Criminal RICO: 18 U.S.C. SS 1961-1968, A Manual For Federal Prosecutors, Sixth Revised Edition, May 2016 by Staff of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, U.S. Department of Justice.

www.justice.gov/usam/file/870856/download

Page 71 of the Manual, line 2.

[billisonboard]

Nov 2, 2017 13:59:48 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

"Political associations" are specifically included in the list of RICO enterprises in Criminal RICO: 18 U.S.C. SS 1961-1968, A Manual For Federal Prosecutors, Sixth Revised Edition, May 2016 by Staff of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, U.S. Department of Justice.

www.justice.gov/usam/file/870856/download

Page 71 of the Manual, line 2.

25-65 list what crimes qualify as racketeering. Which did they engage in?

[dezii]

The lady is now a private citizen... they are still after her.

Committed no crimes...served the country well....better then any here and I include myself and I did serve and shed blood...
Lost the election , admitted to drinking a little Chablis, seems to have written a real live after action book...a real best seller and yes told it as she sees it...So what's wrong with that...why folks are purchasing it..

In her public service...as first lady...served well...As a two term Senator..even her political opponents applauded her..[granted quietly] as a superior Senator...seemed she served very well as Sec of State meeting with friend and foe...[those here who criticize have no real clue as to her performance...none of us here really know what went down or have the expertise to make judgement..[if criticize just anti her party and the guy she worked under..] and still they are trying to pin something on her...

Who??   The one in the oval office who for a whole year , day after day, is the lead actor in this soap opera of a administration...and now going 10 day visit to Asia, god help us. The Chinese who do this well if not the best, on top notch entertaining,  as a guest on NPR  today said , pointed out.....will love this guy, lick him all over...he will be gushing like a virgin bride in the adulation and let us all know how they love him and and are the greatest of friends...all the while they will be reaffirming their new role of being #1...and other nations keep turning to them as the new world leader...

Under Hillery , we would still be  great friends but more as equals ...because she knew what she was doing...knew how to understand the world unlike this one...Say nice things about him and he has a orgasm...say anything critical...like Mount Helens...even his admit that.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2017 13:48:29 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Donna Brazile's point was that the fix was in 15 months before the election. It didn't matter who the other candidates were.

Wow, if I was a dem I would be pissed.  I don't know how people can show such outrage for another party but then when it is their own its a pure "meh".  It's the same on both sides.

[billisonboard]

Nov 2, 2017 18:13:02 GMT -5 @aj said:

Nov 2, 2017 13:48:29 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Donna Brazile's point was that the fix was in 15 months before the election. It didn't matter who the other candidates were.

Wow, if I was a dem I would be pissed.  I don't know how people can show such outrage for another party but then when it is their own its a pure "meh".  It's the same on both sides.

It was clearly understood that the power structure of the Democratic Party desired to have Hillary Clinton as the 2016 nominee. It was going to be an uphill battle for anyone else to win the nomination with all the professionals in the picture supporting her. I have no problem with those who have the most skin in the game to push to make their choice happen. I am one vote every so often and no cash involved. And my power in the Democratic Party reflects that. Reality.

[thyme4change]

Nov 2, 2017 18:13:02 GMT -5 @aj said:

Nov 2, 2017 13:48:29 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

Donna Brazile's point was that the fix was in 15 months before the election. It didn't matter who the other candidates were.

Wow, if I was a dem I would be pissed.  I don't know how people can show such outrage for another party but then when it is their own its a pure "meh".  It's the same on both sides.

I'm pissed about the entire process, even when it works the way it should, and even more when it doesn't.

[NastyWoman]

Another Hillary thread? Really? She lost → dt won and he is in the process of ruining the country. Let's keep our focus where it shoud be → the people in power and what they are doing.

[thyme4change]

Nov 2, 2017 19:38:19 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Another Hillary thread? Really? She lost → dt won and he is in the process of ruining the country. Let's keep our focus where it shoud be → the people in power and what they are doing.

Not until Hillary is in jail.

And then what would republicans bitch about?

[dondub]

Benghazi!

[b2r]

Oct 26, 2017 7:54:17 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 26, 2017 6:42:15 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

From reading my newsfeed this morning, many of my Democratic friends appear to be very excited that a few GOP senators and a Democratic congresswoman are criticizing the president. Meanwhile, Pres. Trump is continuing to work hard to fulfill his campaign promises. He soon will sign a bill that will make it harder to bring frivolous class action lawsuits against businesses. Moreover, although Robert Mueller apparently is either too dumb or compromised to investigate the Uranium One scandal, Congress will. This scandal, involving the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia via the sale of the Uranium One company, just as nine foreign investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation to help grease the wheels, may just be the one that finally puts the Clintons where they belong - in a jail cell.

Wrong again.

Geez, Paul, get better sources.

UraniumOne has 20% of the uranium produced IN THE US. World wide, it's 2% of the global production per year.

AND - the uranium produced there cannot be exported. So - it's not going to make Russian bombs.

Once again, a few pieces of bullshit beat into a shit mountain by talking head 'news commentators'  on Fox.

Finally -- the information about UraniumOne came out AFTER they made a donation to the Clinton foundation, so the donation was not made to 'grease the wheels.'  Sure, they probably wanted to get in good with the Clintons, but how is this any different from foreign nationals renting hotel rooms, paying for banquets and entertainment spaces at the Trump Hotel in DC in order to grease the wheels with Trump? If Trumps' charity wasn't on lock down for illegal self dealing, no doubt they would be donating money to it, too.

Next you're going to try to argue that Trump never lies.

Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.



NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.



NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.



Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license — which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal — the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.



The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the “other parties to Export.”


thehill.com/policy/national-security/358339-uranium-one-deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show