Wasserman Schultz Resigns

Russians? Yeah, they got you covered already.


https://twitter.com/joejglenton/status/757542283558457344


That talking point was actually in the leaks, lol.


"DNC leaks as Russian spy operation was preferred talking point, glossing over what the leaks actually entailed."

 

Yeah yeah yeah, you are number one nation on Earth, even in international corruption.


I'm afraid comrade Putin ate your cake on this one. In any case, this is a real, self-proclaimed, full-throated enemy trying to change narrative in your elections. Think about it.
Trump & Putin. Yes, It's Really a Thing

If I needed convincing, the fact that Drumpf and Viktor Yanukovich share a top political consultant (Paul Manafort) would be enough to know he is bad news.

 

You mean the federal government.

 

The DNC stuffed the ballot boxes?

It doesn't take away from the fact that Russians hacked the emails of an American, political organization. How come they didn't hack into the RNC emails?

 

They might as well have. There is absolutely, positively no denying this one. The DNC is running a Soviet-style campaign, where the primary election is a mere formality, because the PTB already crowned Queen Hillary long before a single vote was cast.

1. What difference does it make where they came from? Those are their words in their emails; dirty tricks, disparaging religion, all of it laid bare. The "Russians did it" is a pathetic smokescreen to try to take attention off the real story.

Have you noticed one thing about the Democrats who got caught with their pants down AREN'T doing?

Denying that those are really THEIR emails.

2. Maybe they tried and they couldn't, or maybe they did, and they discovered that the RNC, unlike the DNC, wasn't rigging the primaries to make sure that their chosen candidate "won"?

 

There is no denying that Clinton won the popular vote. No one coerced these people into voting for her.

It's obvious they didn't hack into RNC emails because they want Trump elected. But, you don't need to hack into RNC emails to hear Republicans disparaging people's religion. They do it all day every day all over the media. You're forgetting that the RNC had many people plotting to go against the popular vote and nominate someone else. So, if the Democrats were running a Soviet-style campaign, then so were the Republicans. The RNC was just more open about it. Even Trump said the election was rigged against him. In the end, the two candidates who were nominated won the popular vote either by a majority (Clinton) or plurality (Trump).

 

Maybe I missed it, but I heard about the email questioning whether or not Sanders was an atheist. I didn't hear anything disparaging Jewish people or Judaism. Wasserman Schultz is Jewish. If any religion, or lack thereof, was disparaged, it was atheism. Questioning someone's religion is something Republicans do all the time. Many of them, proven by surveys, still don't believe Obama is a Christian.

 

You know, when a citizen of the freest nation on Earth use terms like "Soviet-style" or "Thought police" to describe a group of fellow Americans, it sounds off. I don't know if it's more quaintly naïve or revoltingly self-centered. BTW, far left does the same with different set of bogeymen; that's why it's so hard to read e.g. Chomsky. So much knowledge and so clueless.

 

They are caught discussing whether to disparage Sander's views. Not actually doing it.

You guys. You have no idea how blessed you are to have a privilege to be incensed by something so quaint. Yeah, DNC displayed lack of professionalism, and DWS is rightly fired. But, come on, "Soviet-style"? Especially when it's common knowledge RNC tried to rig the process in favor of an establishment candidate, and it badly backfired. Pot, kettle.

 

Let's recap;

1. The Democrats are furious about the Russians allegedly trying to tamper with a US election, because they exposed that the Democrats tried to tamper with a US election.

2. The Democrats are shrieking about the hacking being "a violation of national security", when their own candidate endangered national security far more than the DNC ever could have, with her illegal private email server and only escaped prosecution because of who she is. The FBI Director said as much.

There's the state of the modern-day Democrat party.

 

So, if Donald Trump's emails were made public, and he speculated about a political opponent being a Jew or Atheist, that would be no big deal, right? The major news networks wouldn't blast it on a 24-hour news cycle for a week straight, right?

Do as we say, not as we do.

 

You are missing the point. There is the talk of Russian involvement because Trump's stated positions align 100% with Putin's designs to destabilize the West. And, oh, he praised Putin to ridiculous degree, and is in the habit of employing and trusting shady characters and outright Kremlinbots, both in his campaign and business.

Yeah. We learned that people in the guts of the Democratic machine prefer Clinton, an insider's insider, to a self-described "revolutionary". Who knew, right? Good thing we have Captain Obvious to untangle this one.

Seriously? According to numerous reports, including from Trump, RNC rigged the process both against and for Trump. The fact is both parties are pretty bad at this, and it had pretty minimal effect on the outcome. In both races.

 

That's right. It would be no big deal. We would learn that his campaign wants to use religion to attack opponents; we know this by the fact that he, indeed, used it. Again, your C. O.

Him running his mouth openly on Twitter disparaging every group that caught his eye, on the other hand, is a much bigger deal.

 

Wait a minute, you're calling us "quaint" for being upset about a major political party conspiring to eliminate another candidate for the Presidency based up on their wanting only 1 person to get the nomination? That's "quaint"?


The RNC tried to do a lot of things, but the people (whether you think they're fucking idiots for doing so is irrelevant) voted for the candidate that they wanted. Against the very wishes of the political party. Exactly like its supposed to happen.


And this is "quaint"? What do you think of all the Trump thread discussions? A/C and hotel bills, ghost writers and other stuff? Hitler right?


We all knew the what the RNC was doing, they made it clear #StumpTrump or #NeverTrump, but the DNC was more sinister about it. And before you come back with your snarky put down of us 1st worlders just note that there are some very upset Sanders supporters over this. Trump people in hoods don't care about them, I'm just pointing out that I see a lot of outrage from Sanders people who are feel like their not getting their voices heard.


To them I say...welcome to the club suckers. Now you know what millions of Americans out in the middle feel like. Lied to, pandered to, and forgotten. Membership only requires the pain and suffering in believing any politicians word. Ever.

 

1. Dems don't "tamper" with U. S. elections. They "participate" in it as, you know, one of the major parties.
2. No, he didn't say that. He said there's no chance to prosecute successfully.

No one shriek much about hacking itself; spies are gonna spy. It is literally new for a major candidate egging foreign spies on. I can't see how can this be justified, at all. But then again, it is not the only first with this candidate.

 

Oh yeah. This is "quaint". You know what is not? When a former Cabinet official is gunned down across the river from Kremlin after trying to publicise Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. This is also what your idol calls "leadership". Or, for another example, google "Juschenko Ukraine dioxin 2004". Or "Litvinenko murder". And these are just big, front-page items.

Both nominees won their respective contests by, you know, getting more votes than the opponents. This is fact.

 

There are statistics surrounding how many voters don't trust atheists and wouldn't trust an atheist politician. I think the fact that someone within a campaign might discuss using that sort of thing to their political advantage would probably be found if we were to check any candidate's, regardless of their party affiliation, e-mail server. I imagine it would be even more openly discussed among lower level campaign functionaries if not by the candidate themselves.

Donald Trump made a big deal of how he's a Christian. Ted Cruz spent quite a bit of time and effort publicly arguing that he wasn't.

Michael Savage, among others, spent quite a bit of time on the topic of Obama being a secret Muslim and lying about his religion.

So is it classier to say someone is lying about being a Christian and is a secret crypto-Muslim as opposed to considering asking a question of an atheist hoping he will answer honestly that he is, in fact, an atheist and hope that alienates Christian voters?

I dunno. Both some kind of cheap. But it seems to me that the latter is a straightforward question with the expectation of an honest answer. How that would play out in the polls is another matter entirely.

 

The DNC and RNC are private organizations. They have the right to nominate whoever they want, which is something they have done up until about the 1970s. The truth is that Clinton did not need a rigged system. She had more name recognition and minority support. She would have swept the South regardless.

It's really bizarre to express fake outrage over wondering what someone's religion is when the candidate you support has questioned the president's place of birth and his eligibility to be president. This is all in addition to insulting immigrants, Muslims, POWs, and the disabled.

 

Yeah, you got me on this one. What a bunch of savages, murdering people over politics. At least here in our quaint country we just make meme's and practice fake outrage at each other.