• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Emails: Donna Brazile gave town hall question to Clinton camp in advance

Risky Thicket said:
These people, Brazile, DWS, Podesta and the like purposely and willfully subverted democracy. Long before the primary they had already determined that they wanted Hillary in the White House. Before the Democratic debates, before Sanders or O'Malley or Web had the opportunity to fully address their positions on issues facing this nation - before the voters even had the opportunity to form and express their own opinions based on candidate responses and addresses and debates - Brazile, DWS, Podesta and others AND THE DNC determined where they wanted the nomination to lead. They colluded and they subverted the democratic process to alter the outcome in Hillary's favor. That is crystal clear. These people and likely more we don't know about were not and are not interested in democracy. They have shown that by their actions!

If Hillary becomes President it will not simply be Hillary getting elected. It will be Bill and the entire Clinton machine. It will be people like Brazile, DWS, Podesta and more. It will be the scuzz balls that know don't give two ****s about democracy that will be working hard with Hillary and Bill to enrich and empower the people that have supported them.

No? Bull****! How do we know? We know about DWS. We know that she was forced to leave the DNC because of her duplicitous and deceitful actions. And what did Hillary do? She thumbed her nose at the much of the Democratic Party, certainly at millions and millions of Sanders supporters, told them to kiss sweet ****all and appointed DWS to her campaign! Now Hillary is feckin begging Sanders' supporters for their support. The cheek of that woman, amazing.

Donna Brazile. The "news analyst" who was from day one an obvious part of the Hillary mafia. All you had to do was listen to her. Many of us suspected it but couldn't prove it. DWS is forced to resign from the DNC due to her campaign and nomination manipulation on Hillary's behalf. Who replaced DWS? Donna Brazile. The minute that announcement was made I no longer suspected that Brazile was a Clinton soldier, I knew it. The Clinton's own the DNC. No way anyone but a loyal Clintonite would replace DWS. And now we know the truth and the proof regarding Brazile. She willing participated in the subversion of democracy as well.

Hillary isn't going to toss these bastards over the side if she wins the election. Hell no, she isn't. She has already proved that she will hire them and keep them close until it is to Hillary's advantage to throw them to the wolves.

Where do everyday people stand in all of this? The answer is obvious.
Click to expand...

The democrats wanted Hilliary to be their ideal nominee from the moment she earned her first endorsement back in 2014. She won the endorsement primary and the democrats rallied behind their nominee.

This is typical of politics and I am amazed people think that this is somehow cheating.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The democrats wanted Hilliary to be their ideal nominee from the moment she earned her first endorsement back in 2014. She won the endorsement primary and the democrats rallied behind their nominee.

This is typical of politics and I am amazed people think that this is somehow cheating.
Click to expand...

Right!! :2rofll:
 
JANFU said:
Afternoon Risky
Both HRC & Trump are slime magnets. And the American people will suffer.
Click to expand...

Both are indeed. Yes, we will suffer regardless.




I need a Canadian to sponsor me with a job. :surrender
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The democrats wanted Hilliary to be their ideal nominee from the moment she earned her first endorsement back in 2014. She won the endorsement primary and the democrats rallied behind their nominee.

This is typical of politics and I am amazed people think that this is somehow cheating.
Click to expand...
She was the Anointed One before the primaries even began, Had the major endorsements, the funds, and the Party elites supporting her.
Then along came Bernie.
No one else really stood up to the machine that special interests built for her.
A majority of the party did not like HRC.
 
jmotivator said:
Emails: Donna Brazile gave town hall question to Clinton camp in advance | TheHill

Former CNN contributor and current Democratic National Committee interim chairwoman Donna Brazile provided the Hillary Clinton campaign a question for a town hall event in advance, according to an email dump by WikiLeaks.

In an email dated March 12, 2016, Brazile — a CNN political analyst and DNC vice chair at the time — wrote to Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri with a heads up on a question about the candidate’s stance on the death penalty with the subject header: "From time to time I get the questions in advance."

The Democratic presidential primary event with Clinton and Bernie Sanders was held the following day, March 13, and an audience member asked her the question about the death penalty. The event was hosted by Roland Martin and Jake Tapper, also host of CNN's "State of the Union" and "The Lead."


...
Click to expand...

Yup. And she lied about it.
 
Risky Thicket said:
These people, Brazile, DWS, Podesta and the like purposely and willfully subverted democracy. Long before the primary they had already determined that they wanted Hillary in the White House. Before the Democratic debates, before Sanders or O'Malley or Web had the opportunity to fully address their positions on issues facing this nation - before the voters even had the opportunity to form and express their own opinions based on candidate responses and addresses and debates - Brazile, DWS, Podesta and others AND THE DNC determined where they wanted the nomination to lead. They colluded and they subverted the democratic process to alter the outcome in Hillary's favor. That is crystal clear. These people and likely more we don't know about were not and are not interested in democracy. They have shown that by their actions!

If Hillary becomes President it will not simply be Hillary getting elected. It will be Bill and the entire Clinton machine. It will be people like Brazile, DWS, Podesta and more. It will be the scuzz balls that know don't give two ****s about democracy that will be working hard with Hillary and Bill to enrich and empower the people that have supported them.

No? Bull****! How do we know? We know about DWS. We know that she was forced to leave the DNC because of her duplicitous and deceitful actions. And what did Hillary do? She thumbed her nose at the much of the Democratic Party, certainly at millions and millions of Sanders supporters, told them to kiss sweet ****all and appointed DWS to her campaign! Now Hillary is feckin begging Sanders' supporters for their support. The cheek of that woman, amazing.

Donna Brazile. The "news analyst" who was from day one an obvious part of the Hillary mafia. All you had to do was listen to her. Many of us suspected it but couldn't prove it. DWS is forced to resign from the DNC due to her campaign and nomination manipulation on Hillary's behalf. Who replaced DWS? Donna Brazile. The minute that announcement was made I no longer suspected that Brazile was a Clinton soldier, I knew it. The Clinton's own the DNC. No way anyone but a loyal Clintonite would replace DWS. And now we know the truth and the proof regarding Brazile. She willing participated in the subversion of democracy as well.

Hillary isn't going to toss these bastards over the side if she wins the election. Hell no, she isn't. She has already proved that she will hire them and keep them close until it is to Hillary's advantage to throw them to the wolves.

Where do everyday people stand in all of this? The answer is obvious.

"Stronger Together" my pink Irish-American ass! When was it that Hillary and DWS, Brazile, Podesta, Mills, Mook and the others were together with everyday people in the Democratic Party? They never were and they are not together with much of the Democratic Party today.
Click to expand...

I think you've pretty well captured one of the two leading candidates. Trump is no peach either, but he certainly doesn't drag a history of corruption and a huge corrupt political machine along with him.

Given the choice between a a history of corruption and a huge corrupt political machine and a flawed candidate, give me the flawed candidate. The candidate with a history of corruption and a huge corrupt political machine is sure to be worse for the nation, in my humble opinion.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That was likely the result of her winning the endorsement primary
Click to expand...

As mentioned she had the money, the endrsement, the donors and the Party Elite backing her. Dovyou think that the D Party did not also have a sun=bstantial numer of Party meners that dd not trust or want HRC?
Why did a man, an independent prior to the primaries resonate so well with Democrats. No major donors, few major endorsements, yet he had major support from the younger voters.
Like Republicans it was a revolt against the Party Elites who anointed HRC
His email listing is what the DNC wants, but he will not turn that over. he will use that to pressure for change from within and now has the clout.
 
JANFU said:
As mentioned she had the money, the endrsement, the donors and the Party Elite backing her. Dovyou think that the D Party did not also have a sun=bstantial numer of Party meners that dd not trust or want HRC?
Why did a man, an independent prior to the primaries resonate so well with Democrats. No major donors, few major endorsements, yet he had major support from the younger voters.
Like Republicans it was a revolt against the Party Elites who anointed HRC
His email listing is what the DNC wants, but he will not turn that over. he will use that to pressure for change from within and now has the clout.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that she was automatically the nominee, Bernie ran a good campagin and deserves praise for that, I am just stating that Hilliary somehow cheated because every official in the Democratic Party endorsed her prior to the Iowa caucuses.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I am not saying that she was automatically the nominee, Bernie ran a good campagin and deserves praise for that, I am just stating that Hilliary somehow cheated because every official in the Democratic Party endorsed her prior to the Iowa caucuses.
Click to expand...

Question do you believe that she was the anointed on from within the party the major donors and such.
She ran a campaign, well prior to the primaries and had a lock on it.
Then at one point if i recall correctly, Dems were wondering if Joe b should run.
Bernie came out of nowhere, he resonated with disaffected Dems. Same as trump did.
Now Bernie's policies were more in line with other OECD countries, which do not sell well with many in the US. Read that as social programs and a social contract by the people of the US to help the poor.
 
JANFU said:
Question do you believe that she was the anointed on from within the party the major donors and such.
She ran a campaign, well prior to the primaries and had a lock on it.
Then at one point if i recall correctly, Dems were wondering if Joe b should run.
Bernie came out of nowhere, he resonated with disaffected Dems. Same as trump did.
Now Bernie's policies were more in line with other OECD countries, which do not sell well with many in the US. Read that as social programs and a social contract by the people of the US to help the poor.
Click to expand...

Let me say this: Hilliary Clinton was "annointed" the same way mitt Romney was in 2012.

The party officials rallied behind their preferred candidate.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Let me say this: Hilliary Clinton was "annointed" the same way mitt Romney was in 2012.

The party officials rallied behind their preferred candidate.
Click to expand...
The R party, his primary had more running than the D party for this primary
 
JANFU said:
The R party, his primary had more running than the D party for this primary
Click to expand...

Because the democrats rallied behind her.

Question for you: if Bernie sanders was serious about running for president, why did he not do any of the same preparations that Obama did proir to his presidential run? Obama was able to secure major endorsements prior to his run, including the endorsement of his fellow Illinois senator Richard Durbin. Why did Bernie sanders not have the endorsement of prominent democrats from his state, like Vermonts other senator Patrick leahy or the governor of the state?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Because the democrats rallied behind her.

Question for you: if Bernie sanders was serious about running for president, why did he not do any of the same preparations that Obama did proir to his presidential run? Obama was able to secure major endorsements prior to his run, including the endorsement of his fellow Illinois senator Richard Durbin. Why did Bernie sanders not have the endorsement of prominent democrats from his state, like Vermonts other senator Patrick leahy or the governor of the state?
Click to expand...

Because he's not a Democrat.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Because the democrats rallied behind her.

Question for you: if Bernie sanders was serious about running for president, why did he not do any of the same preparations that Obama did proir to his presidential run? Obama was able to secure major endorsements prior to his run, including the endorsement of his fellow Illinois senator Richard Durbin. Why did Bernie sanders not have the endorsement of prominent democrats from his state, like Vermonts other senator Patrick leahy or the governor of the state?
Click to expand...
You will not accept that HRC had it in the bag prior to the primaries.
 
TurtleDude said:
Hillary is a dishonest cheater. tell us something we DON'T know :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Trump is honest?

Trump is not a cheater? He didn't run to bankruptcy court every time his businesses failed? He didn't brag about using his money to influence politicians to give his specific projects huge tax breaks that other people don't?




Etc etc etc. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a line of attack on Hillary that hits her where Trump can't be hit even harder.
 
SailaWay said:
Total Corruption by the media and democrat party....

the number 1 thing.. america's election proven a total fraud .. which will wake up the whole world to not trust america and an arms race will begin .... the media must be put in prison so that the world can trust america again and trump has to be elected ...... alot of nations now will worry about first strikes with the nuke issue........ very scary world NOW because of the corrupt media and democrat party
Click to expand...

Nukes?

Trump is the one who had to be told three times why it would actually not be a good idea to use our nukes.
 
JANFU said:
You will not accept that HRC had it in the bag prior to the primaries.
Click to expand...

Nothing is certain until the final votes are counted.

I believe that Hilliary Clinton won the primary after she won New York, by that point her lead in delegates was far to great for Bernie sanders to overcome, in order for him to have won he would have had to win the remaining primaries with over sixty percent of the vote.
 
Mr Person said:
Trump is honest?

Trump is not a cheater? He didn't run to bankruptcy court every time his businesses failed? He didn't brag about using his money to influence politicians to give his specific projects huge tax breaks that other people don't?




Etc etc etc. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a line of attack on Hillary that hits her where Trump can't be hit even harder.
Click to expand...

Both of them lie like rugs. Trump has no record of using government to try to destroy people who have crossed him. Hillary does. No one has claimed people have died due to Trump's malfeasance. Nor has anyone claimed that Trump has put this country in danger by his careless handling of classified information. Trump also is not where he is based on whom he married
 
Mr Person said:
Trump is honest?

Trump is not a cheater? He didn't run to bankruptcy court every time his businesses failed? He didn't brag about using his money to influence politicians to give his specific projects huge tax breaks that other people don't?

Etc etc etc. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a line of attack on Hillary that hits her where Trump can't be hit even harder.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
Both of them lie like rugs. Trump has no record of using government to try to destroy people who have crossed him. Hillary does. No one has claimed people have died due to Trump's malfeasance. Nor has anyone claimed that Trump has put this country in danger by his careless handling of classified information. Trump also is not where he is based on whom he married
Click to expand...


In turn,

TurtleDude said:
Trump has no record of using government to try to destroy people who have crossed him. Hillary does.
Click to expand...

Trump has used money to buy government influence and help in every instance. He has also openly bragged about it when most would hide it. Trump has not had the record you mention, but he also has not been an elected politician. We may not use character evidence to convict (exceptions galore aside), but this is no trial. Isn't the most reasonable inference the one in which President Trump would behave in the same general way?




TurtleDude said:
No one has claimed people have died due to Trump's malfeasance.
Click to expand...

Your Honor, my brother here confuses claims with convictions.

Anything with the gift of speech can claim anything. I can train a parrot to claim that guns are evil. I need to know more about who Hillary's "malfeasance" (Negligence? Recklessness? Carelessness so great it's equal to specific intent? Which?) caused people to die.....




TurtleDude said:
Nor has anyone claimed that Trump has put this country in danger by his careless handling of classified information.
Click to expand...

You have said you spent a lifetime, virtually, as a prosecutor, yes? So...um.... a few things there:

1. Despite changes in technology the last FIVE secretaries of state were as careless with the same confidential/classified info. I think Colin Powell at least, has spoken to this. I believe but cannot swear that the FBI came up with "last FIVE" statement, though not in capslock.

2. The FBI did not recommend charges.

3. The FBI said it had not ever recommended charges in her circumstances, that there were also aggravating factors.

4. That's all about the email server, not something that got anyone killed.

5. I've never seen nor heard talking about how Clinton was actively charged with a duty, which she neglected, and which duty caused the death of anyone. I would expect it to be the main point from right media and politicians were it true. Why do you expect them to not have made most noise about it. Missing witness instruction, man.

6. AGAIN, he was not in a position to. WTF?
 
Mr Person said:
In turn,



Trump has used money to buy government influence and help in every instance. He has also openly bragged about it when most would hide it. Trump has not had the record you mention, but he also has not been an elected politician. We may not use character evidence to convict (exceptions galore aside), but this is no trial. Isn't the most reasonable inference the one in which President Trump would behave in the same general way?






Your Honor, my brother here confuses claims with convictions.

Anything with the gift of speech can claim anything. I can train a parrot to claim that guns are evil. I need to know more about who Hillary's "malfeasance" (Negligence? Recklessness? Carelessness so great it's equal to specific intent? Which?) caused people to die.....






You have said you spent a lifetime, virtually, as a prosecutor, yes? So...um.... a few things there:

1. Despite changes in technology the last FIVE secretaries of state were as careless with the same confidential/classified info. I think Colin Powell at least, has spoken to this. I believe but cannot swear that the FBI came up with "last FIVE" statement, though not in capslock.

2. The FBI did not recommend charges.

3. The FBI said it had not ever recommended charges in her circumstances, that there were also aggravating factors.

4. That's all about the email server, not something that got anyone killed.

5. I've never seen nor heard talking about how Clinton was actively charged with a duty, which she neglected, and which duty caused the death of anyone. I would expect it to be the main point from right media and politicians were it true. Why do you expect them to not have made most noise about it. Missing witness instruction, man.
Click to expand...


Comey most likely decided not to recommend charges because he figured if Hillary was charged, and cleared, the damage would be permanent. I was a career DOJ attorney, and I know lots of career DOJ attorneys. His claim that no prosecutor would have taken that case is a bit of an overstatement

Comey once was highly respected in the DOJ by both sides. I will merely state that his reputation has become a bit more tarnished in the last year since he took over the FBI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom