Russian hackers

[Tier3]

The Dems trying to have it every which way on this one. The abhorrent DNC emails--blame the Russians. The funniest though is the Trump/Russia thing. What did Trump suggest jokingly or not? Hacking a server that no longer exists? Stealing 30,000 emails about yoga routines and wedding plans? If Russia or anyone else has the emails--which they would already have--by all means let's see them now before we elect the criminal Hillary or have her as president subjected to blackmail. Based on all of her other lies, I'm sure the wiped emails have plenty of incriminating stuff on them. She and her campaign have to be worried about the possibility that they are in someone's hands. If the Chinese have them I'm sure they would hold for now since they sure don't want trump elected. It is funny though seeing Dems phony outrage over a situation that wouldn't exist without the hubris and negligence of their own candidate.

[Carey]

Good post. Unfortunately it won't matter at all once Maximum Leader Hillary
is formally 'elected' in November. And Clintons have long memories, if you
know what I mean..

[bob]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Good post. Unfortunately it won't matter at all once Maximum Leader Hillary
>is formally 'elected' in November. And Clintons have long memories, if you
>know what I mean..

yep. you're either with them or against them.

bob

[TT]

29.7.2016, 20:20, Tier3 kirjoitti:
> The Dems trying to have it every which way on this one. The abhorrent DNC emails--blame the Russians.

Officials say that the "confidence is high" that Russians did it. From
what I've read I'd say around 100%

> The funniest though is the Trump/Russia thing. What did Trump suggest jokingly or not?

Joke?

Yes, it was a joke he laid the groundwork for months ago. And, followed
up on three more times. And, his staff went along by pretending he was
serious. It was hilarious! Like not liking POW's, or banning Muslims
(what a joker!), or the wildly popular "build a wall and let Mexico pay
for it!" Who could possibly believe that, right? We still chuckle at him
spending a week attacking a judge's Mexican heritage. Those silly,
funny, "rapist" Mexicans. They love Trump, and his LOCO sense of humour.
So do fat, pig-faced women, and bleeding Meghan. C'mon! It's called SARCASM.

No, it wasn't a joke.

Trump asked Russia to interfere (again) to US politics. He probably
didn't even see anything wrong with it, being a psychopath of some kind.
It was no joke, he has commented on it multiple occasions previously
plus tweeted afterwards. Russia btw has a habit of trying to influence
western and other elections by hacking, it has happened many times
previously. In Georgia they even succeeded (released a torture video to
undermine anti-Kremlin party).

Meanwhile some US intelligence officials feel uneasy about briefing
Trump on some classified material, which procedure is done for
presidential candidates a few days after the conventions. Mind you, they
are worried about briefing Trump, not Clinton.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

> 29.7.2016, 20:20, Tier3 kirjoitti:
>> The Dems trying to have it every which way on this one. The abhorrent DNC emails--blame the Russians.
>
> Officials say that the "confidence is high" that Russians did it. From
> what I've read I'd say around 100%
>
>> The funniest though is the Trump/Russia thing. What did Trump suggest jokingly or not?
>
> Joke?
>
> Yes, it was a joke he laid the groundwork for months ago. And, followed
> up on three more times. And, his staff went along by pretending he was
> serious. It was hilarious! Like not liking POW's, or banning Muslims
> (what a joker!), or the wildly popular "build a wall and let Mexico pay
> for it!" Who could possibly believe that, right? We still chuckle at him
> spending a week attacking a judge's Mexican heritage. Those silly,
> funny, "rapist" Mexicans. They love Trump, and his LOCO sense of humour.
> So do fat, pig-faced women, and bleeding Meghan. C'mon! It's called SARCASM.
>
> No, it wasn't a joke.
>
> Trump asked Russia to interfere (again) to US politics. He probably
> didn't even see anything wrong with it, being a psychopath of some kind.
> It was no joke, he has commented on it multiple occasions previously
> plus tweeted afterwards. Russia btw has a habit of trying to influence
> western and other elections by hacking, it has happened many times
> previously. In Georgia they even succeeded (released a torture video to
> undermine anti-Kremlin party).

Wow what bastards.

I guess you could now understand ever growing Putin's and Russia's
popularity and prestige over the world.

It's called spreading the truth and being a force of good.

Bombing, instead of arming Islamic jihadists like USA does under
neocons, exposing tortures, unlike conducting them, what you just
gave as an example, giving asylum to whistleblowers like Snoeden
instead of persecuting them like some do with Assange etc.


And of course, respecting international law and order and working
with legitimate governments instead of plotting coups to
overthrow them.

That's why you're so allergic to Trump's law and order message.







--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[TT]

What a troll you are.

> instead of persecuting them like some do with Assange etc.
>
>

Assange would be persecuted on rape...

He released the emails before DNC to inflict maximum damage on
democratic party. That's not unbiased whistle blowing, that's trying to
influence elections, with content achieved by criminal means by hostile
nation.

Watergate was about breaking into DNC...

> And of course, respecting international law and order and working
> with legitimate governments instead of plotting coups to
> overthrow them.
>

Are you some sort of retard?

I just pointed out above that Russia is constantly trying to influence
outcome of the elections, as was the case with DNC emails as well.

For example the Georgian torture video was released a week before the
elections, which caused protests... while at the same time Russian
generals were telling on Russian language TV channels in Georgia that
they should come and help Georgia. The protests were probably started by
Russian infiltrators as well, like in Ukraine.

You seem to think that Russia is releasing material out of their good
heart, which couldn't be further from the truth.

[jdeluise]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> writes:

> 30.7.2016, 10:47, *skriptis kirjoitti:
>

> something

I wouldn't waste much time with this guy. He's got "Putin backed
Internet troll" written all over him. I bet that's a low paying
job... and Putin's getting a horrible ROI even at that rate. Yikes.

[TT]

Indeed. He could actually be paid Putin troll. Good point.

[The Iceberg]

LOL yeah lock up Assange, he not a political prisoner, honest, you can trust us, we're only the govt that conducted the Bay of Pigs, secret war in Cambodia, Operation CHAOS, Iran/Contra, mass illegal surveillance etc

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

[The Iceberg]

America's tried many times to secretly influence the outcomes of government elections in other countries, by hacking or whatever, it happens.

[TT]

30.7.2016, 12:59, The Iceberg kirjoitti:
> On Saturday, 30 July 2016 10:39:50 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
>> TT <as...@dprk.kp> writes:
>>
>>> 30.7.2016, 10:47, *skriptis kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> something
>>
>> I wouldn't waste much time with this guy. He's got "Putin backed
>> Internet troll" written all over him. I bet that's a low paying
>> job... and Putin's getting a horrible ROI even at that rate. Yikes.
>
> LOL yeah lock up Assange, he not a political prisoner, honest,

Actually I think he SHOULD be locked up. For real, without computer. In
actual prison cell. He is being part of Russia's crime, perhaps even
paid by them. His timing was intended to cause maximum damage, not to
just whistle blow.

And what a ridiculous controversy. Couple officials were planning to ask
Sanders about god... really? That's it? wow, that's corrupt...
Did they ask him about God then?

Btw, Icey... do you realize that Clinton scandals are pretty much all
manufactured. For example 8 investigations on BENGHAZI. Zero hearings or
interest in dozens of similar attacks during Bush administration where
many people died.

[TT]

30.7.2016, 13:15, The Iceberg kirjoitti:

>
> America's tried many times to secretly influence the outcomes of government elections in other countries

Two wrongs doesn't make it right.

[*skriptis]

Al Capone was caught on tax, not criminal activity. The point is,
you do your best to achieve your goals.

If you can't lock up Assange, you fabricate something else.
Ok, yes, there is 1% chance he raped someone, but sane people know
it's bullshit. You think secret services can't pay or force
couple of easy women to make such accusations?

You're beyond dumb.

> He released the emails before DNC to inflict maximum damage on
> democratic party. That's not unbiased whistle blowing, that's trying to
> influence elections, with content achieved by criminal means by hostile
> nation.
>
> Watergate was about breaking into DNC...
>
>> And of course, respecting international law and order and working
>> with legitimate governments instead of plotting coups to
>> overthrow them.
>>
>
> Are you some sort of retard?
>
> I just pointed out above that Russia is constantly trying to influence
> outcome of the elections, as was the case with DNC emails as well.

Your pointing our is worth SHIT. Who are you anyway to make any
accusation, let alone one of such magnitude?

If Russia exposed those emails it only makes them look great.
Realistically however, no evidence they did it. As much it would
be great for them to get the credits, it's better for the world
if there were some US circles behind this crooked system
exposure. That's more promising.

>
> For example the Georgian torture video was released a week before the
> elections, which caused protests... while at the same time Russian
> generals were telling on Russian language TV channels in Georgia that
> they should come and help Georgia. The protests were probably started by
> Russian infiltrators as well, like in Ukraine.
>
> You seem to think that Russia is releasing material out of their good
> heart, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Of course not. Everyone goes after its own interests.

But in most cases, humanity shares same interests. Like killing
jihadists which Russia does instead of arming them. Neocons arms
that scum and nobody benefits from it, including USA. I mean
common people there. That's the part Putin is shocked with.
You're fucking up the world and you're not even benefiting from
it.

Even when they have arguments over certain issues, American
president that primarily pursues American interests is not at all
an existential threat to any other country or world peace in
general.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Alaskan socialist. lol

[Carey]

Precisely... *persecuted*. Thanks.

[TT]

:)

Prosecuted on rape.

But hey, surely he's innocent... just staying for fun at the embassy...

[bob]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:22:41 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>30.7.2016, 12:59, The Iceberg kirjoitti:
>> On Saturday, 30 July 2016 10:39:50 UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
>>> TT <as...@dprk.kp> writes:
>>>
>>>> 30.7.2016, 10:47, *skriptis kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>> something
>>>
>>> I wouldn't waste much time with this guy. He's got "Putin backed
>>> Internet troll" written all over him. I bet that's a low paying
>>> job... and Putin's getting a horrible ROI even at that rate. Yikes.
>>
>> LOL yeah lock up Assange, he not a political prisoner, honest,
>
>Actually I think he SHOULD be locked up. For real, without computer. In
>actual prison cell. He is being part of Russia's crime, perhaps even
>paid by them. His timing was intended to cause maximum damage, not to
>just whistle blow.
>
>And what a ridiculous controversy. Couple officials were planning to ask
>Sanders about god... really? That's it? wow, that's corrupt...

couple of guys in an office putting silly listening devices on phones
in dc hotel before 72 election. that's corrupt...

it's severely corrupt for the DNC to pretend to be fair and try to
hamper sanders' campaign in any way shape or form.

>Did they ask him about God then?
>Btw, Icey... do you realize that Clinton scandals are pretty much all
>manufactured. For example 8 investigations on BENGHAZI. Zero hearings or
>interest in dozens of similar attacks during Bush administration where
>many people died.

bob

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:31:28 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:22:41 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

> >And what a ridiculous controversy. Couple officials were planning to ask
> >Sanders about god... really? That's it? wow, that's corrupt...

> couple of guys in an office putting silly listening devices on phones
> in dc hotel before 72 election. that's corrupt...

> it's severely corrupt for the DNC to pretend to be fair and try to
> hamper sanders' campaign in any way shape or form.

TJT wants to pretend this all about a single e-mail, which is inaccurate. And the issue he's referring to obviously isn't that "a couple of officials were planning to ask Sanders about God." It is evidence that party officials were conspiring to find the best way to bring down Sanders' campaign and eliminate him as an obstacle to Clinton. Sending pet reporters to publicly challenge his religious beliefs was merely one suggested strategy. These people weren't veiling their intent in coded messages. It was blatant.

As you said, looking at just the e-mails that have been released (I expect there's even more dirt to come), I don't know how someone can remain willfully blind to the implications.

[TT]

30.7.2016, 20:31, bob kirjoitti:
>> And what a ridiculous controversy. Couple officials were planning to ask
>> >Sanders about god... really? That's it? wow, that's corrupt...

> couple of guys in an office putting silly listening devices on phones
> in dc hotel before 72 election. that's corrupt...

That's _really_ poor analogy.

The correct analogy would be to compare Watergate and Russian
hacking/Trump's comments. Breaking into DNC vs breaking into DNC..

Russians also tried to hack Clinton's campaign headquarters...

[TT]

30.7.2016, 21:25, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:31:28 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:22:41 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>>> And what a ridiculous controversy. Couple officials were planning to ask
>>> Sanders about god... really? That's it? wow, that's corrupt...
>
>> couple of guys in an office putting silly listening devices on phones
>> in dc hotel before 72 election. that's corrupt...
>
>> it's severely corrupt for the DNC to pretend to be fair and try to
>> hamper sanders' campaign in any way shape or form.
>
> TJT wants to pretend this all about a single e-mail, which is inaccurate.

What else then?

Did the emails reveal systematic favouritism? Was it actually carried out?

> And the issue he's referring to obviously isn't that "a couple of officials were planning to ask Sanders about God." It is evidence that party officials were conspiring to find the best way to bring down Sanders' campaign and eliminate him as an obstacle to Clinton. Sending pet reporters to publicly challenge his religious beliefs was merely one suggested strategy. These people weren't veiling their intent in coded messages. It was blatant.
>
> As you said, looking at just the e-mails that have been released (I expect there's even more dirt to come), I don't know how someone can remain willfully blind to the implications.
>

I don't deny that it's unethical. But it's really not a very big thing.
At least when compared to Putin backing Trump, the Manchurian Candidate.

[Court_1]

What implications? Hillary won by close to 4 million votes and "favortism" by the DNC cannot account for that type of lead.

Stop whining already. *eye-roll*

[Carey]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> 29.7.2016, 20:20, Tier3 kirjoitti:
> > The Dems trying to have it every which way on this one. The abhorrent DNC emails--blame the Russians.
>
> Officials say that the "confidence is high" that Russians did it. From
> what I've read I'd say around 100%

What "Officials" ? The *anonymous ones* that the oh-so-reliable NYT quoted?

Do you know who James Clapper is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper

He is presently the US Director of National Intelligence, and former
head of the DIA. General Clapper said this week at the Aspen Security
Forum: "we don't know enough to ascribe motivation, regardless of who
it might have been." He also said people should "stop hyperventilating
about this."

But what would General Clapper know anyway, right?

:)


Jill Stein for President '16

[Court_1]

They know the Russians did it. Are some people stupid or what? SMH.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-experts-think-russia-hacked-dnc-emails-n616486

[TT]

30.7.2016, 22:13, Carey kirjoitti:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> 29.7.2016, 20:20, Tier3 kirjoitti:
>>> The Dems trying to have it every which way on this one. The
>>> abhorrent DNC emails--blame the Russians.
>>
>> Officials say that the "confidence is high" that Russians did it.
>> From what I've read I'd say around 100%
>
>
> What "Officials" ? The *anonymous ones* that the oh-so-reliable NYT
> quoted?
>

Google yourself. It's on various sites.

There was this program installed during the attacks which saw that the
attacks game from Russia, from same sources as other Russian attacks
previously. Also the metadata from emails themselves reveals that data
had been on Russian computers. It's very clear cut case.

The attacks are most likely from GRU (or FSB).

> Do you know who James Clapper is?

> Security Forum: "we don't know enough to ascribe motivation,
> regardless of who it might have been."

Can't you read? Above statement is about motivation of the Russian
attackers, not that they weren't Russian...

[TT]

30.7.2016, 22:30, Carey kirjoitti:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 6:12:01 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:

>> 29.7.2016, 20:20, Tier3 kirjoitti:
>>> The Dems trying to have it every which way on this one. The abhorrent DNC emails--blame the Russians.
>>
>> Officials say that the "confidence is high" that Russians did it. From
>> what I've read I'd say around 100%
>
>

> What "Officials" ? The *anonymous ones* that the oh-so-reliable NYT quoted,
> I'm guessing.

>
> Do you know who James Clapper is?
>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper
>
> He is presently the US Director of National Intelligence, and former

> head of the DIA. General Clapper said this week at the Aspen Security

> Forum: "we don't know enough to ascribe motivation, regardless of who

> it might have been." He also said people should "stop hyperventilating
> about this.
>
> But what would General Clapper know anyway, right?
>
> :)
>
>
> Jill Stein for President '16
>

CrowdStrike had installed software on the [Democratic National
Committee’s] computers so that it could analyze data that could indicate
who had gained access, when and how.

The firm identified two separate hacker groups, both working for the
Russian government, that had infiltrated the network, said Dmitri
Alperovitch, CrowdStrike co-founder and chief technology officer. The
firm had analyzed other breaches by both groups over the past two years.

(snip)

including Cyrillic metadata

(snip)

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, in an extended phone interview with Right
Turn conceded that there is “a high confidence” Russia hacked into the
DNC computers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/28/russian-hacking-what-we-know-and-trump-doesnt/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_2_na

[bob]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 21:49:05 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>30.7.2016, 21:25, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:31:28 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:22:41 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>>> And what a ridiculous controversy. Couple officials were planning to ask
>>>> Sanders about god... really? That's it? wow, that's corrupt...
>>
>>> couple of guys in an office putting silly listening devices on phones
>>> in dc hotel before 72 election. that's corrupt...
>>
>>> it's severely corrupt for the DNC to pretend to be fair and try to
>>> hamper sanders' campaign in any way shape or form.
>>
>> TJT wants to pretend this all about a single e-mail, which is inaccurate.
>
>What else then?
>
>Did the emails reveal systematic favouritism? Was it actually carried out?

yes and yes.

>> And the issue he's referring to obviously isn't that "a couple of officials were planning to ask Sanders about God." It is evidence that party officials were conspiring to find the best way to bring down Sanders' campaign and eliminate him as an obstacle to Clinton. Sending pet reporters to publicly challenge his religious beliefs was merely one suggested strategy. These people weren't veiling their intent in coded messages. It was blatant.
>>
>> As you said, looking at just the e-mails that have been released (I expect there's even more dirt to come), I don't know how someone can remain willfully blind to the implications.
>>
>
>I don't deny that it's unethical.

well good.

> But it's really not a very big thing.

so being unethical, which has been the clintons problems for many
decades, is *still* "not a very big thing." this is the main reason
people don't care for the clintons.

>At least when compared to Putin backing Trump, the Manchurian Candidate.

? putin can back who he wants.

bob

[bob]

and nixon won 49/50 states. don't get your pt.

bob

[TT]

"It is certainly well known that the Kremlin uses Russian hackers for a
variety of missions," said Stavridis, who led NATO from 2009 to 2013.
"It is certainly well known that Russia possesses those kinds of
capabilities. And it certainly seems sensible to assume that the
Russians would rather have a Trump than a Clinton presidency."

[TT]

30.7.2016, 22:55, bob kirjoitti:
> yes and yes.

Well I don't believe your word... you have been twisting the truth way
too much in these discussions...

[bob]

you sound like a politician.

"sir, we caught you on a video camera raping that woman."
"but what where did you get the camera from?"

bob

[bob]

you asked if the emails showed favoritism. the answer is yes.
you asked if the favoritism had been carried out. the asnwer is yes.

what on earth is so confusing?

bob

[TT]

No, just pointing out the obvious.

[bob]

i can't believe someone was actually dumb enough to put something like
that in an email. but not all of them are *that* dumb, imagine the
corruption going on that the "smart" officials wouldn't put to email
by just whisper behind closed doors....

bob

[TT]

30.7.2016, 23:03, bob kirjoitti:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:59:41 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>> 30.7.2016, 22:55, bob kirjoitti:
>>> yes and yes.
>>
>> Well I don't believe your word... you have been twisting the truth way
>> too much in these discussions...
>
> you asked if the emails showed favoritism. the answer is yes.

I asked if they showed systematic favouritism.

> you asked if the favoritism had been carried out. the asnwer is yes.
>
> what on earth is so confusing?
>
> bob
>

You also said Bill Clinton raped someone, as a sure case. Several times.

...When I read about the facts it was very obvious that there was zero
proof and that it is extremely likely that the rape claim is false.

So why should I trust your word without quotes and links...

[bob]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Good post. Unfortunately it won't matter at all once Maximum Leader Hillary
>is formally 'elected' in November. And Clintons have long memories, if you
>know what I mean..

did you know that hedge funds have donated $126mil to hillary's
campaign and $19k to trump's. wonder who they want to win?

good thing she's going to "keep the big finance in line!!"

bob

[TT]

30.7.2016, 23:13, bob kirjoitti:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Good post. Unfortunately it won't matter at all once Maximum Leader Hillary
>> is formally 'elected' in November. And Clintons have long memories, if you
>> know what I mean..
>
> did you know that hedge funds have donated $126mil to hillary's
> campaign and $19k to trump's. wonder who they want to win?
>

1. Intelligent people don't want to Trump to win. Whatever you think
about Wall Street the people there are no idiots.

2. New York is Democrat.

3. Hillary is more likely to win

4. Trump has plenty of money.

[bob]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 23:09:36 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>30.7.2016, 23:03, bob kirjoitti:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:59:41 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>> 30.7.2016, 22:55, bob kirjoitti:
>>>> yes and yes.
>>>
>>> Well I don't believe your word... you have been twisting the truth way
>>> too much in these discussions...
>>
>> you asked if the emails showed favoritism. the answer is yes.
>
>I asked if they showed systematic favouritism.

i'm sure not every member of the DNC participated, but enough did to
show there was favoritism and for wasserman to resign.

why didn't waseman just say, "hey, we had a rogue and he's fired and
he had no effect."

>> you asked if the favoritism had been carried out. the asnwer is yes.
>>
>> what on earth is so confusing?
>>
>> bob
>You also said Bill Clinton raped someone, as a sure case. Several times.

absoluely. what do you call it when you have sex with someone forcibly
against their will in a hotel room? clinton was there. she was there.
he has a problem with his dick, i'm sorry.

>...When I read about the facts it was very obvious that there was zero
>proof and that it is extremely likely that the rape claim is false.
>So why should I trust your word without quotes and links...

you're blinded by stars, he's like a rock star so he can't have a
problem with his dick, can he? movie stars, famous athletes, they
can't have problems with their dick, can they? on the contrary.

if that were the sole accusatoin against clinton pertaining to sexual
problems perhaps clinton himself drags that "lyin hoe" into court? but
nope. if it were me i would.

many women have been used by him over the years. if what he did with
lewinsky, who was smart enough to keep proof, didn't convince you his
m.o with women, you're head is just in sand.

yep, that chubby little 20yo beret wearing misfit outsmarted ole bill,
bet that pissed him off more than anything.

bob

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:58:04 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

> >> As you said, looking at just the e-mails that have been released (I expect there's even more dirt to come), I don't know how someone can remain willfully blind to the implications.

> >What implications? Hillary won by close to 4 million votes and "favortism" by the DNC cannot account for that type of lead.

> >Stop whining already. *eye-roll*

> and nixon won 49/50 states. don't get your pt.

Her values are really just too fucked-up for her to get it. Nobody's even tried to argue that the DNC "turned" the election, but that's what she keeps arguing against anyway.

[Court_1]

My values are fucked up because I don't support Sanders' politics and out of Clinton and Trump I support Clinton?

Screw off Gracchus and don't play holier than thou please.

Sanders wasn't winning even if the DNC didn't support Clinton. Get that through your thick skull already. You are in the minority when it comes to your radical left political views, not me.

[bob]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 4:29:49 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:58:04 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>> > On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>>
>> > >> As you said, looking at just the e-mails that have been released (I expect there's even more dirt to come), I don't know how someone can remain willfully blind to the implications.
>>
>> > >What implications? Hillary won by close to 4 million votes and "favortism" by the DNC cannot account for that type of lead.
>>
>> > >Stop whining already. *eye-roll*
>>
>> > and nixon won 49/50 states. don't get your pt.
>>
>> Her values are really just too fucked-up for her to get it. Nobody's even tried to argue that the DNC "turned" the election, but that's what she keeps arguing against anyway.
>
>My values are fucked up because I don't support Sanders' politics and out of Clinton and Trump I support Clinton?
>Screw off Gracchus and don't play holier than thou please.
>Sanders wasn't winning even if the DNC didn't support Clinton.

i'm not sure of that at all. but that's not what the argument has
been.

you are supporting a crooked regime and if anything hillary should've
been extra careful NOT to be her crooked self this year. naming
wasserman honorary anything is condoning corruption.

>Get that through your thick skull already. You are in the minority when it comes to your radical left political views, not me.

bob

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:38:20 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 4:29:49 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 12:58:04 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 12:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> >
> > > >> As you said, looking at just the e-mails that have been released (I expect there's even more dirt to come), I don't know how someone can remain willfully blind to the implications.
> >
> > > >What implications? Hillary won by close to 4 million votes and "favortism" by the DNC cannot account for that type of lead.
> >
> > > >Stop whining already. *eye-roll*
> >
> > > and nixon won 49/50 states. don't get your pt.
> >
> > Her values are really just too fucked-up for her to get it. Nobody's even tried to argue that the DNC "turned" the election, but that's what she keeps arguing against anyway.

> My values are fucked up because I don't support Sanders' politics and out of Clinton and Trump I support Clinton?

Obviously that's never what I objected to. Well, obvious to anyone who recognizes distinctions, that is.

> Screw off Gracchus and don't play holier than thou please.

> Sanders wasn't winning even if the DNC didn't support Clinton. Get that through your thick skull already.

If your eyes ever stopped rolling long enough to focus, you'd read what I was saying instead of what you want to see.

> You are in the minority when it comes to your radical left political views, not me.

Oh, I forgot--you're a moderate, right? Halfway between conservative and liberal? From what you've revealed over the years, would you guess anyone here believes that? You probably support reproductive rights and think it's enough to make your politics "balanced." They really aren't.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 4:45:05 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> i'm not sure of that at all.

I am.

> you are supporting a crooked regime

Says the guy who is supporting Trump--a candidate who has more lawsuits filed against him than a porcupine has quills.

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:09:32 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:

> I asked if they showed systematic favouritism.

I think you mean "systemic."

[Court_1]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 4:53:01 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> > > Her values are really just too fucked-up for her to get it. Nobody's even tried to argue that the DNC "turned" the election, but that's what she keeps arguing against anyway.
>
> > My values are fucked up because I don't support Sanders' politics and out of Clinton and Trump I support Clinton?
>
> Obviously that's never what I objected to. Well, obvious to anyone who recognizes distinctions, that is.

What is it that you object to then exactly? You object to the fact that I support Clinton over Trump? Sanders is OUT of the equation but his ardent supporters can't realize this fact and move on. They have to latch onto every theory of Clinton corruption imaginable to account for why Sanders lost. It's quite hysterical.

> > You are in the minority when it comes to your radical left political views, not me.
>
> Oh, I forgot--you're a moderate, right? Halfway between conservative and liberal? From what you've revealed over the years, would you guess anyone here believes that? You probably support reproductive rights and think it's enough to make your politics "balanced." They really aren't.

Yes, I'm in between a Conservative and a Liberal depending on what issue is being discussed. Believe what you want. I am definitely not a Socialist or left wing radical though. As I said, you are in the minority, not me.

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 2:28:21 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 4:53:01 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> > > My values are fucked up because I don't support Sanders' politics and out of Clinton and Trump I support Clinton?

> > Obviously that's never what I objected to. Well, obvious to anyone who recognizes distinctions, that is.

> What is it that you object to then exactly? You object to the fact that I support Clinton over Trump? Sanders is OUT of the equation but his ardent supporters can't realize this fact and move on. They have to latch onto every theory of Clinton corruption imaginable to account for why Sanders lost. It's quite hysterical.

(1) Show me a single statement where I claimed Sanders would have won if not for the DNC "bias" ??? This is what you're continually arguing against, after all.

(2) Wasserman and the DNC repeatedly denied accusations of bias from Sanders and his people throughout the campaign. But e-mails are proof, and Wasserman knew she had not a leg to stand on, which is why she quit. So there is no question that she and her cronies tried to influence the election in Clinton's favor. It is not a "theory."

(3) Crucial point: you apparently believe that unless one believes Sanders would have won without the DNC's intervention, then it is no big deal. I disagree. Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like Jeb Bush saying to forget Iraq War criticisms because "that's the past." That kind of thinking gives everyone a free pass no matter their poor choices or the ramifications of them. If proven cheaters like Lance Armstrong don't get a free pass in sports, I don't see why political officials should. Even worse to further reward them.

> Yes, I'm in between a Conservative and a Liberal depending on what issue is being discussed. Believe what you want. I am definitely not a Socialist or left wing radical though. As I said, you are in the minority, not me.

In your neck of the woods perhaps so. But what does minority or majority have to do with anything anyway?

[TT]

31.7.2016, 1:08, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like

Wasserman got sacked... aka the argument should be pretty much over.
You're still arguing about it only because you're a Sanders fan.

The real issue now is Russia & Trump.

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 3:30:36 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> 31.7.2016, 1:08, Gracchus kirjoitti:

> > Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like

> Wasserman got sacked... aka the argument should be pretty much over.
> You're still arguing about it only because you're a Sanders fan.

So removing the public "face" of the party cleanly removes the corruption? Scary to think you really believe that.

> The real issue now is Russia & Trump.

No, that's just your pet issue.

[bob]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 01:30:35 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>31.7.2016, 1:08, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like
>
>Wasserman got sacked... aka the argument should be pretty much over.
>You're still arguing about it only because you're a Sanders fan.

i've heard rumors of bernie running independent now. watcha think the
effect will be on the election TT? :-)

>The real issue now is Russia & Trump.

bob

[Gracchus]

He plans to return to the senate as an independent, not running as one. Missed his last chance to switch before the convention. Unlike '92, when Perot quit and managed to jump back in only because he ran as an independent in the first place. A bit ironic that Bill Clinton probably owes his presidency to Perot, and Hillary too by extension if she wins.

[bob]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:01:03 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 6:53:42 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 01:30:35 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>> >31.7.2016, 1:08, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> >> Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like
>
>> >Wasserman got sacked... aka the argument should be pretty much over.
>> >You're still arguing about it only because you're a Sanders fan.
>
>> i've heard rumors of bernie running independent now. watcha think the
>> effect will be on the election TT? :-)
>
>He plans to return to the senate as an independent, not running as one. Missed his last chance to switch before the convention.

my bad. well that's a start anyway who could blame him.

> Unlike '92, when Perot quit and managed to jump back in only because he ran as an independent in the first place. A bit ironic that Bill Clinton probably owes his presidency to Perot, and Hillary too by extension if she wins.

yes, i remember perot took more bush than clinton votes and slammed
bush repeatedly in the debates.

bob

[Court_1]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 6:08:31 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> (1) Show me a single statement where I claimed Sanders would have won if not for the DNC "bias" ??? This is what you're continually arguing against, after all.
>
> (2) Wasserman and the DNC repeatedly denied accusations of bias from Sanders and his people throughout the campaign. But e-mails are proof, and Wasserman knew she had not a leg to stand on, which is why she quit. So there is no question that she and her cronies tried to influence the election in Clinton's favor. It is not a "theory."
>
> (3) Crucial point: you apparently believe that unless one believes Sanders would have won without the DNC's intervention, then it is no big deal. I disagree. Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like Jeb Bush saying to forget Iraq War criticisms because "that's the past." That kind of thinking gives everyone a free pass no matter their poor choices or the ramifications of them. If proven cheaters like Lance Armstrong don't get a free pass in sports, I don't see why political officials should. Even worse to further reward them.

Gracchus, the DNC emails may have shown bias towards Clinton but there is absolutely no proof that anything talked about in those emails influenced the results of the election--i.e. either to hurt Sanders or aid Clinton. Those were private emails which should have stayed private. Imagine if all things people said in emails but did not result in any actual consequences were used against them? If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on RST because he infuriates me, does that mean I should be arrested? So some of the emails showed that the DNC liked Clinton more than Sanders. They don't show that the DNC used their resources to influence the election. There is zero proof of that.

What about the fact that a foreign power, i.e. the Russian government is likely trying to get Trump elected? They actually took action and hacked and exposed private emails right before the Democratic convention (timely wasn't it?) That doesn't bother most people but what was said in private emails when there is no proof that what was said in those private emails resulted in Sanders losing does bother most people? That's strange to me.

> > Yes, I'm in between a Conservative and a Liberal depending on what issue is being discussed. Believe what you want. I am definitely not a Socialist or left wing radical though. As I said, you are in the minority, not me.
>
> In your neck of the woods perhaps so. But what does minority or majority have to do with anything anyway?

What neck of the woods? I'm talking about American people where Clinton actually just won the Democratic nomination and not Sanders. What a minority/majority has to do with it is that you are acting like your opinion on Communist Central Tennis is the majority opinion in America and clearly it isn't otherwise your man Colonel Sanders would be battling vs Trump(rather than Clinton) instead of going back to KFC and dreaming up more chicken recipes.

[bob]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:36:51 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 6:08:31 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> (1) Show me a single statement where I claimed Sanders would have won if not for the DNC "bias" ??? This is what you're continually arguing against, after all.
>>
>> (2) Wasserman and the DNC repeatedly denied accusations of bias from Sanders and his people throughout the campaign. But e-mails are proof, and Wasserman knew she had not a leg to stand on, which is why she quit. So there is no question that she and her cronies tried to influence the election in Clinton's favor. It is not a "theory."
>>
>> (3) Crucial point: you apparently believe that unless one believes Sanders would have won without the DNC's intervention, then it is no big deal. I disagree. Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like Jeb Bush saying to forget Iraq War criticisms because "that's the past." That kind of thinking gives everyone a free pass no matter their poor choices or the ramifications of them. If proven cheaters like Lance Armstrong don't get a free pass in sports, I don't see why political officials should. Even worse to further reward them.
>
>Gracchus, the DNC emails may have shown bias towards Clinton but there is absolutely no proof that anything talked about in those emails influenced the results of the election--i.e. either to hurt Sanders or aid Clinton. Those were private emails which should have stayed private. Imagine if all things people said in emails but did not result in any actual consequences were used against them? If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on RST because he infuriates me, does that mean I should be arrested?

it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
gracchus and his doings.

> So some of the emails showed that the DNC liked Clinton more than Sanders. They don't show that the DNC used their resources to influence the election. There is zero proof of that.
>What about the fact that a foreign power, i.e. the Russian government is likely trying to get Trump elected?

what about the fact that a supposed neutral power, our press, is
trying to get hillary elected?

> They actually took action and hacked and exposed private emails right before the Democratic convention (timely wasn't it?) That doesn't bother most people but what was said in private emails when there is no proof that what was said in those private emails resulted in Sanders losing does bother most people? That's strange to me.

sanders may or may not have lost if the DNC was completely neutral
from the start.

>> > Yes, I'm in between a Conservative and a Liberal depending on what issue is being discussed. Believe what you want. I am definitely not a Socialist or left wing radical though. As I said, you are in the minority, not me.
>>
>> In your neck of the woods perhaps so. But what does minority or majority have to do with anything anyway?
>
>What neck of the woods? I'm talking about American people where Clinton actually just won the Democratic nomination and not Sanders. What a minority/majority has to do with it is that you are acting like your opinion on Communist Central Tennis is the majority opinion in America and clearly it isn't otherwise your man Colonel Sanders would be battling vs Trump(rather than Clinton) instead of going back to KFC and dreaming up more chicken recipes.

the system wasn't fair. it was rigged. it was a fix. THAT is the
problem, and i'm astonished you don't grasp that.

if clinton beats trump, but by chance trump's name is left off the
ballot in 25 states due to "computer glitch," should we say "it's ok,
hillary would've won anyway, she was the favorite, no harm done"? you
understand, no?

bob

[jdeluise]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> writes:

> If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on
> RST because he infuriates me

Seriously Court_1 you are taking this election far too seriously and are
devolving into a depraved lunatic right before our eyes and it's very
upsetting and embarrassing. Get help.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:03:27 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> >Gracchus, the DNC emails may have shown bias towards Clinton but there is absolutely no proof that anything talked about in those emails influenced the results of the election--i.e. either to hurt Sanders or aid Clinton. Those were private emails which should have stayed private. Imagine if all things people said in emails but did not result in any actual consequences were used against them? If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on RST because he infuriates me, does that mean I should be arrested?
>
> it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
> gracchus and his doings.

Expressing bias in an email means very little. It's not enough to prove actual results.

> > So some of the emails showed that the DNC liked Clinton more than Sanders. They don't show that the DNC used their resources to influence the election. There is zero proof of that.
> >What about the fact that a foreign power, i.e. the Russian government is likely trying to get Trump elected?
>
> what about the fact that a supposed neutral power, our press, is
> trying to get hillary elected?

??? There are certain publications which support Trump and certain publications which support Clinton. It's not a one-way street at all as you are stating it to be.

> > They actually took action and hacked and exposed private emails right before the Democratic convention (timely wasn't it?) That doesn't bother most people but what was said in private emails when there is no proof that what was said in those private emails resulted in Sanders losing does bother most people? That's strange to me.
>
> sanders may or may not have lost if the DNC was completely neutral
> from the start.

LOL. BS. Only disgruntled supporters of a failed candidate float that theory.

> the system wasn't fair. it was rigged. it was a fix. THAT is the
> problem, and i'm astonished you don't grasp that.

There is NO proof that this election was rigged. What do you have? Some private thoughts between DNC members via email? That's your proof and you believe the election is rigged because psycho Trump tells you it's true? What is he supposed to say?

> if clinton beats trump, but by chance trump's name is left off the
> ballot in 25 states due to "computer glitch," should we say "it's ok,
> hillary would've won anyway, she was the favorite, no harm done"? you
> understand, no?

That's your further proof of rigging? You would be laughed out of court.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:17:00 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
>
>
> > If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on
> > RST because he infuriates me
>
> Seriously Court_1 you are taking this election far too seriously and are
> devolving into a depraved lunatic right before our eyes and it's very
> upsetting and embarrassing. Get help.

Coming from you(the chief RST bitter instigator) that's hilarious. I was trying to make a point which was things said in private emails do not amount to election rigging no matter how much you wish it to be so. I obviously wasn't serious about harming Gracchus. *rolls eyes*

Stop bothering me and trying to rile me up. Don't you have some salmon fishing or something like that to do in Alaska?

[jdeluise]

No, I'm a life long vegetarian.

[Gracchus]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 6:03:27 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:36:51 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

> >> (3) Crucial point: you apparently believe that unless one believes Sanders would have won without the DNC's intervention, then it is no big deal. I disagree. Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like Jeb Bush saying to forget Iraq War criticisms because "that's the past." That kind of thinking gives everyone a free pass no matter their poor choices or the ramifications of them. If proven cheaters like Lance Armstrong don't get a free pass in sports, I don't see why political officials should. Even worse to further reward them.

> >Gracchus, the DNC emails may have shown bias towards Clinton but there is absolutely no proof that anything talked about in those emails influenced the results of the election--i.e. either to hurt Sanders or aid Clinton. Those were private emails which should have stayed private. Imagine if all things people said in emails but did not result in any actual consequences were used against them? If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on RST because he infuriates me, does that mean I should be arrested?

> it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
> gracchus and his doings.

Yes, and in addition to that, C1's analogy is inaccurate. It's the difference between (1) telling her colleague she feels like killing me, and (2) talking with her colleague about the best way to kill me. In instance #2, I'd say the police should investigate it to see if there are grounds for arrest or not. And #2 is much closer to what was going on with the DNC.

> >What neck of the woods? I'm talking about American people where Clinton actually just won the Democratic nomination and not Sanders. What a minority/majority has to do with it is that you are acting like your opinion on Communist Central Tennis is the majority opinion in America and clearly it isn't otherwise your man Colonel Sanders would be battling vs Trump(rather than Clinton) instead of going back to KFC and dreaming up more chicken recipes.

> the system wasn't fair. it was rigged. it was a fix. THAT is the
> problem, and i'm astonished you don't grasp that.

So am I.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:34:57 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 6:03:27 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:

> > it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
> > gracchus and his doings.
>
> Yes, and in addition to that, C1's analogy is inaccurate. It's the difference between (1) telling her colleague she feels like killing me, and (2) talking with her colleague about the best way to kill me. In instance #2, I'd say the police should investigate it to see if there are grounds for arrest or not. And #2 is much closer to what was going on with the DNC.

Wrong. Saying in an email that I feel like killing somebody or talking with a colleague about the best way to kill a person means nothing if there isn't more concrete proof of a crime--i.e. forensic evidence for example. Things said privately between DNC members in emails don't prove rigging. PERIOD. Where is the proof that the DNC used its resources to influence the election? And why didn't you answer my question about the Russian government and how they are allegedly trying to install Trump as president by actually hacking and exposing private emails? That doesn't bother you and private emails between the DNC members are worse for you? Talk about morals. SMH.

> > >What neck of the woods? I'm talking about American people where Clinton actually just won the Democratic nomination and not Sanders. What a minority/majority has to do with it is that you are acting like your opinion on Communist Central Tennis is the majority opinion in America and clearly it isn't otherwise your man Colonel Sanders would be battling vs Trump(rather than Clinton) instead of going back to KFC and dreaming up more chicken recipes.
>
> > the system wasn't fair. it was rigged. it was a fix. THAT is the
> > problem, and i'm astonished you don't grasp that.
>
> So am I.

All I'm seeing is that some of the DNC members prefer Clinton over Sanders but that doesn't prove actual rigging.

[Gracchus]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 6:46:51 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:34:57 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 6:03:27 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>
> > > it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
> > > gracchus and his doings.
> >
> > Yes, and in addition to that, C1's analogy is inaccurate. It's the difference between (1) telling her colleague she feels like killing me, and (2) talking with her colleague about the best way to kill me. In instance #2, I'd say the police should investigate it to see if there are grounds for arrest or not. And #2 is much closer to what was going on with the DNC.

> Wrong. Saying in an email that I feel like killing somebody or talking with a colleague about the best way to kill a person means nothing if there isn't more concrete proof of a crime--i.e. forensic evidence for example.

Sure, but it certainly could be conspiracy to commit a crime if the discussion is deemed a serious one. If you learned that there was such an e-mail discussion about you, are you saying you wouldn't be concerned?

> Things said privately between DNC members in emails don't prove rigging. PERIOD. Where is the proof that the DNC used its resources to influence the election?

If a serious internal investigation were conducted, we'd know if there were proof or not. The DNC has signaled no intent to do that. Wasserman's resignation alone does not address the issue.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

It's hard for me to get too riled up about the DNC leaning on the scales for Clinton when it was Sanders playing the system by switching parties just so he could run in democratic primaries. If Sanders was as pure as people make out he would've stayed an independent. But he knew switching parties was the only thing that would give him leverage to influence the party platform at the convention. Sanders was playing the game as much as anybody. Sanders winning the nomination of a party he doesn't truly identify with would've been the bigger travesty. Sanders played the game and got outplayed. That's how it goes.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Analyses by people like Nate Silver show Clinton would've won h2h against Bush.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Any worse than Bernie doing the work of the NRA? I mean "representing his constituents views..."

[Tier3]

Have the Russians released a selfie of Hillary in her yoga leotard yet? I'm a masochist. Again, if they have Hillary's emails--and good chance they and others do since her setup was described as less secure than gmail--I would rather know now. But anyway, nothing but yoga routines, wedding plans and a few recipes in the trove of 30,000. And if you believe that...
What she did and the potential blackmail should absolutely be a disqualifier.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

It wasn't rigged against democrats (unless there were emails about O'Malley, etc), just independents.

[TT]

1.8.2016, 6:37, Tier3 kirjoitti:
> Have the Russians released a selfie of Hillary in her yoga leotard yet? I'm a masochist. Again, if they have Hillary's emails--and good chance they and others do since her setup was described as less secure than gmail--I would rather know now. But anyway, nothing but yoga routines, wedding plans and a few recipes in the trove of 30,000. And if you believe that...
> What she did and the potential blackmail should absolutely be a disqualifier.
>

How about the 5-22 million emails Bush and Rove "lost". No problem with
that? Or Colin Powell's lost emails...

Clinton's emails were divided to work and private by her lawyers using
header information. Nothing unfair about it. You wouldn't want your
private emails come public either.

-

As for disqualifying, Trump's comments should have disqualified him ten
times over already. As should his shady business deals/bankrupts,
political incompetence and failure to release his tax returns.

Anybody voting for Manchurian Candidate, democrat or republican, is
un-American.

[bob]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 20:24:23 -0700 (PDT), heyg...@gmail.com wrote:

>Analyses by people like Nate Silver show Clinton would've won h2h against Bush.

maybe but perot sealed it.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:28:10 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>1.8.2016, 6:37, Tier3 kirjoitti:
>> Have the Russians released a selfie of Hillary in her yoga leotard yet? I'm a masochist. Again, if they have Hillary's emails--and good chance they and others do since her setup was described as less secure than gmail--I would rather know now. But anyway, nothing but yoga routines, wedding plans and a few recipes in the trove of 30,000. And if you believe that...
>> What she did and the potential blackmail should absolutely be a disqualifier.
>>
>
>How about the 5-22 million emails Bush and Rove "lost". No problem with
>that? Or Colin Powell's lost emails...

and your response is to equate hillary with gw bush and karl rove?
good job TT.

bob

[bob]

wasserman's resignation not only didn't fix the problem, it most
certainly didn't signal any claim to innocence.

if there was nothing there, she'd have fought to stay on.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:17:00 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
>>
>>
>> > If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on
>> > RST because he infuriates me
>>
>> Seriously Court_1 you are taking this election far too seriously and are
>> devolving into a depraved lunatic right before our eyes and it's very
>> upsetting and embarrassing. Get help.

>Coming from you(the chief RST bitter instigator) that's hilarious.

>I was trying to make a point which was things said in private emails do not amount to election rigging no matter how much you wish it to be so.

well they ain't "private" no more, are they. :-)

i'm afraid i agree with jdeluise, your posts are embarrassing. i
almost feel bad for ya saying stuff like this, then tripling down.

> I obviously wasn't serious about harming Gracchus. *rolls eyes* Stop bothering me and trying to rile me up. Don't you have some salmon fishing or something like that to do in Alaska?

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:33:02 -0800, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

i'm envious.

bob

[TT]

My comparison is about the amount of outrage and media coverage...
Totally different. And you claim media is biased for Clinton...

[Court_1]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

> >I was trying to make a point which was things said in private emails do not amount to election rigging no matter how much you wish it to be so.
>
> well they ain't "private" no more, are they. :-)
>
> i'm afraid i agree with jdeluise, your posts are embarrassing. i
> almost feel bad for ya saying stuff like this, then tripling down.

There is nothing embarrassing about stating the truth which is that thoughts in private emails between DNC members does not establish the DNC used their resources to rig the election and the fact that you or several other left wing or pro Trump RST posters state that the election was rigged doesn't make it so no matter how much you whine about it. What is embarrassing is your unseemly hatred of the female candidate Hillary Clinton and your constant degradation of her character while you praise a guy like Trump and never talk about his negative qualities (of which there are many.)

As for jdeluise coming after me when I laughed about some of the Bernie loons crying at a bloody political convention, oh well. Normally he's too busy having a go at you to worry about me and I'm sure he'll continue to point out the stupidity in your posts in the months ahead, especially your hero-worshipping of a guy like Donald Trump!

Why aren't you livid about the fact that that a foreign government(likely in cahoots with Trump) hacked and exposed the DNC emails in an effort to situate Trump as president? That doesn't bother you? What a hypocrite you are. It's impossible for you to look at this election through objective eyes because of your intense hatred of Hillary. Although I don't like many of Trump's characteristics, I can point out certain things that I like about his political platform.

[Court_1]

What was "there" was her obvious preference for Hillary Clinton over Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be impartial but that is a far cry from proving that the DNC actually used their resources to rig the election. Where's the proof of that? The fact that Wasserman stepped down doesn't prove that at all so stop flapping your gums and don't mix up the two things.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 11:15:19 PM UTC-4, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's hard for me to get too riled up about the DNC leaning on the scales for Clinton when it was Sanders playing the system by switching parties just so he could run in democratic primaries. If Sanders was as pure as people make out he would've stayed an independent. But he knew switching parties was the only thing that would give him leverage to influence the party platform at the convention. Sanders was playing the game as much as anybody. Sanders winning the nomination of a party he doesn't truly identify with would've been the bigger travesty. Sanders played the game and got outplayed. That's how it goes.

Good post! You are right on the money.

[Gracchus]

LOL. Only if the money is a plugged nickel. When Winky posted this cute rationale for DNC corruption yesterday, I knew you'd approve. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd think he concocted the whole thing just to see if you'd grab the bait.

[soccerfan777]

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 10:42:36 PM UTC-5, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
> It wasn't rigged against democrats (unless there were emails about O'Malley, etc), just independents.

lame. Are you a Clinton lawyer? Sanders might be an independent before he joined the democratic party, but he took part in democratic party debates, and campaigned for the party and fought against Trump as a democrat.

No wonder you think Serena is a great gal at heart.

[jdeluise]

er, Clinton also "switched parties". She used to be a conservative
republican.

[Gracchus]

Priceless, isn't it? As if running as a Democrat makes Sanders some kind of "double agent," morally entitling the DNC to cheat. Oh yeah, except it's not really cheating--it's "playing the game better." And who chimes in to agree with this? Surprise of the week.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

40 years ago?

Sanders changed for political expediency. When it stopped serving his needs he changed back. That's called playing the system...

[Court_1]

When? The last time she was a Republican was back in 1968, during her college days. She didn't switch parties during an election just so she could get her platform about the "revolution" out there and so that people would listen to her and then as soon as she was out of the election, go back to being an independent as Bernie clearly did. Heyguys is right in that Bernie plays the game just like the rest of them. He played his game(and played it well) but lost.

[Court_1]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 7:45:31 PM UTC-4, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
> 40 years ago?
>
> Sanders changed for political expediency. When it stopped serving his needs he changed back. That's called playing the system...

You can't criticize Sanders with these Sanders sycophants on this ng. To them Sanders is above it all and is a PURE politician. He's the only politician in the world who doesn't play the game and feed into the hands of his rabid followers according to some of these loons. Priceless hypocrisy.

[Gracchus]

This is what it has come to: determining leadership of the world's sole superpower is "the game." Anyone who believes this really should be voting for Trump.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

How does it feel to be played like a fiddle by Assange?

--Winky

[Court_1]

Heyguys made a good point, i.e. that Bernie did play the game and switch to a party which would deliver his cause and get his "revolution" platform out there. He couldn't have done that as an independent because enough people wouldn't have listened. As soon as he delivered his message and lost he reverted back to his independent status. You don't think that's playing the game to a certain extent? If so, you are not being honest. What is this need to paint Bernie as some Saint? He seems like a good guy(relative to some others) but in world politics even the nicer guys have to play the game somewhat.

[jdeluise]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> writes:


>
> When? The last time she was a Republican was back in 1968, during her
> college days. She didn't switch parties during an election just so she
> could get her platform about the "revolution" out there and so that
> people would listen to her and then as soon as she was out of the
> election, go back to being an independent as Bernie clearly
> did. Heyguys is right in that Bernie plays the game just like the rest
> of them. He played his game(and played it well) but lost.

I agree Sanders switched parties for political expediency (the US is
essentially a two-party system after all) but he didn't compromise his
values in doing so. Someone like Clinton obviously did. How many
democrats staunchly opposed gay marriage for instance (and actually lift
patently conservative Republican tag lines like "I believe marriage is a
union between one man and one woman") as Clinton did until relatively
recently?

Now you see people like Ellen falling all over themselves to support
Clinton so maybe you've forgotten this?

[jdeluise]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> writes:

>
> Heyguys made a good point, i.e. that Bernie did play the game and
> switch to a party which would deliver his cause and get his
> "revolution" platform out there. He couldn't have done that as an
> independent because enough people wouldn't have listened. As soon as
> he delivered his message and lost he reverted back to his independent
> status. You don't think that's playing the game to a certain extent?
> If so, you are not being honest. What is this need to paint Bernie as
> some Saint? He seems like a good guy(relative to some others) but in
> world politics even the nicer guys have to play the game somewhat.

But Sander's values aren't really contrary to Democratic values, imo.
Yes, they may be even more extreme but not contrary. Clinton spent much
of the formative years of her life as a Republican... campaigned for
Goldwater, was a member of the "young republicans" for instance. I
suspect she saw greater political opportunity in the democrat party and
switched as a result. She seems like the bigger turncoat of the two if
you must compare.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Most people start to come to their senses about politics and religion in their 20s...

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Sanders ran. Income inequity is the biggest driver of America's problems IMO, and he built on Occupy Wall Street and others to continue to grow that perspective. I'm no great fan of Hillary's...she's as cautious and poll tested as they come. She's a poor leader IMO. Sanders is a man of convictions and he did what was needed to advance those convictions. He got his message out and changed the party platform for the better. But he's never been a democrat and isn't one today, so he shouldn't expect to be the democratic nominee. I think the result is the exact one he expected (some progress on his agenda but Clinton as the nominee).

[Court_1]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 8:17:18 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:

Jdeluise, you're barking up the wrong tree. I NEVER said Hillary doesn't play the game and hasn't switched her politics on issues when it suits her. Of course she's done that many times. All I did was agree with heyguys that Bernie also played the game to a certain extent by switching from his true political affiliation to a Democrat because that's where he could get his message heard and then as soon as he was out he switched back. You said Hillary did the same as she used to be a Republican but that was over 40 years ago and isn't the same thing as what Bernie just did switching back and forth mid stream during an election as a presidential candidate. Bernie doesn't have to be PURE as the driven snow on every issue. I don't understand why some people have to turn him into some sort of holy being.

[Gracchus]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 5:29:20 PM UTC-7, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Sanders ran. Income inequity is the biggest driver of America's problems IMO, and he built on Occupy Wall Street and others to continue to grow that perspective. I'm no great fan of Hillary's...she's as cautious and poll tested as they come. She's a poor leader IMO. Sanders is a man of convictions and he did what was needed to advance those convictions. He got his message out and changed the party platform for the better. But he's never been a democrat and isn't one today, so he shouldn't expect to be the democratic nominee. I think the result is the exact one he expected (some progress on his agenda but Clinton as the nominee).

He should "expect" neutrality from the powers that be in the DNC. The voters should be the ones to decide whether he becomes the nominee. That's the way the democratic process is intended to work, and for me that is the central issue. The idea that it's ok for the party to cheat because Sanders wasn't a lifelong Democrat...that's just a dangerous kind of "moral flexibility" IMO.

The outcome of the process is a separate issue. Court 1 has suggested that some of us think the DNC's bias knocked Sanders out of the race. Personally I never believed that. When I first saw that Sanders was running, I thought he'd be gone faster than Martin O' Malley. Though the superdelegate system favored Clinton strongly and the internal bias is extremely alarming and needs to be seriously addressed, it was virtually impossible for Sanders to win anyway. The Clintons are so well-known, so well-connected, and so well-organized that beating them in a primary election is like scaling Mt. Everest.

[jdeluise]

heyg...@gmail.com writes:

> But he's never been a democrat and isn't one today

What does it mean to be a democrat? What's the litmus test?

[jdeluise]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> writes:

> All I did was agree with heyguys that Bernie also played the game to a
> certain extent by switching from his true political affiliation to a
> Democrat because that's where he could get his message heard and then
> as soon as he was out he switched back.

Well, I will just state that an independent has no stated political
affiliation and is not incompatible with Democrat values necessarily.
If they didn't want this type of "party switching" why don't the rules
prohibit it? Why the need to plot against him?

Whether or not the emails reveal an legal offense, it certainly was
a barometer on the opinions of the party bosses, it seems unlikely they
all simply went against their own personal opinions and gave Sanders
every advantage they gave Clinton. At any rate, like Gracchus I don't
solely attribute this to Sanders loss nor do I know exactly what affect
it had but your attempts to paint me as you have are completely false.

[bob]

if anything sanders proved beyond all doubt how the parties have no
real platforms or principles anymore, how much they've blended
together, and how amoral they are. their reactions to both trump and
sanders proved exactly that.

sanders actually brought a progressive platform and as such is labeled
a "non-democrat." who'd have thought it...

bob

[bob]

in hindsight, sanders made a simple miscalculation: he thought the DNC
would play fair, would like his platoform hence him, and being part
of a bigger FAIR audience, he'd get more exposure. in hindsight
bernie's platform in this year of 2 very flawed candidates would've
gained steam on its own as an independent IMO. it was a mistake to
trust them. i bet this is exactly what was going through his mind
during hills acceptance speech, when he looked like he need a tums.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 16:17:15 -0800, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

exactly

bob

[bob]

what exactly *is* a democrat, winkie?

bob

[bob]

hillary had 700 campaign workers in the primary setup in a huge
brooklyn office. not sure how many she's grown to now...trump had 17,
then it grew to 70.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:59:14 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 18:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>> >I was trying to make a point which was things said in private emails do not amount to election rigging no matter how much you wish it to be so.
>>
>> well they ain't "private" no more, are they. :-)
>>
>> i'm afraid i agree with jdeluise, your posts are embarrassing. i
>> almost feel bad for ya saying stuff like this, then tripling down.
>
>There is nothing embarrassing about stating the truth which is that thoughts in private emails between DNC members does not establish the DNC used their resources to rig the election and the fact that you or several other left wing or pro Trump RST posters state that the election was rigged doesn't make it so no matter how much you whine about it. What is embarrassing is your unseemly hatred of the female candidate Hillary Clinton

and yet i like jill stein. is she female too?

>and your constant degradation of her character while you praise a guy like Trump and never talk about his negative qualities (of which there are many.)

who praises trump?

>As for jdeluise coming after me when I laughed about some of the Bernie loons crying at a bloody political convention, oh well. Normally he's too busy having a go at you to worry about me and I'm sure he'll continue to point out the stupidity in your posts in the months ahead, especially your hero-worshipping of a guy like Donald Trump!

jdeluise is free to post his convictions, more power to him.

>Why aren't you livid about the fact that that a foreign government(likely in cahoots with Trump) hacked and exposed the DNC emails in an effort to situate Trump as president? That doesn't bother you?

what bothers me was the content.

and maybe the DNC should take some of hillary's cash and hire some
decent IT security people. seems she's been lacking that common sense
for a decade now.

> What a hypocrite you are. It's impossible for you to look at this election through objective eyes because of your intense hatred of Hillary. Although I don't like many of Trump's characteristics, I can point out certain things that I like about his political platform.

bob

[heyg...@gmail.com]

One who is registered as one, wins elections as one, raises money for other democrats...pretty self explanatory. Having democratic views isn't the same as supporting the democratic party. If his views are the same as the democrats, why didn't he stay one?