[BlueTimberwolf]

U.S. SAYS NEW BOMBING CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISIS IN LIBYA HAS NO “END POINT AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT

Thanks Hillary!!

[Icarus]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

The DNC had a finger on the scale during the primaries, Wikileaks confirmed it. Bernie never said rigged and I wouldn't either, but they clearly picked a favorite which is unethical considering they're supposed to be neutral party leaders.

And yeah, they booed because she represents what they hate in politicians. Did you really think they'd blindly support her just because he says to?

Wikileaks confirmed how the DNC felt, but did they actually do anything to sway it unethically? Bernie might not have used the word rigged, but he implied it at every turn, especially with his witch hunt of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[MAKSIM]

Originally posted by mermaid_ariel

Hillary raised 90 million in July.

She raised 8.7 million alone online in 24 hours surrounding the time she made her DNC acceptance speech

Trump raised 35 million.

Her average contribution was significantlyless than trump as well. Meaning more small donors for Hillary

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by Icarus

Wikileaks confirmed how the DNC felt, but did they actually do anything to sway it unethically? Bernie might not have used the word rigged, but he implied it at every turn, especially with his witch hunt of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Uhh, using Bernie's faith against him seems pretty unethical.

[MAKSIM]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

U.S. SAYS NEW BOMBING CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISIS IN LIBYA HAS NO “END POINT AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT

Thanks Hillary!!

You do know terrorist networks were vast in Libya before Hillary was Secretary of State and before the Iraq war? Right? The Obama administration did fail with Libya, but it wasn't a bastion of hope before hand either.

[Icarus]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

Uhh, using Bernie's faith against him seems pretty unethical.

When did they do that?

[Icarus]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

U.S. SAYS NEW BOMBING CAMPAIGN AGAINST ISIS IN LIBYA HAS NO “END POINT AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT

Thanks Hillary!!

Yeah boooo Hillary! Leave poor ISIS alone!

[midnightdawn]

Hillary messes up everything she touches.

[Troye]

Originally posted by midnightdawn

Hillary messes up everything she touches.

She's done more things right for the last twenty years than the Republican parties ever did (namely Bush screwing things up for 8 years straight).

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by midnightdawn

The top five contributors to pro-Clinton groups are employees or owners of private investment funds, according to federal data released last week and compiled by OpenSecrets.org, the center’s website. The data show seven financial firms alone have generated nearly $48.5 million for groups working on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf.

The total for Donald Trump: About $19,000.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Super PACs are independent entities that receive money from donors that is distributed at the PACs discretion.

Wealthy donors donate to Democratic causes. Many of those donations go to Hillary, the presidential candidate. The donors are fully aware of that.

Trump doesn't have these sorts of organizations because nobody trusts him. He needs them to run a proper campaign, and despite his earlier rhetoric he ended up backpedaling and meeting with donors DIRECTLY.

The hilarious part is that nobody is investing in his campaign. Even the ****ing Koch brothers haven't donated to him. Nobody thinks he's worth it. He's trash. He's smelly burning trash.

You're trying to make Donald look like he's got an advantage here when the reality behind the situation is the complete opposite.

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by Icarus

When did they do that?

Are you even paying attention to the election or?

Originally posted by Troye

She's done more things right for the last twenty years than the Republican parties ever did (namely Bush screwing things up for 8 years straight).

The Iraq war was a success!

[Lebanese Dude]

Trump on New YorkTimes: "But The New York Times is so unfair. I mean they write three, four articles about me a day. No matter how good I do on something, they’ll never write good. They don’t write good"

The irony

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

Are you even paying attention to the election or?

It's not unethical to discuss it. It's stupid, but not unethical.

What's unethical is actually implementing those ideas, which in reality were all shot down for how stupid they were immediately.

I'll say this once and I'll say it again. The dates of those e-mails were in May, long after the primaries were already decided in Hillary's favor and when Bernie wouldn't quit. It's not surprising that a few in the DNC were frustrated and wanted to just end it already. It doesn't mean they would go through with anything.

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by MAKSIM

You do know terrorist networks were vast in Libya before Hillary was Secretary of State and before the Iraq war? Right? The Obama administration did fail with Libya, but it wasn't a bastion of hope before hand either.

You do know they actually weren't to this extent, particularly not ISIS (JV Team) and with Gaddafi in power. Libya is in chaos and Hillary loves to brag and take full credit as evidenced by Wikileaks

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails...3898#efmARSAR6

[Icarus]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

Are you even paying attention to the election or?

I didn't ask when they emailed about it, I asked when they did it. Did you pay attention to my question or?

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

It's not unethical to discuss it. It's stupid, but not unethical.

What's unethical is actually implementing those ideas, which in reality were all shot down for how stupid they were immediately.

I'll say this once and I'll say it again. The dates of those e-mails were in May, long after the primaries were already decided in Hillary's favor and when Bernie wouldn't quit. It's not surprising that a few in the DNC were frustrated and wanted to just end it already. It doesn't mean they would go through with anything.

You're kidding right? California hadn't even voted then.
And yes, it is unethical for "neutral party leaders" to even want to use his faith against him with the hopes of directing voters to their preferred candidate.

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

The Iraq war was a success!

Not you having to resort to this talking point

If you think the SENATOR of NEW YORK, the STATE which was the prime target of Al Qaeda, had any choice in VOTING for the UN-backed measure to provide permission to proceed with an investigation of nuclear weapons in Iraq, then you're just being facetious and naive.

Let me remind you that senators are there to REPRESENT and her New York constituency was out for blood.

Feel free to revise history though, as if Hillary was in charge of the dumb EXECUTVE decisions that led to the Iraq War failing. Blame Hillary, not Bush. She was commander-in-chief I suppose.

[Kim Kardashian]

To be honest there should be a law that DNC/RNC workers can only support candidates in a personal capacity.

Whether they acted on it or not (and lbr, they probably did), it's wrong for the DNC to favour a candidate.

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

It's not unethical to discuss it. It's stupid, but not unethical.

What's unethical is actually implementing those ideas, which in reality were all shot down for how stupid they were immediately.

I'll say this once and I'll say it again. The dates of those e-mails were in May, long after the primaries were already decided in Hillary's favor and when Bernie wouldn't quit. It's not surprising that a few in the DNC were frustrated and wanted to just end it already. It doesn't mean they would go through with anything.

Are you even following this?

[Troye]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

The Iraq war was a success!

Please gag me. It was a bipartisan effort that voted for Iraq; not just Hillary.

Or did the fact that it was a Bush initiative effort escape you? Or it just because it's convenient to have a double standard that holds Hillary to a higher level because she's a woman?

I don't get any of the opposition's thinking like this. Apparently women are to be held responsible for decisions that men would get away with.