Guccifer 2.0 releases documents showing more collusion between the DNC and Hillary Clinton - Polidicks

[QUOTE]JUNE 21--The latest document dump from “Guccifer 2.0,” the hacker who breached the Democratic National Committee’s servers, shows that party officials have researched Hillary Clinton’s prior travel on private jets, the Clinton Foundation’s investments, and the Democratic presidential candidate’s speech contracts. The hacker this morning began distributing more than 250 files--totaling thousands of pages of records--that appear to have been prepared by DNC research staff. In e-mails to TSG, “Guccifer 2.0” claimed to be from Romania (like “Guccifer”) and portrayed himself as a “hacktivist” with “a lot of fans” and an “unknown hacker with a laptop.” He also chafed at TSG’s prior description of him as a felon. “Ok, but stop calling me the vandal. I'm not a criminal I'm a freedom fighter,” the hacker wrote. As for the DNC’s claim that the breach was the work of Russian intelligence agents, “Guccifer 2.0” dismissed the assertion as a “Total fail!!!” In recent correspondence, the hacker has used an AOL France e-mail account. The bulk of the material released today centers on Clinton’s position on scores of domestic and international issues and criticisms leveled against her by assorted opponents. The documents include Clinton’s counterarguments to those attacks from Republican officials and other foes.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/dnc-researched-clinton-speeches-travel-records-621985[/url] The Leaks: [url]https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton/[/url] The writer published in these articles, Jeremy Brinster, has taken down his LinkedIn account in response to these leaks: [url]https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremy-brinster-362b5451[/url] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7ripiC0.png[/IMG]

These documents reveal that there is actually absolutely zero human DNA in HRC.

is it really "collision" if she is a Democrat in the first place? either I'm missing something or a dem working with the DNC is expected and not some scandal

[QUOTE=krutomisi;50568161]is it really "collision" if she is a Democrat in the first place? either I'm missing something or a dem working with the DNC is expected and not some scandal[/QUOTE] It's collusion because they were in active participation with each other like she was already the nominee, well over a year in advance before voting had actually started, or even before Sanders announced his bid.

[QUOTE=krutomisi;50568161]is it really "collision" if she is a Democrat in the first place? either I'm missing something or a dem working with the DNC is expected and not some scandal[/QUOTE] yes. because it means that the DNC doesnt care who anyone actually voted for, they just want their candidate to be the nominee. whats the point of voting in the first place, if thats how they operate?

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50568191]It's collusion because they were in active participation with each other like she was already the nominee, well over a year in advance before voting had actually started, or even before Sanders announced his bid.[/QUOTE] Yeah, so? The DNC chose its preferred candidate. They're a private organization. They can do whatever they want to choose their candidate

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568246]Yeah, so? The DNC chose its preferred candidate. They're a private organization. They can do whatever they want to choose their candidate[/QUOTE] Why bother having a democracy/republic then? Why not have the DNC and RNC dictate to us who our glorious leader is.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50568267]Why bother having a democracy/republic then? Why not have the DNC and RNC dictate to us who our glorious leader is.[/QUOTE] hes okay with the way things are because he likes who they picked out for him lol

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568246]Yeah, so? The DNC chose its preferred candidate. They're a private organization. They can do whatever they want to choose their candidate[/QUOTE] Knock it off with this shit already. We get it, they're not part of the actual government, but when they're sponsoring candidates for public office, they should deserve to be held accountable and scrutinized for their actions.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50568267]Why bother having a democracy/republic then? Why not have the DNC and RNC dictate to us who our glorious leader is.[/QUOTE] That's 100% what they used to do. Each party chooses their nominee and the american people vote for them. If I founded my own 3rd party and declared myself the nominee without any primary, nobody would care, because I'm a private organization. People mistakenly think that the primaries are somehow legally sanctioned; they're not. The DNC came up with it in the late 60s

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568246]Yeah, so? The DNC chose its preferred candidate. They're a private organization. They can do whatever they want to choose their candidate[/QUOTE] It's sad watching you mindlessly cheerlead the antithesis of democracy as though there's nothing wrong with having the next POTUS chosen arbitrarily by a handful of people in power.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50568191]It's collusion because they were in active participation with each other like she was already the nominee, well over a year in advance before voting had actually started, or even before Sanders announced his bid.[/QUOTE] To play devil's advocate, yea, they made these plans because Sanders wasn't a candidate yet. They probably weren't expecting any strong contenders. Remember O'Malley, Chafee and Webb? They didn't need anyone's help dropping out, and in the DNC's eyes, if you have a candidate with a 70% chance of getting the nomination (at that time) it'd be smart to make plans around that person in advance.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50568279]hes okay with the way things are because he likes who they picked out for him lol[/QUOTE] Even if I were a sanders supporter (if I were maybe 5 years younger I'd probably be one), I'd be mad at Bernie because he didn't play the game correctly. He's been 3rd party for almost his entire career and now he expects the Democratic Nomination even though he joined the party only a few months ago? Of course party veterans aren't going to trust him or vote for him; there's no proof that he's going to advance the party platform, only his own. He's not a democrat, and he's not a team player at all.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right, and doesn't mean it should [I]be[/I] legal, but at this point I've lost all hope of you recognizing even the most basic principles of what is right and wrong in a democracy.

[QUOTE=srobins;50568326]It's sad watching you mindlessly cheerlead the antithesis of democracy as though there's nothing wrong with having the next POTUS chosen arbitrarily by a handful of people in power.[/QUOTE] The POTUS is chosen by us, the people. The nominee is chosen by the party

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;50568332]To play devil's advocate, yea, they made these plans because Sanders wasn't a candidate yet. They probably weren't expecting any strong contenders. Remember O'Malley, Chafee and Webb? They didn't need anyone's help dropping out, and in the DNC's eyes, if you have a candidate with a 70% chance of getting the nomination (at that time) it'd be smart to make plans in advance.[/QUOTE] That still seems shady as all hell, a year in advance of any voting, to pick one person despite the fact primary's are supposed to be open to any possible Democrat candidate wishing to run for office and to help get them elected. If it's just you're the "it" person this election cycle, that's not a great model to follow.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;50568308]Knock it off with this shit already.[/QUOTE] "hey quit disagreeing with me"

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568344]The POTUS is chosen by us, the people. The nominee is chosen by the party[/QUOTE] It's really cute that you still think that. I admire your ability to set aside reality and live in this weird state of limbo where we have a choice and simultaneously do not. That extreme cognitive dissonance probably helps a lot when cheering on a candidate that is so consistently two-faced and conniving.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568359]"hey quit disagreeing with me"[/QUOTE] It's said in every thread and used to disqualify the other side(which I'm on), if anything it's more you saying "quit disagreeing with me" more than anything. You're the one that doesn't like hearing peoples problems with the system as it is, so when people levy the same valid criticism, you use the same cliche of "it's a private institution."

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568344]The POTUS is chosen by us, the people. The nominee is chosen by the party[/QUOTE] That's just a false dichotomy then. The nominating parties dictate us who we choose, so yes they choose who the POTUS is.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568335]Even if I were a sanders supporter (if I were maybe 5 years younger I'd probably be one), I'd be mad at Bernie because he didn't play the game correctly. He's been 3rd party for almost his entire career and now he expects the Democratic Nomination even though he joined the party only a few months ago? Of course party veterans aren't going to trust him or vote for him; there's no proof that he's going to advance the party platform, only his own. He's not a democrat, and he's not a team player at all.[/QUOTE] Ahh, yes, that glorious American track record of putting third parties in the Oval Office is a gilded path therein, right? He didn't have a choice in the matter. You want the Oval Office? You run as either GOP or Dem. That's it. You don't get media coverage otherwise, and without that, your campaign goes nowhere.

To the, very dumb and ignorant, people who keep saying "they're private so let them dictate who becomes POTUS". Remember that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law"]not even private business is allowed to monopolize freely[/URL]. So of course there's an uproar when the only two viable parties in a democratic system aren't democratic. And of course there [B]should [/B]be laws regulating this, just like with business. But we can't rely on the very people who rigged the system to fix it.

I wonder how come one of the $10-25 million donors to the Clinton Foundation includes [I]the Government of Norway[/I] of all things? Saudi-Arabia and the Rockefeller Foundation also fall in the $10-25 million bracket, and Kuwait and Qatar appear to have given her significant amounts of money as well. This info can be found in the Clinton Foundation Donors $25K+ file, if you're wondering.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568344]The POTUS is chosen by us, the people. The nominee is chosen by the party[/QUOTE] the POTUS is chosen by us, yes that is a correct statement. but you are stupidly naive to imply that that's all there is to it. the parties put up their nominees, and thats it. one of those two people become president. to say that "no its not rigged because you get to vote in the GE" is appallingly shortsighted, and youre either very ignorant, or pushing an agenda. considering your previous posts, its obvious that youre pushing an agenda. why anyone still responds to you is beyond me.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568246]Yeah, so? The DNC chose its preferred candidate. They're a private organization. They can do whatever they want to choose their candidate[/QUOTE] Normally I find the private ownership argument as the be-all-end-all. However, we're talking about a state-integrated two party system that holds the keys to the future of the world's biggest and most powerful western country and a party that guides the ideology of Liberalism and the American left, a party funded by national elites and other powerful interests in order to gain themselves a slice of public state power, all to the background of massive dissatisfaction with American politics as it's been since the 70s (around the time of the McGovern commission, itself a top-down change meant to give more power to the party establishment) particularly the left and how it's been appropriated in message yet snubbed in substance by the liberal Democratic elite and their party system (after the chickens came home to roost). No, they can't do whatever they want. Your private property rights mean nothing in context of state power, history, and ideology, it affects too many people and is from the outset about garnering public, state power. Clinton does not speak for left nor the average american, the people are going to use the political vehicles available to them, the ones for generations they are only really able to use (since third parties don't matter). As they strive for reform they're going to encounter shitty means of retaining power as Bernie did, they're going to highlight and fight them, and some unironically libertarian apology for what would be to them a crony capitalist system will convince no one in this time for turmoil for both parties. What you are making is a moral argument for Americans to accept a status quo that works against their own interests. Good luck.

[QUOTE=srobins;50568326]It's sad watching you mindlessly cheerlead the antithesis of democracy as though there's nothing wrong with having the next POTUS chosen arbitrarily by a handful of people in power.[/QUOTE] This isn't a problem with the DNC, it's a problem with the American electoral system which gives way too much power to the Democratic and Republican parties. Sure you can hack together a solution by forcing the DNC to hold fair elections but that's not solving the source of the problem, and it's removing freedoms that (imo) political parties should have. Any party should be allowed to nominate any candidate they want, but it shouldn't basically decide the actual election. Not basing the entire thing on a single round of FPTP would be a start. The one issue I see is that the Democratic party is misleading people by appearing more democratic than it maybe really is, but if they were upfront about having a non-democratic nomination process then I don't see any problem there.

Anybody who didnt already know that the DNC rigged the primaries wasnt paying attention

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568344]The POTUS is chosen by us, the people. The nominee is chosen by the party[/QUOTE] If the party chooses the nominee without any input of the people, how exactly are the people choosing the POTUS?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568344]The POTUS is chosen by us, the people. The nominee is chosen by the party[/QUOTE] The illusion of choice has never been presented so clearly by one of its deniers. It's not democracy if you are given a binary option between two choices picked for you by the establishment. If anything that seems more like pacifying the masses so they don't notice they're living in a corporate oligarchy. Truly a Brave New World.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50568246]Yeah, so? The DNC chose its preferred candidate. They're a private organization. They can do whatever they want to choose their candidate[/QUOTE][QUOTE=proboardslol;50568320]That's 100% what they used to do. Each party chooses their nominee and the american people vote for them. If I founded my own 3rd party and declared myself the nominee without any primary, nobody would care, because I'm a private organization. People mistakenly think that the primaries are somehow legally sanctioned; they're not. The DNC came up with it in the late 60s[/QUOTE]Wasn't there some law or something about making it illegal to take people's money and then don't do what you said you were going to do? I'll break down this next post into tiny snippets because it made me guffaw: [QUOTE=proboardslol;50568335]Even if I were a sanders supporter (if I were maybe 5 years younger I'd probably be one)[/QUOTE]lmao [QUOTE]I'd be mad at Bernie because he didn't play the game correctly.[/QUOTE] Yeah the candidate specifically campaigning on the platform of being against political corruption should have been corrupt enough to win. Hillary supporters, everybody! [QUOTE]He's been 3rd party for almost his entire career and now he expects the Democratic Nomination even though he joined the party only a few months ago?[/QUOTE]When I say Trump's been a Democrat for most of his life and only recently switched to being a Republican I'm an asshole, but apparently this is okay. [QUOTE]Of course party veterans aren't going to trust him or vote for him; there's no proof that he's going to advance the party platform, only his own.[/QUOTE]Well yeah if it's rotten to the core I can't imagine a candidate interested in reform would be interested in doing that. [QUOTE]He's not a democrat, and he's not a team player at all.[/QUOTE]Your team is full of crooks and sycophants, as made evident by your hilarious mental gymnastics in every single one of these threads. Were it the other way and Hillary was on the outside we would be subject to your shrill wailing about how everything is so unfair, you don't give a [I]fuck[/I] about what's right as long as you've got yours so it's no wonder why you support Hillary Clinton.