CNN severs ties with Donna Brazile after leaks reveal she supplied Clinton with 2nd debate question - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51288980]If that's truly what it takes to beat Trump, then this nation is already too far gone.[/QUOTE] If primaries were voted based on who could beat Trump, Sanders would have won handily. Unfortunately for America, primaries are more about deciding which of the two camps is "Most Democrat" and "Most Republican". Hence why we got Clinton, a huge figurehead in establishment Democratic politics, and Trump, the Monster Republicans Made. Sanders would have cleaned Trumps clock, and Kasich would have beat Clinton, but that's not how people vote.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51288062]Meant it more as a light hearted jab; I'd rather have you be President than Trump. Honestly more I think about it, probably more than Stein and Johnson. My bad if it came across as patronizing.[/QUOTE] Man I usually agree with most of what you're saying but this is complete bullshit. Your post was nothing more than massively antagonistic, it wasn't a fucking "light hearted jab" when you ranked him under the average american and about 20 ">" signs under Stein and Johnson. "Oops my random, completely unwarranted insult was just an innocent jab!"

[QUOTE=geel9;51289030]Man I usually agree with most of what you're saying but this is complete bullshit. Your post was nothing more than massively antagonistic, it wasn't a fucking "light hearted jab" when you ranked him under the average american and about 20 ">" signs under Stein and Johnson.[/QUOTE] You are reading way too much into what definitely was not meant to be massively antagonistic. I already walked it back and apologized if it came off as a shitty thing to say. [editline]31st October 2016[/editline] The only way it could be interpreted as an insult is if you think [placeholder American] is a shitty person :v:

[QUOTE=geel9;51289030]Man I usually agree with most of what you're saying but this is complete bullshit. Your post was nothing more than massively antagonistic, it wasn't a fucking "light hearted jab" when you ranked him under the average american and about 20 ">" signs under Stein and Johnson. "Oops my random, completely unwarranted insult was just an innocent jab!"[/QUOTE] idk I tend not to think much positive of a guy who proclaims to be a nuclear engineering student who then rallies behind a candidate who doesn't even mention nuclear power as the way forward and instead opts to say he'll back the coal industry instead. Kinda seems delusional to me. Thinking that Trump is actually going to back the scientific community enough to make progress with nuclear reactor technology. If you're gonna vote for such an absolute shitshow of a candidate, at least be honest with us about your reasons. Nobody is buying the "but he [I]might[/I] get me a job guys!!!" angle because he's never shown that angle.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51288543]Sorry, misunderstood what I was quoting. The Sanders Campaign has come out (or at least one of its leaders) and said that Brazile would [URL="http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-former-senior-aide-to-bernie-sanders-1476297181-htmlstory.html"]give information and advice to both campaigns fairly equally[/URL], saying they did not believe she did any wrong-doing.[/QUOTE] Source is a single ex-staffer for Sanders who says they were treated fairly and then goes on to say "I don't think she gave the questions to anybody" even though we know that is false lol. Nowhere does he say that the Sanders camp was given the question in advance like the Clinton camp was. Do you guys even read this stuff before posting it? [editline]31st October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51288980]If that's truly what it takes to beat Trump, then this nation is already too far gone.[/QUOTE] But.. It's not? By all forecasts Sanders would have slaughtered Trump. The only reason Trump had a chance in the first place is because Clinton is so unbelievably unlikable and untrustworthy. Rigging the nomination in favor of Clinton wasn't some benevolent act of faith by Democrats looking out for the good of the American people, it was a power grab by Clinton.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51289156]idk I tend not to think much positive of a guy who proclaims to be a nuclear engineering student who then rallies behind a candidate who doesn't even mention nuclear power as the way forward and instead opts to say he'll back the coal industry instead. Kinda seems delusional to me. Thinking that Trump is actually going to back the scientific community enough to make progress with nuclear reactor technology. If you're gonna vote for such an absolute shitshow of a candidate, at least be honest with us about your reasons. Nobody is buying the "but he [I]might[/I] get me a job guys!!!" angle because he's never shown that angle.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about Trump What the hell are you talking about

[QUOTE=geel9;51289236]I'm not talking about Trump What the hell are you talking about[/QUOTE] RBM, the guy you were complaining that Raidyr made a joke about? The subject that caused you to write an entire post pointing out why Raidyrs' joke was "flawed"? The guy who has repeatedly said he supports Trump because he is suffering from some delusion that makes him think Trump gives a fuck about nuclear energy? Are you actually taking part in this thread or just phasing in and out of this plane of existence?

[QUOTE=RocketSnail;51288737]Seriously. Throwing the blame on the GOP when HRC is in the news for this corrupt shit. smh[/QUOTE] My point is that Trump is still behind behind HRC regardless of these scandals.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51289295]RBM, the guy you were complaining that Raidyr made a joke about? The subject that caused you to write an entire post pointing out why Raidyrs' joke was "flawed"? The guy who has repeatedly said he supports Trump because he is suffering from some delusion that makes him think Trump gives a fuck about nuclear energy? Are you actually taking part in this thread or just phasing in and out of this plane of existence?[/QUOTE] I'm talking about someone randomly flinging shit at another person for no reason, and you're talking about the target's political beliefs. I don't think being toxic with [b]no[/b] provocation is justified because the target supports Trump, sorry.

[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51289326]My point is that Trump is still behind behind HRC regardless of these scandals.[/QUOTE] because scandals are only a small part of things to most people. most care about 4 years of the policies they want, which trump doesn't offer.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;51288297]It says 'I Pad', not 'iPad'. I even put a '[sic]' there... That misspelling aside: Apple devices generally use something along the lines of 'Sent from my iThing', without the user's name or punctuation. Since the phrase is different and the signature also has her twitter handle, it's clear that she edited it at some point.[/QUOTE] Fairly sure the tag is "Sent from my iPad" or "iPhone" (source: I manage over a thousand of them at work). To make it "Donna's I Pad" would require an edit and seems like the product of auto-correct and auto-capital.

[QUOTE=geel9;51289351]I'm talking about someone randomly flinging shit at another person for no reason, and you're talking about the target's political beliefs. I don't think being toxic with [b]no[/b] provocation is justified because the target supports Trump, sorry.[/QUOTE] It's more than because they support Trump. The Trump supporters that aren't obnoxious or memelords don't tend to get shat on. The ones that go out of their way to be as loud as possible, but refuse to answer questions or actually discuss Trump and his policy tend to get fairly well known and will become the butt of jokes (assuming they don't get banned first). If you don't want to be the butt of a joke, don't make a joke of yourself. I haven't the foggiest why you really care about it this much? Raidyr admitted the joke wasn't super thought out pretty quickly.

Who would have guessed that Hillary is cheating and is perfectly fine with it?

we should just put everyone over 18 on the selective service list (not just men) and use that for every elected and appointed position in the country

[QUOTE=zakedodead;51289756]we should just put everyone over 18 on the selective service list (not just men) and use that for every elected and appointed position in the country[/QUOTE] Yeah but then you would get people like me heading up the Department of Agriculture and I don't know shit about cows.

[QUOTE=Paramud;51287672]The title is seriously misleading.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51287789]2nd debate implies it was the second debate between Trump and Clinton - not between Sanders and Clinton.[/QUOTE] Just for reference, you can PM a mod if you think a title is misleading. The report function doesn't really cover that, because none of the options really clarify title problems. So, we may not be looking at the right thing. A quick PM in this instance can clarify the situation. [B]However,[/B] this title is just fine. While it would have helpful to include that this was from the primary debates, it doesn't seem to be intentionally misleading or vague. The missing word there is pretty easily explained as just being a problem with the number of characters allowed in the title. It's kind of a long title, and there just isn't room to include the word "primary" without having to drop something else.

[QUOTE=Naught;51289352]because scandals are only a small part of things to most people. most care about 4 years of the policies they want, which trump doesn't offer.[/QUOTE] I certainly wouldn't call an FBI investigation small. And Trump has provided plenty of policies for his presidency.

[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51289854]I certainly wouldn't call an FBI investigation small. And Trump has provided plenty of policies for his presidency.[/QUOTE] It's small because it has nothing to do with the presidency. It isn't as if she was trading with foreign businesses and talking about how she would do this or that for them if she came into office. It was just her being shit with technology and not realizing the consequences of it being discovered. Regardless of any of that, she's still the democratic candidate, so unless there is some actual crazy shit that comes up, she's still better than trump. And yes, trump has policies, but I'm talking about ones THEY WANT. I certainly don't want tax cuts to the rich and tax increases to the lower 80%, especially since hillary wants the direct opposite. I don't want to have things like the FDA and all coal/oil regulations cut and destroyed. I don't want bigots in control. And a lot of other people don't want that either.

ayy [media]https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/793269639149154304[/media]

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51290033]ayy [media]https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/793269639149154304[/media][/QUOTE] "I did morally dubious things, but I don't deserve the criticism because it was exposed by another crime." Man, Clinton's gonna be arguing the same thing shortly...

[QUOTE=Ridge;51290090]"I did morally dubious things, but I don't deserve the criticism because it was exposed by another crime." Man, Clinton's gonna be arguing the same thing shortly...[/QUOTE] Assuming you honestly believe that they're going to find anything noteworthy in the Weiner emails, that is. I'm pretty doubtful, personally.