Donna Brazille - How HRC Rigged the Nomination

[JohnStOnge]

Note what Politico did here:

"I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement."
"The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."
In the first paragraph of that excerpt, Brazile says she can't find any evidence that the "DNC was rigging the system" until she unearths the fundraising agreement. In the second paragraph, she calls the fundraising deal "unethical" and adds: "It compromised the party's integrity." She adds that, as a result, the primary wasn't a fair fight.

Nowhere does it say that she concluded that the primary was rigged. If you say she said that, you are putting words into her mouth.

[kalm]

Seriously....just stop.

Ok Kalm. I have cited quotes where she said that the primaries were not rigged. Now you find me a quote where she said "the primaries were rigged."

Jesus. Read what I just quoted. Who's playing semantics again?

[kalm]

Note what Politico did here:

"I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement."
"The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."
In the first paragraph of that excerpt, Brazile says she can't find any evidence that the "DNC was rigging the system" until she unearths the fundraising agreement. In the second paragraph, she calls the fundraising deal "unethical" and adds: "It compromised the party's integrity." She adds that, as a result, the primary wasn't a fair fight.

Nowhere does it say that she concluded that the primary was rigged. If you say she said that, you are putting words into her mouth.

Or read what you just quoted....

[CID1990]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jjoey52]

Ok Kalm. I have cited quotes where she said that the primaries were not rigged. Now you find me a quote where she said "the primaries were rigged."

Jesus. Read what I just quoted. Who's playing semantics again?

In the words of Mr. Wizard: Drizzle drazzle drozzle, drone
Time for this one to come home


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Jesus. Read what I just quoted. Who's playing semantics again?

In the words of Mr. Wizard: Drizzle drazzle drozzle, drone
Time for this one to come home


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Jesus, you even got that wrong....

[Ibanez]

Note what Politico did here:

"I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement."
"The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."
In the first paragraph of that excerpt, Brazile says she can't find any evidence that the "DNC was rigging the system" until she unearths the fundraising agreement. In the second paragraph, she calls the fundraising deal "unethical" and adds: "It compromised the party's integrity." She adds that, as a result, the primary wasn't a fair fight.

Nowhere does it say that she concluded that the primary was rigged. If you say she said that, you are putting words into her mouth.

Do you gloss over that last bit? As a result of HRC's funding agreement with the DNC, the primary wasn't fair. Get your head out of the clouds and semantics and read...READ!


For someone that drones on and on and on and on about intelligence, you certainly aren't showing us that you have one.

[BDKJMU]

Note what Politico did here:

"I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement."
"The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."
In the first paragraph of that excerpt, Brazile says she can't find any evidence that the "DNC was rigging the system" until she unearths the fundraising agreement. In the second paragraph, she calls the fundraising deal "unethical" and adds: "It compromised the party's integrity." She adds that, as a result, the primary wasn't a fair fight.

Nowhere does it say that she concluded that the primary was rigged. If you say she said that, you are putting words into her mouth.

[CID1990]

Note what Politico did here:



Nowhere does it say that she concluded that the primary was rigged. If you say she said that, you are putting words into her mouth.

THAT's the gif I was looking for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Note what Politico did here:



Nowhere does it say that she concluded that the primary was rigged. If you say she said that, you are putting words into her mouth.

Do you gloss over that last bit? As a result of HRC's funding agreement with the DNC, the primary wasn't fair. Get your head out of the clouds and semantics and read...READ!


For someone that drones on and on and on and on about intelligence, you certainly aren't showing us that you have one.

Again: She directly stated that the primaries were not rigged. You are in the position of saying she said the primaries were rigged when she has repeatedly said they were not. If you extrapolate any of what you highlighted into a statement that she said the primaries are rigged you are putting words in her mouth. You are taking something else she said, applying your own criteria for what makes for a "rigged" primary, and concluding on that basis that she said the primaries were rigged. That's not semantics. It's just the objective truth.

I think I see a problem here whereby a number of you guys just won't admit you're wrong regardless of how clear and concise the evidence is. The woman did not say the primaries were rigged. And it's not a semantics issue. It's an issue of you taking what she said and imposing your own interpretation to say she said something she did not say.

[CID1990]

Do you gloss over that last bit? As a result of HRC's funding agreement with the DNC, the primary wasn't fair. Get your head out of the clouds and semantics and read...READ!


For someone that drones on and on and on and on about intelligence, you certainly aren't showing us that you have one.

Again: She directly stated that the primaries were not rigged. You are in the position of saying she said the primaries were rigged when she has repeatedly said they were not. If you extrapolate any of what you highlighted into a statement that she said the primaries are rigged you are putting words in her mouth. You are taking something else she said, applying your own criteria for what makes for a "rigged" primary, and concluding on that basis that she said the primaries were rigged. That's not semantics. It's just the objective truth.

I think I see a problem here whereby a number of you guys just won't admit you're wrong regardless of how clear and concise the evidence is. The woman did not say the primaries were rigged. And it's not a semantics issue. It's an issue of you taking what she said and imposing your own interpretation to say she said something she did not say.

JSO.. I'm going to help you out here -

(under normal circumstances I'd say to help you avoid further embarrassment, but that obviously isn't a problem for you)

Nobody here has said that Donna Brazile's exact words were that the primaries were "rigged" to my knowedge.

[Ibanez]

Do you gloss over that last bit? As a result of HRC's funding agreement with the DNC, the primary wasn't fair. Get your head out of the clouds and semantics and read...READ!


For someone that drones on and on and on and on about intelligence, you certainly aren't showing us that you have one.

Again: She directly stated that the primaries were not rigged. You are in the position of saying she said the primaries were rigged when she has repeatedly said they were not. If you extrapolate any of what you highlighted into a statement that she said the primaries are rigged you are putting words in her mouth. You are taking something else she said, applying your own criteria for what makes for a "rigged" primary, and concluding on that basis that she said the primaries were rigged. That's not semantics. It's just the objective truth.

I think I see a problem here whereby a number of you guys just won't admit you're wrong regardless of how clear and concise the evidence is. The woman did not say the primaries were rigged. And it's not a semantics issue. It's an issue of you taking what she said and imposing your own interpretation to say she said something she did not say.

You are missing the point...Brazille concluded that after her review of the unethical business between Clinton's campaign and the DNC, that the primary wasn't fair.


Kind of like when you rig a primary. Or cheat. Or do something unethical to give yourself an advantage.

[houndawg]

THAT's the gif I was looking for


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Do you gloss over that last bit? As a result of HRC's funding agreement with the DNC, the primary wasn't fair. Get your head out of the clouds and semantics and read...READ!


For someone that drones on and on and on and on about intelligence, you certainly aren't showing us that you have one.

Again: She directly stated that the primaries were not rigged. You are in the position of saying she said the primaries were rigged when she has repeatedly said they were not. If you extrapolate any of what you highlighted into a statement that she said the primaries are rigged you are putting words in her mouth. You are taking something else she said, applying your own criteria for what makes for a "rigged" primary, and concluding on that basis that she said the primaries were rigged. That's not semantics. It's just the objective truth.

I think I see a problem here whereby a number of you guys just won't admit you're wrong regardless of how clear and concise the evidence is. The woman did not say the primaries were rigged. And it's not a semantics issue. It's an issue of you taking what she said and imposing your own interpretation to say she said something she did ag
not say.

JOhn, you're being dishonest now. Perhaps when you are ready to listen to a contrary opinion and debate like an adult, maybe we can talk. Until then, you're as bad as dback or any other snowflake that won't listen.

[Jjoey52]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk