Jarqui
Jarqui's Journal"we went from 26 debates in 2008 to six debates in 2016
, three of them on weekends. It’s called the Democratic Party, but no one other than Clinton and Schultz had any say in the matter."
I didn't realize they dropped 20 debates. I knew it was a few. But 20 is a lot.
"How can you possibly equate her with Trump?"
I did not "equate" her with Trump
Here's the only place I brought Trump up:
"Bernie will always have my heart and respect. Hillary won't. Neither will Trump and the rest of those scoundrels."
Just because Hillary and Trump do not get "my heart and respect", doesn't mean I "equate" them. A thing they now have in common is that neither will get "my heart and respect" (or support). That does not mean I equate the two.
Again, you're confused. You claimed "the data breach was deliberate"
That's not what I said.
They way Bernie got smeared was not when the data was breached. It was when the DNC leaked it to the media. That leak was deliberate.
Going to the media impugned Sanders. In similar circumstances last October, they didn't do that to another campaign when Sanders campaign's data was compromised by another campaign (alleged "very confidently" by Sanders campaign manager)
The breach of the data itself appears to have been the fault of the DNC's software vendor when they installed a patch. I'm not aware of anything sinister or deliberate going on there. I'm sure the vendor regrets the nation finding out they messed up big time in compromising a client's data security.
"Her words are carefully phrased so that makes them sleazy?"
Nope, didn't say that. Here's what I said in it's context:
"There's a ruthless, calculating nature to her. You don't get straight talk from her - it's too often carefully phrased word games to sleazily circumvent the truth. There's a reason 60% of America does not trust her - that's not my fault - she's the one who lost them with her deceitful actions and words. "
You've cherry picked phrases and delivered a different meaning.
Deceiving people is "contemptibly low" or "disreputable (dishonorable/discreditable)" which are words used to define "sleazy"
I do not believe Hillary is deeply sincere. But it gets pretty darn sleazy when the person has a propensity for not telling the truth in slippery ways.
Like most of us, I'm sure she'd like to do some good. But in general, she's more calculating. I think Bill has more sincerity and more of a heart. But she really pales in comparison to Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, etc. and even her own husband. And most certainly, Bernie Sanders.
She also doesn't think things through carefully. Some of that is evidenced by the number of flip-flops in her career. Some of it is evidenced by some of her lies - because a number of her lies are needless/pointless - verbal diarrhea kind of things.
She has stated an incredible volume of lies over her career - some breathtaking - like having a private server to exchange emails with husband Bill when it turns out Bill doesn't email - only sent two emails ever in his life when he was president (or the Bosnia sniper one). That's not the way to win the public's confidence when entering a new scandal (I think she got caught in a few other lies in that brief press conference).
In a couple of weeks, it will be the 20th anniversary of the 1996 NYT piece on Hillary called "Blizzard of Lies" outlining why she is regarded as a "a congenital liar"
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html
- he uses real examples and in doing so, gives some background to this problem Hillary has had with the truth for more than 20 years
"Estrangement From the Truth Is a Problem for Hillary"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420963/hillary-clinton-lies-emails-subpoena
- not a bad more recent stab at explaining one of her techniques in deception (to help address "sleazy" and "word games" some):
The most discussed deception came in an exchange about her e-mails. Clinton declared emphatically that, “You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are – I’ve never had a subpoena. . . . Let’s take a deep breath here.”
Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chair of the committee investigating the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, promptly produced a copy of the subpoena.
Team Clinton says she was responding to a specific allegation that she deleted e-mails that were under subpoena. It’s a legalistically plausible defense given Keilar’s muddled question and Stakhanovite effort to avoid asking meaningful follow-ups.
Still, it was a classically Clintonian way of lying: Make a sweeping, definitive-sounding statement, and then when called on it, release a fog of technicalities.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-lies-2016-candidates-213391#ixzz3siKiV1oC
Not all lies are created equal. When Hillary Clinton lies, she generally does so with legalistic care. You get the sense that she knows what the exact truth is. But you also get the sense that she knows she’ll suffer if she provides the whole truth, so she shades the facts with interpretations and embellishments that flatter or favor her. She presents an incomplete timeline for her email account. She claims that her email practices were “permitted.” She overstates her cases and fibs with the numbers.
You cannot fully cover this subject of Hillary lying adequately in a post. It's very well documented over the last 20+ years. Google "Hillary" "lies" and read your heart out.
DWS has maintained that her actions came about on the basis of violations of
their agreement with the Sanders campaign.
What she isn't forthright or telling the truth about is
1. That she violated that very agreement by turning off the Sanders access to that data. The contract allowed Sanders 10 days to cure a breach - that's why she had to turn it on and couldn't fight the Sanders lawsuit. She had no plausible court case because she was in blatant breach of the contract.
2. In the press conference at 1pm Friday, 12 hours before they turned the system access back on, Sanders Campaign manager Weaver called for and welcomed the independent audit and asked that the audit be expanded to the two prior security breaches where Sanders campaign feels their data was compromised (but since, largely ignored by DWS and the DNC). So DWS's excuse in the video that the Sanders campaign suddenly agreeing to this at midnight helped them get their system back is also BS. Sanders wanted the audit all along - since last October!
3. DWS stated that the other reason she allowed the Sanders campaign access to their data was they wouldn't talk with her and now were. In fact, they had been trying like heck to talk with her to get the access to their system turned back on. And it wasn't until they filed the lawsuit that the DNC responded.
4. DWS stated that another reason she allowed the Sanders campaign to access their data was she finally had the information she requested from them. Again, that smells like BS because the Sanders campaign had complained that without access to the system as a reference for where they went and what they did, they could not fully respond to details about what they had done.
So once again, I think DWS is piling it higher and deeper. The lawsuit got the system turned on. The rest smells like smoke.
Just another routine day-in-the-life Hillary lie ... that's all.
If you want four more years of her lyin' and flip-floppin', go to her donate page ... if your wallet is thick enough to make a dent in the pile of Wall Street corporate dough they've got piled up there. 
There were two in October that happened to the Sanders campaign
I think Josh referred to more in one of his interviews but I'm not absolutely positive on that.
The Sanders campaign feels "very confident" their data was compromised last October. They said that at their 1pm press conference Friday.
To date, there has been no audit of that breach or check to see if someone has Sanders data. They are again asking for one as part of this investigation.
That to me goes beyond "incompetence" - failing to properly address security issues over a period of months. It's negligence when you ignore key facets of the problem that they didn't ignore this time around.
And it's a violation of the DNC Charter requiring “impartiality and even-handedness” of the DNC when dealing with the various campaigns.
"Bernie was the only one that he believed"
Thank you for your nice anecdote.
I'm in the same place. Maybe I'm a sucker but it means a lot to me to support someone I believe.
And the dishonesty and lying by Hillary and her campaign
- some of that going back to 2007-08
I was all for holding my nose and supporting her until this most recent DNC fiasco. Now, I don't see her as any more honest or ethical than the GOP. I think she'd sell her soul to the Devil on any policy to get elected. She strikes me as having the heart of a cold blooded reptile. There's a ruthless, calculating nature to her. You don't get straight talk from her - it's too often carefully phrased word games to sleazily circumvent the truth. There's a reason 60% of America does not trust her - that's not my fault - she's the one who lost them with her deceitful actions and words. At some point, I have to put my foot down and say "I have limits." There's some line of deception in a candidate that I just can't cross. And Hillary has crossed that line for me with this data breach fiasco because she's stooped to corrupt the DNC's duty to “impartiality and even-handedness” or at the very least be complicit with it. I can't work for or support someone like that. I do not tick that way and never have.
I strongly supported the Kennedys or MLK or Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama because I believed in my heart that they were sincere and meant a lot of what they said. They had real conviction behind their words. They inspired me to be a better person. Yet they weren't perfect. But if they told "lies", it was a fraction of what we've got from Hillary and often a mere misspeak or context issue.
I don't agree with any politician 100% and that goes for Bernie. But Bernie is an honest and decent man I'm proud to support. Part of what has upset me is this little dust up with the data has smeared Bernie's integrity some with the electorate. That bothers me a lot. It wasn't an accident. It was deliberate. I cannot support people who would do such a thing to an honest man. It's that darn line I guess that I just can't cross.
This is the office of the president of the United States of America. Not a local sheriff or city clerk. If we can't come up with quality candidates, then so be it. I'll find something else to put my heart into.
Bernie will always have my heart and respect. Hillary won't. Neither will Trump and the rest of those scoundrels. That's just the way it is with me. Always has been.
I have a feeling the Clinton campaign & DNC didn't want a judge overseeing
an audit of what happened to Sanders data last October ...
just a darn solid feeling.
But yes, I don't know what the DNC could respond with in the lawsuit because Sanders had them dead to rights on the contract and losing promptly and decisively wouldn't look good or play well in the media.
There was more BS when I saw DWS explain just before the debate last night why they lifted the block on Sanders data .. she said that the Sanders campaign had finally spoken with her and the Sanders campaign had agreed to an independent audit.
But the Sanders campaign have been speaking to the media (including the fired Josh) and the DNC all along - trying to get their data access back. And one of the first things the Sanders campaign asked for during it's press conference at 1pm yesterday was an audit - not only of this recent event but the prior breaches.
So again, last night, DWS was spewing BS to cover her tracks on why they reinstated the Sanders campaign. The legal facts were what she was doing was a blatant breach of her contract with Sanders and she had no choice but to reinstate them or face serious legal repercussions.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,130
