Question for libs, dems and/or snowflakes...

[Owl'd You're Up!]

If the emails from the DNC and Podesta exposed by Wikileaks had been proven to be sourced from say, a dem watchdog group looking to clean up the DNC's act or from Bernie bros, or say from G.B or Canada (our staunchest allies) would you behave differently or still put your heads in the sand? So far I've heard nothing from dems about doing anything to hold their leaders responsible for their blatant corruption not to speak of open racism.

[...]

Of course, were a Democratic "watchdog group" or "Bernie bros." involved in invading the DNC servers and Podesta's email account, we'd be talking criminal law. Had it been Britain or Canada, there would be diplomatic channels to kick some balls, and to ensure the heads of those responsible start rolling. The difference between these groups / countries and a hostile foreign power meddling in U.S. elections is vast, patently obvious, and unmistakable. Remarkable you can't seem to see it.

As to your allegation of "blatant corruption" or "racism", that was just what your handlers fed you for you to hyperventilate about. The only question there is whether or not you'll ever learn how much you humiliate yourself with your useful idiocy. So far I see no reason to hope for any progress on that front.

[domer76]

Not at all. Just answered your question. By my count I've posed 4 questions and you haven't answered one. You queried me once and I answered seamlessly although it was irrelevant to the topic OP.
I commend you for not answering because, as you seem to know, I'd thrash you ruthlessly no matter your answer.
You didn't really go to ND did you? Your just a fan , right? I thought that was supposed to be a pretty good school that only accepted "smart" students except for their economics program that anybody with a room temperature IQ could get thru.

(laughing)

Poor ignorant twit. Your arguments are so weak, so have to resort to concocting the scenarios.

[Cancel 2018.1]

Of course, were a Democratic "watchdog group" or "Bernie bros." involved in invading the DNC servers and Podesta's email account, we'd be talking criminal law. Had it been Britain or Canada, there would be diplomatic channels to kick some balls, and to ensure the heads of those responsible start rolling. The difference between these groups / countries and a hostile foreign power meddling in U.S. elections is vast, patently obvious, and unmistakable. Remarkable you can't seem to see it.

Of course I see it. It's illegal to hack into and publish private emails.

As to your allegation of "blatant corruption" or "racism", that was just what your handlers fed you for you to hyperventilate about.

So I can assume from this statement that you don't consider the wikileaks emails from the DNC and Podesta that were published were harmless and therefore did not influence the outcome of the election, similar to the hacked and published emails by Macron. That would explain why dims are silent abut DNC corruption. But it doesn't explain dims saying they did influence the outcome.. hrc seems to think so. But then again she had a lot of lame excuses on her excuses tour.

The only question there is whether or not you'll ever learn how much you humiliate yourself with your useful idiocy.

Just asking questions. Congrats on being the first to almost answer one of them.

So far I see no reason to hope for any progress on that front.

No you won't . I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions to partisan hacks, no different than what I did when Bush was president.

[Cancel 2018.1]

(laughing)

Poor ignorant twit. Your arguments are so weak, so have to resort to concocting the scenarios.

I see no argument from me. Just questions . At least owl seems to think the emails were harmless and did not influence the outcome of the election.

[domer76]

I see no argument from me. Just questions . He seems to think the emails were harmless and did not influence the outcome of the election.

Try this, moron. Provide an example of any "if" that has ever actually occurred.

[Cancel 2018.1]

Try this, moron.

If this were English composition writing class I was grading I'd deduct for use of unoriginal, overused wording that has little meaning.

Provide an example of any "if" that has ever actually occurred.

Why? Use of the word if implies a hypothetical situation (not a hypothesis).
Try this, dumber. Try answering one question I've posed to you in this thread.

[Owl'd You're Up!]

So I can assume from this statement that you don't consider the wikileaks emails from the DNC and Podesta that were published were harmless and therefore did not influence the outcome of the election, similar to the hacked and published emails by Macron. That would explain why dims are silent abut DNC corruption. But it doesn't explain dims saying they did influence the outcome.. hrc seems to think so. But then again she had a lot of lame excuses on her excuses tour.

Oh, for pity's sake!

The most damning pieces of evidence unearthed were:

1. Donna spilling the beans on a debate in Flint, Michigan, revealing there might be a question about poisoned water in, yep, Flint, Michigan. Big eff'n surprise.

2. There was some talk about using Bernie's faith (or lack thereof) against him. No one was ever able to point to a single instance of same actually being used.

So, all you have, in the end, is, in the DNC, comprising a bunch of political animals, there is politics going on, folks expressing strong preferences. I guess, that warrants the allegation of "corruption" once you've beaten both Pope Francis and Jesus Christ in a morality contest.

But yeah, that was the basis for marching orders issued in Rightardia, click-bait on every rightarded "news" site for weeks, collective hyperventilation about unprecedented corruption at the DNC ensuing. So yes, that was all fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue, and fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects, even though her participation also was never established.

I mean, really, were you born yesterday?

[domer76]

If this were English composition writing class I was grading I'd deduct for use of unoriginal, overused wording that has little meaning. Why? Use of the word if implies a hypothetical situation (not a hypothesis).
Try this, dumber. Try answering one question I've posed to you in this thread.

Hypothesis contrary to fact. Logical fallacy.

Still waiting for the "if" that has actually occurred.

[Cancel 2018.1]

Hypothesis contrary to fact. Logical fallacy.

You obviously don't know what a hypothesis is. None was stated or queried.

Still waiting for the "if" that has actually occurred.

Don't hold your breath. You really don't know the difference between 'hypothesis' and 'hypothetical', do you? Dictionaries are freely available.
And you've become boringly redundant. We've already been thru both of the above .

[Cancel 2018.1]

Oh, for pity's sake!

The most damning pieces of evidence unearthed were:

1. Donna spilling the beans on a debate in Flint, Michigan, revealing there might be a question about poisoned water in, yep, Flint, Michigan. Big eff'n surprise.

2. There was some talk about using Bernie's faith (or lack thereof) against him. No one was ever able to point to a single instance of same actually being used.

So, all you have, in the end, is, in the DNC, comprising a bunch of political animals, there is politics going on, folks expressing strong preferences. I guess, that warrants the allegation of "corruption" once you've beaten both Pope Francis and Jesus Christ in a morality contest.

But yeah, that was the basis for marching orders issued in Rightardia, click-bait on every rightarded "news" site for weeks, collective hyperventilation about unprecedented corruption at the DNC ensuing. So yes, that was all fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue, and fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects, even though her participation also was never established.

I mean, really, were you born yesterday?

I've already exonerated you, owl. You basically say the emails were not damaging. I believe you. So they were not damaging to hrc, as she and others from the right and left have claimed. That's the reason for the silence from the left. Now go away and tell your sidekick here to answer one of my questions.

[Owl'd You're Up!]

I've already exonerated you, owl. You basically say the emails were not damaging. I believe you. So they were not damaging to hrc, as she and others from the right and left have claimed. That's the reason for the silence from the left. Now go away and tell your sidekick here to answer one of my questions.

Did you misplace your glasses?

So yes, that was all fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue, and fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects, even though her participation also was never established.

I don't have a sidekick, I don't speak for "the left", much less for the caricature thereof you'd like to paint, and I take no responsibility for anything other than my own produce. Lastly, you are seriously overestimating your influence if you actually think it's for you to "exonerate" anyone, and you certainly are not in a position to exonerate me.

[evince]

If the emails from the DNC and Podesta exposed by Wikileaks had been proven to be sourced from say, a dem watchdog group looking to clean up the DNC's act or from Bernie bros, or say from G.B or Canada (our staunchest allies) would you behave differently or still put your heads in the sand? So far I've heard nothing from dems about doing anything to hold their leaders responsible for their blatant corruption not to speak of open racism.

Repubs, right leaners, independents, tea partiers, stormfronters, and libertarians please refrain from commenting for about a day. I really only want to see responses, if any , from the left.

I predict very few responses or 'yeah but Trump colluded blah blah', or I will be personally attacked. Almost guaranteed if TTQ responds she'll call me a racist for posting this.
BAC has already started a thread about the need for dem introspection , no real need for him to respond, but of course I welcome his comments.

Bernie was not a dem

there is no crime idiot


there is no there there cock muncher

[Cancel 2018.1]

Did you misplace your glasses?

[indent]So yes, that was all fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue, and fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects,

"fairly minor in substance, entirely inconsequential as an issue" and "fairly damaging as to Hillary's electoral prospects" seem to me to contradict each other.

even though her participation also was never established.

Huh? Participation in what???

I don't have a sidekick, I don't speak for "the left", much less for the caricature thereof you'd like to paint, and I take no responsibility for anything other than my own produce.

Sorry. Until now you and dumber were the only two to participate.

Lastly, you are seriously overestimating your influence if you actually think it's for you to "exonerate" anyone, and you certainly are not in a position to exonerate me.

Ok, I don't exonerate you. You've stated your case as to why dims , not Bernie bros, were silent about how the DNC tried to influence the nom in favor of a seriously flawed hrc. I accept that.

[Cancel 2018.1]

Bernie was not a dem

I know. I never did understand why he was allowed to run as one.

there is no crime idiot

I know. Look up 'crime' and corruption'. There's a difference.

[domer76]

You obviously don't know what a hypothesis is. None was stated or queried.
Don't hold your breath. You really don't know the difference between 'hypothesis' and 'hypothetical', do you? Dictionaries are freely available.
And you've become boringly redundant. We've already been thru both of the above .

Call it what you want, fool. This was your concocted premise.

"If the emails from the DNC and Podesta exposed by Wikileaks had been proven to be sourced from say, a dem watchdog group...."

They weren't, were they? You concocted that scenario and proceeded from there.

I'll school you here, cretin.

"This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.