[Thanos]

xerxes xerxes:

The way the right is going after Clinton you’d think she actually was president. Imagine if she’d actually won. Fox News would probably be calling for an armed cordon of “patriots” to surround the White House and take a shot at her whenever possible.

With the hate-storm they generated around her Clinton would have either been impeached or assassinated by now.

[N_Fiddledog]

Not just the right is talking about leftist Donna Brazil's reveal:

$1:

This afternoon, CNN’s Jake Tapper interviewed Senator Elizabeth Warren and asked her about the DNC story. When Tapper asked Warren if she was shocked by the story, she went into a statement about Democratic unity which would require convincing Sanders’ supporters that the party would be fair to them. Tapper brought the question back to Brazile’s claims about Clinton asking, “Very quickly, Senator, do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?” Warren replied, “Yes.”

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/02/ ... e-sanders/

[herbie]

Umm WTF has Hillary got to do with anything these days?
Still desperate to distract from America's Laughing Stock President?

[Thanos]

herbie herbie:

Umm WTF has Hillary got to do with anything these days?
Still desperate to distract from America's Laughing Stock President?

Fills the role of the greatest villain of all time.

[N_Fiddledog]

This news story, posted in the History category, is bigger than Hillary.

It began when Obama left the Democrat party $24 million in debt.

Then Debby Wasserman Schultz drove the party further into the ground through her incompetence.

Hillary was able to pretty much buy the party and do any crooked thing she wanted including setting herself up as Queen of the Left.

So now the party is still in a shambles and they're not just mad at Trump anymore.

All that is worth noticing.

Now, apparently, some don't think we should be allowed to notice. They offer their usual posture when the facts become inconvenient for them which interprets as little more than, "Shut up."

What can ya say? The usual, I guess.

[Thanos]

More of your usual paranoia. By all means vent your spleen endlessly about a now-irrelevant political character instead of ever addressing the real problem of a demented reality-TV show host turned president who's tainting the entire American political process with a corrupt style and foreign mobster connections that's much worse than what the Clintons ever got up to.

[N_Fiddledog]

So basically then...

Thanos Thanos:

It's news, Bud. Live with it or choke on it. Either way, doesn't bother me.

[N_Fiddledog]

[Thanos]

wonk, wonk, wonk, typical "citizen journalist" nonsense

[BRAH]

____________________

Hillary responds.

[Thanos]

Good article here on how the meltdown inside the Democrat apparatus unfolded, and how it's left them in an electoral wasteland incessantly losing to a GOP machine that's controlled by crazies:

https://www.alternet.org/human-rights/d ... vs-hillary

$1:

More than a year and a half ago, I wrote a column suggesting that Democrats should resist the temptation to gloat at the apparent implosion of the Republican Party, because their own party was in far worse shape than it appeared to be. Honestly, though — I had no idea. There’s an object lesson there for pundits: Sometimes you can be so far wrong that you travel the whole way around the globe and end up being right again.

My governing assumptions in March 2016 were highly conventional ones: Republicans were likely to turn on Donald Trump, sooner rather than later, and wind up nominating someone marginally more normal. Hillary Clinton was exceptionally likely to be the next president. Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign was essentially over, after a series of lopsided Clinton victories in large Southern states.

Those assumptions, let’s just say, turned out to be flawed to varying degrees. But my underlying premise that the Clinton-Sanders primary battle had revealed an unresolved ideological and political conflict at the heart of the Democratic coalition, which was not actually about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, was substantially correct. It was flawed in one important way: I failed to perceive that the Democratic Party’s real problems ran much deeper than that.

With the publication in Politico this week of an explosive excerpt from former interim Democratic chair Donna Brazile’s first-person tell-all, we have learned that the Democratic National Committee went into the 2016 election cycle essentially bankrupt and deeply in debt. By late summer of 2015, as Brazile tells it — several months before the first votes were cast in Iowa or New Hampshire and nearly a year before the party’s Philadelphia convention — the DNC had become a “fund-raising clearinghouse” or client state for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which was paying the party’s bills and had practical control over its finances, strategy and staffing.

At least on the surface, that's worse than the most dire accusations hurled at the party last year by internet BernieBros or Julian Assange. Some of Brazile's account has subsequently been called into question by Democratic insiders, most notably the timing of the fund-raising agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, No individual element of that picture is especially damning on its own, and there was nothing illegal about this arrangement, as Brazile makes clear. But there’s also no way to make it look good, and the overall impression is one of an organization so rudderless, demoralized and destitute it had stopped caring about its integrity.

[BRAH]

The DNC gave up control to Hillary Clinton because they threw her under the bus for the first African American Presidental Candidate.

[ShepherdsDog]

Thanos Thanos:

Good article here on how the meltdown inside the Democrat apparatus unfolded, and how it's left them in an electoral wasteland incessantly losing to a GOP machine that's controlled by crazies:

https://www.alternet.org/human-rights/d ... vs-hillary

$1:

More than a year and a half ago, I wrote a column suggesting that Democrats should resist the temptation to gloat at the apparent implosion of the Republican Party, because their own party was in far worse shape than it appeared to be. Honestly, though — I had no idea. There’s an object lesson there for pundits: Sometimes you can be so far wrong that you travel the whole way around the globe and end up being right again.

My governing assumptions in March 2016 were highly conventional ones: Republicans were likely to turn on Donald Trump, sooner rather than later, and wind up nominating someone marginally more normal. Hillary Clinton was exceptionally likely to be the next president. Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign was essentially over, after a series of lopsided Clinton victories in large Southern states.

Those assumptions, let’s just say, turned out to be flawed to varying degrees. But my underlying premise that the Clinton-Sanders primary battle had revealed an unresolved ideological and political conflict at the heart of the Democratic coalition, which was not actually about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, was substantially correct. It was flawed in one important way: I failed to perceive that the Democratic Party’s real problems ran much deeper than that.

With the publication in Politico this week of an explosive excerpt from former interim Democratic chair Donna Brazile’s first-person tell-all, we have learned that the Democratic National Committee went into the 2016 election cycle essentially bankrupt and deeply in debt. By late summer of 2015, as Brazile tells it — several months before the first votes were cast in Iowa or New Hampshire and nearly a year before the party’s Philadelphia convention — the DNC had become a “fund-raising clearinghouse” or client state for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which was paying the party’s bills and had practical control over its finances, strategy and staffing.

At least on the surface, that's worse than the most dire accusations hurled at the party last year by internet BernieBros or Julian Assange. Some of Brazile's account has subsequently been called into question by Democratic insiders, most notably the timing of the fund-raising agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, No individual element of that picture is especially damning on its own, and there was nothing illegal about this arrangement, as Brazile makes clear. But there’s also no way to make it look good, and the overall impression is one of an organization so rudderless, demoralized and destitute it had stopped caring about its integrity.

be nice if the US saw the return of the DNC and GOP(pre 1980), rather than the two current psych wards they have now.

[Thanos]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

be nice if the US saw the return of the DNC and GOP(pre 1980), rather than the two current psych wards they have now.

Considering how much of the country is an uninhabitable toxic brownfield now there's probably way to much toxic weirdness seeping into the drinking water for collective sanity to ever return. Seriously, who except someone who ate too many paint chips as a toddler would ever take a pair of cretins like Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson seriously? We've got enough kooks of our own, as your daily life on da reserve shows. Cross the US border though and it's pretty much full-blown kookoo-for-kokopuffs time with practically the first person you meet.

[ShepherdsDog]

There is still sanity to be found . At my MiL's funeral last month, American relatives were up and they think both parties should be turfed. They use to be old school fiscal conservative Republicans