What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (1 Viewer)

Why wouldn't they be able to overturn it? Especially considering Trump gets to nominate (and ostensibly establish) at least 1 Supreme Court Justice?

Not a risk worth taking. That would be putting party politics ahead of the best interests of the country.
Party politics over country?  Never heard of such a thing.  Did you not notice the Supreme court?

 
I'd be careful cornering them into "doing something" about abortion.  They'd "do something" to appease that crowd and it wouldn't be pretty.  They can 'defund' a whole lot of things pretty easily.
Yeah...I think you're much better off hitting him on whatever populist economic position he espoused in the campaign, he doesn't follow through with.  He doesn't renegotiate NAFTA, keep bringing it up.  Doesn't ramp up the rhetoric on China, bring it up, repeatedly...especially for any Congresscritter thinking of running in 2020.  That's where you can create a wedge between him and the Ryan Republicans.  At the end of the day, you have to earn the vote of the upper-midwesterners who voted for Obama again and the only way you do that is to appeal to the pocketbook.  

 
Yeah...I think you're much better off hitting him on whatever populist economic position he espoused in the campaign, he doesn't follow through with.  He doesn't renegotiate NAFTA, keep bringing it up.  Doesn't ramp up the rhetoric on China, bring it up, repeatedly...especially for any Congresscritter thinking of running in 2020.  That's where you can create a wedge between him and the Ryan Republicans.  At the end of the day, you have to earn the vote of the upper-midwesterners who voted for Obama again and the only way you do that is to appeal to the pocketbook.  
The easiest thing to hit him with is the stupid wall.  Where's the wall?  Did Mexico send the check yet to pay for it?

The R's have control, so it should be an easy bill to pass, right?  Of course not.  it's impractical.  It's akin to him saying he was going to build a ladder to the moon and the martians will pay for it.  The yahoos will get frustrated and feel betrayed.

 
I think the Republicans love abortion because it puts every little old lady who votes in their corner no matter what.  They don't give a #### about poor black babies.  They give a #### about the votes.  
It's just another wedge issue for most.  There are some true believers to be sure, but for the most part it's just something to shake some change out of Republican couch cushions.

 
Gr00vus said:
Why wouldn't they be able to overturn it? Especially considering Trump gets to nominate (and ostensibly establish) at least 1 Supreme Court Justice?

Not a risk worth taking. That would be putting party politics ahead of the best interests of the country.
Kennedy is still on the court.

 
The left is in ascendance. Look at who the stars are in the party.
Bernie and Warren might be stars, but one is in her late 60s and one is in his 70s.  I don't think either is in a position to lead the future.

I think it's a reasonable takeaway from this election that ideology doesn't mean a whole lot to voters.  The future of the Democratic Party is in the hands of whoever can give a good speech and excite crowds.  That person could plausibly be from any wing.

 
Bernie and Warren might be stars, but one is in her late 60s and one is in his 70s.  I don't think either is in a position to lead the future.

I think it's a reasonable takeaway from this election that ideology doesn't mean a whole lot to voters.  The future of the Democratic Party is in the hands of whoever can give a good speech and excite crowds.  That person could plausibly be from any wing.
I think he meant people like Gabbard, Booker, Newsom, etc.

 
Booker isn't especially progressive.  
It's weird to hear people talk about Hillary's Wall St. ties and then mention Booker.  Nobody took in more Wall Street money in the midterms than Booker.  I don't think that's disqualifying, Obama took a lot of Wall St money.  But I think it's weird that you heard the criticism so much more vocally with Hillary. 

 
Bernie and Warren might be stars, but one is in her late 60s and one is in his 70s.  I don't think either is in a position to lead the future.

I think it's a reasonable takeaway from this election that ideology doesn't mean a whole lot to voters.  The future of the Democratic Party is in the hands of whoever can give a good speech and excite crowds.  That person could plausibly be from any wing.
Also, the person who actually ran in a race last night who  most matched Bernie's political philosophy, Zephyr Teachout, got trounced. 

 
Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.

To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.

 
Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.

To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.
:goodposting:

Link to a source containing the above statement.

 
What exactly are we supposed to be working on?  Democrats have no power in the federal government.  Unless he establishment GOP fights Trump, we are heading for a giant rollback of Obama's policies...
SO he will repeal the Freedom Act and the Dark Act?  Scale the provisions in the NDAA?  I hope he doesn't re-open Gitmo, that will really set us back.

 
Well, we're not going to peel off thoseTrump voters with a more liberal candidate. As Digby says, the frightening thing about this result is that it suggests the Democratic Party has to nominate an even more conservative candidate, and probably a man. Look, Clinton is going to win the popular vote by 1 million votes. This isn't about votes, it's about tapping into areas of weakness. I love Elizabeth Warren, but I doubt she plays well in the areas of Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania that the Ds need to turn blue.
The conservative loons, no.  But he gained a lot of support from voters looking to elect someone outside of the establishment. The margins he would have needed to pick up decisive states was there and his base was much more motivated than any other candidate.

 
Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.

To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.
Actually that part didn't seem to bother an awful lot of people. But great statement otherwise.

 
This line of reasoning is horse####.  Yes, liberals could have done more to prevent this. Lots of people could have done more to prevent it.  But the people who put Trump in the White House are first and foremost the people who voted him in.  They don't exist as some sort of static, supernatural force we have to reckon with.  They're voters, just like us. They're leaders of a party that pushed an anti-science, pro-conspiracy, wink-and-nod at birtherism, immigrant-scapegoating, obstructionist agenda for the last eight years. They're people who stayed home or voted for an anti-vaccine nutjob or a Libertarian doofus instead of joining the fight.

Sure, we could have chosen better leaders for our mob, or had a better strategy for our march through the streets.  We could have picked better pitchforks and torches.  But we didn't build Frankenstein's monster.  This is on the people who built him, and the monster himself, and to a lesser extent the people who stayed home instead of taking to the streets.  The stuff people did to empower or encourage those things is worth studying and correcting, but that's not the fundamental source of the problem.
I stand by my third party vote.  If you want it, put up a candidate that I can feel comfortable supporting.  Don't tell me I need to vote for your ####### so the other ####### doesn't win.  People like you are the problem, not people like us.

 
I stand by my third party vote.  If you want it, put up a candidate that I can feel comfortable supporting.  Don't tell me I need to vote for your ####### so the other ####### doesn't win.  People like you are the problem, not people like us.
:goodposting:

You win the FFA Today. 

Good day sirs.

 
I stand by my third party vote.  If you want it, put up a candidate that I can feel comfortable supporting.  Don't tell me I need to vote for your ####### so the other ####### doesn't win.  People like you are the problem, not people like us.
I didn't "put up a candidate."  I made arguments in support of the candidate I preferred in the general election.  You're fine with your choice, great, I'm happy for you. But don't tell me I'm the problem, as if I chose the nominees for president but forgot to ask for your permission first.  Hell I supported Sanders in the primary race, after some waffling.

We're the problem. We all let this happen.  Every single voting-eligible person in this country. You don't get a pass, and neither do I.

 
I didn't "put up a candidate."  I made arguments in support of the candidate I preferred in the general election.  You're fine with your choice, great, I'm happy for you. But don't tell me I'm the problem, as if I chose the nominees for president but forgot to ask for your permission first.  Hell I supported Sanders in the primary race, after some waffling.

We're the problem. We all let this happen.  Every single voting-eligible person in this country. You don't get a pass, and neither do I.
The Democratic Party itself is a huge part of the problem too, GB. We lost huge chunks of the working class to a guy who has made himself rich by stepping on those same people. That wouldn't have happened if we hadn't let the Party establishment turn themselves into GOP Lite and run the primary as a coronation for the person who just happened to be next in line. It's time to completely ditch the 3rd way and become a populist and truly Progressive party again.

 
I didn't "put up a candidate."  I made arguments in support of the candidate I preferred in the general election.  You're fine with your choice, great, I'm happy for you. But don't tell me I'm the problem, as if I chose the nominees for president but forgot to ask for your permission first.  Hell I supported Sanders in the primary race, after some waffling.

We're the problem. We all let this happen.  Every single voting-eligible person in this country. You don't get a pass, and neither do I.
I didn't let #### happen. I didn't vote for a corrupted, damaged candidate that was disliked by more than half the party in the primaries. That was someone else's brilliant idea. Further in my state I helped elect a Democratic governor, Congresswoman, County Commission and passed bonds for affordable housing. That's what I did do.

 
I didn't "put up a candidate."  I made arguments in support of the candidate I preferred in the general election.  You're fine with your choice, great, I'm happy for you. But don't tell me I'm the problem, as if I chose the nominees for president but forgot to ask for your permission first.  Hell I supported Sanders in the primary race, after some waffling.

We're the problem. We all let this happen.  Every single voting-eligible person in this country. You don't get a pass, and neither do I.
ANd you validated your ###### candidate by voting for her.  I didn't let anything happen.  I let my voice be heard with my vote while you and your ilk said it was ok to rig the primary with yours.

 
The Democratic Party itself is a huge part of the problem too, GB. We lost huge chunks of the working class to a guy who has made himself rich by stepping on those same people. That wouldn't have happened if we hadn't let the Party establishment turn themselves into GOP Lite and run the primary as a coronation for the person who just happened to be next in line. It's time to completely ditch the 3rd way and become a populist and truly Progressive party again.
I agree. I look forward to working with people like the ones who have been active in this thread to make the Dems a party of the people again.

I do, however, think this point is overblown a little bit w/r/t this election.  According to exit polling, people who said the economy was their #1 concern voted for Clinton 58-33.  Trump's appeal to the working class wasn't simply, or even mostly, about economic anxiety.

 
I agree. I look forward to working with people like the ones who have been active in this thread to make the Dems a party of the people again.

I do, however, think this point is overblown a little bit w/r/t this election.  According to exit polling, people who said the economy was their #1 concern voted for Clinton 58-33.  Trump's appeal to the working class wasn't simply, or even mostly, about economic anxiety.
We'll be doing post-mortem on this for a while, but I've both read and heard some conflicting views on this, both locally here in the rust belt and nationally. A lot of people in the upper Midwest have seen their towns die and their jobs go away, and the recent economic recovery hasn't resulted in any improvement for a huge part of the rural working class -- and Trump's message of bringing back manufacturing jobs certainly resonated, even without any realistic or concrete plan to address the issue.

Now I also agree that some of this is likely backlash to the cultural changes and PC culture, too, but not most of it IMO.

 
I didn't let #### happen. I didn't vote for a corrupted, damaged candidate that was disliked by more than half the party in the primaries. That was someone else's brilliant idea. Further in my state I helped elect a Democratic governor, Congresswoman, County Commission and passed bonds for affordable housing. That's what I did do.
Only bond I voted against, but I have pretty libertarian views on housing policy.  A large part of what makes cities like NYC and SF unaffordable have been well intentioned policies like this that tend to have opposite affect and reduce supply.

 
LOL at "ilk."

I think the conflict is this.  If you are a progressive, and you honestly think that Hillary is somehow  corrupt, or criminal, or even uncommonly ambitious compared to Barack Obama, then I really don't know what to say.  I think you're completely irrational.  I've seen the same evidence you have and the only people who I think would come to those conclusions are Fox News types who have been conditioned by 30 years of hyperbolic vitriol thrown at the Clintons. 

I also don't think there's much evidence that the DNC really treated Bernie very badly, particularly considering that he wasn't a Democrat until he decided to run for President.  Once again, I've seen the same evidence you have.  So if you're a progressive or an Obama voter who held Hillary to a ridiculous standard that you never held Obama to, then yes, you're a part of a problem.  Not a huge part of the problem compared to the nearly 60 million people who voted for Trump, but a problem, I think. 

If you lean right and voted Gary Johnson, then I don't think you were the problem.  If Johnson had ended up at the 8 to 10% that he seemed to have before people became familiar with his warts, I think Hillary would have likely won as libertarian candidates typically poach socially moderate republican leaning voters. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't let #### happen. I didn't vote for a corrupted, damaged candidate that was disliked by more than half the party in the primaries. That was someone else's brilliant idea. Further in my state I helped elect a Democratic governor, Congresswoman, County Commission and passed bonds for affordable housing. That's what I did do.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.  My city didn't even get to vote in the Dem primary after Clinton had clinched the nomination (if we'd voted earlier I would have voted Sanders), and we voted for Rubio in the GOP primary, followed by Kasich. In the general election we chose a clean slate of Dems plus one independent for city council, and only 4%(!) voted for Trump.  If anyone is entitled to point the finger elsewhere for the results of this election, it would be us. But I've made my perspective known- we're all in this together and we all own the results.  You disagree with that perspective, so be it.  Like I said, my primary interest now is finding a progressive coalition that can make progress in 2018 and win in 2020, and staying active in support of progressive causes in the meantime.  Hopefully we're all on board with that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only bond I voted against, but I have pretty libertarian views on housing policy.  A large part of what makes cities like NYC and SF unaffordable have been well intentioned policies like this that tend to have opposite affect and reduce supply.
Agreed.  Rent control policies, for example, generally hurt both the poor and middle-class, while helping the rich.  Unintended consequences and all that.

 
In the harsh light of day, I don't blame any of the voters - primary or general.  The people I blame most are the DNC, first and foremost, and Hillary Clinton, second.

My personal view was that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate - for a number of reasons, but including that she was essentially baggage with a person attached to her.  I made those views clear 18 months ago - that I did not think she was electable.  I even wagered $100 that she would not be elected president ( @cstu :hey: )   I argued with anyone who would listen, and a few that would not, that she was a bad general election candidate.  During the primary, I was admittedly angry with Clinton supporters who could not see what I thought were obvious flaws.  To be fair, some saw the flaws, and did not care.

But, at the end of the process, I can look back and see that most people did not have a chance.  Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, but she, Bubba, her team, and the DNC (to the extent they were not one in the same) were a very good political machine.  They locked down all the big donors, they locked down all the endorsements, they locked down favorable relationships with various major media journalists.  The messaging they put out was enough to convince millions that Clinton was not only the best choice to pursue the DNC agenda, she was the only choice.  So, millions of people looked at that evidence, and agreed - hardly an egregious conclusion.  Yes, I wanted people to pull their heads out of the sand.  I wanted them to see that the emperor had no clothes - but my view was drowned out by a carefully orchestrated narrative.

The Clintons and the DNC were so consumed with obtaining and keeping power that they were willing to overlook the obvious flaws.  The Clintons amassed as much political capital as perhaps anyone in our history.  They were fund-raising demons - sending money to key allies.  They used their pile of political capital to ensure they had all of the endorsements.  They literally drove every contender from the race, except a crotchety old Socialist, an ex-GOP marine who seemed to kill for fun, and old senator who could not remember his first vote, and a true liberal best known for his smarmy role on HBO's "The Wire". 

Should primary voters have seen through the smoke and mirrors?  Ideally, maybe.  But hard to expect voters to go against the evidence put forth by the machine.

But, at the same time, should we blame voters who went 3rd party here?  Of course not.  The candidate, and the DNC, have the responsibility of earning votes.  Votes should never be taken for granted - and that was a massive error in judgment on the part of Clinton and the DNC in the general election.  They took large swaths of people for granted - and it cost them, dearly.  I have said repeatedly that Clinton does not inspire voters - and I think that was shown in the voter turnout.

The DNC should have not been swayed by the promises of glitter and gold, and taken a long hard look at Clinton before going all in.  The DNC got greedy, and failed to do their own due diligence here.  They did not vet the candidate - in light of current political climate - and they did not adequately understand the concerns of their base, and the voters in general.  Clinton was doing what ambitious politicians do - it was up to the DNC to provide the checks and balances - they failed, miserably.

Voters, even educated voters, often just do what they are told, trusting that the process has worked behind the scenes.  So, I blame the Democratic Establishment first, Clinton, and her campaign (as an aside - This is not going to look good on Robbie Mook's resume...) second, and I'll give a pass to the voters.

 
LOL at "ilk."

I think the conflict is this.  If you are a progressive, and you honestly think that Hillary is somehow  corrupt, or criminal, or even uncommonly ambitious compared to Barack Obama, then I really don't know what to say.  I think you're completely irrational. 
I think there are huge differences between Obama when he ran for office in 2008 and Clinton the last 8 years.   I'm a progressive who wants to bust up the establishment and I'm tired of career politicians who blur the lines between doing their job and their ties to special interests, etc.  And yes, I believe Clinton is more corrupt than Obama and I don't think I'm an irrational person.   :shrug:   

 
I think there are huge differences between Obama when he ran for office in 2008 and Clinton the last 8 years.   I'm a progressive who wants to bust up the establishment and I'm tired of career politicians who blur the lines between doing their job and their ties to special interests, etc.  And yes, I believe Clinton is more corrupt than Obama and I don't think I'm an irrational person.   :shrug:   
Can you name what those differences are?  For instance, Obama raised more money than Clinton from Wall St. in 2008.   

 
Can you name what those differences are?  For instance, Obama raised more money than Clinton from Wall St. in 2008.   
Specifically?  No.  I know Obama has played the same game in terms of raising money and that he didn't turn out to be a progressive and liberal as people wanted.   But I still perceive a pretty big difference between the two of them.  

 
I argued with anyone who would listen, and a few that would not, that she was a bad general election candidate.  During the primary, I was admittedly angry with Clinton supporters who could not see what I thought were obvious flaws.  To be fair, some saw the flaws, and did not care.
I think a lot of this is attributable to the fact that many of us live in bubbles.  I had similar conversations with my wife and mother during the primaries.  I insisted "there is a ton of anti-Hillary sentiment out there, it seems like a mistake to make her the nominee because she might lose."  Both my wife and mother just didn't buy it.  They were both 100% completely convinced that Hillary would be a better general election candidate than Bernie.

As I've thought about this election over the last couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that the reason I could see it and they couldn't was entirely because of the FFA.  I don't witness very much anti-Hillary vitriol in my personal life, neither do my wife or mom.  It's only here that I was able to see how deep and widespread the hatred towards her was.

ETA:  I should say that we don't know for certain that I was right and they were wrong.  Maybe Bernie would have lost by an even greater margin than Hillary.  But I don't think so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Specifically?  No.  I know Obama has played the same game in terms of raising money and that he didn't turn out to be a progressive and liberal as people wanted.   But I still perceive a pretty big difference between the two of them.  
The bolded was (is?) a problem.

Some of the concerns about Clinton from progressives were certainly warranted- most specifically her hawkish foreign policy tendencies, always my biggest problem with her.  But many of the other ones were the product of an IMO false narrative- or at least one that lacks any factual support- about her "corruption" or lack of liberal bona fides or whatever, that too many people seemed unable to shake.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a lot of this is attributable to the fact that many of us live in bubbles.  I had similar conversations with my wife and mother during the primaries.  I insisted "there is a ton of anti-Hillary sentiment out there, it seems like a mistake to make her the nominee because she might lose."  Both my wife and mother just didn't buy it.  They were both 100% completely convinced that Hillary would be a better general election candidate than Bernie.

As I've thought about this election over the last couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that the reason I could see it and they couldn't was entirely because of the FFA.  I don't witness very much anti-Hillary vitriol in my personal life, neither do my wife or mom.  It's only here that I was able to see how deep and widespread the hatred towards her was.
I think that a lot of the complacency came from the fact that most of us genuinely couldn't believe that people would actually vote for Trump. I think that many or most of us realized that Hillary was a pretty weak candidate; I know that everyone in my B & M social circle did. There was a lot of discussion on how much of that was legitimate vs. manufactured, but either way, we know that she was intensely disliked.

 
I think a lot of this is attributable to the fact that many of us live in bubbles.  I had similar conversations with my wife and mother during the primaries.  I insisted "there is a ton of anti-Hillary sentiment out there, it seems like a mistake to make her the nominee because she might lose."  Both my wife and mother just didn't buy it.  They were both 100% completely convinced that Hillary would be a better general election candidate than Bernie.

As I've thought about this election over the last couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that the reason I could see it and they couldn't was entirely because of the FFA.  I don't witness very much anti-Hillary vitriol in my personal life, neither do my wife or mom.  It's only here that I was able to see how deep and widespread the hatred towards her was.

ETA:  I should say that we don't know for certain that I was right and they were wrong.  Maybe Bernie would have lost by an even greater margin than Hillary.  But I don't think so.
FWIW, I think it's sort of naive to think Trump wouldn't have had a field day portraying Bernie as a communist/socialist and dragging him down that way.  Were those weaknesses as big as Hillary's, I don't know, but I think it's rewriting history to think Bernie didn't have his own set of faults in a general election.  

 
The bolded was (is?) a problem.

Some of the concerns about Clinton from progressives were certainly warranted- most specifically her hawkish foreign policy tendencies, always my biggest problem with her.  But many of the other ones were the product of an IMO false narrative- or at least one that lacks any factual support- about her "corruption" or lack of liberal bona fides or whatever, that too many people seemed unable to shake.
We can argue about whether it is a fair perception or not, but she was undoubtedly tied to her husband's Presidency in the minds of much of the more liberal wing of the Party. And his financial deregulation, criminal justice and welfare positions are pretty far from what I believe in. Her lack of transparency, and then the Wikileaks stuff further advanced this narrative. Enthusiasm for her was already going to be an uphill battle given her relative lack of personal charisma (vs Obama and Bill), and this stuff really didn't help, fair or not. She lost because the base failed to show up and vote for her.

 
Specifically?  No.  I know Obama has played the same game in terms of raising money and that he didn't turn out to be a progressive and liberal as people wanted.   But I still perceive a pretty big difference between the two of them.  
See.  I think that's the problem.  I think a lot of people perceive a difference between them.  That's what Sinn calls Hillary's "baggage."  And I think Hillary actually bears, at most, a small fraction of responsibility for the "baggage."  Hillary is not a natural at connecting with people.  Obama is.  Because he is, Obama appears more progressive  when he is, at heart, a pragmatist, just like Hillary.   Obama needed to get people insured, so he protected the health insurance companies.  It ... wasn't ideal.  But I never see this vitriol about Obama being in the pocket of the health insurers. 

This bore out in the email "scandal."  The truth is that the State Department had used commercial email servers under Powell (Rice didn't use email at all).  Hillary was the first to use a private server, but she already had a private server because Bill had one set up.  Hillary used the server to transmit unclassified information.  A tiny fraction of classified information slipped through.  These were generally call logs that showed who she had calls set up with on any given day.  They used a handwritten designation of confidentiality that really isn't like the stamp you'd see on a normal document.  Nothing that implicated national security in the least.  Also, the private contractor who handled her server deleted some thousands of emails after the contractor (Platte Rive Networks) received a preservation notice.  There is no evidence that he was instructed to do so by anyone.  In truth, the fact that PRN was sent the preservation notice by Clinton's team is pretty strong evidence that he wasn't.  The most plausible explanation, which is entirely consistent with my experience in white collar investigations, is that this was a colossal ****-up by a contractor who I doubt Hillary even knew.  But despite the fact that the FBI made all of this information public, some progressives still acted as if this made Hillary somehow uncommonly mendacious.  And I get that they were smarting over Bernie's defeat, but sheesh. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top