The funniest thing is that even if she's not indicted, everyone who thinks she should have been will have the same argument for why she should be known as a criminal. Oh well.
^ You sound confused jetsnets89. Here I come back from a long day at work and after logging in to see what my good friends at TGG have been up to, what do I find but some petty little troll who has spent his day sniping and picking fights with people; the same troll whose family is headed by an Obamacare-sucking hag who's been leeching while I'm busting my hump so as to be able to (gladly) pay my fair share of taxes. Gee, thanks a lot you ungrateful sponge.
Lol for someone who shouldn't care about a random person on the internet, you soak up(sponge-like) an awful lot about what I share here. But schmo, should you really believe everything you read on the internet? You come home and you read through this website so thoroughly...it's a shame. So let me get this straight, people who pay taxes and finally have access to affordable health care, are leeches? Did I hear that right? I do feel terrible for your employer though. Wasting that dough on a man/woman (who knows really, this is the internet) that has no character or values. But you know what, at least you're earning your money and your health coverage. At least you won't have to pay much for that hysterectomy you had done recently. Back on topic- transparency is the last thing to expect from a politician. Maybe in your utopia these are things to be expected.
Oh, so now you suddenly want to discuss the merits of a subject? . You who've been sniping all day like a snarky little 10 year old? . Sorry but you can't have your (sponge)cake and eat it.
You are the king of snark on this forum. You offer nothing but attempt to flaunt your pretentious political drivel. This is why nobody responds or even bothers to read your posts, except for me (sometimes). I'm really in your head. And it's bad. Thanks for the nightcap. EDIT: For the sake of inclusion, that smelly bitch Hillary's lawyers won't bail her out of this one.
You know I keep reading these "smelly bitch" references and I wasn't sure what it was all about so I Googled "Smelly Hillary" and this jumped up: Smelly Hillary? Feb. 4, 2016 Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party. That’s the headline today from Iowa’s major newspaper, The Des Moines Herald, which had actually endorsed Hillary. OK, they talked about a smelly Dem Party, not directly Hillary. But then everyone knows the Clintons and their big money backers, including Haim Saban of Israeli fame and Wall Street, own today’s Dem Party. Bernie Sanders wasn’t even an official member until a few months ago and hasn’t himself voted in Democratic primaries. If the party, and Hillary, have nothing to hide, they would have simply said by now ok here’s all the info about Monday’s primary including the vote totals and how the coin tosses (that all went to Hillary with a statistical probably of less than 2% it could happen fairly) were done. That the Party says NO, NO, NO and denies the smell so many others are picking up suggests the fix is in and rumors may well be true.
I'm not sure why they would be so reluctant to a recount, as the article states, "it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states". I thought the idea was to get it right but I guess when your choice is in front, by 2/10's of a percent, making sure the numbers are correct doesn't matter.
This whole thing smelled from day one: 9/15: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chair: "We're having six debates–period!" "We’re not changing the process. We’re having six debates and the candidates will be uninvited from any subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to a debate outside the six DNC-sanctioned debates." 2/16: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chair: "Our Democratic candidates have asked the DNC to sanction and manage additional debates in our primary schedule. " Read: the party's "shield Hillary" gameplan of limited debates scheduled during dubious viewing periods (weekends, opposite NFL games) hasn't had the desired effect which has now given rise to this phony, 180-degree "accomodation" flip flop. And the lack of a recount was as if the party seemed to be saying "let's take the 2 points (let the superdelegates make up the difference) and get the hell outta Dodge."
If Bernie has a decent showing in SC, say just an 8-10 point spread, as opposed to the 22-37 point spread the polls currently show, then I would think you would see a really serious shake up even more so than they currently have going on. I would hope at least a decent percentage of voters would see "the fix" for what it truly is. Bernie is doing well so far against some overwhelming odds and I hope he keeps it up. I have no idea which way I am going to be voting but I like the fact that Bernie and Trump are shaking things up, it can only help to, hopefully, make each party take a step back and take a look at what they have been doing and maybe make a move to fix themselves. A strong 3rd party candidate would be even better but that won't happen until they do something about campaign finance.
If you make a show of agreeing with a post criticizing someone you are arguing with, particularly if it is not substantive, just saying "Yay, someone else is taking shots at him!" Then, yes, that is very weak. Kind of gay. You name it. Just not manly or stand up. The problem with message board allies is that someday you will disagree with your ally. Do you then hold back your disagreement? And of course the "fact" that you agree with someone else for criticizing someone you also disagree with basically doesn't mean shit.
You just insist on showing yourself to be a useless asshole. Nice work, I suppose. You need a new line.
Message Board Allies. You're going to ruin my week. Having said that, folks dismissing excusing deflecting about Hillary have taken a page right out of PatsFag.com. _
