A candidate who hadn’t been nominated yet (Hilary) had “control of the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” and was given power to “make final decisions on all the other staff” and that’s still not enough for you?!
Because you want emails stating “I, Eric of the nominations, doth pledge fealty to thee, Clinton, on this day, one month prior to the nominating day, and for unofficial and cheaty-pants reasons!”
Well, let me tell you, if I put all my friends in staff positions, and am the defacto leader of the organization because I decide all spending, strategy, and fundraising, I won’t need emails reminding me that I can do what I want at the organization where every fart gets approved by me before it squeaks and before even that squeak I had decided the dinner plan and the guts it would pass through as well, so I know how it will smell.
I’m really struggling to understand what you’re trying to convince me of. I know all this happened at the DNC. The 2016 Democratic primary happened in each state. Bernie didn’t get as many votes from Democratic primary voters as Clinton. The national DNC did not change votes or override votes.
That the cheating is plain as day and twice as big? I said they cheated. You said they didn’t. I showed you the biggest cheating anyone could ever conceive, so big it involved taking over the every input and output of the DNC, and running it like it was her personal household, and you’re saying that’s not cheating because there is no record of people taking about directly manipulating vote totals.
If you can walk into “Hillary’s vote hut” and use “Hillary’s vote pens” to vote on “Hillary’s vote paper” where the votes are tallied by “Hillary’s employees chosen from her friend pool” and then hear the results on “Hillary’s patented news delivery service” and quabble with me about “evidence of cheating” then I can’t help you.
Your viewpoint of what “cheating” means is so obscure and narrow that in the beginning of the chain, which you referred me back to, I genuinely thought you didn’t know all this because surely anyone who knew all this would understand that a complete and total takeover of the apparatus for voting and campaigning, was evidence enough of cheating.
A candidate who hadn’t been nominated yet (Hilary) had “control of the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” and was given power to “make final decisions on all the other staff” and that’s still not enough for you?!
Because you want emails stating “I, Eric of the nominations, doth pledge fealty to thee, Clinton, on this day, one month prior to the nominating day, and for unofficial and cheaty-pants reasons!”
Well, let me tell you, if I put all my friends in staff positions, and am the defacto leader of the organization because I decide all spending, strategy, and fundraising, I won’t need emails reminding me that I can do what I want at the organization where every fart gets approved by me before it squeaks and before even that squeak I had decided the dinner plan and the guts it would pass through as well, so I know how it will smell.
I’m really struggling to understand what you’re trying to convince me of. I know all this happened at the DNC. The 2016 Democratic primary happened in each state. Bernie didn’t get as many votes from Democratic primary voters as Clinton. The national DNC did not change votes or override votes.
That the cheating is plain as day and twice as big? I said they cheated. You said they didn’t. I showed you the biggest cheating anyone could ever conceive, so big it involved taking over the every input and output of the DNC, and running it like it was her personal household, and you’re saying that’s not cheating because there is no record of people taking about directly manipulating vote totals.
If you can walk into “Hillary’s vote hut” and use “Hillary’s vote pens” to vote on “Hillary’s vote paper” where the votes are tallied by “Hillary’s employees chosen from her friend pool” and then hear the results on “Hillary’s patented news delivery service” and quabble with me about “evidence of cheating” then I can’t help you.
Your viewpoint of what “cheating” means is so obscure and narrow that in the beginning of the chain, which you referred me back to, I genuinely thought you didn’t know all this because surely anyone who knew all this would understand that a complete and total takeover of the apparatus for voting and campaigning, was evidence enough of cheating.
Show me where I said this
Right.