HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary demanded a Secret...

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:10 PM

Hillary demanded a Secretary of State appointment in exchange for calling off her PUMAs.

Sanders is not making any similar demand.

If Hillary is nominated, party unity should not be hard to achieve for three reasons:

1. Party rules and platform issues mean a lot to Sanders and his supporters. I have not ever run across a single Hillary supporter who has said "I LOVE the super delegate process for installing a wall of lobbyists to keep grassroots Democrats out of the nomination process," and I have not heard anyone say, "wow, if I didn't already love Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her passionate support of America's vital payday-loan industry, I'd still want her running the show because a smaller Democratic party with fewer elected officials is SO much easier to manage!" Likewise, I think I'll puke if I hear Hillary say I'm in "vigorous agreement with Senator Sanders on this issue" one more time. Let's document all of these vigorous agreements in out platform and adopt a plan that more Democrats are proud to stand upon. If fixing the party rules and platform ares good for the party and important to Sanders and his supporters and not a thing that Hillary and her supporters oppose, that is an easy compromise.

2. We all benefit from re-taking the Senate. Hillary is not universally liked, and her appeal is weakest in many states where Sanders did very well and there are key Senate battles looming. Key races include Colorado, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin where Sanders is beloved and they are not Hillary friendly (these are also important battleground states). Sanders also has a different, but comparably strong, base of supporters in Illinois and Missouri and Nevada and Ohio, venues for four more key senate races. Hillary should do what she can with the party rules and platform to make it easy for Sanders to motivate his supporters in these key eight senate races to feel the Bern for our Democratic candidates. If our platform sucks, if our top-of-the-ballot candidates include no one to excite independents and millennial Democrats, if the rules of the Democratic Party are not even remotely democratic, Sanders job of motivating his supporters down ballot is much tougher (and maybe unachievable). Put Sanders to work in those eight states AND MAKE HIS JOB EASIER.

3. A progressive running mate will help in the general election and would help Sanders get his supporters to support the ticket. Gore-Lieberman, The Sequel will not sell. Consider John Hickenlooper. Consider Elizabeth Warren. Consider Tulsi Gabbard (the ultimate party unity choice). Avoid picking some centrist white male just because he comes from a swing state. Please.

137 replies, 7642 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 137 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary demanded a Secretary of State appointment in exchange for calling off her PUMAs. (Original post)
Attorney in Texas May 2016 OP
cali May 2016 #1
Agschmid May 2016 #2
msanthrope May 2016 #28
cali May 2016 #31
msanthrope May 2016 #36
SwampG8r May 2016 #40
synergie May 2016 #66
OwlinAZ May 2016 #128
synergie May 2016 #136
Hortensis May 2016 #70
oasis May 2016 #84
still_one May 2016 #92
BootinUp May 2016 #124
brush May 2016 #130
dchill May 2016 #103
CorporatistNation May 2016 #120
brush May 2016 #131
OwlinAZ May 2016 #126
leveymg May 2016 #133
benny05 May 2016 #3
msanthrope May 2016 #29
DURHAM D May 2016 #4
DonCoquixote May 2016 #6
procon May 2016 #5
apnu May 2016 #134
Tarc May 2016 #7
Warren Stupidity May 2016 #12
Live and Learn May 2016 #24
insta8er May 2016 #15
Tarc May 2016 #45
JTFrog May 2016 #78
sheshe2 May 2016 #114
Live and Learn May 2016 #25
Tarc May 2016 #43
Live and Learn May 2016 #44
Tarc May 2016 #46
Live and Learn May 2016 #47
Tarc May 2016 #48
Live and Learn May 2016 #51
Tarc May 2016 #52
Live and Learn May 2016 #53
Tarc May 2016 #56
Post removed May 2016 #57
stonecutter357 May 2016 #61
synergie May 2016 #72
Tarc May 2016 #94
dubyadiprecession May 2016 #63
synergie May 2016 #77
sheshe2 May 2016 #115
synergie May 2016 #71
JTFrog May 2016 #79
Post removed May 2016 #42
Post removed May 2016 #50
seabeyond May 2016 #8
MineralMan May 2016 #9
tex-wyo-dem May 2016 #10
Warren Stupidity May 2016 #11
joshcryer May 2016 #16
Warren Stupidity May 2016 #17
joshcryer May 2016 #18
Fla Dem May 2016 #59
JTFrog May 2016 #86
sheshe2 May 2016 #117
moriah May 2016 #13
joshcryer May 2016 #14
democrattotheend May 2016 #19
dreamnightwind May 2016 #21
joshcryer May 2016 #26
TheKentuckian May 2016 #93
joshcryer May 2016 #27
democrattotheend May 2016 #118
Nonhlanhla May 2016 #20
Nye Bevan May 2016 #22
silvershadow May 2016 #23
Fla Dem May 2016 #62
synergie May 2016 #68
msanthrope May 2016 #30
Starry Messenger May 2016 #32
Mike Nelson May 2016 #33
Lil Missy May 2016 #34
w4rma May 2016 #35
Sancho May 2016 #37
Post removed May 2016 #38
SidDithers May 2016 #41
Tarc May 2016 #55
Cary May 2016 #89
Hortensis May 2016 #95
Vinca May 2016 #39
Orsino May 2016 #49
Trust Buster May 2016 #54
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #58
1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #60
Gothmog May 2016 #105
tabasco May 2016 #64
synergie May 2016 #65
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #67
seabeyond May 2016 #74
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #80
seabeyond May 2016 #81
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #85
JTFrog May 2016 #88
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #97
kcr May 2016 #123
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #135
kcr May 2016 #137
synergie May 2016 #75
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #82
synergie May 2016 #90
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #98
Kaela May 2016 #109
Pastiche423 May 2016 #111
Bobbie Jo May 2016 #69
Loki May 2016 #73
JoePhilly May 2016 #76
JTFrog May 2016 #110
rjsquirrel May 2016 #83
gopiscrap May 2016 #87
George II May 2016 #91
uponit7771 May 2016 #96
Beacool May 2016 #99
fleabiscuit May 2016 #100
tularetom May 2016 #101
SaschaHM May 2016 #102
tritsofme May 2016 #104
Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #106
Squinch May 2016 #107
Thinkingabout May 2016 #108
Corey_Baker08 May 2016 #112
Renew Deal May 2016 #113
akbacchus_BC May 2016 #116
brooklynite May 2016 #119
Il_Coniglietto May 2016 #121
trudyco May 2016 #122
Agschmid May 2016 #125
riversedge May 2016 #127
SharonClark May 2016 #129
rjsquirrel May 2016 #132

Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:12 PM

1. I find that easy to believe but do you have any evidence?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:13 PM

2. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:10 AM

28. Okay....let me ask you something. Do you normally go about your day,

 

finding things easy to believe without evidence? I ask because I generally find things only "easy" to believe when there is ample evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:13 AM

31. It depends. In this case, based both on what I know about politics and Clinton,

 

I find it easy to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #31)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:45 AM

36. So....based on what you know about the President, this is what you believe?

 

I am still waiting for evidence of this collusion between President Obama and HRC. Could you provide some?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:17 AM

40. Presidential level collusion rarely comes with evidence

Nixon taught a lesson to all following

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #40)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:23 AM

66. So the lack of evidence is the evidence? Sounds like what the Repubs have been arguing

 

about a great many things, most of which they are 100% wrong about. How does this terrible standard work when things are essentially made up whole cloth by people who seem to enjoy writing bad fiction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #66)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:25 AM

128. Actually what you are saying is Republican-like.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OwlinAZ (Reply #128)

Sat May 14, 2016, 02:04 PM

136. Actually, no. But Republicans do need to project when their tactics are called out. Well done.

 

And what I said stated is literally the GOP line on the Clinton smears, the attacks on Planned Parenthood, and a variety of other RW conspiracy theories and beliefs, and when called they all insist it's you not them that is doing the thing you just pointed out they were doing.

This tactic you are engaging in is pure CON, no just "like" it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SwampG8r (Reply #40)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:28 AM

70. Actually, it is not true. What happened is well

documented by witnesses on both sides, including his advisors. Many have written articles and books and described it in interviews.

What happened is that Obama asked her to be his SoS soon after the Democratric convention. She was surprised and initially refused, fully intending to return to the Senate (she was a sitting Senator from NY, remember), but he persisted and the rest we know.

Btw, the notion that Obama would have traded such an incredibly important position for what would have been a mostly failed attempt to swing a small block of hostile extremists is silly. A critically large block, perhaps, such as the big block of liberal Hillary supporters, but we backed him immediately when she conceded, no endorsement by her actually needed.

This story that the hostile "PUMAs" could have mattered so much sounds like a conceit pleasing to some who find themselves in a similar position now. Extremists on both sides never seem to understand they are very much in the minority, so they misunderstand...much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #70)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:00 AM

84. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #70)

Sat May 7, 2016, 12:21 PM

92. kick and rec !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #70)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:20 AM

124. The Bern Squad isn't interested in things like documented facts. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #70)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:56 AM

130. Thanks for this, another vile, unfounded rumor is disbunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #31)

Sat May 7, 2016, 03:06 PM

103. What would be hard to believe ...

That she didn't have even more demands than that. I remember, she was in a serious state of poutrage, then suddenly, the skies opened up...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Sat May 14, 2016, 12:46 AM

120. Then, Believe THIS! The EVIDENCE Is CLEAR AND... IRREFUTABLE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #120)

Sat May 14, 2016, 10:01 AM

131. You call that racist, I call it racist to assume that her calling out drug dealers as predators . .

refers to black kids as being predators.

The drug dealers are the predators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:23 AM

126. There are patterns of behavior and known histories.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #1)

Sat May 14, 2016, 10:19 AM

133. Horsetrading Cabinet positions is a common practice, but it's illegal, so everyone denies it

So, unless either Clinton or Obama admit to what was said during their meeting after Barack hopped off the plane and visited her at her Georgetown house that night in June, 2008, we will simply never have direct evidence. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, however. There are many people who Obama could have approinted as SOS who are just as qualified and far more supportive, but he didn't. That indicates a form of blackmail on HRC's part. Call it a deal, if you prefer,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:15 PM

3. Agreed

But as a Bernie supporter, I think Tad Devine has got to quit getting into fights with the DNC. Bernie's issue with the DNC is about fairness, but I suspect (as perhaps this post may be suggesting) it is more that the DNC has issues with Devine.

The suggestions made in the post are good ones. A good platform will not emerge else wise, and it just complacency again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benny05 (Reply #3)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:11 AM

29. Tad Devine does not win elections. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:17 PM

4. This is a big fat lie.

Further, I assume you are not an attorney and not in Texas.

Are you a Democrat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:25 PM

6. wonderfully fact filled logic there

sarcasm,
then again, I have come to expect that.

Nice way of accusing the poster of being a non democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:24 PM

5. "Sanders is not making any similar demand". Yet, you forgot to include the 'yet'.

No, he isn't, but he is threatening a floor fight at the convention, yeah? That's worse, and for certain, he won't release his delegates or urge his supporters to get behind Hillary until he extorts concession from her and gets his demands aired,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #5)

Sat May 14, 2016, 10:38 AM

134. Yup. People forget Bernie is a politician.

By defination, he makes deals and uses leverage. He is not His High Holiness Saint Bernie of Sanders. Rather, he is a political animal who's spent decades as an independent getting things done in Congress. And again, nothing gets done in Congress without deals, swapping favors and votes, all involving leverage. Bernie has leverage now, he will use it before this is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:26 PM

7. This is a rather serious assertion, as it is actually against the law

18 U.S. Code § 599 - Promise of appointment by candidate

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.


So I would expect some verifiable proof or of this thread to be self-deleted, as you just accused a Democratic candidate for office of violating a federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #7)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:49 PM

12. Oh look I've seen that somewhere else. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #12)

Sat May 7, 2016, 05:38 AM

24. ROFL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #7)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:00 PM

15. Wow you truly are a piece of work, threatening to report a thread because you don't like the content

 

of it? I mean when did we become this low? that we rather kill the voice of someone because we are so full of ourselves and our candidate. Sickening...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to insta8er (Reply #15)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:25 AM

45. I'd rather not see accusations of illegality without proof levied against Democrats

in a forum that is expressly for supporting Democratic candidates for office. With Emailgate there was at least a semblance of a case to make, as there was an official investigation. But this? This is just vile politics by poo-flinging moneys, trying to see what will stick and what will roll off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to insta8er (Reply #15)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:52 AM

78. Guess you should have read up on how the rules of this website go.

 

If you had bothered to read the TOS, Community Standards or Mission Statement, you probably wouldn't be flagged for review and getting your inevitable PPR. Members are expected to use the alert button in cases like this thread.

The OP obviously has not read them either or he would know that bald faced lies and conspiracy theories aren't welcome here either.

The fact that OP's like this don't get hidden or self deleted is the actual sickening part. But many jurors are not acting in good faith at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #78)

Sun May 8, 2016, 02:24 AM

114. Well said.

I thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #7)

Sat May 7, 2016, 05:53 AM

25. Trust me she has violated many laws and helped to ensure that people with money

don't answer to them. Meanwhile, a hungry person that stole a pizza slice sits in jail for life. And some entrepreneur that sold a regulated product without a license spends decades in jail while those with licenses to sell regulated products are Scott-free even when they rip off consumers or kill people with their malfeasance.

The system is rigged and your refusal to acknowledge is becoming doltish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #25)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:22 AM

43. There we go with blind, uncorroborated assertions of lawbreaking

just flinging the poop at the wall to see what sticks against a Democratic nominee, no less. There's a time coming soon when this sort of thing won't be allowed here, so, get it in while ya can. I guess...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #43)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:24 AM

44. Nope, simple truth. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #44)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:25 AM

46. Put up or shut up then, bro

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #46)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:27 AM

47. Who you calling boy? Racist term but I am sure you will deny being one. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #47)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:28 AM

48. There, there's a better term now

I'll just sit here and wait for evidence to come forth.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #48)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:31 AM

51. Good, you've changed terms from racist to juvenile and asinine. WTG. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #51)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:32 AM

52. Still waiting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #52)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:33 AM

53. Wait away and have fun doing so. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #53)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:34 AM

56. Still waiting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #56)


Response to Post removed (Reply #57)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:57 AM

61. Are you a Berniebro ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #61)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:46 AM

72. Oh they don't like that term, apparently rude Bernie supporters who say

 

things like that and pretty much don't seem to be very nice are "mythical" just ignore the many instance where they prove otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #53)

Sat May 7, 2016, 12:56 PM

94. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #47)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:12 AM

63. Tarc didn't call you a boy. but you do sound like your 8...

years old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dubyadiprecession (Reply #63)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:52 AM

77. That seems to be the literacy and maturity level at play here.

 

And 8 is being rather generous, unless the 8 year old in question is suffering from some developmental delays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #47)

Sun May 8, 2016, 02:28 AM

115. Tarc said bro, not boy.

Why do you purposely misread what they said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #25)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:36 AM

71. Yeah, you don't have much credibility since you seem to enjoy many works of fiction

 

starring the Clintons, and moles. Here you have posted another work of creative writing, which is not terribly credible and seems to be devoid of any shred of a coherent argument or proof, why should anyone trust someone who engages repeatedly in such untrustworthy behavior?

This insistence that "the system is rigged" which apparently applies to any and all systems, assuming you know what those are, is rather doltish.

You can't just say things, you need to back them up with verifiable facts, and that involves using specifics in language and examples not just snippets from some modern day attempt at a bad imitation of a Horatio Alger story. Your refusal to do so is simply silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #25)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:53 AM

79. I do not trust you. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #7)


Response to Post removed (Reply #42)


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:26 PM

8. I think it is a lie that Clinton had anything to do with PUMA one way or another. PUMA of 2016

 

will make their own choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:30 PM

9. What is the evidence for your claim?

Nothing in your post offers any. So...let's see it, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:47 PM

10. Wouldn't surprise me if true...

You could argue she was one of the worst SoS in memory....with exception of Kissinger, of course...but, then again, Hill and Henry are BFFs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:48 PM

11. FYI Jury Fail

 

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Fri May 6, 2016, 07:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary demanded a Secretary of State appointment in exchange for calling off her PUMAs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511914688

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

OP accuses POTUS of breaking Federal Law:

18 U.S. Code § 599 - Promise of appointment by candidate

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.



You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 6, 2016, 07:47 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert is over-the-top
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: More anti-Clinton bullshit. I figure we'll see a lot more of this as the inevitable becomes undeniable.

Hide it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Allegations with no factual evidence.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just silly.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #11)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:02 PM

16. Yep, 5 fails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #16)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:03 PM

17. it is a discussion board. discuss.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #17)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:10 PM

18. Discuss made up shit?

Perpetuate false bullshit memes? This post shits all over Obama's integrity. There was no deal, Obama held all the cards. It's just ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #17)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:51 AM

59. Can't discuss the topic the OP postulates because there is no evidence.

So it's just made up crap. Evidence has been asked for numerous time in this thread and all the responses are empty snide comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #17)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:02 AM

86. A discussion board with terms members agree to uphold.

 

Conspiracy theories (especially baseless, fact free, evidence free) have NEVER been welcome at DU. This particular creative speculation is no exception. In fact I would say that this shit is worse than your average 9/11 CT. This shit is being served here to intentionally mislead and depress turnout for one of our candidates. No excuse for that. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #11)

Sun May 8, 2016, 02:32 AM

117. I certainly agree it is a jury fail that you are so proud of.

Obviously we agree for different reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:56 PM

13. And unicorns are real (or, if you prefer, the x and y bosons exist).

.... regardless of truth or fiction of any of the three statements, without proof we have nothing.

(Imagining a meme like the Got Milk? Campaign, with, "Got proof?"

And fyi, she officially denied any such thing in her book, and President Obama has not said that it was a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:58 PM

14. This is flat out false.

Why make shit up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:14 PM

19. Got a source for that?

That's a pretty big accusation that, if true, reflects poorly not only on Hillary but on the President as well. I find it hard to believe Obama would have agreed to something like that. Also, I read that she initially was not that interested in being SOS and he had to beg her to do it, after the election. Maybe that story was put out as subterfuge, but again, I doubt it. I think there was a time after 2008 when she wanted to be done with politics, and Obama appealed to her to take the SOS position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #19)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:47 PM

21. I've always believed the assertion the OP makes

One of the largest areas of campaign differentiation between Hillary and Obama was foreign policy. Then suddenly he wants her to be SoS? Doubt it. These kind of deals are struck, it's politics, doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on anyone.

edit to add: given the headline of the OP, it would have been nice if there was something to substantiate the assertion. I believe it, but it's still just speculation as far as I can tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #21)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:02 AM

26. I think Obama offered it so she could use it to run again.

He's magnanimous, so why not. She did OK with the reset button. Showed many countries that the US is willing to open talks. Something Bush completely let fall to the wayside under Rice.

Obama held all the cards in that situation. Many people expected him to just toss out the establishment and do his own thing, but his own thing was actually embracing the political elites, and being an uber bipartisan, magnanimous, reach across the isle type of person. We saw that with his cabinet picks. Totally unnecessary. But he did run on that platform. People just don't remember that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #26)

Sat May 7, 2016, 12:50 PM

93. When is he going to magnanimous to liberals? Seems it only applies to conservatives otherwise

it's talk to the hand, where else are you going to go?

He got a bunch of us to help pay off her debt (worst waste of my money ever, what the fuck do I care if Marc Rich got settled up square or not?) and offered her a plum position to keep her in house rather than a free agent potentially stirring up trouble once the good soldier window passed in a few months.
He also wanted a right of center cabinet and appointed just such a one chock full of the who's who of the DLC stars and some actual Republicans including Bush junta holdovers in security positions which was and is fucking nuts/wicked.

The end result is exactly the same as if there was quid pro quo or just ideological confluence so I don't care if it was or not and think no better or worse about the players involved either which way or somewhere in the middle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #19)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:06 AM

27. I don't think he begged but I do believe he pressed it.

I think Clinton was totally burned out after 2008 and probably would've quit politics if Obama didn't press her to be his SoS.

I think the conversation was about how in 8 years she could try again and he'd be cleaning up the mess, and that ultimately she'd have an easy go of it. I think that appealed to her sensibilities. Frankly, given the mess Bush left Obama with, I think it was a damn good deal. She will very likely be able to enact much more change than Obama because he basically turned things around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #27)

Sat May 14, 2016, 12:43 AM

118. I agree with your assessment

Given that Hillary was reluctant to accept the position, I don't think there was a quid pro quo in June of 2008 that she would support him if he would appoint her to SOS. She had to fully support him because people were watching, and she knew people wouldn't forgive her if she did (or didn't do) anything that could result in him losing. It wasn't like 2004 where her supporters could quietly sabotage/not fully support the nominee to keep the seat open for her four years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 08:15 PM

20. That's a lie. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 09:45 PM

22. Yep, and Karl Rove has been indicted.

You can find news on DU that is simply not available anywhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 05:34 AM

23. Sounds legit. Absent evidence to the contrary, I will have to assume it is true.

 

#releasethetranscripts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #23)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:59 AM

62. Sounds false. Absent evidence to the contrary, I will have to assume it's made up crap.

Innocent until proven guilty, at least that's the way it works in America. Socialist countries, maybe not.

#ReleaseyourTaxesBernie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #23)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:26 AM

68. Sure, and Bernie Sanders and Jane have a history of fraud and birbery. Absent evidence

 

to the contrary, I will have to assume it's true. #releasethetaxrecords

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:13 AM

30. Why are you slamming the President this way? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:23 AM

32. Well, that was a stupid waste of pixels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:28 AM

33. I did not hear this...

...saw President Obama's latest news conference and he did not mention Hillary's "demand." Perhaps it's the subject of his Saturday radio address...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:35 AM

34. No she didn't. You made that up. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:38 AM

35. And she wanted President Obama to retire Hillary's $22 million dollar debt.

 

But after top surrogates asked Obama to help retire Clinton's campaign debt, amounting to more than $22 million, he asked many of his campaign bundlers to chip in to help his former rival.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278074-clinton-to-take-hard-line-with-sanders-say-allies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:46 AM

37. Flame bait and simply a lie.

This OP has no evidence or link. It just bash and trash - and typical of the serial OPs by uninformed propagandists.

This is a lie:

Hillary demanded a Secretary of State appointment in exchange for calling off her PUMAs.


Attorney in Texas may as well proclaim that Obama is an alien who was born on Mars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #38)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:19 AM

41. There it is...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #38)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:34 AM

55. I find there are only certain groups of people who trot out "Zionist" as a slur

I never expected to see those groups have a toehold in the DU, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #55)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:16 AM

89. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories

Same anti-Semitic crap be behind pogroms and Hitler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #55)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:02 PM

95. The far left is represented here way beyond

their numbers in the general population. Conversely, left-wing "anti-Zionism" is a rising theme outside but not on DU because it's specifically forbidden. Rather funny when you think of all the conflicting interests involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 07:58 AM

39. I thought the exchange was for payment of campaign debts.

But nothing would surprise me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:29 AM

49. Well, a deal was no doubt reached...

...but we have no way of knowing what anyone's specific bargaining points were. The primary ended peacefully, and ultimately Hillary Clinton was appointed to the Cabinet.

There's no need to portray the events any more dramatically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:33 AM

54. This thread goes a long way in explaining Texas. This poster calls him/herself an

 

"Attorney from Texas" just to proceed to make a claim without a stitch of supporting evidence. This is how they do it in Texas folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:52 AM

60. Can you provide a source for your title? If not, why should anyone read anything beneath it? ...

 

I didn't and won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #60)

Sat May 7, 2016, 03:25 PM

105. That is because you are a lawyer who understands why sourcing/evidence is important

You are letting your legal education get in the way of looking at amusing but baseless theories

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:15 AM

64. And then she fucked things up royally

 

and left Kerry a big mess to clean up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:20 AM

65. And your evidence that she made such a demand, and that Bernie is not making demands?

 

Remember that he is making demands publicly, and you are merely asserting that she demanded something. We'll wait for your citation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:25 AM

67. Tulsi Gabbard as VP would go a long way toward mending fences. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #67)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:50 AM

74. When have we ever suggest a President hire someone that exclusively works against them?

 

Simple business model tells us what a stupid and counter productive idea that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #74)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:54 AM

80. Your expectation is that I'll vote for one. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #80)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:57 AM

81. Your reply has nothing to do with my post. I have no expectation you voting Clinton for any reason.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #81)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:00 AM

85. Let's go there. I'm a white, middle-aged working class white guy with three draft age sons.

 

Last edited Sat May 7, 2016, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I live near the coast, so climate change is a concern.

What's in her campaign for me? Not for you... but for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #81)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:14 AM

88. Because it's all about him.

 

At least he admits it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #88)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:12 PM

97. It shouldn't be?

 

The main criticism of Republican voters is always "why do they vote against their best interest?"

Explain to me why Hillary is in mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #97)

Sat May 14, 2016, 02:20 AM

123. You're a Republican voter? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #123)

Sat May 14, 2016, 10:41 AM

135. Seems like my question would have been an easy one to answer.

 

Working class white guy with three draft age sons. Convince me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #135)

Sun May 15, 2016, 11:40 AM

137. My question was pretty easy, too n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #67)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:50 AM

75. That is a non-starter. You don't mend fences by rewarding behavior like hers.

 

Angering and alienating your supporters who put up with her dishonesty and abuse, AND who are well aware of her history of homophobia is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Also, when you lose as badly as Sanders is doing, or at all, you don't get to dictate the VP choice. That's just not how reality works. Tulsi Gabbard has shot herself in the foot with the choices she made. They were stupid and impolitic, which is a terrible combination in a politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #75)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:57 AM

82. Refresh my memory, who did Obama hire as SoS?

 

Talk about rewarding shitty behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #82)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:25 AM

90. Someone who did behave, to use your word as "shitty" as Tulis did. Refresh my memory,

 

when did a Hillary shot herself in the foot by indulging in stupid antics to embarrasss her party and say utterly false things, and homophobic things?

Oh right, she didn't, Tulsi did. Also, she's a lame surrogate with bad political skills, no diplomatic skills and not much experience and god awful judgment, who didn't bother to do her homework on the guy she endorsed to at least tailor her talking points to make her seem less ignorant.

She doesn't have the stature, the experience, the success or the standing here, plus she's just not qualified to be a VP, for the reasons stated above, plus people don't like her. Not the DNC, not voters, just some small segment of the losing faction, and you don't get to dictate things, especially not VP.

I'm sorry you don't seem to understand simple facts about what losers get, you seem to think you're working from some position of power where you get to demand appeasement, you don't.

And even if you did, the homophobe and hater with zero skills wasn't ever going to be it.

You want to mend fences? Try dialing back the hate and abuse of the candidate. That's the first step. Shitty behavior by people who literally have no clue what they're doing, and that goes Bernie on down to Tulsi, and his other terrible surrogates will not be rewarded.

You truly don't seem to understand that destroying fences yourselves doesn't entitle you to force anyone to "mend" them in your favor. That's not how reality works.

I can only imagine the howls out outrage and frothing that would go on if Hillary was in Bernie's place, losing badly, and still arrogantly demanding that his royal will be done, and the amount of abuse that would rain down on any supporter who made a demand like yours, and then responded as you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #90)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:20 PM

98. When did Hillary indulge in stupid antics and say utterly false and homophobic things?

 



I don't think she actually said that marriage should be between a man and a woman from the back of that pickup, but there are so many examples of both phenomena that you really shouldn't go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #90)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:48 PM

109. You sound like one of Brock's paid trolls.

Lots of attacks to smear Tulsi; short on facts.

All the personal nastiness coming from you sounds exactly like what's coming from Hillary's paid trolls across social media. Tulsi backed Bernie instead of Hillary so "woe be unto Tulsi."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-trolls-attack-people-online-article-1.2613980

This is a central part of Clinton’s campaign strategy: smear, demean, and try to destroy the reputation of anyone who criticizes or challenges her on the issues.

Calling Tulsi a homophobe when she's actually 100% supportive of Equality/LGBT rights is disingenuous as hell. https://www.votetulsi.com/vision#equality

Tulsi has never attacked Hillary Clinton, but looking at someone's poor judgement in the past gives one an idea of what one will do in the future. Tulsi and many others like her don't trust Hillary when it comes to keeping the US out of more regime-change wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #67)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:31 PM

111. I don't think Tulsi would accept VP

Have you heard her speak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:26 AM

69. What a load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:49 AM

73. Attorney in Texas

just left the building. I make a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence, as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki (Reply #73)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:51 AM

76. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki (Reply #73)

Sat May 7, 2016, 08:51 PM

110. Probably has weekends off. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 11:12 AM

87. I wouldn't doubt it

if Sanders loses to her, then he should demand the Vice Presidency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 12:06 PM

91. No she didn't.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:08 PM

96. More right wingerish trip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 01:31 PM

99. That is utter rubbish!!!!

You may be entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts.

Hillary did not want to be SOS. She rejected Obama's offer in Chicago and avoided his calls. She had drafted a letter formally rejecting the offer when Obama recruited Biden and asked him to talk to her. Biden appealed to her patriotism, asking her if she wouldn't have wanted Obama to serve if she had been the winner. Obama had told her that he would be quite busy with the domestic front and wanted someone of her international stature to lead on foreign policy.

Biden was quite open about it in one of his interviews. Both Obama and Hillary mentioned it on their own and even repeated the basics during the joint interview they had on 60 Minutes when she left the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 02:02 PM

100. Trash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 02:46 PM

101. As you can see, there are all sorts of ex post facto cover stories being concocted in denial

But I suspect that what you have posted here is pretty close to the way things actually went down. Clinton is still clinging to the "I could have won, I was a lot closer than Sanders is now, but I conceded for the good of the country" fiction, and we probably won't know the truth until the parties have both passed away. I may never know since Im older than either of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 03:02 PM

102. Honestly, accusing the President and the former SoS wasn't even needed.

You could have just made the demands without that unproven point. The fact that this still stands/hasn't been edited shows everything that's wrong with GD-P. Damaging, unproven accusations against our President are fine because he hasn't kissed Bernie on the cheek.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 03:09 PM

104. Well at least we have established that this OP is a shameless liar.

Her accusation is patently false

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 03:25 PM

106. No link, no proof, no fact.

This post belongs at Free Republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 06:24 PM

107. Well, now. Aren't you just the lying sack. Hmmm? (read with your best church lady voice)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 07:13 PM

108. Peesonally, I have more faith in both Obama and Hillary when these decisions

Were made, Hillary withdrew in June, did nit "contest" the convention, supported Obama at the convention, released her delegates to Obama at the convention, and nominated Obama at the convention. They have lots of respect for each other, Obama selected Hillary to be SOS because he respected her abilities.

I do not see any need to tarnish the works of President Obama or Secretary Clinton with this theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:36 PM

112. This Is Complete Bullshit, Seriously Not True At All!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 7, 2016, 10:38 PM

113. Proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 02:32 AM

116. I beg to differ, she did not demand anything. President Obama,

in my opinion, fucked up by electing her Secretary of State. Big mistake, I can understand he wanted her in his cabinet but far away. Now she is riding on the coat tails of a President whom she disliked. I could be wrong. She is not right for America, but here we go again, between two evils, whom you gonna vote for. I can never forget how Mrs. Clinton went after Senator Obama in 2008, people may forget but I cannot understand how some people feel she has their interest at heart!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 12:45 AM

119. "Party Rules" mean a lot to someone who wasn't a member of the Party until last year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 12:48 AM

121. (Citation needed)

Assuming you have one....which looks unlikely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 01:26 AM

122. Frackinlooper would not be a good choice

Especially since the colorado courts said the towns that stood up to Fracking aren't allowed to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:21 AM

125. Any link for her "demand"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:24 AM

127. Take down your post. You look beyond foolish for making up stuff without any evidence! Is this

what a Sanders fans will do?? Shame on YOU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:41 AM

129. Shameful post - should delete this factless accusation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Reply to this thread