If Hillary has the ability to rig elections, it's a shame she didn't pull that out in WI and MI in 2016.
I know the Hillary obsession is so over played. She’s not running for office.
Why on Earth would she rig a caucus for Pete instead of Biden? Makes no sense.
Also aren’t caucuses done by head count as in there isn’t any paper? Personally I hate the system but how do you modify head counts of who is standing in which corner or line? If the vote was supposed to be 75% for Bernie wouldn’t everyone say 75% of the people were in Bernie’s corner?
No, just like @Jhhnn you're misrepresenting what I said. Go back and read it.
Your first link is just a list of his deferments with no evidence or opinion offered that they were corrupt. The second link is a claim made by a doctor's daughter 50 years after the fact. So let's just wait 50 years I guess?
...or had you already figured out that there was probably something to that deferment? I do kind of enjoy the thought of you being absolutely blindsided by the idea that Trump might not have avoided military service legitimately when the story broke in December of 2018.
I'm not at all. You may want to review what you said tho. That's your choice.
Those are just a couple links. The story is older than 2018, but I'm sure you know that.
Again, what specifically about the DCO program can you offer as corruption?
Did I need the /s tag?I know the Hillary obsession is so over played. She’s not running for office.
Why on Earth would she rig a caucus for Pete instead of Biden? Makes no sense.
Also aren’t caucuses done by head count as in there isn’t any paper? Personally I hate the system but how do you modify head counts of who is standing in which corner or line? If the vote was supposed to be 75% for Bernie wouldn’t everyone say 75% of the people were in Bernie’s corner?
Ok specifically how was Pete's involvement in the DCO program corrupt?Nope, if you can't be bothered to argue in good faith then the argument is over. See how that works?
Yet that's the only evidence you provided. Sounds like a you problem.
Once again, the program is not corrupt, just as the existence of medical deferments is not inherently corrupt.
Nope, if you can't be bothered to argue in good faith then the argument is over. See how that works?
Yet that's the only evidence you provided. Sounds like a you problem.
Once again, the program is not corrupt, just as the existence of medical deferments is not inherently corrupt.
Is it? I just saw both campaigns wanted a partial recanvas.
Anyway, Bernie couldn't be doing that, since everyone said Pete was winning anyway. Or at worst ineffective. If you want to know the truth, they clearly screwed Bernie! because Bernie won pop/final alignment, yet he's coming second in the establishment metric.
IF you get a chance to debate at all.
M4A is not politically viable and carries a real risk of alienating voters as you all have stated.
As far as what gets passed... Republicans set a standard for how to pass big, controversial legislation with the tax bill..
Don't tell anyone what you are doing until it hits the floor, then jam it through on a party line reconcilation vote. Bullshit and lie on your analysis to make it fit within the rules.
Then lie to everyone on what it will promise, but deliver enough to not piss them off come election day.
Worst thing Ds can do is get into another protracted policy debate on healthcare.
Voting for Bernie just in this issue is deciding to vote for an unobtainable fantasy rather than face reality and get some good out of it.
Wtf? Lol, what are you talking about.
Me: His openly homosexual lifestyle will be attacked by his detractors
You: he's not openly homosexual, that evokes a promiscuous lifestyle
Me: that's not how that phrase is interpreted in my neck of the woods (which just happens to be a very open minded state in these matter)
You: well, that's your baggage
Me: Yea, it was and is many of Americans due to socially conservative religious nuts. I changed due to life experience
You: thanks for the apology
Me: it wasn't an apology, maybe consider what I said
You: you're misrepresenting what I said
Me: not at all
You: you're not arguing in good faith
Me: ......
Here, allow me to lead you directly to the water: In what way, specifically, was Buttigieg's use of the DCO program corrupt.
I only provided a couple links, of which there are plenty to choose from?
Who's not arguing in good faith here ?
Btw: still reading those links. Still on the Wikipedia one
Oh, and your initial assertion about the DCO program was that it's used by rich people like Hunter Biden to make them look good. A broad sweeping assertion about the program itself. Glad we cleared up that confusion that the program itself isn't inherently corrupt
@Blackjack200 lets pretend either of these scenarios happen would you be cool with it?
1) Bernie President nominee with Pete VP
2) Pete as President nominee with Bernie as VP
Still no, and now I'm convinced it's deliberate so I'm probably done here.
Ask me in 50 years.
What a dumb question, LMAO. What is even the point of this?
Are you cool with both those scenarios?
Legitimately I have no idea what you’ll say.
Keep in mind VP could be a tie breaker vote.
Oh one thing that Democrats should definitely do is say that their plan will pay for itself and that it will actually make the government money regardless of whether or not that's true.
Honestly from now on they should say that about every policy and never admit the costs for anything.
The insurance companies and medical providers (including pharma). They're fighting a rearguard action and they know that Pete's position is the least reform they can realistically get away with.
If Bernie is the nominee I want Nina Turner to be the VP.
If Pete is the nominee I wouldn't care who the VP nominee is.
While the Democratic National Committee over the past 10 days has tried to distance itself from the troubled app that threw the results of the Iowa caucuses into disarray, a copy of the contract and internal correspondence provided to Yahoo News demonstrates that national party officials had extensive oversight over the development of the technology.
An unaffiliated Democratic operative in Iowa provided Yahoo News with a copy of the contract between Shadow and the Iowa Democratic Party. The contract, which was signed on Oct. 14, 2019, and refers to Shadow as the “Consultant,” specified that the company had to work with the DNC and provide the national party with access to its software for testing.
An email provided to Yahoo News also appears to show that Seema Nanda, the CEO of the DNC, and Kat Atwater, the national party’s deputy chief technology officer, were involved in drafting the contract and requested the addition of the provision that gave them access to Shadow and the app. In the email, dated July 30, 2019, Atwater provided an IDP official with draft text for the provision detailing the DNC’s access to the app. Atwater, in the email, said the provision was specifically requested by Nanda.
Documents reveal DNC was 'intimately involved' in development of troubled Iowa caucus app
Internal correspondence provided to Yahoo News demonstrates that national party officials had extensive oversight over the development of the technology.news.yahoo.com
Looks like the DNC was more involved with this App than they would have liked people to believe.
Not many will see the details of this story for which the DNC can be thankful I suppose.
____________
When it concerns Donny boy the medical deferment program was corrupt!Nope, if you can't be bothered to argue in good faith then the argument is over. See how that works?
Yet that's the only evidence you provided. Sounds like a you problem.
Once again, the program is not corrupt, just as the existence of medical deferments is not inherently corrupt.
Probably because most people recognize this story for what it is, bull shit. Congrats on your gullibility!
Bernie Bros are trolls, they are not Democrats.For a democrat he seems hell bent on tearing anyone down that’s not Bernie.
He’s either gone full retard or full on troll at this point.
That's not a lifestyle. My point is that his lifestyle is very straight-laced. When you say "openly homosexual lifestyle" that evokes promiscuous and demonstrative behavior. That's not what pete is.
That's what it evokes.. to you (and certainly others who are less progressive).
What does being open about one's homosexuality have to do with being promiscuous?
Sounds like you've got some baggage.