Question for libs, dems and/or snowflakes...

[Cancel 2018.1]

If the emails from the DNC and Podesta exposed by Wikileaks had been proven to be sourced from say, a dem watchdog group looking to clean up the DNC's act or from Bernie bros, or say from G.B or Canada (our staunchest allies) would you behave differently or still put your heads in the sand? So far I've heard nothing from dems about doing anything to hold their leaders responsible for their blatant corruption not to speak of open racism.

Repubs, right leaners, independents, tea partiers, stormfronters, and libertarians please refrain from commenting for about a day. I really only want to see responses, if any , from the left.

I predict very few responses or 'yeah but Trump colluded blah blah', or I will be personally attacked. Almost guaranteed if TTQ responds she'll call me a racist for posting this.
BAC has already started a thread about the need for dem introspection , no real need for him to respond, but of course I welcome his comments.

 

[domer76]

^Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

=

FAIL

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

^Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

=

FAIL

So no answer. As I predicted. So what is the hypothesis and what is fact?

 

[domer76]

So no answer. As I predicted. So what is the hypothesis and what is fact?

(laughing)

It's such a common and transparent tactic that you RW dolts use. Do something different and actually look it up.

You concoct a scenario that never occurred and then proceed to argue as if it was fact. It's the typical "if /would" bullshit that I constantly bring to your attention.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

(laughing)

It's such a common and transparent tactic that you RW dolts use. Do something different and actually look it up.

You concoct a scenario that never occurred and then proceed to argue as if it was fact. It's the typical "if /would" bullshit that I constantly bring to your attention.

Again no answer. OK then. I'll cut right to the chase. So far I've heard nothing from dems about doing anything to hold their leaders responsible for their blatant corruption not to speak of open racism.
You're non response tells me that you and most of the rest of the dims are either perfectly OK with DNC corruption or you choose to turn a blind eye toward it. Either way it does not bode well for the future of the dem party.

 

[domer76]

Again no answer. OK then. I'll cut right to the chase. So far I've heard nothing from dems about doing anything to hold their leaders responsible for their blatant corruption not to speak of open racism.
You're non response tells me that you and most of the rest of the dims are either perfectly OK with DNC corruption or you choose to turn a blind eye toward it. Either way it does not bode well for the future of the dem party.

Damn funny!

You want an answer to a make-believe scenario?

Loser!

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Damn funny!

You want an answer to a make-believe scenario?

Loser!

Again, no answer. So what is the make believe scenario? The emails published by Wikileaks? DNC corruption ? Your non answers? That you and most of the rest of dims are OK with DNC corruption? Or did I miss something?

 

[domer76]

Again, no answer. So what is the make believe scenario? The emails published by Wikileaks? DNC corruption ? Your non answers? That you and most of the rest of dims are OK with DNC corruption? Or did I miss something?

You started with an "if", moron. "If" has never occurred in the entire history of mankindz

Keep flailing, though

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

You started with an "if", moron. "If" has never occurred in the entire history of mankindz

Keep flailing, though

Again, no answer to the question, "so what is the make believe scenario?" I gave you five choices based on your non response and even the opportunity to clarify if I missed something. Why won't you answer a simple question? I think it's too uncomfortable for you to answer because, yes, dims in general are quite comfortable with DNC corruption. That doesn't bode well for your politics.

 

[domer76]

Again, no answer to the question, "so what is the make believe scenario?" I gave you five choices based on your non response and even the opportunity to clarify if I missed something. Why won't you answer a simple question? I think it's too uncomfortable for you to answer because, yes, dims in general are quite comfortable with DNC corruption. That doesn't bode well for your politics.

You're just not very bright, are you? No "ifs" about it.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

You're just not very bright, are you?

Possible not but I can answer questions, not matter how uncomfortable the answer may be to me. Go ahead and ask me one.
You can't due to stupidity or won't due to dishonesty. Which is it? (another question)

 

[domer76]

Possible not but I can answer questions, not matter how uncomfortable the answer may be to me. Go ahead and ask me one.
You can't due to stupidity or won't due to dishonesty. Which is it? (another question)

Love to. I'll give you an "if". Feel free to wade in.

"If" pigs were invisible, pork prices "would" be much higher.

Go for it.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Love to. I'll give you an "if". Feel free to wade in.

"If" pigs were invisible, pork prices "would" be much higher.

Go for it.

If they were held in cramped pens in barns like they are in Germany I'd say no. If they were able to roam free range I'd say yes because they'd be hard to find but not that hard with use of infrared.
That wasn't even uncomfortable or hard.
My turn.
Dims and MSM are very quiet about the blatant corruption not to speak of open racism exposed by the wikipedia divulged emails of the DNC and Podesta . Why do you think that is so? That doesn't even have if in it. Should be an easy answer. You won't answer because I think you know I have an uncomfortable response for you no matter how you answer it.

 

[domer76]

If they were held in cramped pens in barns like they are in Germany I'd say no. If they were able to roam free range I'd say yes because they'd be hard to find but not that hard with use of infrared.
That wasn't even uncomfortable or hard.
My turn.
Dims and MSM are very quiet about the blatant corruption not to speak of open racism exposed by the wikipedia divulged emails of the DNC and Podesta . Why do you think that is so? That doesn't even have if in it. Should be an easy answer. You won't answer because I think you know I have an uncomfortable response for you no matter how you answer it.

Beautiful!

Dodging your own "if/would" OP!

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Beautiful!

Dodging your own "if/would" OP!

Not at all. Just answered your question. By my count I've posed 4 questions and you haven't answered one. You queried me once and I answered seamlessly although it was irrelevant to the topic OP.
I commend you for not answering because, as you seem to know, I'd thrash you ruthlessly no matter your answer.
You didn't really go to ND did you? Your just a fan , right? I thought that was supposed to be a pretty good school that only accepted "smart" students except for their economics program that anybody with a room temperature IQ could get thru.

 

[Owl'd You're Up!]

If the emails from the DNC and Podesta exposed by Wikileaks had been proven to be sourced from say, a dem watchdog group looking to clean up the DNC's act or from Bernie bros, or say from G.B or Canada (our staunchest allies) would you behave differently or still put your heads in the sand? So far I've heard nothing from dems about doing anything to hold their leaders responsible for their blatant corruption not to speak of open racism.

[...]

Of course, were a Democratic "watchdog group" or "Bernie bros." involved in invading the DNC servers and Podesta's email account, we'd be talking criminal law. Had it been Britain or Canada, there would be diplomatic channels to kick some balls, and to ensure the heads of those responsible start rolling. The difference between these groups / countries and a hostile foreign power meddling in U.S. elections is vast, patently obvious, and unmistakable. Remarkable you can't seem to see it.

As to your allegation of "blatant corruption" or "racism", that was just what your handlers fed you for you to hyperventilate about. The only question there is whether or not you'll ever learn how much you humiliate yourself with your useful idiocy. So far I see no reason to hope for any progress on that front.

 

[domer76]

Not at all. Just answered your question. By my count I've posed 4 questions and you haven't answered one. You queried me once and I answered seamlessly although it was irrelevant to the topic OP.
I commend you for not answering because, as you seem to know, I'd thrash you ruthlessly no matter your answer.
You didn't really go to ND did you? Your just a fan , right? I thought that was supposed to be a pretty good school that only accepted "smart" students except for their economics program that anybody with a room temperature IQ could get thru.

(laughing)

Poor ignorant twit. Your arguments are so weak, so have to resort to concocting the scenarios.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

Of course, were a Democratic "watchdog group" or "Bernie bros." involved in invading the DNC servers and Podesta's email account, we'd be talking criminal law. Had it been Britain or Canada, there would be diplomatic channels to kick some balls, and to ensure the heads of those responsible start rolling. The difference between these groups / countries and a hostile foreign power meddling in U.S. elections is vast, patently obvious, and unmistakable. Remarkable you can't seem to see it.

Of course I see it. It's illegal to hack into and publish private emails.

As to your allegation of "blatant corruption" or "racism", that was just what your handlers fed you for you to hyperventilate about.

So I can assume from this statement that you don't consider the wikileaks emails from the DNC and Podesta that were published were harmless and therefore did not influence the outcome of the election, similar to the hacked and published emails by Macron. That would explain why dims are silent abut DNC corruption. But it doesn't explain dims saying they did influence the outcome.. hrc seems to think so. But then again she had a lot of lame excuses on her excuses tour.

The only question there is whether or not you'll ever learn how much you humiliate yourself with your useful idiocy.

Just asking questions. Congrats on being the first to almost answer one of them.

So far I see no reason to hope for any progress on that front.

No you won't . I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions to partisan hacks, no different than what I did when Bush was president.

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

(laughing)

Poor ignorant twit. Your arguments are so weak, so have to resort to concocting the scenarios.

I see no argument from me. Just questions . At least owl seems to think the emails were harmless and did not influence the outcome of the election.

 

[domer76]

I see no argument from me. Just questions . He seems to think the emails were harmless and did not influence the outcome of the election.

Try this, moron. Provide an example of any "if" that has ever actually occurred.