Sure. But reread my earlier post. If the RNC and Trump were hacked, I'd be more pissed off at what came out of it (assuming it was as bad as the Democrats and Podesta) than the hackers. That's the difference between us. I care about the corruption, not the hacking. Yes, even if it were the other way around and the Republicans were "exposed". As a Liberal, you let the left slide for it's corruption. The hacking you can't stand.
Now you are attaching the conduct of others to Clinton. Remember, Clinton didn't write the e-mails you are so "outraged" about. Meanwhile, I have no doubt you expect Trump's team and the RNC to be canonized in due course. And your laissez-faire attitude to presumed sovereign state meddling is most fascinating. In fact, not laissez-faire at all, since you were quick to jump to their defense, donning your hat as defense counsel. And if Kim Jong-un should try to bomb the US, you will no doubt counter that he must have had just cause, and will give him every benefit of the doubt until such time as there is video evidence of him pressing the red button. Because to take seriously the findings of the collective intelligence community's assessment is so naïve...
If someone in Trump's campaign wrote some of the things Podesta wrote, I'd expect that to blow up in the face of Trump. No question at all, so you're wrong. My attitude comes from the fact that I simply don't believe a presumed sovereign state is involved. The pesky issue of no proof continues to be something I can't ignore. As I've said numerous times, if that changes and solid proof is evident and comes forth, I'll certainly take a different stance. Until then, it's just listening to you and the MSM as sore losers.
Totally! Talk about sovereign meddling. But you'll never hear Freddie talk about that and that was as direct as you can get.
There's nothing false about it. Obama didn't hack, sure, but he directly peddled influence in the Brexit vote, trying to influence the outcome of the election. You remind me of some sore loser kid who tries quoting rules to try to save the fact that he got his ass kicked. "According to paragraph 5, subparagraph 2, you can't...." Give it a rest. Isn't it about time you start acting like the almost 60 year old man you supposedly are, and accept that the world isn't fair and that things don't go your way sometimes?
That you would equate the two only shows that engaging you in so-called "debate" amounts to no more than participating in a chewing gum contest. FOAD.
She wanted 25MN to stay at FOX. I would have let her go too. She is missing the big picture. She was successful because FOX is successful. She did not make FOX number 1. Just because she was popular at FOX does not mean she will be popular on NBC. She had a nice formula at FOX, she should have stayed there. It's like the Hollywood types....just because someone is a reality star, rock star or has a successful series, does not mean you will be a star on the big screen. She had a good thing going, she should have stuck with it.