... Second, and more interestingly, Hillary is a very secretive person who presents a persona to the public which is likely quite different from her real one. I think we can all agree that she is something of a chameleon. Most politicians are, of course, but she is on the "Zelig" end of the spectrum. Wikileaks is all about exposing governmental and political secrets. It's about ripping off masks. There's no point in doing this against Trump. The guy is an open book. Sure, he won't release his tax returns, and there are no doubt plenty of skeletons remaining in his dozens of closets, but there's a huge pile of skeletons right there in his living room. And in the foyer. Some are even outside on the front lawn, and he regales his audiences with stories about how they came to pass. The guy has no filter. He has no inner voice. Or rather his inner voice is his outer voice because he says whatever enters his mind at any particular moment. From Wikileaks' perspective, he's boring.
A secretive person is someone like Howard Hughes or for a more contemporary character, Harrison Ford. Clinton is in public all the time. Her and Bill both socialize with everyone. They know thousands of people, it a prominent feature of their lives. People who know her praise her.
Your post is an eye opener. Someone with no evidence whatsoever of all the horrible things you are absolutely convinced are true about her, so you just conjure up a rationalization: she must be all those things in secret.
Trump is an open book because that's one symptom of his personality disorder. And I assure you, if Trump is elected, heaven forbid, I'm sure there will be plenty of secrets leaked, probably more secrets than were ever leaked about anyone
. I mean that seriously though, I would think there would be whistleblowers coming out of the woodwork should Trump be POTUS because there would be a lot of appalled people with things to tell.
This isn't going to help Trump at all, but I find myself in total agreement with 16.5 here. Sanders was screwed from the get go.
This is a coronation, not an election. It always has been.
I'll ask again, because it wasn't answered when I asked it earlier (or rather it was answered with BS there was no evidence to support).
Just what specifically did the DNC do that sabotaged Sanders?
So far the national news have been noting a single email, the one about Sanders atheism. There was some mention of badmouthing Sanders saying DWS had to help him get his
together. That revelation has been portrayed as either just gossip between DNC members or some secret plot to make Sanders look incompetent.
There were 20,000 emails and that's all they got. Only Fox is still trying to make news out of it.
The main effect, demonstrated by your post as well, has been to rile up the sour grapes among the most diehard Sanders fans.
"We was robbed!"
"Just how did they carry it out?"
[Cue the conspiracy theories that the 'establishment' controlled the media despite the relentless attacks on Clinton in the media; disenfranchised voters despite the fact Sanders won in states with caucuses shown to be inconsistent with popular vote in the same state; and somehow the superdelegates are why Clinton won even though Sanders lost the popular vote and even if said s-delegates were bound to their state's voter outcome, Clinton still would have won.]
The fact most people in the DNC supported Clinton was not a conspiracy, it was just a fact. Sorry Bernie Bros, there is nothing in the leaked emails that indicated said preference for Clinton impacted the election outcome other than the fact it also reflected the Democratic Party voters at large.
Of course pissing the Bernie Bros off just before the Convention will surely make the yelling on the floor louder than the reaction to the RNC shutting down voting to unbind the delegates on the first vote.
