Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frank Underwood" data-source="post: 36079" data-attributes="member: 35">I never said I rejected them &quot;point blank,&quot; I said I was skeptical of the findings.&nbsp; I even said Russia could have done it, but when both sides hide and lie about their activities, it&#039;s hard to trust them.Everybody rolls their eyes at me when I claim that neoliberalism and lack of campaigning in the rust belt contributed to Hillary&#039;s loss.&nbsp; Could that be because it doesn&#039;t suit the opposing &quot;political narrative&quot; here?All of that may be true, but the credibility of the information they chose to release is intact.&nbsp; I want transparency across the board, so I do condemn them for withholding information about Trump and the RNC.Oh, I&#039;m sure the goal was to hurt Hillary&#039;s chances.&nbsp; At the same time, it&#039;s hard for me to feel sorry for Hillary and the DNC after seeing what was in those emails.&nbsp; I don&#039;t condone the method used to obtain them, but it was the sort of transparency I believe we deserve.&nbsp; I just wish we had had the same access to Trump and the RNC&#039;s activities.&nbsp; Neither party could be so blatant in their biases if their activities were public. Although some Democrats still speculate that they did. I believe a multitude of things pushed Trump over the edge.&nbsp; Until the antiquated electoral college is abolished, I&#039;m afraid Trump&#039;s presidency is legitimate.&nbsp; At least he wasn&#039;t appointed by the Supreme Court. You make some excellent points.&nbsp; I never completely dismissed the idea that Russia was behind the hacking.&nbsp; But like you said about Wikileaks lacking credibility, so does the federal government. Of course, the truth comes out now and then too if it suits them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frank Underwood, post: 36079, member: 35"] I never said I rejected them "point blank," I said I was skeptical of the findings. I even said Russia could have done it, but when both sides hide and lie about their activities, it's hard to trust them. Everybody rolls their eyes at me when I claim that neoliberalism and lack of campaigning in the rust belt contributed to Hillary's loss. Could that be because it doesn't suit the opposing "political narrative" here? All of that may be true, but the credibility of the information they chose to release is intact. I want transparency across the board, so I do condemn them for withholding information about Trump and the RNC. Oh, I'm sure the goal was to hurt Hillary's chances. At the same time, it's hard for me to feel sorry for Hillary and the DNC after seeing what was in those emails. I don't condone the method used to obtain them, but it was the sort of transparency I believe we deserve. I just wish we had had the same access to Trump and the RNC's activities. Neither party could be so blatant in their biases if their activities were public. Although some Democrats still speculate that they did. I believe a multitude of things pushed Trump over the edge. Until the antiquated electoral college is abolished, I'm afraid Trump's presidency is legitimate. At least he wasn't appointed by the Supreme Court. You make some excellent points. I never completely dismissed the idea that Russia was behind the hacking. But like you said about Wikileaks lacking credibility, so does the federal government. Of course, the truth comes out now and then too if it suits them. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?