Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politi...rty/index.html

You gotta love it Harry, it's from CNN too!....

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politi...rty/index.html

You gotta love it Harry, it's from CNN too!....

(CNN)"Yes."
That was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's response to a simple question asked by CNN's Jake
Tapper Thursday night: "Senator, do you agree with the notion that (the 2016 Democratic primary) was
rigged?"

"The funding arrangement with [Hillary For America] and the victory fund agreement was not illegal,
but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the
party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but
as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Harry Krause's heroine.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On 11/3/2017 5:44 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politi...rty/index.html

You gotta love it Harry, it's from CNN too!....

(CNN)"Yes."
That was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's response to a simple question asked by CNN's Jake
Tapper Thursday night: "Senator, do you agree with the notion that (the 2016 Democratic primary) was
rigged?"

"The funding arrangement with [Hillary For America] and the victory fund agreement was not illegal,
but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the
party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but
as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Harry Krause's heroine.



This is nothing more than another example of the unethical and dishonest
character of Hillary Clinton. This happened almost a year before she
officially announced her candidacy and demonstrates the arrogant sense
of entitlement she had with regard to becoming the next POTUS.

Many, including me, sorta looked at Debbie Wasserman Schultz as being
the one behind the DNC's preferential treatment of Hillary during the
Dem's nomination process but now it appears it was really Hillary and
her campaign pulling the strings. It also raises the question as to who
was really responsible for picking up the full tab for payments to the
lawyer firm who then paid Fusion GPS who then paid Steele, the UK former
spy who put together the Trump dossier. Under the terms of Hillary's
bailout of the DNC, she and her campaign controlled where DNC money was
spent.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

John H Wrote in message:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politi...rty/index.html

You gotta love it Harry, it's from CNN too!....

(CNN)"Yes."
That was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's response to a simple question asked by CNN's Jake
Tapper Thursday night: "Senator, do you agree with the notion that (the 2016 Democratic primary) was
rigged?"

"The funding arrangement with [Hillary For America] and the victory fund agreement was not illegal,
but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the
party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but
as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Harry Krause's heroine.


The mother he wish he had instead of that dang republican functionary.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On 11/3/17 7:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2017 5:44 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politi...rty/index.html


You gotta love it Harry, it's from CNN too!....

Â* (CNN)"Yes."
That was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's response to a simple
question asked by CNN's Jake
Tapper Thursday night: "Senator, do you agree with the notion that
(the 2016 Democratic primary) was
rigged?"

"The funding arrangement with [Hillary For America] and the victory
fund agreement was not illegal,
but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign
would not have control of the
party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.
This was not a criminal act, but
as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Harry Krause's heroine.



This is nothing more than another example of the unethical and dishonest
character of Hillary Clinton.Â* This happened almost a year before she
officially announced her candidacy and demonstrates the arrogant sense
of entitlement she had with regard to becoming the next POTUS.

Many, including me, sorta looked at Debbie Wasserman Schultz as being
the one behind the DNC's preferential treatment of Hillary during the
Dem's nomination process but now it appears it was really Hillary and
her campaign pulling the strings.Â* It also raises the question as to who
was really responsible for picking up the full tab for payments to the
lawyer firm who then paid Fusion GPS who then paid Steele, the UK former
spy who put together the Trump dossier.Â*Â* Under the terms of Hillary's
bailout of the DNC, she and her campaign controlled where DNC money was
spent.


Your comments are so ironic coming from someone who openly and happily
supports Donald Trump, the most corrupt, inept, intellectually lacking,
and lazy POTUS in the history of the United States. Too funny.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On 11/3/2017 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2017 5:44 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politi...rty/index.html

You gotta love it Harry, it's from CNN too!....

(CNN)"Yes."
That was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's response to a simple
question asked by CNN's Jake
Tapper Thursday night: "Senator, do you agree with the notion that (the
2016 Democratic primary) was
rigged?"

"The funding arrangement with [Hillary For America] and the victory fund
agreement was not illegal,
but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign
would not have control of the
party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This
was not a criminal act, but
as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Harry Krause's heroine.



This is nothing more than another example of the unethical and dishonest
character of Hillary Clinton. This happened almost a year before she
officially announced her candidacy and demonstrates the arrogant sense
of entitlement she had with regard to becoming the next POTUS.

Many, including me, sorta looked at Debbie Wasserman Schultz as being
the one behind the DNC's preferential treatment of Hillary during the
Dem's nomination process but now it appears it was really Hillary and
her campaign pulling the strings. It also raises the question as to who
was really responsible for picking up the full tab for payments to the
lawyer firm who then paid Fusion GPS who then paid Steele, the UK former
spy who put together the Trump dossier. Under the terms of Hillary's
bailout of the DNC, she and her campaign controlled where DNC money was
spent.


Heh heh heh

https://flic.kr/p/212bqu7



heh heh heh

It wasn't me or the Republicans who brought up Hillary again in the
news. It was Donna Brazile, the former chairperson of the DNC who did.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On 11/3/2017 8:43 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 11/3/17 7:03 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2017 5:44 AM, John H wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:56:39 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politi...rty/index.html


You gotta love it Harry, it's from CNN too!....

Â* (CNN)"Yes."
That was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's response to a simple
question asked by CNN's Jake
Tapper Thursday night: "Senator, do you agree with the notion that
(the 2016 Democratic primary) was
rigged?"

"The funding arrangement with [Hillary For America] and the victory
fund agreement was not illegal,
but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one
campaign would not have control of the
party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.
This was not a criminal act, but
as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Harry Krause's heroine.



This is nothing more than another example of the unethical and
dishonest character of Hillary Clinton.Â* This happened almost a year
before she officially announced her candidacy and demonstrates the
arrogant sense of entitlement she had with regard to becoming the next
POTUS.

Many, including me, sorta looked at Debbie Wasserman Schultz as being
the one behind the DNC's preferential treatment of Hillary during the
Dem's nomination process but now it appears it was really Hillary and
her campaign pulling the strings.Â* It also raises the question as to
who was really responsible for picking up the full tab for payments to
the lawyer firm who then paid Fusion GPS who then paid Steele, the UK
former spy who put together the Trump dossier.Â*Â* Under the terms of
Hillary's bailout of the DNC, she and her campaign controlled where
DNC money was spent.


Your comments are so ironic coming from someone who openly and happily
supports Donald Trump, the most corrupt, inept, intellectually lacking,
and lazy POTUS in the history of the United States. Too funny.


More progressive liberal talking point BS.

The country is doing a hell of a lot better with Trump the Mouth in
charge than it would have been with your choice. She was too lazy to
even put forth much of an effort, choosing instead to buy the nomination
and just sit back and assume her entitled coronation would happen.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On 11/3/2017 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
- show quoted text -
Heh heh heh

https://flic.kr/p/212bqu7



heh heh heh
.....

“Use Hillary card when you can’t use actual facts?�

Is that what all the news networks are now guilty of, especially CNN?

Wow Harry...

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

Heh heh heh

“Delicious!�

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 05:44:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

Harry Krause's heroine.

Are you going all Dan Quayle on us ?

There is no "e" in heroin.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:23:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


More progressive liberal talking point BS.

The country is doing a hell of a lot better with Trump the Mouth in
charge than it would have been with your choice. She was too lazy to
even put forth much of an effort, choosing instead to buy the nomination
and just sit back and assume her entitled coronation would happen.

It is sort of like my wife. She is always bitching about Trump but she
certainly likes what happened to her 401k this year. She is also happy
about how well the housing business is rebounding.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On 11/3/17 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 05:44:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

Harry Krause's heroine.

Are you going all Dan Quayle on us ?

There is no "e" in heroin.


Except, of course, for the "e" after the "h", unless he meant the female
version of hero, which is heroine. I wouldn't know, as I block John
Herring and don't see many posts where he is requoted.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 07:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

Heh heh heh

“Delicious!”


"President Trump said the American public "deserves" an inquiry."

Amen.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 12:51:45 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 05:44:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

Harry Krause's heroine.

Are you going all Dan Quayle on us ?

There is no "e" in heroin.

Don White bait.

Watching the Dems gnaw on each other.
 

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:01:22 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 11/3/17 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 05:44:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

Harry Krause's heroine.

Are you going all Dan Quayle on us ?

There is no "e" in heroin.


Except, of course, for the "e" after the "h", unless he meant the female
version of hero, which is heroine. I wouldn't know, as I block John
Herring and don't see many posts where he is requoted.

I stand by my assessment.