Previously 'The big ol' 2020 debate', turned Baruch's personal waste bin.

[Baruch]

Speaking of bipartisan war policy ...

"Ex-Green Beret Was Behind Failed Attempt At 'Armed Invasion' Of Venezuela Funded By US Billionaires" ... Bay of Spam?

[Shiranu]

More 2016 related than 2020, but the DNC has not changed much since then and I found this really interesting. Apparently for years now the DNC has been in a very tight financial bind and have resorted to some really sketchy financial juggling to stay afloat, namely being completely at the mercy of Hillary Clinton. The speaker in the quotes bellow is Donna Brazile, a former interim Chair of the DNC.

Also, as Biden's polls are starting to slump and he is falling further and further behind in fundraising to Trump, Hillary has increasingly reintroduced herself to the public and begun touring the country again. My money is still on her being the nomination.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debtâ€"$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaignâ€"and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

...

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fundâ€"that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreementâ€"$320,000â€"and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

...

Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

...

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreementâ€"signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Eliasâ€"specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

...

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA 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.

[SGOS]

I read that article twice, and still have difficulty following it.  I get the general impression that Hillary somehow got control of the money.  "Not illegal, but unethical," so it was said.  It sounds like there's a lot of money (even through the DNC is 2 million in debt).  Suddenly there's 82 million that Hillary is controlling.  I don't know how this happens with that much money.  Isn't there an accountant keeping track?  Isn't there some sort of protocol for disbursing it, or is there just a big pile of money sitting on the table for candidates to grab when other's aren't watching:  "Now look, you all, you can take as much as you need, but only your fair share.  We are on the honor system, got that!?" 

But if we don't actually know how candidates get the nomination, because that's only known to the cabal, why should we expect to understand how they handle all the money that the DNC asks me for at least three times each day?  Get some high school kid who got an "A" in some business course, and put him in charge of the DNC.  Is it that bad, or is this just nothing really, and the best man usually wins, so no biggie?  And what's this about Hillary getting the nomination again. Hey, I'm up for a good conspiracy, as much as the next guy, and if that's the way democracy works, count me in, but if you are going to conspire, don't do something stupid that serves no real objective.

But my real question about this report is whether it's credible, or is it just more liner for the cat box?  Or worse yet, could it be both.

[Shiranu]

From how I understand it...

Hillary came in and paid off the majority of the DNC's post-Obama campaign debt and then told the DNC how they could spend the remaining money her campaign and fund raised. The problem rises in that the fund was established with the goal of getting the DNC out of debt and building up a war chest for DNC candidates, from top to bottom, to pull from... but instead the funds overwhelmingly went to Hillary's campaign (giving it an unfair advantage over other candidates and denying down-ticket campaigns that expected access to DNC funds the cash to run a successful campaign) as well as consuls.

It basically became another way for the wealthy to circumvent rules towards funding an individual candidate, as well as gave that candidate leverage over the party; she bailed them out, so she got to tell them what to do. Which from a business standpoint, I am actually perfectly fine with... the problem is our elections aren't suppose to be a business.

But my real question about this report is whether it's credible, or is it just more liner for the cat box?  Or worse yet, could it be both.

Given the leaked DNC emails that exposed they were funding the Clinton campaign long before she was the nomination, which is not protocol, I would assume it's credible. It also collaborates with Tulsi Gabbard's stories about corruption within the party.

Like it said... what they did wasn't "illegal" (though it probably should be), but it was certainly unethical and basically means the DNC staff were choosing the candidate for the people rather than the people choosing the candidate, at the cost of smaller local campaigns being hurt. They put all their eggs in one basket and then dropped it.

The DNC honestly needs to crash and burn at this point. Either a complete overhaul or let it die and have a third party/parties take it's place, because right now it does not represent it's constituents and is financially unable to sustain itself. As it stands it is just a walking husk that refuses to die but only continues to exist so it can extend it's own life.

[Baruch]

I read that article twice, and still have difficulty following it.  I get the general impression that Hillary somehow got control of the money.  "Not illegal, but unethical," so it was said.  It sounds like there's a lot of money (even through the DNC is 2 million in debt).  Suddenly there's 82 million that Hillary is controlling.  I don't know how this happens with that much money.  Isn't there an accountant keeping track?  Isn't there some sort of protocol for disbursing it, or is there just a big pile of money sitting on the table for candidates to grab when other's aren't watching:  "Now look, you all, you can take as much as you need, but only your fair share.  We are on the honor system, got that!?" 

But if we don't actually know how candidates get the nomination, because that's only known to the cabal, why should we expect to understand how they handle all the money that the DNC asks me for at least three times each day?  Get some high school kid who got an "A" in some business course, and put him in charge of the DNC.  Is it that bad, or is this just nothing really, and the best man usually wins, so no biggie?  And what's this about Hillary getting the nomination again. Hey, I'm up for a good conspiracy, as much as the next guy, and if that's the way democracy works, count me in, but if you are going to conspire, don't do something stupid that serves no real objective.

But my real question about this report is whether it's credible, or is it just more liner for the cat box?  Or worse yet, could it be both.

DNC and RNC are private organizations.  Not part of the Constitution at all (similar to the Federal Reserve, but at least that has statutory authority).

Has everyone forgotten already that Bloomberg would pay for everything Dem this year?  The Clinton Foundation money is probably in a Cayman Islands bank account.

The recently released internal party goings-on of the British Labour party in the run up to the 2017 election campaign is just as shocking.

[Baruch]

"Elvis Was King, Ike Was President, & 116,000 Americans Died In A Pandemic" ... then the 60s happened and we was f*cked forever ;-(

"Democrat 'Disinfo' Group Using DARPA-Funded Tech; Will Pay Shills To Target Pro-Trump Accounts" ... this election cycle, Hillary won't hire the Brits and Russians.

"WILL THEY RENAME HARVARD TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY?" ... colleges aren't just petri dishes for communism, they are also petri dishes for pedophilia.

[Baruch]

"FACEBOOK ANNOUNCES ITS NEW "CENSORSHIP BOARD" WHO DETERMINE IF YOU GET BANNED OR NOT" ... Google owned YouTube is using AI.  Who is on the Facebook board, C3PO?

[Mr.Obvious]

"FACEBOOK ANNOUNCES ITS NEW "CENSORSHIP BOARD" WHO DETERMINE IF YOU GET BANNED OR NOT" ... Google owned YouTube is using AI.  Who is on the Facebook board, C3PO?

This has to do with the conversation, somehow?

[Baruch]

This has to do with the conversation, somehow?

Google and Facebook controlled the US 2016 election.  They will control the 2020 election.  Voters don't matter, because they are sheep who bleat because "opinion makers" and "narrative managers" are their masters.  There are similar forces in Europe.  I favor the end of democracy, remember?

[Baruch]

"1996 Court Filing Corroborates Biden Accuser's Claim She Was Harassed" ... oops, should have burned all the evidence decades ago

"US B-1B Bombers Again Fly Near Chinese Airspace Amid 'New Cold War' Threat" ... US last month threatened China with B52s over Taiwan.  US Navy visited the Barents Sea for the first time since the 80s.  A war President gets re-elected (unless you are George H W).

"Schiff Folds: Publishes Russiagate Transcripts After Showdown With DNI" ... selective leaking is a game both parties play.  DNI threatened Schiff, they would release if he didn't.  This may be as significant as the rebellion of the NYC FBI office, against Comey (over Weiner laptop) in the weeks prior to the 2016 election.

[Baruch]

"MSNBC CLAIMS RUSSIA AND EVEN PUTIN HIMSELF WAS INVOLVED IN FLYNN'S CASE BEING DROPPED, THEY'RE NUT.." ... MSM is Alex Jones.  If we still had the Fairness Doctrine in US Media, since 1987, none of this mixing of fact and editorial would have happened.

""This Is The Final Straw": Elon Musk Melts Down, Says He's Suing Alameda County & Moving Tesla Out Of California" ... People's Republic of California ... they only need bicycles made in China.  And made for two, you and your parole officer ;-)

[Baruch]

"MSNBC HOST COMES OUT AND ADMITS THEIR VIEWERS ARE PARANOID BUT THEN BLAMES RUSSIA" ... says a lot about Democrats, no Republican or Independent would watch MSNBC (or the other Chinese controlled media).  MSM is Alex Jones for cuckistanis and normies.

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”― Friedrich Nietzsche

[Mr.Obvious]

You know, it might just be my feeble mind, but this is starting to feel like it's detailing the conversation somehow.

[Baruch]

You know, it might just be my feeble mind, but this is starting to feel like it's detailing the conversation somehow.

Why does this election matter to Hercule Poirot?  Y'all are going to be slaves in the Chinese Empire now.  Can you pull a rickshaw?

[Unbeliever]

I learned how to drive a rickshaw by watching Seinfeld.