Begala tweet:
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the General Discussion forum).
Link to tweet
This is a big hole in Trump's narrative.
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
Have you heard the Intelligence community saying that?
I've only heard Sanders complain that WAPO was trying to sink his campaign by publishing the article, not that it was a leak of classified information.
Not a word from anyone that this information was not to be public, just that Sanders didn't want it to be public before the Nevada primary.
reaction to facts.
It's fact. Blame God for "hating Bernie," not me.
I didn't make him hide this from the public.
You seem are very angry that I'm discussing this news story about Sanders.
I didn't make it up, nor did I make Sanders keep this under wraps, so being angry at me is simply shooting the messenger.
Is that clearer?
Some people think God has that kind of power, so I suggested that perhaps you direct your anger there rather than at me.
I'm just repeating the news. If you are embarrassed, frustrated or enraged, direct it towards someone who is responsible for what happened - if you don't think that Sanders should be accountable for his actions, then perhaps you should take it up with God.
Is that clearer?
other!!!
Which his accusation of WAPO explicitly shows.
And you clearly don't want to answer that, and keep trying to redirect...
I'm just calling out the evasions, and staying on topic. Only someone who is trying to evade something while still engaging would consider that 'aggressive.'
It seems to be a sore point with you for whatever reason, and you don't want to admit that.
or he wouldn't have accused WAPO of nefarious actions against his campaign by publishing news of additional Russian plans to interfere with the Democratic primaries.
You have certainly speculated (despite his response) that he was told not to tell anyone, then you said that it wasn't something that he usually does (which still doesn't excuse someone would keep something that out of the ordinary, and deeply relevant to the national interest concerning our electoral process in the primary) and say that "Bernie and I" are the only ones who think that it's somehow damaging to his campaign.
But NOW you're saying that you need "more information" to give an opinion on why he might think that this is such a problematic thing for his campaign to come out during the primaries.
This really is a sore spot with you... if you were really uninterested, you'd just stop replying. But you are making a point of continuing to respond in a way that you think makes me look like I'm the unreasonable and inconsistent party in this ongoing discussion.
Usually it's Sanders supporters who bend over backwards to explain away inconsistencies in his statements.
What about that question is so sensitive for you?
Why do you think that Bernie thinks that this being made public right now would damage his campaign?
Not a hard question, and you certainly aren't shy about offering opinions on possible rationalizations for him staying silent about it...
about his motives for staying quiet, when the evidence of his own words contradicted your opinion.
Why is it you bend over backwards to keep on posting in order to try to appear like you're not evading a simple question like "Why do you think Sanders thinks that this revelation is damaging his campaign?"
I notice you don't have a candidate selection. Interesting.
'
