And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.
She literally said “we” should have rigged the election…
While in a discussion about the actions of the State department…
That’s what rigging an election means, determining who would win it rather than letting the votes determine it.
The only way I can possibly think you have a valid compliant, is if you’re saying that her “we” meant American intelligence agencies in general (no idea how that makes a difference) and not “we” as the head of the state department meaning the state department and their own intelligence agency…
And if your argument is that pedantic, it makes sense why you won’t just say it, but not why you keep replying.
I think this is out of context as this was the election where a big issue was armed political parties. Its easy to link to an article that cherry picks parts of a conversation and say. see this was said when the rest of the conversation may explain it a bit. Its only the hisotrical context which lets us know a bit more context around the issues in that election. Many people expressed issues with armed groups being able to run as a party.
She didn’t say that in the citation provided. Something other than fantasy would be good.
Why can’t you just say what you mean?
She said:
She literally said “we” should have rigged the election…
While in a discussion about the actions of the State department…
That’s what rigging an election means, determining who would win it rather than letting the votes determine it.
The only way I can possibly think you have a valid compliant, is if you’re saying that her “we” meant American intelligence agencies in general (no idea how that makes a difference) and not “we” as the head of the state department meaning the state department and their own intelligence agency…
And if your argument is that pedantic, it makes sense why you won’t just say it, but not why you keep replying.
I think this is out of context as this was the election where a big issue was armed political parties. Its easy to link to an article that cherry picks parts of a conversation and say. see this was said when the rest of the conversation may explain it a bit. Its only the hisotrical context which lets us know a bit more context around the issues in that election. Many people expressed issues with armed groups being able to run as a party.