HRC

i get my news from different ap reporters on twitter and NYT. as you know, actual journalists

it's absurd to compare that to breitbart and the absolute horse**** it is

breitbart isn't similar or in anyway the same as those and that includes the likes of Buzzfeed somehow
 
goldfly said:
i get my news from different ap reporters on twitter and NYT. as you know, actual journalists

it's absurd to compare that to breitbart and the absolute horse**** it is

breitbart isn't similar or in anyway the same as those and that includes the likes of Buzzfeed somehow
Click to expand...

I agree, but I'm just saying that I think you would have a hard time giving me a right-wing publication whose journalism you respect.
 
goldfly said:
i get my news from different ap reporters on twitter and NYT. as you know, actual journalists

it's absurd to compare that to breitbart and the absolute horse**** it is

breitbart isn't similar or in anyway the same as those and that includes the likes of Buzzfeed somehow
Click to expand...

Weak f'n tea.
 
It's sad to see what Breitbart has become. Present day Breitbart is a disgrace to that media site founder's name. But this idea that leftist internet media isn't the exact same as present day Breitbart ,when it comes tactics, is absurd. Present day Breitbart gets its playbook from leftist internet media.
 
weso1 said:
Need an unthank button for this crap.
Click to expand...

weso1 said:
Weak f'n tea.
Click to expand...

200.gif
 
goldfly said:
yeah, breitbart forever yo!!!
Click to expand...

So a video comes out with proof. CNN, NBC etc have their own left agenda and the video is damning to the left, so they choose to ignore it (which isn't what real journalists should do).

Breitbart hosts the video and because it's Breitbart, it must not be proof anymore.

Is that how your logic works? I'm trying to figure it out. Does it make it proof if CNN shows the video but automatically not proof if Breitbart shows it?

You don't need any journalists here. The wiki leaks show everything. You can be your own journalist and read through the proof with your own eyes. Almost all of the major media networks are in cahoots with Hillary's campaign and there are multiple back and forth emails from her campaign to some of the biggest media corporations that tell you exactly what their close knit relationship is. So when damning evidence comes out about Hillary, they purposely choose to ignore it while they push the far less important evidence about Trump in your face. So all the proof that we have about political corruption can only be shown on the "lower tier" websites that most people deem unreliable. In the end, the proof about the corruption of our leading presidential candidate gets deemed as false while the not even nearly as important story in the other candidate talking about women gets pushed in the face of every American who has any sort of interest in the race.

Just type their names into google and look at their top news stories. 90% of Trump's is negative and 90% of Hillary's is positive with almost no information at all of her corruption. You have to search for it because the media does not want to present it to you.

It's propaganda and it's working absolutely perfectly on you because it has you dismissing proof as false.
 
heavily edited to fit a narrative like the bs planned parenthood tapes

i wonder why most of trumps stories are negative? i wonder

weird that i have read about wikileaks from those same sources some are saying aren't covering it. most people just don't really care that it seems to show she will compromise to get things done or was trying to figure out strategies on how to win the nomination etc

that all seems obvious
 
Everything fits a narrative. But just because you don't want to hear the narrative doesn't mean it's not true ... or atleast worthy of questioning.

sA1e0PI.png


I have to say this though. If you think that the only thing Wikileaks has proven is that Hillary Clinton is a great compromiser then haven't been exposed to the entire story.

Yes, I'll gladly admit that a lot of the stuff circulating on the Internet right now is complete and total bull**** clickbait and ultimately more condemning of the Democratic Party than of the candidate. There is no smoking gun on Hillary. Unless you want to believe her former chef's story that she randomly called a waiter the N-word one night in Arkansas 30 years ago. Or Breitbart pushing old Paula Jones tapes. That stuff is red meat chum to the brownshirt base.

Keep this in mind though. To people that didn't trust Hillary before, the Tweets and the Facebook posts and the mentions of 'Wikileaks scandal' on network news only serve as a reinforcement to opinions that have been circulating around in this country since she first ran for Senate. You know what those opinions are because you are standing against them. But we shouldn't discount the triggering effect this type of event has on low information voters and voters who already had a negative view of Clinton. We saw this happen with Trump, but in opposite order; first the proof and then the pudding.

What disturbs me the most about the Clinton related Wikileaks are the revelations about the Clinton Foundation and the overlap between that galaxy and her work at the State Department. There is malfeasance, but piecing it together requires more time and energy than most people are willing to fully commit. It's not all sitting there in one place. You have to read the transcripts of the Goldman speeches and then refer to the DNC leaks and then the Podesta leaks. But it's there.

I'll just end with this. The Russian piece is the most fascinating aspect of all of this to me, especially as it relates to Benghazi and the 'Romanian' server that had Blumenthal's word documents with lists of Libyan jihadists (according to the FBI file release today).

This all just reads like a horrible political thriller that Newt Gingrich would write.
 
Hawk said:
You know, in the early stages of all of this, I easily could have seen myself voting for Sanders. Even if I found a lot of his ideas half-baked, he was at least directly addressing issues that matter for most Americans on a day to day basis, all while making a pretty damn compelling argument for progressivism. Much like Obama, who I had no problem voting for in 2004.

And I understood him endorsing Hillary, at least initially, in support of 'party unity'.

But to see him remain silent through the DNC leaks and all the stuff that has surfaced ever since has caused for me to view him as pretty spineless. He wouldn't have even had to withdraw support from Hillary, per se, but to just ignore it? To never come out and forcefully say that it was wrong? To demand that Hillary apologize? Damn Bernie where are your principles?
Click to expand...

I too wish he was more outspoken about that stuff, since it directly affected him.

But I'm guessing he was offered an important policy position, such as Paul Ryan fearing he's going to be Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee if the Dems regain control of the Senate.

Also guessing he's not going to want to be partly responsible for Trump getting elected. I think if this were a Romney or McCain candidate, Bernie would have not unified the party for Hillary. But because Trump has become this monstrous enormous political beast, he just sucked it up to help prevent the Don from getting elected.

If Bernie didn't get it, I would have been all for Joe Biden getting it... sigh. A Biden-Trump debate would have been hilariously entertaining. All the times Trump demeaned and bullied Hillary, Uncle Joe would have never let him get away with that and give him a taste of his own medicine.
 
Hawk said:
Everything fits a narrative. But just because you don't want to hear the narrative doesn't mean it's not true ... or atleast worthy of questioning.

sA1e0PI.png


I have to say this though. If you think that the only thing Wikileaks has proven is that Hillary Clinton is a great compromiser then haven't been exposed to the entire story.

Yes, I'll gladly admit that a lot of the stuff circulating on the Internet right now is complete and total bull**** clickbait and ultimately more condemning of the Democratic Party than of the candidate. There is no smoking gun on Hillary. Unless you want to believe her former chef's story that she randomly called a waiter the N-word one night in Arkansas 30 years ago. Or Breitbart pushing old Paula Jones tapes. That stuff is red meat chum to the brownshirt base.

Keep this in mind though. To people that didn't trust Hillary before, the Tweets and the Facebook posts and the mentions of 'Wikileaks scandal' on network news only serve as a reinforcement to opinions that have been circulating around in this country since she first ran for Senate. You know what those opinions are because you are standing against them. But we shouldn't discount the triggering effect this type of event has on low information voters and voters who already had a negative view of Clinton. We saw this happen with Trump, but in opposite order; first the proof and then the pudding.

What disturbs me the most about the Clinton related Wikileaks are the revelations about the Clinton Foundation and the overlap between that galaxy and her work at the State Department. There is malfeasance, but piecing it together requires more time and energy than most people are willing to fully commit. It's not all sitting there in one place. You have to read the transcripts of the Goldman speeches and then refer to the DNC leaks and then the Podesta leaks. But it's there.

I'll just end with this. The Russian piece is the most fascinating aspect of all of this to me, especially as it relates to Benghazi and the 'Romanian' server that had Blumenthal's word documents with lists of Libyan jihadists (according to the FBI file release today).

This all just reads like a horrible political thriller that Newt Gingrich would write.
Click to expand...

I was for Hillary in 2004. If she ran against Bush 43 instead of Kerry she might have won.

But since then, she's just gotten worse.

I feel more bad for Obama because he gets dragged into this. Clintons are essentially milking Barack's good credit as well as Michelle's hot hand. Obama is only doing this for Hillary because 1) Trump would reverse all his policies, and 2) William Jefferson went out big for him on the campaign trail in 2008 and 2012.

Honestly do think Barack's heart was with Bernie, but had to tow the party line for Hillary.

I have to say as a progressive, the feeling in my stomach that we're actually regressing back to the right by electing Hillary to succeed Barack...

I hope Hillary is this huge liberal monster caricature that the right has been painting, that she's more liberal than Barack was.
 
Hawk said:
You know, in the early stages of all of this, I easily could have seen myself voting for Sanders. Even if I found a lot of his ideas half-baked, he was at least directly addressing issues that matter for most Americans on a day to day basis, all while making a pretty damn compelling argument for progressivism. Much like Obama, who I had no problem voting for in 2004.

And I understood him endorsing Hillary, at least initially, in support of 'party unity'.

But to see him remain silent through the DNC leaks and all the stuff that has surfaced ever since has caused for me to view him as pretty spineless. He wouldn't have even had to withdraw support from Hillary, per se, but to just ignore it? To never come out and forcefully say that it was wrong? To demand that Hillary apologize? Damn Bernie where are your principles?
Click to expand...

Wikileaks suggested he was paid off to support Hilary
 
Bernies principles are in Arizona today campaigning for college tuition reform.

"Wikileaks suggested..."
What in the world does that mean ?
 
Lead is up to a full 7 points now on 538. And one could argue that, since Hillary has a great ground game and trump has nothing, that 7 points is conservative.
 
Forever Fredi said:
I have to say as a progressive, the feeling in my stomach that we're actually regressing back to the right by electing Hillary to succeed Barack...
Click to expand...

is this based on the most progressive democratic platform in history, or something in your "gut"?
 
Hillary and Bernie have very similar voting records. I don't understand the notion that she, somehow, isn't liberal enough.
 
or you could say HRC is championing college tuition reform on behalf of Sen Sanders.

I don't get the hand wringing / bedwetting over Sen Sanders supporting HRC.
Kind of the adult thing to do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top