Let's Talk About Media

It took me seconds because I didnt even see your post until about 2 minutes before I posted. Funny thing is I am stone cold sober right now cause my dealer is out of town till the 14th and I am waiting for his GF to get home from work to get some more.
 
57Brave said:
Why should they ?

The election is over.

Was there a law broken no one seems aware of or is this just your concern for the inner workings of the (D) Party ?

As a poster noted , a lot of good all those mechanizations did her ?

I was a Sanders supporter , but pretty sure when all of this transfer of money etc -- Sanders was not registered (D)

Correct me if I am wrong
Click to expand...

Oh sorry. I thought colluding to subvert the will of the voters in an election was a big deal at the moment. My mistake.
 
Jaw said:
Oh sorry. I thought colluding to subvert the will of the voters in an election was a big deal at the moment. My mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't get how this isn't a much larger issue. There is clear proof that the democratic process was violated by HRC.
 
there really isn't unless you are trying to say both the RNC and DNC collude to make sure there is not a 3rd party or more thus insuring one of them is always in power

the rest is just garbage if you aren't arguing that

the parties aren't a set in stone thing that has to happen or set in law

quit being an idiot
 
thethe said:
Both have global agendas. It's close to the same thing then you want to admit.
Click to expand...

There is nothing stopping the DoJ or Congress from investigating Twitter. I would think the Republicans would be eager to investigate actions that favored the Dems. And last time I checked they were in control of Congress and the White House. What's holding them back?

Ditto for investigating Donna Brazile's allegations.

Ditto for convening a hearing about Mueller's role in the uraniun "scandal."
 
thethe said:
I don't get how this isn't a much larger issue. There is clear proof that the democratic process was violated by HRC.
Click to expand...

There was a lawsuit by Bernie donors. The DNC lawyer came right out and said the DNC is a private organization that is not obligated to run a fair primary and that they could pick the nominee in a back room and it would not be illegal.

On a side note who was it that kept challenging me on the Democrat primary being rigged in Hillary's favor. I don't want to sort through 150 pages to find it. Was probably 57.
 
If it was, I was merely pointing out that in the history of electoral politics the claims against HRC campaign amount to child's play.
(cough-cough --- russia)

I think in real life it is called getting ones ducks in a row.
 
The DNC lawyer was correct. As would have been the RNC lawyer or the Libertarian lawyer or the Green Party lawyer. The Socialist Party lawyer or the Stag Party lawyer

This isn't hard.

I have no idea what thethe is saying.
The actual memo outlining the deal was published yesterday.
Along with reports that the Wikileaks documents were doctored by Russians before being given to the stooge Assange
https://www.apnews.com/dea73efc0159...low&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

After all that has been learned about recent Russian infection of our culture one would think people would be more leery of first glance reports and opinions .
But guessing here old habits die hard. CDS

I first questioned the Watson injury in Houston
 
In light if the memo released yesterday, yes.

Still don't know what illegalities are in question or is this just another "embarrass the Clintons" fishing expedition.

I don't like that she gave a blank check to Bush43 disregarding Bob Grahams findings.
I found that then and still do -- lazy
but that being said I find peoples fascination with attaching any and all matters of gossip to them creepy

Shoot, it took the world a year to get inside Trump.
We are going on 30 with the Clintons -- and still nothing but conjecture and rumeuor
That is just weird
 
As I said in another thread, Donna Brazile just ended any remaining political aspirations Hillary may have been entertaining. That is newsworthy, no matter how unpleasant it is for some posters here.

But hey, the widespread knowledge of the Democratic party's corruption on this board is encouraging.
 
Jaw said:
As I said in another thread, Donna Brazile just ended any remaining political aspirations Hillary may have been entertaining. That is newsworthy, no matter how unpleasant it is for some posters here.

But hey, the widespread knowledge of the Democratic party's corruption on this board is encouraging.
Click to expand...

I have a couple observations (questions):

1) Did Hillary have any remaining political future before Brazile's book?

2) Don't most favorites for a party's nomination try to hijack the party machinery (including rules for delegate selection, fundraising lists, etc) to the maximum extent that they can? The Clintons have a long history of this going back to DLC days. It seems to me a common theme in a lot of campaigns is the insurgent versus the entrenched insiders.

3) Are there specific allegations by Brazile that you think are especially worthy of more aggressive coverage.
 
Wasnt Brazillle the lady who worked for cnn and gave Hillary the questions to the primary debate before it happpened?

Brazille is coming off as Whiney bitch
 
1. She seemed to think so. She certainly has made an effort to remain in the spotlight and lead the charge against Trump, instead of the quiet approach that Romney took after losing. Neither was in office at the time of their loss so I feel the two are a decent comparison.

2. Sure, and I suppose she deserves credit for being able to take more control during the primaries than most nominees are able to take afterwards. But I can't imagine that many Bernie supporters or local donors are pleased with the level of control she had or the way she was funneling donations to the top.

3. A 45 second summary of Brazile's settlements would have been nice. If it went beyond that I would put priority on the hijack of donations and the need to clear staffing decisions with the HFA campaign. Those 2 things represent the greatest problems in my mind.
 
Ah the things the media chooses to make up and then take issue with.

Here is what the media reported:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...fire-for-improper-fish-feeding-technique.html
Trump just started his 12-day trip in Asia, which promises to be a difficult operation — and not just because one of the primary topics of discussion is North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. There are all sorts of protocol that foreign leaders are expected to adhere to when visiting the region. Some examples, from the AP:

When in Asia, make sure handshakes aren’t too long — or short. Don’t bobble names or titles. Stifle the critical tweets. Don’t question the food.
Also, don’t overfeed the fish.

Trump became the latest U.S. president to display poor etiquette in Japan on Monday, when feeding the koi carp of Akasaka Palace with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. It is traditional for world leaders to stop and view the fish, and Trump was given a bowl of fish food and invited to join Abe in delicately spooning pellets to the fish. Eventually, Trump lost patience and dumped out the rest of his bowl, making Secretary of State Rex Tillerson chuckle.

Fish lovers on Twitter were appalled, since overfeeding can make koi sick. As The Guardian notes, it’s likely a palace employee was dispatched to remedy whatever issues were caused by Trump’s indelicate feeding technique. Still, some welcomed the opportunity to take a break from the horrifying news in recent days and indulge in fish puns and Trump jokes.

[tw]927400669996130305[/tw]
[tw]927418960798040065[/tw]
[tw]927395795481001984[/tw]
[tw]927490456237301760[/tw]

You may ask yourself, how has it come to this? How have we elected such an insensitive President who could do such an awful thing? Why would he think this is a good idea?

And, then, maybe, you might find out what really happened, by skipping to about the :55 second mark of this video:
[video]https://youtu.be/lK0xg_6nT3o?t=54[/video]

5ief0e9iqcwz.gif
 
Considering the Clintons have been a cottage industry for 30 years
Obama bowed and wore a tan suit
Do you have a point ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top