October 15, 2016
"The Most Important WikiLeaks Revelation Isn’t About Hillary Clinton."
"What John Podesta’s emails from 2008 reveal about the way power works in the Democratic Party," by David Dayen in The New Republic. (Podesta was a co-chair of Obama’s transition team.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
221 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 221 of 221I am not fond of Trump but any third party vote is in effect a vote for Hillary
That's funny, most of my friends say voting third party is a vote for Trump! That might be the best argument not to vote third party, because I will have effectively voted for both of them!
If camp Trump were smart, they would be rushing to create ad after ad showcasing Hillary's life of deceit. Her two-faced corporate lies.
He must scream over CNN, Ellen, Seth Myers, SNL, and the rest of the Democrat Media Industrial Complex
The emails show, her public career has been based on showing one face to her gullible supporters and another, more ruthless one to allies and adversaries behind closed doors.
The Hill signs I see are all in nice middle class neighborhoods. These supposedly highly intelligent, highly educated people imagine they are part of the elite. They're very obviously being manipulated and they don't care.
The nation is like a cancer patient who is being advised by his doctor that swallowing a whole bottle of cyanide capsules will cure him.
Oh yeah. That's definitely what I see. These people tick me off as they're obviously a good chunk of the problem. And yet, they're not horrible citizens, avoid controversy and are well-spoken so they're hard to rail against. They feel they are immune to political mishaps and pyrotechnics and incite in me a low, slow, medium boil.
I agree the only point of this article was to minimize the importance of the emails about Hillary. The one they're trying to claim is "most important" is utterly trivial compared to the dozens I've read about Hillary.
Sure. Hillary and her stooges will give Trump voters the back of her hand, but I'm sure these scumbags will be very attentive to the wishes of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein voters.
Totally not.
Unless by attentive you mean more "in name only" nonsense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html
"He must scream over CNN, Ellen, Seth Myers, SNL, and the rest of the Democrat Media Industrial Complex"
From what I understand, he's talking about it at his rallies. That's not enough. The media is not covering them. We're getting hours of "Trump kissed/grabbed/groped, etc" and a few minutes of Wikileaks coverage, if that.
The frustrating thing is I'm not seeing any Trump ads. (Or that many Hillary ones either, for that matter, but she doesn't need them. The media is already working for her.)
If a tree falls in the woods and the media doesn't cover it, did it happen?
I wonder if at the next idiotic and absurdly annoying DNC/DSCC call I get I can ask what they think of groping.
After all, they are political prostitutes - willing to do anything for money. And it's getting awfully tiresome having to just scream at these robots on the hundreds of "recorded" calls they've placed asking me if I wouldn't mind giving money better sourced from Wall Street donors, to candidates who have zero interest in a non-Wall Street agenda.
What gets me are the workers/volunteers making these calls. Are they actually working class folks with few better options, and getting paid for an agenda that is obviously so aligned against them? Or are they upper middle-class bozos with little else to do with their spare time and who think they're actually doing a good deed?
Either way, I do enjoy fucking with them but wish my very loud and very clear message would get through into their very thick skulls.
Trump is far from an ideal candidate but one thing you have to give him is that at least he's out there (even in unlikely places like Maine) working for votes. Queen Hillary is removed from sight, making as little contact with the detested hoi polloi as possible, resting up as she lets the media do her work for her. I've never seen any presidential candidate do so little campaigning.
exiledonmainstreet said...
I am not fond of Trump but any third party vote is in effect a vote for Hillary.
--
Yesterday I heard Glenn Beck interview Ted Cruz..who framed it as a "binary choice".
Beck blathered and whined like a child. I could almost see Cruz holding Beck's hand in consolement. Beck continued to blather the whole next segment about saving "the idea of America".
"If nobody had armed the rebels in Syria, there would never have been a war there. If we hadn't pulled out of Iraq, maybe we could have kept the arms from flowing to Syria. We could have denied ISIS territory."
If American didn't and hadn't wanted so badly to intrude into the Middle East and shape it to its own agenda, none of the chaos and ongoing collapse of stable societies and governments in the region wouldn't be happening. If we'd never gone into Iraq or Afghanistan, none of this would have happened or be happening.
"I am not fond of Trump but any third party vote is in effect a vote for Hillary."
Yet, I hear Hillary supporters asserting that any third party vote is a vote for Trump.
I don't see how either claim is true and I see them as scare tactics to compel voters to vote for the candidate preferred by the person making the claim. Very few or no voters who feel compelled to vote for third party candidates--as I have been for 20 years--are likely to vote for one of the major party candidates just because no preferable third party candidate is available. We vote for third party candidates because we reject both major party candidates. We would be more likely to not vote at all. I would not vote for either Trump or Hillary in any circumstance, so if Jill Stein were not running, I would stay home on election day, or I might go and write in "None of the Above" on the ballot.
If we'd never gone into Iraq or Afghanistan, none of this would have happened or be happening.
A point I conceded that you chose to ignore.
Per Cookie: If American didn't and hadn't wanted so badly to intrude into the Middle East and shape it to its own agenda, none of the chaos and ongoing collapse of stable societies and governments in the region wouldn't be happening. If we'd never gone into Iraq or Afghanistan, none of this would have happened or be happening.
I think a lot of us would agree with that. My question has always been whether these policies are a result of stupidity/naivete, private deals with the Saudis or a series of moneymaking projects for companies like Halliburton. I suspect a combination of the latter two because I can't bring myself to entertain the possibility of the former.
Yes..take that high road...with Beck. It worked so well with the much more popular Perot...
Re the Middle East.
These werent stable societies or polities and they were getting worse.
Too much modernity created stresses that couldnt be contained, oil money, population growth, literacy and education (the main reason for Islamic fanaticism, ironically), intimate contact with the modern West through mass media, etc.
They couldnt handle it and still cant.
They were like overheated cooking vessels, with the people in charge doing their damndest to keep the lids on.
In Afghanistan the lid had blown off decades before and it was in its accustomed state of war and tyranny.
The instability is still there, and worse now, probably.
My question is what does the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the Obama presidency. I think that Bush has been tried and convicted. It was Obama's job to play the hand he was dealt, in stead, like Cookie, he was obsessed with the past and made stupid errors that compounded the problem, aided and abetted by Hillary, of course.
AReasonableMan said...
AprilApple said...
NO - Democrats are especially corrupt.
This is why April will always be disappointed with life.
10/15/16, 10:38 AM
I lol'd...
I loled too.
Democrat corruption is a given. It isn't disappointing. You can count on it. Democrat corruption will always be there. In the upcoming election Illinois will again vote overwhelmingly for Clinton. Did I say Illinois? I mean Chicago and Cook county. Most of the south side wards will be the last to have their votes counted. Just so Hillary can make her numbers. It's what makes ARMs little world so comforting and snug. Knowing that no matter what only the right people will be elected.
"My question is what does the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with the Obama presidency."
Obama continued our wars there and expanded them throughout the region. He basically continued with the plans that had been made by the administration preceding his. (Yes, he withdrew our forces from Iraq in 2011, as per the obligations of the withdrawal agreement made by Bush, but we never completely left and in recent years more American forces have been sent back in.)
Whoever is the next president will continue these wars.
Curious, Robert, who's going to win the World Series? You're so smart and you can tell the future why aren't you rich?
Post a Comment