GardenGnome83
Well-Known Member
Now you're delusional!
The media were on her nuts so hard! They barely have Bernie a shake.
Quit lying, you're not the only one who saw what happened.
Why should you take the 2016 Presidential election seriously?
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
The media were on her nuts so hard! They barely have Bernie a shake.
Quit lying, you're not the only one who saw what happened.
BustinScales510
Well-Known Member
So you detoured from the DNC emails to fox news and because I didnt denounce them vociferously enough Im not a true progressive? I didnt say I supported what they do. And dismissing me? Dont be so surly
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If you don't see anything wrong with elected officials influencing either members of the media themselves or the narrative they're pushing, then I don't know what else to tell you. The media's job is to inform the public, not lie to them to push whatever propaganda the government needs. That's the type of behavior that exists in dystopian fiction novels, that's what the Nazis did, and that's what the DNC leak revealed Debbie Wasserman Schultz did in order to give Clinton an advantage in the primary.
I brought up FOX News because they do the same exact shit all the time with things like climate change, the war on drugs, police abuse, etc. and all of us on the left collectively condemn it. FOX News is the propaganda wing of the republican party, and now we have direct evidence that shows both MSNBC and CNN go to bat for the democrats. Every American should be outraged about this regardless of your political beliefs.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
“Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she’s always been good to me. I like her just fine,”, “I know she’s tried hard, but as some people probably know, I thought Bernie deserved somebody that was not critical to[ward] him. I knew ― everybody knew ― that this was not a fair deal. So I’m sorry she had to resign, but it was the right thing to do. She just should’ve done it sooner.” -Harry Reid
BustinScales510
Well-Known Member
Is the DNC email leak itself not an agenda being pushed by Julian Assange? It is a selective attack that was curated by him with the sole purpose of swaying the election. He wasnt going after any dirt floating around Jeff Weavers or Tad Devines emails or anything about Trump and the GOP. Do you not see anything wrong with manipulating elections in that way? Are personal vendettas ok if they are cloaked in righteousness?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
" He also suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe"
"First, citing his “personal perspective,” Mr. Assange accused Mrs. Clinton of having been among those pushing to indict himafter WikiLeaks disseminated a quarter of a million diplomatic cables during her tenure as secretary of state.
“We do see her as a bit of a problem for freedom of the press more generally,” Mr. Assange said."
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
The "Main Stream" Media use to report on Communist build up and the source of funding.
Your Tax dollars at work: http://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474639376/china-breaks-ground-on-military-base-in-africa
Dollars that would go a long way to slow the decline of public standards.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
There would be nothing to leak if the Clinton campaign and the DNC conducted themselves according to their own Bylaws so whatever Assange's motivations are for releasing it is irrelevant. That's the same narrative they've been trying to push about the leak with Russia. What matters is the content of the leak, not who leaked it or why.
GardenGnome83
Well-Known Member
R'amen
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It wasn't even close. Hillary had an advantage. She took it's full measure into the early days of this election and Bernie could not compete. The leadership of the Democratic Party ignored its own rules, this is true. Were any laws broken? If so, then I'm completely happy with the idea of people who did so pay for it including Clinton. Their behavior was stupid. Clinton had a lead that was so large any points shaving their actions provided were swamped by her lead. Just because the election was tainted you can't ask for a re-do or even claim a stolen victory for Bernie. Bernie is supporting Hillary, by the way. That the guy you follow is supporting her is a strong counter argument to all the accusations of corruption and oligarchy.
The proposition that Bernie's supporters were disenfranchised by media manipulations assumes that Hillary's 16 million voter majority were stupid and duped. That you see yourself as above media manipulation and the majority of Democrats who voted other than you were not is beyond arrogant on your part. There is this view that Democracy is driven by the will of the people and not the elite. What you seem to support is an elite liberal oligarchy. To protect those "easily manipulated masses".
The Democratic Party is moving leftward thanks in part to Bernie and his supporters but not at the speed you seem to expect. If you can no longer support the Democratic Party I'd suggest you look into the Green Party. They have an interesting platform. The Greens have submitted initiatives in some local issue elections in Oregon that I'll vote for. Stein is a valid candidate for protest voters and they can use the visibility from garnering enough votes to put them over the 5% threshold that would give them access to public funds next cycle. IMO they need to develop at the grass roots level before they can seriously contend against the Democratic or Republican Parties nationally, which is why I support them in local elections.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Hilldawg Clinton stole the democratic primary from Bernie Sanders. She and Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Stole the motherfucker they did.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I wasn't swayed by media manipulations to vote for Hillary in the primary. Neither were you. Neither were 12 million others. Yet Hillary gained 31% more voters than Sanders. You are claiming that the majority of Democratic Party -- 16 million voters were duped and Hillary "stole" the election. Yet you, me and anybody who voted correctly were not. You demonstrate typical elitist distrust of the ability of the majority to make decisions in their best interest. I hope your revolution never happens.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Is there anything that shows Hillary conspired with
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I got them mixed up. Fixed it, thanks. I must have had me some Silverman on my mind when writing that.I tink you mean Schultz. I would conspire with Silverman. Wife would probably help.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I hope the wife and I do not make the opposite mistake. DWS is not very hot. Jean Kirkpatrick was not attractive either but she was a wildcat in the sack.
GardenGnome83
Well-Known Member
Nice graph. It is incomplete. Where does it show HOW MUCH media play they got?
stupid goddamn facts.
You just want to believe so bad, don't you
Lol, Hillary got so much more!
Not to mention that for a while if you googled Bernie Sanders, Hillary's campaign website was the first result. That's one example. Lol, media favoritism.
Now, come to the real world. During the primary, media coverage favored Hillary.
Bernie hardly got any mention.
You know, you are such a gullible rube. You really believe this stuff, huh?
Your party is rotten, like Hillary's shit stained undies.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you bernie babies are worse than junior republicans who just read ayn rand.