Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Varelse

Hillary has already "won" the Dem Nomination

383 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Michelle

I can't believe anyone would still contemplate voting for the lying shrew.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I doubt that her cult would care one way or the other. They would play mind games with word games, and they would make the right side look like the wrong side. They're champions of linguistic, psychological gymnastics that trick the gullible. As for the apathetic voters, they just want a woman in the White House.

Sad but true, unfortunately.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

Sad but true, unfortunately.

There's a part of me that still believes that it might come down to Bush and Clinton. Bush's chances seem to be very slim right now, but we have months to go before the big show. A Republican(s) could decide to run on a third party ticket, and the changed math could help Bush. I realize that it seems very remote right now, but Bush is doing well in New Hampshire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

Well I guess we'll have the new Democratic frontrunner then, Larry Lessig! Feel the ... lar! #feelthelar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

http://www.bbc.com/n...canada-35446455

Now the State Department recognizes that there was Top Secret material on the server. With the FBI and the State Department in agreement on there being Top Secret material. AND... Both of them in a agreement that government authorities not only have to treat marked classified documents in specific ways, but that those same authorities need to RECOGNIZE and themselves mark such material.... This can leave little doubt that Hillary did have materials she shouldn't have on that basically unprotected server.

And with the DoS and FBI both recognizing those facts, it will look stupid if the DoJ doesn't do something about it.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

http://www.bbc.com/n...canada-35446455

Now the State Department recognizes that there was Top Secret material on the server. With the FBI and the State Department in agreement on there being Top Secret material. AND... Both of them in a agreement that government authorities not only have to treat marked classified documents in specific ways, but that those same authorities need to RECOGNIZE and themselves mark such material.... This can leave little doubt that Hillary did have materials she shouldn't have on that basically unprotected server.

And with the DoS and FBI both recognizing those facts, it will look stupid if the DoJ doesn't do something about it.

Her cult will simply spread the meme that it's a political witch hunt timed to take place during her presidential bid. Her Democrat opponents, in the primary, will continue some form of the meme, which will make the GOP look like the bad guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

http://www.bbc.com/n...canada-35446455

Now the State Department recognizes that there was Top Secret material on the server. With the FBI and the State Department in agreement on there being Top Secret material. AND... Both of them in a agreement that government authorities not only have to treat marked classified documents in specific ways, but that those same authorities need to RECOGNIZE and themselves mark such material.... This can leave little doubt that Hillary did have materials she shouldn't have on that basically unprotected server.

And with the DoS and FBI both recognizing those facts, it will look stupid if the DoJ doesn't do something about it.

I think most of the federal agencies realize that Obama's administration is the most corrupt and anti-American to ever run the executive. The IRS loves it, the FBI and DoD don't. The FBI is leaking like a sieve because they know that Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett and Obama have zero credibility, are completely corrupt and have an agenda that is not good for this country. Lynch, Jarrett and Obama also know the MSM will cover for them but they have become almost irrelevant as everyone knows they are insanely biased.

Just wanted to say that it is a joy to see that the "courageous defenders" of Hillary have left all threads concerning her with nary a word about the mistakes they made. It takes an adult to admit making a mistake and obviously none of the aforementioned are grown ups yet.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

Hillary: "But they were not marked classified"

LOL, how weak is that? And she thinks that makes any legal difference? laughing.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

Hillary: "But they were not marked classified"

LOL, how weak is that? And she thinks that makes any legal difference? laughing.gif

She would be "worse than Nixon" if she was a Republican. That's how the Democrat media operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse

I think by now most people paying attention would agree the major networks and media outlets could get 49.5% of America to fall in love with OJ Simpson if they wanted him elected. But to think the press is liberal or conservative based on what you see today is only seeing part of the picture. The press is still controlled by profit and it goes (or stays away) depending on where the money is. This is how a relative few in the billionaire and corporate class exploit the system and get big cash working for their politician early.

Bush/Cheney got a lot of the same free pass treatment. There was a ton of screwy stuff you could have published about GW and that family that would have killed his chance to get elected if they wanted to. The WHOLE system is rotten from electing important Govr's and Senators to the core of the presidency.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I think by now most people paying attention would agree the major networks and media outlets could get 49.5% of America to fall in love with OJ Simpson if they wanted him elected. But to think the press is liberal or conservative based on what you see today is only seeing part of the picture. The press is still controlled by profit and it goes (or stays away) depending on where the money is. This is how a relative few in the billionaire and corporate class exploit the system and get big cash working for their politician early.

I used to thin this way as well but reality tells a different story. MSNBC and CNN do NOT operate to make the biggest profit or they would stop doing what they are doing and change their editorial policies. The "big three" have been bleeding viewers for years and it doesn't seem to bother them all that much. Likewise the NY Times which is a shadow of its former self. These are businesses run by

Bush/Cheney got a lot of the same free pass treatment. There was a ton of screwy stuff you could have published about GW and that family that would have killed his chance to get elected if they wanted to. The WHOLE system is rotten from electing important Govr's and Senators to the core of the presidency.

I'm not sure what you were watching those 8 years but in my lifetime I have never seen a presidency so ravaged by the media as the Bush administration. Remember when 5% economic growth was the worst economy in history? Obama expands Bush programs and what were headlines dutinh those years isn't even mentioned today. Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about and have to wonder why anyone could possibly think this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

I used to thin this way as well but reality tells a different story. MSNBC and CNN do NOT operate to make the biggest profit or they would stop doing what they are doing and change their editorial policies. The "big three" have been bleeding viewers for years and it doesn't seem to bother them all that much. Likewise the NY Times which is a shadow of its former self. These are businesses run by

I'm not sure what you were watching those 8 years but in my lifetime I have never seen a presidency so ravaged by the media as the Bush administration. Remember when 5% economic growth was the worst economy in history? Obama expands Bush programs and what were headlines dutinh those years isn't even mentioned today. Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about and have to wonder why anyone could possibly think this?

I think that he's right to a great extent, but I don't agree with his take on Bush. He was presented as a coke-snorting and draft-dodging drunk and dunce. Of course, he received good press from Fox News. That's part of the problem. Both sides are biased. That's to the detriment of both citizens and honesty. Like you say, they play their roles even if they lose it all in the process. However, both sides of the MSM constantly beat the war drums, so Varelse is right when it comes to that part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I think that he's right to a great extent, but I don't agree with his take on Bush. He was presented as a coke-snorting and draft-dodging drunk and dunce. Of course, he received good press from Fox News. That's part of the problem. Both sides are biased. That's to the detriment of both citizens and honesty. Like you say, they play their roles even if they lose it all in the process. However, both sides of the MSM constantly beat the war drums, so Varelse is right when it comes to that part of it.

Honestly your post makes little sense. Fox has right wing commentators but the news is always presented in a neutral fashion, that can't be said for the big 3 and MSNBC and CNN. Dan Rather made a story up about Bush and then when presented with the facts said "Well it could be true and that;s good enough." or some such BS. Obama has been covered and protected like nothing I have sen in my 50+ years ad denying that means only one thing. Fox doesn't always run the DNC talking points and that is why the left despises them. It is absurd and almost irrelevant today because the internet means the truth is easy to find, unlike Obama's transcripts from college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Her cult will simply spread the meme that it's a political witch hunt timed to take place during her presidential bid.

Well it is. You don't have to be in her cult to know that. It also doesn't mean she's not a witch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Bush/Cheney got a lot of the same free pass treatment. There was a ton of screwy stuff you could have published about GW and that family that would have killed his chance to get elected if they wanted to. The WHOLE system is rotten from electing important Govr's and Senators to the core of the presidency.

I would agree on balance but not so much for W's brother yet. It was obvious from the first debate that Fox would have preferred that Jeb Bush did better, especially after he was seen getting the old band back together. Ted Cruz has also been consulting with the same band members that catapulted this new nightmare American century of preemptive war (Kristol, Bolton, Wolfowitz et al) that's sucking our country dry like a vampire. Because neocons are so interested in weakening us to help their criminal friends, maybe Fort Cruz is their last holdout for that one great hope. Trump might be a total sellout on the Middle East but he's praising communist Russia dropping bombs for Syria, so the R's aren't exactly getting the neocon flavored lunch meat they crave, at least not yet. Of course Trump is bigoted as all hell, so at least he'll represent them accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

Honestly your post makes little sense. Fox has right wing commentators but the news is always presented in a neutral fashion, that can't be said for the big 3 and MSNBC and CNN. Dan Rather made a story up about Bush and then when presented with the facts said "Well it could be true and that;s good enough." or some such BS. Obama has been covered and protected like nothing I have sen in my 50+ years ad denying that means only one thing. Fox doesn't always run the DNC talking points and that is why the left despises them. It is absurd and almost irrelevant today because the internet means the truth is easy to find, unlike Obama's transcripts from college.

Give me a break. It makes perfect sense if you're not biased. FNC leans to the right, and it's consistent and obvious. I'm referring to the whole of FNC, not just the hard news reporting. I won't disagree with your point on that. That part of their news presentation is less biased and more neutral than the other major cable and network news programs. I'm talking about the whole shebang, though. It's the right-wing Punch to the left-wing Judys, and they're all puppets for the military-industrial complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

Well it is. You don't have to be in her cult to know that. It also doesn't mean she's not a witch.

The investigation has been ongoing, though. That aside, I agree that some Republicans care more about political points than legal issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

I would agree on balance but not so much for W's brother yet. It was obvious from the first debate that Fox would have preferred that Jeb Bush did better, especially after he was seen getting the old band back together. Ted Cruz has also been consulting with the same band members that catapulted this new nightmare American century of preemptive war (Kristol, Bolton, Wolfowitz et al) that's sucking our country dry like a vampire. Because neocons are so interested in weakening us to help their criminal friends, maybe Fort Cruz is their last holdout for that one great hope. Trump might be a total sellout on the Middle East but he's praising communist Russia dropping bombs for Syria, so the R's aren't exactly getting the neocon flavored lunch meat they crave, at least not yet. Of course Trump is bigoted as all hell, so at least he'll represent them accurately.

Do you really think that Cruz is a neoconservative? Give me some examples of his neocon views so that I can continue my disillusionment. :cry: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Do you really think that Cruz is a neoconservative? Give me some examples of his neocon views so that I can continue my disillusionment. :cry::lol:

Well, calling for carpet bombing of Syria is surely a classic neocon "shock and awe" tactic. ("The innocent civilians of Syria are being slaughtered by the tyrant Assad, and/or ISIS, so bomb 'em all! That'll sort it out once and for all!")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Do you really think that Cruz is a neoconservative? Give me some examples of his neocon views so that I can continue my disillusionment. :cry::lol:

Let's get the definitions out of the way first. Neocons are foreign interventionists, indistinguishable from other conservatives (and pretty much all conservatives of late) on domestic issues. Ted Cruz wants to see whether sand glows in the dark and you're disillusioned that I'm calling him a neocon? He wants to carpet bomb Iraq, sanction Iran, arm the Kurds, antagonize Russia, and get his policy from people who want to illegally overthrow foreign regimes, such as Venezuela's in 2002 which also included assassination threats. He wants to bomb them "back to the stone age." George W. Bush didn't want all that, you'd be disillusioned if I said that George W. Bush is a neocon? What does someone have to do, to be a neocon in your mind? Since you seem confounded by my finding Ted Cruz a neocon, provide some names of who you think the neocons are, and why.

When you choose Elliot Abrams to help you craft your foreign policy, signatory of PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles and special assistant to President Bush, there must be the "principles" Ted Cruz wants to emulate. This neocon nonsense started when Democrats like Reagan bailed the Democrat party and invaded the Republican party and ruined it. There are no real conservatives anymore. That's why they have earned the label "neocons."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

Well, calling for carpet bombing of Syria is surely a classic neocon "shock and awe" tactic. ("The innocent civilians of Syria are being slaughtered by the tyrant Assad, and/or ISIS, so bomb 'em all! That'll sort it out once and for all!")

Was he referring to general *or* specific targeting? Wanton carpet bombing is insane, even for a neoconservative. Taking out ISIS, by any means necessary, is just the right thing to do. My guess is that he meant select targets, although if he referred to regime change, that indeed was neoconservative in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

Let's get the definitions out of the way first. Neocons are foreign interventionists, indistinguishable from other conservatives (and pretty much all conservatives of late) on domestic issues. Ted Cruz wants to see whether sand glows in the dark and you're disillusioned that I'm calling him a neocon? He wants to carpet bomb Iraq, sanction Iran, arm the Kurds, antagonize Russia, and get his policy from people who want to illegally overthrow foreign regimes, such as Venezuela's in 2002 which also included assassination threats. He wants to bomb them "back to the stone age." George W. Bush didn't want all that, you'd be disillusioned if I said that George W. Bush is a neocon? What does someone have to do, to be a neocon in your mind? Since you seem confounded by my finding Ted Cruz a neocon, provide some names of who you think the neocons are, and why.

When you choose Elliot Abrams to help you craft your foreign policy, signatory of PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles and special assistant to President Bush, there must be the "principles" Ted Cruz wants to emulate. This neocon nonsense started when Democrats like Reagan bailed the Democrat party and invaded the Republican party and ruined it. There are no real conservatives anymore. That's why they have earned the label "neocons."

That was sarcasm on my part. The two emojis are clues. In any event, I'm not thrilled with Cruz's views on those issues. Really, Paul is the only one who rejects all or most neoconservative views. I'm worried about Trump, so Cruz is an option, but I'm also worried that Cruz would embrace and pursue more foreign interventionism. Of course, Clinton would too. I don't want an admitted socialist in the White House. That takes me back to Trump as a "close eyes, hold nose" vote if Sanders runs against him. I really don't want to vote for him in a "lesser of two evils" choice, so that takes me back to Cruz, who's the most palatable of the choices that have a chance of winning. In Fantasyland, my choice and your choice would be at the top of the ticket(s). We have to play the cards we're dealt. In that case, I'll take Cruz over the Trump card since there's no way that I can "play" Paul.

I don't blame Reagan. I blame the Trotsky fan club started by Bill Kristol's dad, the leftists who morphed into Republicans in some bizarre alchemical wedding that fooled the masses. They became the backbone and the brains of the neoconservative movement. I think that you could look at the signatories of PNAC statements to find their names (to answer your question).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Give me a break. It makes perfect sense if you're not biased. FNC leans to the right, and it's consistent and obvious. I'm referring to the whole of FNC, not just the hard news reporting. I won't disagree with your point on that. That part of their news presentation is less biased and more neutral than the other major cable and network news programs. I'm talking about the whole shebang, though. It's the right-wing Punch to the left-wing Judys, and they're all puppets for the military-industrial complex.

Well so what?!>?! All of the rest rest of the news is decidedly left wing biased and it most definitely affects how they report, or more importantly don't report, the news. Commentary is one thing and it is amazing to see the foaming at the mouth anger the left has because just one cable network doesn't fall in line and read their evening news from DNC faxes. The rabidity of the opposition shows just how much they are threatened when confronted with someone or something that doesn't toe their line. Look at Ninja, he brings up Fox news in a post asking how the DNC caucus works! teh man is obsessed! The reason is obvious, however.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther

Well so what?!>?! All of the rest rest of the news is decidedly left wing biased and it most definitely affects how they report, or more importantly don't report, the news. Commentary is one thing and it is amazing to see the foaming at the mouth anger the left has because just one cable network doesn't fall in line and read their evening news from DNC faxes. The rabidity of the opposition shows just how much they are threatened when confronted with someone or something that doesn't toe their line. The reason is obvious, however, and a big threat because their ideas SUCK.

There's no foam on my independent mouth. I agree with your take on the propaganda. Hence my comment on Punch and Judy. There are many more Judy puppets. All or most of the main news outlets are puppets, though. Their strings are pulled by the marionette corporations that own them. That's why none of them seriously oppose military interventionism. They bang their war drums in unison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

There's no foam on my independent mouth. I agree with your take on the propaganda. Hence my comment on Punch and Judy. There are many more Judy puppets. All or most of the main news outlets are puppets, though. Their strings are pulled by the marionette corporations that own them. That's why none of them seriously oppose military interventionism. They bang their war drums in unison.

I didn't mean you were a foaming at the mouth type and I agree to a point about the corporations that own them but there is a revolving door between the network news and democrat administrations. It is amazing how many of them are married to each other and are raising families. It isn't a conspiracy so much as a closed country club. Freedom of teh press has disappeared because teh press has become so thoroughly indoctrinated in leftist ideology that they are incapable of seeing how miserably they are doing the watchdog job they were designed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.