2016 Democratic Thread

[pettie4sox]

lol SS

[pettie4sox]

I don't know why you assume I am evil and Satan reincarnated so to speak.

a.) how they protest: Yes I get pissed when protestors hit the highways. It upsets me and I've said they should all be arrested. I said I"m OK with legal protesting. I am also against BLM members going up to innocents in libraries yelling at them. Does that make me the piece of scum you often suggest? Sorry I'm not always PC.

 

 

Well, I guess I am upset because I am a Republican but I'm not voting for Trump, even though nobody believes me. Trump is the kind of person who has ruined our economy. A one percenter who has stepped on the little guy, both ones working for him and in other industries. He's solely out for No. 1. But I equally despise Hillary (actually hate Hillary more) and I get upset because everyone on here thinks I love Trump. I've talked to a lot of people who despise both choices.

 

 

How do you claim the $5K? Weird. That InfoWars host hates Hillary for sure.

 

p.s. People that hate me on this board fail to realize we all have one thing in common: We love the Sox. Yet I'm still despised.

 

I guarantee no one on this board hates you greg. You might get rebuked for silly posts but that is far from hate mate.

[greg775]

I guarantee no one on this board hates you greg. You might get rebuked for silly posts but that is far from hate mate.

I think there are several who think I am scum.

[pettie4sox]

I think there are several who think I am scum.

 

bwhahahhahahah greg my god man why the f*** would you think that?

[bmags]

October Surprise!!!!!!!!!!

[bmags]

Of course, she's talking about the phrase itself, but that's difficult context for Russians to pick up.

[bigruss]

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4433

 

Clinton's campaign manager says she, "has begun to hate everyday Americans" to which Clinton's Director of Communication responded, "Truth."

Lol keep stretching for wikileaks man.

[bmags]

Sigh.

It's literally not even different than her public stance. But she has pledged to continue the later Obama admin stance if not meddling in states that legalize.

[bmags]

I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.

 

I mean give me a break.

[bmags]

The email is published and these leaks, like past WikiLeaks documents, are admissible in court. I am not sure why you have to stoop to conspiracy theories instead of addressing the facts of the matter. Even if your conspiracy theory were true, these are still real emails.

 

Leaks showed:

 

-HRC's top aides acknowledge she hates everyday Americans.

-She accepted money from Saudi Arabia while knowing they were funding ISIS.

-A CNN pundit fed HRC's camp questions for the primary debate.

 

If you roll through CNN's Twitter feed it's a bunch of rehash stories talking about Trump's comments from last week. They haven't even acknowledged the leaks. CNN is in no way a reputable news source. They're a less provocative Breitbart of the left.

 

Did you even read the email before you spout off on this? I hope not.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I am not sure why you have to stoop to conspiracy theories instead of addressing the facts of the matter.

 

What conspiracy theories? He addressed the issue directly. The email is about the phrase "everyday Americans". Hillary hates that phrase, but these guys think they should use the phrase in the speech.

 

I know she has begun to hate "everyday Americans", but I think we should use it once the first time she says "I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion". I think if she doesn't say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.

 

You're deliberately misreading the email just because Podesta left out quotation marks. I don't even know how you can parse the email under your interpretation. What is the "it" he refers to twice?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Wikileaks has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in six consecutive years

 

You know that's meaningless, right?

[StrangeSox]

Anyone can nominate someone for the peace prize, being nominated is meaningless.

[CrimsonWeltall]

It wasn't when Obama won.

 

I was talking about nominations. This year, there were 376 nominees. Basically any government official or humanities professor can nominate someone.

[StrangeSox]

Lol CNN a "Breitbart of the left" Jesus Christ

Edited October 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

That CNN thing was that her camp was given a list of questions for surrogates for some pre townhall coverage. Stop being so damn gullible and get some better sources if you want people to stop being condescending to your ignorance.

[bigruss]

BB are you really trolling right now man? The context of those emails is clear that they are talking about using the phrase "everyday American" and not just saying she hates everyday Americans.

 

They are talking about specific verbiage she should use and it's a phrase she doesn't like. If you read that email you clearly would get that, so that leads me to assume you're just trolling the s*** out of us or you are happy to post anything that blasts Clinton without caring about substance.

[bmags]

Why do you insist on condescending me? I post news and you joke "October Surprise!!!" Then you ask if I read the email? Really? What do you take exception to specifically? Can you respond to the actual material at hand? Or when it paints HRC negatively or do you just condescend, wave your hand and parrot conspiracy theory?

You stated multiple times her chief of staff said she hates everyday Americans. You then talked about how I was dealing in "conspiracy theories" when three posts in a row after I showed how your claim was wrong. No hand waving.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

The email is published and these leaks, like past WikiLeaks documents, are admissible in court. I am not sure why you have to stoop to conspiracy theories instead of addressing the facts of the matter. Even if your conspiracy theory were true, these are still real emails.

 

Leaks showed:

 

-HRC's top aides acknowledge she hates everyday Americans.

-She accepted money from Saudi Arabia while knowing they were funding ISIS.

-A CNN pundit fed HRC's camp questions for the primary debate.

 

If you roll through CNN's Twitter feed it's a bunch of rehash stories talking about Trump's comments from last week. They haven't even acknowledged the leaks. CNN is in no way a reputable news source. They're a less provocative Breitbart of the left.

 

Because what you are summarizing arent what the email says?

 

The context of the email is a speech. They are saying that Hillary dislikes the phrase. And then they discuss whether or not they should use it. The email "truth" means that if they dont use the phrase it could be seen as a false start. Your reading of the email is your opinion, everyone is entitled to one, but I think that if you actually read the entire dialogue the meaning is pretty clear.

 

Lets look at the actual statement, not your biased reading:

 

I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion.

 

I bolded a phrase because words are important. When you parse statements for your own gain, its at best deceiving at worst its outright dishonest. I get that you have some sort of vendetta against Hillary, but if you think that you can just pass nonsense internet stuff off as fact, you are sadly mistaken. Do your own research, quit parroting.

 

As for the rest, show me the evidence. In the Republican thread you state:

 

https://twitter.com/RealMikeTrimm/status/785538937771192320

 

New Podesta emails show that Saudi Arabia is funding ISIS secretly as well as funding HRC's campaign.

 

But when I hit the link, it doesnt show any evidence that Saudi Arabia is funding HRC's campaign. It says "She took $50mil from them" it doesnt source that statement, it doesnt provide me anyway to verify what they are talking about. For all I know they are referring to Saudi Arabia giving money to the US, which in no way would reflect your statement that they gave money to her campaign. So again, please provide facts.

 

Also explain to me the relevancy of the statement "the emails are admissible in court". Emails are evidence. In a court case emails can be obtained via discovery. This isnt some shocker and not sure what relevance it has at all to your misreading of the email. Unless its just a red herring to divert attention from it.

[StrangeSox]

CNN is pure garbage but calling them anything "of the left" lmao

[Quin]

CNN's closer to Fox News.

 

Occupy Democrats/Daily Kos would be closer to Breitbart.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah I don't think you get what CNN is or only started following politics in the last couple of months. They're a garbage organization, but they are not in any way "of the left" and were one of many organizations fawning over Trump until relatively recently. Hmm why are there a bunch of negative Trump stories dominating the news recently it is a mystery.

 

Where do you typically get your info, rabbit? I ask because it's frequently wrong or misleading in predictable ways.

Edited October 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

LOL check CNN's Twitter feed for all of the headlines they put up today.

 

The headlines:

Negative Trump: 21

Negative HRC: ZERO

Positive Trump: 1 (toddler at his speech), 2 (Trump supporter comments)

Positive HRC: 4

Neutral Trump: 3

Neutral HRC: 2 (Podesta Leaks not reported with any ugly HRC emails)

 

So lets use an example.

 

If you took 100 articles about the Cubs and Reds, and 90% talked about how great the Cubs were and only 10% talked about how great the Reds were, would that be proof of bias?

[StrangeSox]

Because what you are summarizing arent what the email says?

 

The context of the email is a speech. They are saying that Hillary dislikes the phrase. And then they discuss whether or not they should use it. The email "truth" means that if they dont use the phrase it could be seen as a false start. Your reading of the email is your opinion, everyone is entitled to one, but I think that if you actually read the entire dialogue the meaning is pretty clear.

 

Lets look at the actual statement, not your biased reading:

 

 

 

I bolded a phrase because words are important. When you parse statements for your own gain, its at best deceiving at worst its outright dishonest. I get that you have some sort of vendetta against Hillary, but if you think that you can just pass nonsense internet stuff off as fact, you are sadly mistaken. Do your own research, quit parroting.

 

As for the rest, show me the evidence. In the Republican thread you state:

 

 

 

But when I hit the link, it doesnt show any evidence that Saudi Arabia is funding HRC's campaign. It says "She took $50mil from them" it doesnt source that statement, it doesnt provide me anyway to verify what they are talking about. For all I know they are referring to Saudi Arabia giving money to the US, which in no way would reflect your statement that they gave money to her campaign. So again, please provide facts.

 

Also explain to me the relevancy of the statement "the emails are admissible in court". Emails are evidence. In a court case emails can be obtained via discovery. This isnt some shocker and not sure what relevance it has at all to your misreading of the email. Unless its just a red herring to divert attention from it.

 

Iirc db or rabbit posted something similar about the Saudis several weeks back, but it turned out that the donation was to an independent pac so legally Clinton has zero control over it and can't accept our refuse any donations.

 

[StrangeSox]

CNN's closer to Fox News.

 

Occupy Democrats/Daily Kos would be closer to Breitbart.

CNN paid trump's former campaign manager who is still in regular contact with Trump 500k to be on the air. CNN is without an ideology beyond ratings ratings ratings imo.