eagleye13 Loc: Fl

I watched the CNN analysis after the debate.
It was hard to endure, but I needed to watch the spin that was sure to come.
The Talking Heads harped on Trump's not pre promising to abide by the e******n results. It was "horrendous" according to a couple of them. "Unheard of"!!!. While ignoring the points Trump got across.
.
Now they will cut and paste the sound bites 24/7, to paint a picture for those that did not watch the debate. That is how it works.
That is how they get the unsuspecting sheeple to v**e for their candidates of choice.

These are journalists??????

Big Bass

No! They are propagandists.

Little Ball of Hate

No! They're just plain evil.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

At least their viewership ratings reflect that!

Big Bass

That, too. They have destroyed the reputation of the Fifth Estate, and should be banned from using the term "News." (Along with the other propaganda channels, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.)
Their s*******s tactics may work in backward nations, but the majority of rightwing Americans can see right through them, and that is what distinguishes the right from the left.

Big Bass

Yes, low and sinking fast.

Morgan

I think you're right on target, as usual . It is Hillary's misfortune to have to go against not a formidable opponent but such a low class one these people are so offensive always in the pursuit to d**g people down to their level, I think she stood her ground pretty well. Now there is that old double standard to being a lady, but I would love to be a fly on the wall if those two got into it behind closed doors, we'd have to get a spatula.

Big Bass

Are you and straightup the same person? No-one else agrees with him.

Morgan

No we just don't go around in packs. I'm sure others agree also, do you really only like to converse with people who agree with you?

Big Bass

Only if those who don't agree, can't string words together to make a coherent sentence.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

So you think Hillary is just a common example of DC politicians?
If So; it must be reversed!!!

Clinton Compilation, lying, Scandals, etc.:
Hillary Clinton: A Lying Compilation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTNyYTsk5gs
Then there is the Clinton Dead List.
She is one hum-dinger.

Hillary the Scandals
http://youtu.be/BYKAzJcU-DA

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

The after debate rhetoric from the loony left was often comical for me.
One person on Yahoo News scripted that her ( Queen ) was dressed in
Power White Clothing . I kid you not . I was cackling so hard it upset my
dog.

It appears that every pimple faced recent Liberal Arts College Degree
who can find their way around a keyboard is an expert on all things.

Little Ball of Hate

No amount of education can replace a lifetime of experience. Those young whippersnappers think they're so smart. They don't know anything.

Progressive One

you will witness a lot of that here.....when they came at me with the uneducated ghetto rap...I posted some academic material and all it was met with was name calling and monkey/offensive pictures. That did not subside until the academic material was over ran with insults and diversions. Funny you would say that because I eventually realize that was the tactic.......to distract from their lack of knowledge with a preoccupation with inflammatory rhetoric that was insulting and of no academic content. If I were post something about engineering or academia, they would have a feeding frenzy telling me what a fraud, liar, destitute uneducated spook/n-word I am.....while never addressing the issue of substance. I will demonstrate as much one day.

straightUp Loc: California

As far as I know, that has not actually been proven. If it has and I'm just missing it, I would really appreciate it if you could point specifically to the law she supposedly broke and the evidence that she did. And please don't just throw a link from a conspiracy site. There's a difference between actual laws and actual evidence and actual findings and the blabbering on Hillary-h**e sites.


See, this is what I mean... I can detect the emotion in your statement by the use of exaggerated words like "her *entire* life. You don't know about her *entire* life. You only know about her public life. As for her e-mails, how exactly do they prove she's a liar?


What about the deeds Trump has committed? Just because he wasn't in government doesn't mean he wasn't lying and c***ting as the numerous lawsuits against him have suggested. Many of these lawsuits were settled out of court, which someone as brazen as Trump wouldn't do if he wasn't guilty. Something else that Trump supporters do is dismiss his "marginal" deeds.., where he didn't actually break any laws, such as his repeated use of eminent domain to force people to sell their property to him. At the same time they are sure to count Hillary's "marginal" deeds as definite crimes.

The difference between their deeds is that Clinton's actions as an agent of the federal government has a much wider scope with international implications than Trumps actions which rarely affected anyone outside of his much smaller business circles, but that would change if he were ever to become president.


I have found that many people who claim to be "Constitutionalists" don't even understand the U.S.Constitution. But you're welcome to explain to me how she will ruin the Supreme Court with respect to that legal document.


I can't speak for "most liberals" but when I use the "bigot" card, it's either in response to a very clear demonstration of bigotry (which does actually happen) or I make it clear that I am "suggesting" bigotry as a likely reason while offering a very clear explanation as to why I make the suggestion. This is what I did in the post you are responding to. In this case, you're basically correct... Only it's more that I can't comprehend why people *do* see things *their* way. So I ask for explanations and I find myself having these discussions with people who are clearly upset but can't seem to provide any reasons that I haven't already found to be false or exaggerated. It would be different if they were acting confused, but they are very adamant and very resolute. And when I explain how their reasons don't hold up they get very upset with me that I don't just accept their stated reasons.

Now bigotry in all it's forms, whether r****t, or sexist, or wh**ever is one of those human traits that we all have to some degree. Myself included. So we are all familiar with it and we all know it's one of those things we never like to admit to. And it's the things we don't want to admit to that when they get out of control often does create emotional outrage that we can't really explain. I think sometimes it happens without the offender even realizing it until perhaps its too late, if ever. Wh**ever the case, it becomes even more imperative at that point that they find something to blame it on.

So this is the reason why I make the suggestion. In light of the emotional outrage that can't be explained logically, bigotry becomes a very likely cause. I'm not saying this is always the case and I will also suggest that simple misguidance could also be a large part of it. People sometimes just believe what they are told. I only point out the sexist issue because historically, sex *IS* the most significant differential between Hillary and all her predecessors.


You mean like Trump did during the last debate when he defended his less-than-noble tax practices by saying George Soros did it too? (Sorry, had to point that one out) Again, I can't speak for liberals in general, we aren't the lock-step machine some of you think we are. But the reason why I pointed out that other politicians have done the same things Clinton has done is to highlight the difference in the way people react to her compared to others, such as Colin Powell who had his own personal e-mail server when he was Secretary of State. It was critical to explaining the logic behind my suggestion.


Me too. I would always get the rhetorical question from my mom... "If Bobby jumped off a cliff would you do it too?" But, as I hope you can see, in this case I'm not making an excuse for myself. Pointing out the similarities between Clinton and her predecessors, as I've explained, is part of a logical process for understanding the disproportionate agitation of others.


Don't take offense, 'cause I don't really know you, but I don't know if you really would. It's easy to say that when you know it would never actually happen. As for me, remembering her role in what I feel was the most abominable administration at least since Wilson. She would have to be running against someone like Trump to get my v**e.