Knicks · Where the heck is Hillary Clinton? (page 132)

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Thanks for keeping track in your usual sarcastic way. I don't recognize the manipulative methodology. Is it at all like mainstream?

No, it is not.

As someone who claims to be a truthseeker rather than partisan, I'd suggest you do some research on the form and function of the news sources you're attracted to. How 'information' is packaged in a certain why to produce a desired effect.

To dismiss what I'm suggesting to you wouldn't fit the profile of your self-described nature and motivation.

Your sources are trying to manipulate you. Doesn't mean they're succeeding, but being unaware of their methodology is not a promising sign

Before I begin, can you please stop with naming me things? I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not a truth seeker. I'm just an Earthman, that is fair. ;-)

I don't doubt things are packaged to get a certain point across. You say it is manipulative. Well, 1 Creamer resigned and another got fired. There must have been some truth there.
Maybe my "sources" just believe what they are saying? Maybe you don't. I don't see why it has to make one person bad, good, right or wrong. Just different perspectives.

earthmansurfer wrote:I can't really compare saying Pu$$y in a lewd manner 11 years ago when not holding public office, in a private conversation,

Knickoftime wrote:Now you're either lying or ignorant.

I suspect it's the former. You know it's not his use of the word but that he is describing sexual assault that is the issue. Again, if you're such a non-partisan why would you publicly deny this obvious fact?

Actually, the latter. I'll hold my judgement against you as well, I'm kind of used to it at this point. Hopefully you will start to see that you don't need to name call if you are speaking the truth (or not for that matter).

I'm not denying anything. I can't compare what Trump did to endangering National Security. It was sick what he said/did. What Hillary did (and is doing), is endangering us all.

earthmansurfer wrote:Regarding your main point, again, Hillary is at the top of this pyramid. It is on her watch. And it appeared to occur all over the place, so I really doubt one or two people alone, were responsible, and without Hillarys knowledge, that is a tough one to believe.

Knickoftime wrote:"It appeared"... "so I really doubt" .... "a tough one to believe."

This is all tacit acknowledgment that you have no facts on your side, just your assumptions and speculation.

But again, as the truthseeker here, why aren't you more specific and literal? Why don't you acknowledge you're just stating your assumptions as facts?

Hillary and her corrupt husband have years of history against them. Yeah, and like Al Capone they have no convictions but that doesn't mean they aren't criminals. Was Al Capone just a tax evader in your book? It is quite clear they are also much much more than they have been convicted of. So let's not go down the clinical path of linguistics.

You call a corrupt history, which is so vast, so varied and enough to have written book after book about - assumptions and speculation?
When someone uses their power and influence to sidestep the law, but creates a mathematical wake regarding their actions in their path, it doesn't take much to put a picture together.
And many have done just that.
We will just agree to disagree.

earthmansurfer wrote:I don't doubt things are packaged to get a certain point across. You say it is manipulative. Well, 1 Creamer resigned and another got fired. There must have been some truth there.

There is. He really said those things. No argument.

I don't see why it has to make one person bad, good, right or wrong. Just different perspectives.

Because that is a falsehood and a dangerous one. Not everything is just a matter of perspective. There are truths and untruths. Facts and falsehoods. There are rights and wrongs.

I'm not denying anything. I can't compare what Trump did to endangering National Security.

That is not the point. I do not suspect you personally believe things Clinton has done is lesser crime than sexual assault. You've made that clear. But why don't you just say that outright?

You characterized what the outrage has been over incorrectly. I find it hard to believe you actually think the entire matter was over him saying the word PUSSY. I find it hard to believe up until 20 minutes ago you were unaware the matter has over the fact he claimed to have had experience committing sexual assault.

So I'll ask you directly. Why did you mischaracterize what the issue is over like you did when you wrote "I can't really compare saying Pu$$y in a lewd manner 11 years ago when not holding public office, in a private conversation..."?

It was sick what he said/did. What Hillary did (and is doing), is endangering us all.

Again, you're entitled to that opinion. But you attempted to minimize what sick thing he said/did. For what reason remains unclear.

earthmansurfer wrote:You call a corrupt history, which is so vast, so varied and enough to have written book after book about - assumptions and speculation?

No, I call what I've been specifically talking about assumptions and speculation and the reason I call it that is because you acknowledge it's what it is.

When someone uses their power and influence to sidestep the law, but creates a mathematical wake regarding their actions in their path, it doesn't take much to put a picture together.
And many have done just that.
We will just agree to disagree.

We're not disagreeing at all. You just don't seem to like how the agreement we've come to sounds out loud.

You have no facts in the Veritas thing connecting inciting violence to Hillary Clinton. You have assumptions, which several times now you've tacitly acknowledged, explaining the justification for your assumptions.

Only you know why you can't just acknowledge this directly.

'I have not facts that Clinton has any direct involvement in what they two guys claim, I just believe I have sufficient reason to assume she did.'

That is your position. We both agree that is your position. But I'm the only one who will come out and say it directly.

earthman, the volley that Trump supporters use to offset his deficits was a sound strategy to help him.
Problem was not his choice of words, but he admitted he sexually assaults women. "Locker room talk" is one thing.
But then 11 women have come out of nowhere to rat him out. He can't sue them because he admitted to it on the video.
What is his defense? Bill Clinton. Old news there. Special prosecutors tried and could not get him on anything.
How many times have they gone after the Clintons and come out with nothing?
Imagine Trump being deposed for 11 hours as they did Hilary? He'd come undone. Still to come is trump university.
A lot of the suspected "Crooked" stuff mentioned is often out of context or time was not right. Her foundation pays out 90% and has been combed over.
Assumptions are always if there is not clear answer, then it must be a crime.
Trump is constantly saying things, and then denies it. We have heard numerous statements.
He didn't even register his Foundation.
State attorney General in florida got a fat check and they didn't persue Trump university?
The list goes on and on...........

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/mi...

Man, you know times are tough when you're criticizing your opponents for using one of the "two ways you can defeat your opponent."

That's like losing a football game but complaining the other team only kicked field goals.

'Sure, they beat us 15-7, but...'

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/04/new-york-times-relentlessly-biased-against-trump-reports-new-york-times/

Oh and please don't forget about the NY Times reporter who was caught on Wikileaks giving Crooked Hillary veto power over his articles. These polls are rigged and dishonest. You'll realize this in about 2 weeks.

Think for yourselves and don't let the mainstream media control you!

reub wrote:Oh and please don't forget about the NY Times reporter who was caught on Wikileaks giving Crooked Hillary veto power over his articles. These polls are rigged and dishonest. You'll realize this in about 2 weeks.

Since knowing what you (think you) know you're still predicting a Trump victory, that takes the option that the election will be rigged off the table for you.

reub wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/04/new-york-times-relentlessly-biased-against-trump-reports-new-york-times/

Oh and please don't forget about the NY Times reporter who was caught on Wikileaks giving Crooked Hillary veto power over his articles. These polls are rigged and dishonest. You'll realize this in about 2 weeks.

Think for yourselves and don't let the mainstream media control you!

Is the Fox News poll rigged too?! Their TV programs are trying to help trump but their polling is biased in favor of Hillary? Really?

Let's see what Breitbart has to say about poll denial...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...

reub wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/04/new-york-times-relentlessly-biased-against-trump-reports-new-york-times/

Oh and please don't forget about the NY Times reporter who was caught on Wikileaks giving Crooked Hillary veto power over his articles. These polls are rigged and dishonest. You'll realize this in about 2 weeks.

Think for yourselves and don't let the mainstream media control you!

Thanks for the link reub.

Why did you link to the Counterpunch article instead of the Times article itself? The Counterpunch article didn't add much but add additional editorializing to an article by their Public Editor.

Here is an account from the NY Times reporter you talked about giving "Crooked Hillary veto power over his articles": http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazi...

IMHO it's more powerful to use the actual sources in question.

As for the polls, honestly... too much attention has been paid to them. They could be incorrect for a number of reasons. How would you be able to tell the difference between "rigged and dishonest" and just plain ol' inaccurate? I don't understand statistics and math like that so I'll leave it to the advanced stats geeks to obsess about. I prefer to deal with ideas.

Also: the Times — radical leftists? You don't honestly believe that, do you? I'm just saying so you don't sound silly. The Times is a fairly neo-liberal bourgeois broadsheet. Real hardcore leftists don't even line their birdcages with it. Just a pro tip.

Bonn1997 wrote:

reub wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/04/new-york-times-relentlessly-biased-against-trump-reports-new-york-times/

Oh and please don't forget about the NY Times reporter who was caught on Wikileaks giving Crooked Hillary veto power over his articles. These polls are rigged and dishonest. You'll realize this in about 2 weeks.

Think for yourselves and don't let the mainstream media control you!

Is the Fox News poll rigged too?! Their TV programs are trying to help trump but their polling is biased in favor of Hillary? Really?

I don't know how much you watch Fox News, which was the only major media source not in the tank for the Democrats. They have been railing on Trump for most of this political season with a few exceptions.

Knickoftime wrote:Let's see what Breitbart has to say about poll denial...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...

Wow, great find!

reub wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

reub wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/04/new-york-times-relentlessly-biased-against-trump-reports-new-york-times/

Oh and please don't forget about the NY Times reporter who was caught on Wikileaks giving Crooked Hillary veto power over his articles. These polls are rigged and dishonest. You'll realize this in about 2 weeks.

Think for yourselves and don't let the mainstream media control you!

Is the Fox News poll rigged too?! Their TV programs are trying to help trump but their polling is biased in favor of Hillary? Really?

I don't know how much you watch Fox News, which was the only major media source not in the tank for the Democrats. They have been railing on Trump for most of this political season with a few exceptions.

They're definitely harder on Hillary than Trump when I watch. Are you saying they're biased in favor of Hillary? Their poll is consistently showing Hillary with a lead well outside the margin of error. The most recent one was Hillary 45, Trump 39, Johnson 5, Stein 3. Their 2-way race is Clinton 49, Trump 42.

Are IBD and Rasmussen the only unbiased polls?! What's your evidence for that?

reub wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

reub wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/04/new-york-times-relentlessly-biased-against-trump-reports-new-york-times/

Oh and please don't forget about the NY Times reporter who was caught on Wikileaks giving Crooked Hillary veto power over his articles. These polls are rigged and dishonest. You'll realize this in about 2 weeks.

Think for yourselves and don't let the mainstream media control you!

Is the Fox News poll rigged too?! Their TV programs are trying to help trump but their polling is biased in favor of Hillary? Really?

I don't know how much you watch Fox News, which was the only major media source not in the tank for the Democrats. They have been railing on Trump for most of this political season with a few exceptions.

Heh, Fox now-famously stuck to hurricane coverage the Friday the Access Hollywood video came out, but whatevers.

Perhaps the media has been treating the candidates as individuals, and not as false equivalents.

Maybe Trump is simply the worse candidate?

Are you suggesting the media SHOULD make it their mission to try paint the candidates in equal light even if individually they don't warrant such coverage?

OMG, the world financial markets are in on it too...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...

Meanwhile down ballot..Republican Darrel Issa of California, Obama's biggest antagonist in the House of Rep., who blocked almost everything since the republicans gained control the last 6 years, tries to cozy up to Obama in new campaign ads saying they worked together to pass bills...Obama hits back saying Issa is two faced trying to use his name in ads...Obama says Issa was Trump before Trump...New ads tying Issa to Trump..Boy this gets nasty...

holfresh wrote:Meanwhile down ballot..Republican Darrel Issa of California, Obama's biggest antagonist in the House of Rep., who blocked almost everything since the republicans gained control the last 6 years, tries to cozy up to Obama in new campaign ads saying they worked together to pass bills...Obama hits back saying Issa is two faced trying to use his name in ads...Obama says Issa was Trump before Trump...New ads tying Issa to Trump..Boy this gets nasty...

Nice smackdown by Obama...Issa a major POS obstructionist.

SNL Black Jeopardy...

holfresh wrote:SNL Black Jeopardy...

This was so spot on.

The same people who'd say black people should stop complaining the system was rigged against them and take personal responsibility are now what..?

Complaining the system is rigged against them and it's all the media and the elite's fault.

Oh sweet irony...

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:SNL Black Jeopardy...

This was so spot on.

The same people who'd say black people should stop complaining the system was rigged against them and should stop complaining and take personal responsibility are now what..?

Complaining the system is rigged against them and it's all the media and the elite's fault.

Oh sweet irony...

Great skit...

Trump responds to porn star accuser..."Oh, I'm sure she has never been grabbed before"...

Reading a long form article in The Atlantic right now:

How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul
In the 1970s, a new wave of post-Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...
All the Democrats in this thread especially need to read this. Would love to hear anyone's thoughts on it.

I'm about halfway done... particularly interesting in light of the AT&T/TimeWarner merger. Trump has expressed serious doubt — as CNN is on Trump's Enemies list — as has Kaine more weakly. Haven't heard anything from Hills on that one.