Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

House Panel: Trump Engaged in Criminal Conspiracy.

Page 4 of 14 [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

04 Mar 2022, 7:13 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Off Topic
VegetableMan wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
The Dems tossed Bernie under the bus assuming that Hillary was a better candidate for the win.They put all the support behind her instead of Bernie.
I’ve always wanted to toilet paper Debbie Wasserman Schultz house.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debbie-w ... 0800bd/amp


It's not the Dems thought Hillary had a better chance to win, it's they feared that Sanders WOULD win. The political establishment and the media are bought and paid for by the billionaire class, so the system is designed to destroy candidates like Sanders. They don't want somebody like that occupying the WH.

Also, the media intentionally elevated Trump because the DNC believed he would be easily defeated. The Podesta emails exposed that strategy.


The funny thing is that I think the only reason Sanders was in that contest was because no one believed he had a chance of winning. This wasn't his first rodeo running, and he had never gained much traction previously. A small but loyal following, but no appeal to the mainstream.

The true mistake was in not realizing how strong opposition to Hilary could be, how many people would vote for anyone as long as it wasn't her.


If you look at the number of people that turned out for his rallies, it pales in comparison to Hillary's. I honestly believe he would have wiped the floor with Trump. The narrative the DNC was pushing was just false, simply because they were invested in maintaining the status quo.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

05 Mar 2022, 2:38 am

VegetableMan wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Off Topic
VegetableMan wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
The Dems tossed Bernie under the bus assuming that Hillary was a better candidate for the win.They put all the support behind her instead of Bernie.
I’ve always wanted to toilet paper Debbie Wasserman Schultz house.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debbie-w ... 0800bd/amp


It's not the Dems thought Hillary had a better chance to win, it's they feared that Sanders WOULD win. The political establishment and the media are bought and paid for by the billionaire class, so the system is designed to destroy candidates like Sanders. They don't want somebody like that occupying the WH.

Also, the media intentionally elevated Trump because the DNC believed he would be easily defeated. The Podesta emails exposed that strategy.


The funny thing is that I think the only reason Sanders was in that contest was because no one believed he had a chance of winning. This wasn't his first rodeo running, and he had never gained much traction previously. A small but loyal following, but no appeal to the mainstream.

The true mistake was in not realizing how strong opposition to Hilary could be, how many people would vote for anyone as long as it wasn't her.


If you look at the number of people that turned out for his rallies, it pales in comparison to Hillary's. I honestly believe he would have wiped the floor with Trump. The narrative the DNC was pushing was just false, simply because they were invested in maintaining the status quo.


Crowds reflect passion, but not votes. The passion of those who show up. It gives no gauge on what those who don't show up will do.

There were a lot of ways the Republican party could have scared voters off Bernie. Bernie is an easy target in that way. All we had in that election were easy targets for the bully in Trump.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

05 Mar 2022, 6:07 am

Seems like an exercise in futility



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,275
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

05 Mar 2022, 10:02 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Neither party is consistently neoliberal or consistently neoconservative. In fact I don’t think there’s a significant neoconservative in the Democratic Party at all.

From what I've seen out there on the Internet, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are all generally viewed as neoconservative.


_________________
My WP story


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,740
Location: the island of defective toy santas

05 Mar 2022, 4:29 pm

^^if THEY are neoconservative, then what does that make people like senators cotton and cruz?



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

05 Mar 2022, 7:51 pm

MaxE wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Neither party is consistently neoliberal or consistently neoconservative. In fact I don’t think there’s a significant neoconservative in the Democratic Party at all.

From what I've seen out there on the Internet, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are all generally viewed as neoconservative.


Either the sites you visit use the words differently, or America as a nation is far off the conservative deep end that our liberals are conservatives to other countries.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


The_Znof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,133
Location: Vancouver Canada

05 Mar 2022, 8:26 pm

Fnord wrote:
a criminal conspiracy


Image



TenMinutes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,960

05 Mar 2022, 10:23 pm

These are words that are kinda easy to look up. In fact, google prints them in big lettering so you don't even have to click any links.

Hint: neoconservative does not mean a conservative who you particularly dislike a lot, or one particularly far to the right.

Oh, FFS it's right there in the box on the right, with more info than appeared in the big-letter definition that google provides:

Quote:
Neoconservatism is a political movement that was born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. Wikipedia


You'll probably need to look up the word hawkish, too.

And while you're at it, neoliberal. That probably doesn't mean what you think it means, either.



Last edited by TenMinutes on 05 Mar 2022, 10:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

05 Mar 2022, 10:29 pm

TenMinutes wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
It's not the Dems thought Hillary had a better chance to win, it's they feared that Sanders WOULD win. The political establishment and the media are bought and paid for by the billionaire class, so the system is designed to destroy candidates like Sanders. They don't want somebody like that occupying the WH.


This is very important. The Dems would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive. This is also true of lesser elections, like congress.



The same thing happens in Australia, particularly in the Liberal Party in NSW.
Factionalism is a *major* problem there.



TenMinutes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,960

05 Mar 2022, 10:29 pm

MaxE wrote:
From what I've seen out there on the Internet, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are all generally viewed as neoconservative.


That's because they are.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

05 Mar 2022, 10:35 pm

TenMinutes wrote:
For those curious, and not motivated by having been duped by party politics and media conspiracy theory, there are a few Clinton facts which, when viewed in a detached manner, are pretty amusing.


I'm sorry there was a Trump.
I'm glad there wasn't a female Clinton.

The phrase: "Between a rock and a hard place" in terms of voting for either comes to mind. :mrgreen:



TenMinutes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2021
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,960

05 Mar 2022, 11:00 pm

Pepe wrote:
I'm glad there wasn't a female Clinton.

The phrase: "Between a rock and a hard place" in terms of voting for either comes to mind. :mrgreen:


Clinton wanted a no-fly zone in Syria. That's how hawkish she was. We may have avoided a war with Russia by not electing her. Russiagate was a fabrication of her campaign and the DNC CYA campaign over leaked emails. You might also dig into what happened to Libya, and Clinton's mirth over it. And her reaction to her own staff wanting to transfer resources to Wisconsin and Michigan. Or that she WANTED trump as her opponent. That she ran all her State Department emails through a server in her home basement bathroom to avoid freedom of information act requests. Callous, dangerous, horrible decisions all around. That those were our choices in 2016 makes me think there's an insane, evil AI in charge, and that it hates humans :lol:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

05 Mar 2022, 11:04 pm

TenMinutes wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I'm glad there wasn't a female Clinton.

The phrase: "Between a rock and a hard place" in terms of voting for either comes to mind. :mrgreen:


Clinton wanted a no-fly zone in Syria. That's how hawkish she was. We may have avoided a war with Russia by not electing her. Russiagate was a fabrication of her campaign and the DNC CYA campaign over leaked emails. You might also dig into what happened to Libya, and Clinton's mirth over it. And her reaction to her own staff wanting to transfer resources to Wisconsin and Michigan. Or that she WANTED trump as her opponent. That she ran all her State Department emails through a server in her home basement bathroom to avoid freedom of information act requests. Callous, dangerous, horrible decisions all around. That those were our choices in 2016 makes me think there's an insane, evil AI in charge, and that it hates humans :lol:


Wasn't she responsible for the death of at least one marine in the middle east?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,740
Location: the island of defective toy santas

05 Mar 2022, 11:06 pm

TenMinutes wrote:
makes me think there's an insane, evil AI in charge, and that it hates humans :lol:

he goes by various names - satan, ol' nick, Beelzebub, the principalities of evil, devil, prince of darkness, lucifer, and many more.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Mar 2022, 11:37 pm

Pepe wrote:
TenMinutes wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I'm glad there wasn't a female Clinton.

The phrase: "Between a rock and a hard place" in terms of voting for either comes to mind. :mrgreen:


Clinton wanted a no-fly zone in Syria. That's how hawkish she was. We may have avoided a war with Russia by not electing her. Russiagate was a fabrication of her campaign and the DNC CYA campaign over leaked emails. You might also dig into what happened to Libya, and Clinton's mirth over it. And her reaction to her own staff wanting to transfer resources to Wisconsin and Michigan. Or that she WANTED trump as her opponent. That she ran all her State Department emails through a server in her home basement bathroom to avoid freedom of information act requests. Callous, dangerous, horrible decisions all around. That those were our choices in 2016 makes me think there's an insane, evil AI in charge, and that it hates humans :lol:


Wasn't she responsible for the death of at least one marine in the middle east?


If you're inquiring about Benghazi, then that can be answered with the fact that the Republicans had conducted more than one investigation into that, where Clinton had responded to hours and hours of questioning each time. And each time, not a single incriminating thing had been found to charge her with. So, no.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

05 Mar 2022, 11:49 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
TenMinutes wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I'm glad there wasn't a female Clinton.

The phrase: "Between a rock and a hard place" in terms of voting for either comes to mind. :mrgreen:


Clinton wanted a no-fly zone in Syria. That's how hawkish she was. We may have avoided a war with Russia by not electing her. Russiagate was a fabrication of her campaign and the DNC CYA campaign over leaked emails. You might also dig into what happened to Libya, and Clinton's mirth over it. And her reaction to her own staff wanting to transfer resources to Wisconsin and Michigan. Or that she WANTED trump as her opponent. That she ran all her State Department emails through a server in her home basement bathroom to avoid freedom of information act requests. Callous, dangerous, horrible decisions all around. That those were our choices in 2016 makes me think there's an insane, evil AI in charge, and that it hates humans :lol:


Wasn't she responsible for the death of at least one marine in the middle east?


If you're inquiring about Benghazi, then that can be answered with the fact that the Republicans had conducted more than one investigation into that, where Clinton had responded to hours and hours of questioning each time. And each time, not a single incriminating thing had been found to charge her with. So, no.


The way Trump wasn't found guilty of the Russian collusion thing? :scratch: