Hillary won more votes for President

rssesq

WOW! Good job BRENT lol

“Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating [Donald] Trump,” Brent Budowsky, a political columnist and former political adviser, wrote in a March 2016 email to Podesta and Roy Spence, an ad maker for the campaign. “She has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify.
“Even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell of out me,” Budowsky added.

rssesq

“Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?” asked Clinton adviser Joel Benenson.

rssesq

The correspondence reveals a campaign that has struggled all year to improve a flawed candidate. As far back as March, aides were keenly aware that she was resistant to the media, perhaps out of touch with regular Americans and unable to convey a clear message to voters.

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

Bentleyspop said:

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.

It really is Clinton news network.

Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.

Which 6 corporations?

And can you please post believable, reliable, and verifiable links to back up your assertion?

Thanks

Bentleyspop said:

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.

It really is Clinton news network.

Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is now owned by six corporations, it is now expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.

Which 6 corporations?

And can you please post believable, reliable, and verifiable links to back up your assertion?

Thanks

This is been posted multiple times in the last eight months.



http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

http://investmentwatchblog.com/only-six-corporations-own-all-mainstream-media-in-the-united-states/

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&biw=320&bih=460&q=who+owns+the+media+2016&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5yIDb1tfPAhXDVD4KHQTLCdgQ1QIIwAEoAA

Hey Free,

I just want to make sure my point is clear on this. I agree with you on several points. The television media has been consolidated to the major corps as you say. Old style print media has been consolidated too, not as narrowly but the days of newspapers all being indy are over. Fortunately there are many alternative sources today to fit anyone's preference, style or bias. The common person, however, is getting their info from these big media sources. This means most people get their news from these six sources as you rightly point out.. But I'm not sure how different that is from the 60's into the 90's. During those times, people read their local paper and watched one of the two 30 minute nightly newscasts. So that was a pretty limited source as well.

My point or counter to your point is that, although your statement about ownership is correct, I take issue with the statement that they were objective. With the exception of PBS historically (many say they are left wing shills), the media is profit motivated and have always served the profit motives of their most senior ownership. That's not new or different. Today that's a muti-national corp, in the past it was a smaller corp or individual owner, but still with the same purpose.

rssesq

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hacked-wikileaks-emails-show-concerns-about-clinton-candidacy-email-server/ar-AAiSDuZ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

and yes that is msn and not BREITBART

PJ_Soul

Free said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.

It really is Clinton news network.

Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.

This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?

BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!

Any good international source is more reliable than US news. Less bias, and you hear different information that you won't hear here merely because it's from a different, global perspective

For sure. I cancelled my subscription to all US news networks a couple of years ago. Best decision ever.

JC29856

K

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.

It really is Clinton news network.

Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE. They would get fired if they showed any personal bias. Because the media is owned by six corporations, it is expected that the journalists are subjective on behalf of the Corporation that owns it.

This is a fictional time. Review your history... Yellow journalism, Hearst, Pulitzer, Ben Franklin for chrissake. It is a myth. All these links that you post from alt news, etc., do you consider them objective?

BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!

Any good international source is more reliable than US news. Less bias, and you hear different information that you won't hear here merely because it's from a different, global perspective

For sure. I cancelled my subscription to all US news networks a couple of years ago. Best decision ever.

Nzherald.co.nz

Gern Blansten

rssesq said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hacked-wikileaks-emails-show-concerns-about-clinton-candidacy-email-server/ar-AAiSDuZ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

and yes that is msn and not BREITBART

yeah what does that tell you?

rssesq

there is a lot of activity in your take the guns away from Americans thread Gern, as well as your I'm with her, Hillary thread.
say hello to Trotsky and the boyz for me will ya. lmao

Boxes&Books

Needy Latinos and 1 easy call. - John Podesta

"I had heard that you were upset that I encouraged a call between WJC and Richardson to bury the hatchet,

not withstanding the fact that [Richardson] can be a dick, it was worth getting him in a good place."

"He's on Meet the Press on Sunday. Probably worth a quick call to ask him to stay stout and publicly endorse, but if it's too galling, don't bother."


Democrats Headquarters: "We're going to need more taco trucks. Podesta fucked up".

Gern Blansten

rssesq said:

there is a lot of activity in your take the guns away from Americans thread Gern, as well as your I'm with her, Hillary thread.
say hello to Trotsky and the boyz for me will ya. lmao

What does that have to do with anything? I was asking about your MSNBC link.

MSNBC reports the news. They don't filter anti-Hillary shit.

JC29856

I'm starting to wonder why from all things I know and am learning about Hilliary and all the things put into motion years ago for her to win the presidency (which she will as I've stated numerous times) why she isn't up 50 points?
I kinda wondered the same thing about Gore 2000. Which of the 2 ran a more disastrous campaign?
Shouldn't Hilliary landslide trump (like Gore should have landslided bush)? She has the unprecedented support of even the staunchest republicans. If her margin of victory or the popular vote margin is anywhere near close, then you have to assume Trump is probably the only candidate she would have beat.
I wouldn't want to be a down ticket democrat this year, that's for sure.

Boxes&Books

Hey Matt, you mentioned that clown Hannity yesterday, or I did, one of us did...anyhow here he is again:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/hannity_wikileaks_proves_everything_that_conspiracy_theorists_said_was_true.html

rssesq

"GRAB" one while ya can, lol.
http://amesbrosshop.com/collections/2016-presidential-election-tees/products/trump-tee-trump-tshirt?variant=32291996295

rssesq

Now just imagine if there was an email from Lewandowski that said Needy dual citizenship holders and 1 easy call.

tonifig8 said:

Needy Latinos and 1 easy call. - John Podesta

"I had heard that you were upset that I encouraged a call between WJC and Richardson to bury the hatchet,

not withstanding the fact that [Richardson] can be a dick, it was worth getting him in a good place."

"He's on Meet the Press on Sunday. Probably worth a quick call to ask him to stay stout and publicly endorse, but if it's too galling, don't bother."


Democrats Headquarters: "We're going to need more taco trucks. Podesta fucked up".

Gern Blansten

JC29856 said:

I'm starting to wonder why from all things I know and am learning about Hilliary and all the things put into motion years ago for her to win the presidency (which she will as I've stated numerous times) why she isn't up 50 points?
I kinda wondered the same thing about Gore 2000. Which of the 2 ran a more disastrous campaign?
Shouldn't Hilliary landslide trump (like Gore should have landslided bush)? She has the unprecedented support of even the staunchest republicans. If her margin of victory or the popular vote margin is anywhere near close, then you have to assume Trump is probably the only candidate she would have beat.
I wouldn't want to be a down ticket democrat this year, that's for sure.

Uh....it's the GOP smear machine. I give them credit for one thing...they know how to fool ignorant people.

rssesq

Oh Jonny boy, u got sum 'splaynin to do? ricky ricardo accent
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wikileaks-emails-reveal-clinton-campaigns-strategy-to-woo-needy-latinos/ar-AAiTHOh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

rssesq

with these 2 ass clowns runnin for Prez
Wake me up when November ends.

PJ_Soul

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

I'm starting to wonder why from all things I know and am learning about Hilliary and all the things put into motion years ago for her to win the presidency (which she will as I've stated numerous times) why she isn't up 50 points?
I kinda wondered the same thing about Gore 2000. Which of the 2 ran a more disastrous campaign?
Shouldn't Hilliary landslide trump (like Gore should have landslided bush)? She has the unprecedented support of even the staunchest republicans. If her margin of victory or the popular vote margin is anywhere near close, then you have to assume Trump is probably the only candidate she would have beat.
I wouldn't want to be a down ticket democrat this year, that's for sure.

Uh....it's the GOP smear machine. I give them credit for one thing...they know how to fool ignorant people.

Absolutely. But don't forget about the lapse of reason (permanent or otherwise) of those who still support Trump. They are convinced America is slipping into some kind of alternate reality or something, where it's the worst place in world and the government threatens to uproot all that they own, all of their freedoms... or whatever the fuck all these loonies think, lol, AND believe that Trump is actually cares about them. Plus they don't care if someone is a misogynist pig who sexually harasses women and wants to bone his daughter.

mrussel1

tonifig8 said:

Hey Matt, you mentioned that clown Hannity yesterday, or I did, one of us did...anyhow here he is again:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/hannity_wikileaks_proves_everything_that_conspiracy_theorists_said_was_true.html

He forgot about Vince Foster, Bill Clinton fostering a child from a prostitute, etc.

I don't remember anyone ever giving a shit about advocacy groups and the Catholic church.
Who didn't know Saudi was funding ISIS? How is that a Clinton conspiracy?

Again, this is right wing masturbation shit. The real world doesn't care.

Boxes&Books

Gern Blansten said:

JC29856 said:

I'm starting to wonder why from all things I know and am learning about Hilliary and all the things put into motion years ago for her to win the presidency (which she will as I've stated numerous times) why she isn't up 50 points?
I kinda wondered the same thing about Gore 2000. Which of the 2 ran a more disastrous campaign?
Shouldn't Hilliary landslide trump (like Gore should have landslided bush)? She has the unprecedented support of even the staunchest republicans. If her margin of victory or the popular vote margin is anywhere near close, then you have to assume Trump is probably the only candidate she would have beat.
I wouldn't want to be a down ticket democrat this year, that's for sure.

Uh....it's the GOP smear machine. I give them credit for one thing...they know how to fool ignorant people.

LOL!!!!
You sure do kick that word "Ignorant" around a whole lot.