Seeing that we've now all been lied to blatantly by the MSM regarding calling the dem candidate early (ahem, AP, NBC, followed by the rest) and we now KNOW the media lies, it's time to repost this. Except it's no longer 11 corps owning & controlling the media, it's 6.
If anything, watch your fill of MSM with a skeptical eye, because they lie much more than you think. They all have some kind of bias, unless it's public funded or independent news. PBS is no longer publicly funded, btw, they now take corporate money, as does NPR. Both are now biased.
i'm confused. has she or hasn't she won the nom? if she hasn't, is it usual for a sitting prez to endorse a candidate that hasn't won the nom?
I think you're being serious and not a smart ass, so I'll answer:
She is the presumptive nominee. She has a majority of pledged delegates and super delegates. So unless 80% of the super delegates flip to Sanders and go against their commitment, she will be the formal nominee come July. It is not uncommon for a President to do this prior to the party convention. In modern political times, it's been about 50 years since a convention wasn't a forgone conclusion.
This is true. (Slap me silly for actually agreeing w/ Russell) what the media proclaimed is false about her being the official candidate. Of course, people are confused, they expect the media to be trustworthy and honest (which is so far from being true). Hopefully now, viewers will not just believe everything they see and hear But actually question the validity. Because it really is on every channel (especially Fox News).
^^^ I don't get it, Presumptive? So why not just have the election today and be done with it?
Well they really should have done it about 4 months ago. I guess I've said it a bunch of times, but I'll say it again anyway: the primaries are a disgusting, tediously drawn out farse.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Okay, so after endorsing the criminal, obama is now telling the justice department not to release hellary's emails concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership until AFTER the election!?!?!? So much for transparency... And people still wonder why there is such disdain and lack of trust in the government.
Okay, so after endorsing the criminal, obama is now telling the justice department not to release hellary's emails concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership until AFTER the election!?!?!? So much for transparency... And people still wonder why there is such disdain and lack of trust in the government.
The criminal? You don't believe in due process? The WSJ released a huge article last night about the emails and it makes it very clear why the FBI will be unlikely to prosecute. Drudge linked to it last night but it was innocuous, they switched to a more salacious version at the Daily Mail rag.
Okay, so after endorsing the criminal, obama is now telling the justice department not to release hellary's emails concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership until AFTER the election!?!?!? So much for transparency... And people still wonder why there is such disdain and lack of trust in the government.
The criminal? You don't believe in due process? The WSJ released a huge article last night about the emails and it makes it very clear why the FBI will be unlikely to prosecute. Drudge linked to it last night but it was innocuous, they switched to a more salacious version at the Daily Mail rag.
Just because she has sidestepped the process does not mean she is not a criminal. The fact is that we cannot know either way because they are essentially withholding information...which is exactly something a guilty person would do. Are you backing the decision by Obama to withhold evidence until after the election? I guess they would rather prosecute a sitting president?
Okay, so after endorsing the criminal, obama is now telling the justice department not to release hellary's emails concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership until AFTER the election!?!?!? So much for transparency... And people still wonder why there is such disdain and lack of trust in the government.
The criminal? You don't believe in due process? The WSJ released a huge article last night about the emails and it makes it very clear why the FBI will be unlikely to prosecute. Drudge linked to it last night but it was innocuous, they switched to a more salacious version at the Daily Mail rag.
Just because she has sidestepped the process does not mean she is not a criminal. The fact is that we cannot know either way because they are essentially withholding information...which is exactly something a guilty person would do. Are you backing the decision by Obama to withhold evidence until after the election? I guess they would rather prosecute a sitting president?
And if the FBI decides to not recommend prosecution doesn't mean she sidestepped the process. She has always said that when did not send any emails that were classified at the time they were sent. Obviously partisans on both sides want to paint a specific picture in the media. I don't trust any of them. At some level, we have to trust the pro's at the FBI to do their job.
BTW - who is withholding info? I have not heard that the State dept is refusing to comply with any court order related to the emails.
Okay, so after endorsing the criminal, obama is now telling the justice department not to release hellary's emails concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership until AFTER the election!?!?!? So much for transparency... And people still wonder why there is such disdain and lack of trust in the government.
The criminal? You don't believe in due process? The WSJ released a huge article last night about the emails and it makes it very clear why the FBI will be unlikely to prosecute. Drudge linked to it last night but it was innocuous, they switched to a more salacious version at the Daily Mail rag.
Just because she has sidestepped the process does not mean she is not a criminal. The fact is that we cannot know either way because they are essentially withholding information...which is exactly something a guilty person would do. Are you backing the decision by Obama to withhold evidence until after the election? I guess they would rather prosecute a sitting president?
And if the FBI decides to not recommend prosecution doesn't mean she sidestepped the process. She has always said that when did not send any emails that were classified at the time they were sent. Obviously partisans on both sides want to paint a specific picture in the media. I don't trust any of them. At some level, we have to trust the pro's at the FBI to do their job.
BTW - who is withholding info? I have not heard that the State dept is refusing to comply with any court order related to the emails.
I'll comment on the TPP once we finish this.
I think I am more angered that the information is not being released to the public. I'm guessing that the emails would be damaging to her campaign and therefore "transparency" is thrown out the window. How are people supposed to make informed decisions about the way they vote? She has flipped flopped so many times on the TPP depending on where she is and who she is talking to...is that how she will act as president? The fact that Obama told the JD to withhold her emails from the public until after the election tells me that they are trying to pull a curtain over the voters eyes instead of running an honest campaign. I do feel sorry for the Bernie supporters... I guess we'll just wait and see what the FBI says...but damnit if they aren't taking their sweet time.
Okay, so after endorsing the criminal, obama is now telling the justice department not to release hellary's emails concerning the Trans Pacific Partnership until AFTER the election!?!?!? So much for transparency... And people still wonder why there is such disdain and lack of trust in the government.
The criminal? You don't believe in due process? The WSJ released a huge article last night about the emails and it makes it very clear why the FBI will be unlikely to prosecute. Drudge linked to it last night but it was innocuous, they switched to a more salacious version at the Daily Mail rag.
Just because she has sidestepped the process does not mean she is not a criminal. The fact is that we cannot know either way because they are essentially withholding information...which is exactly something a guilty person would do. Are you backing the decision by Obama to withhold evidence until after the election? I guess they would rather prosecute a sitting president?
And if the FBI decides to not recommend prosecution doesn't mean she sidestepped the process. She has always said that when did not send any emails that were classified at the time they were sent. Obviously partisans on both sides want to paint a specific picture in the media. I don't trust any of them. At some level, we have to trust the pro's at the FBI to do their job.
BTW - who is withholding info? I have not heard that the State dept is refusing to comply with any court order related to the emails.
I'll comment on the TPP once we finish this.
I think I am more angered that the information is not being released to the public. I'm guessing that the emails would be damaging to her campaign and therefore "transparency" is thrown out the window. How are people supposed to make informed decisions about the way they vote? She has flipped flopped so many times on the TPP depending on where she is and who she is talking to...is that how she will act as president? The fact that Obama told the JD to withhold her emails from the public until after the election tells me that they are trying to pull a curtain over the voters eyes instead of running an honest campaign. I do feel sorry for the Bernie supporters... I guess we'll just wait and see what the FBI says...but damnit if they aren't taking their sweet time.
I am annoyed that Bernie managed to pull her left on the TPP. I don't think she should have backed off free trade. Far lefties need an economic lesson. NAFTA was good for teh country in totality. The mistake was not creating any training programs or transition programs for the inevitable shift of jobs from blue to white collar.
Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff at the State Department had a Democratic donor with virtually no relevant experience appointed to a nuclear intelligence advisory board, according to a new report that also claims the aide tried to stall journalists examining his background.
ABC News reported that copies of internal emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicate Rajiv K. Fernando had thin qualifications for a seat on the board, other than his close connection to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, had been a fundraiser for Democratic candidates and a financial contributor to the Clinton Foundation and even traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa. The board he was appointed to – the International Security Advisory Board – included nuclear scientists, members of Congress and former cabinet secretaries.
The board is a governmental body, overseen by the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, that advises the department on arms control and related issues. According to the group’s charter, members who are not full-time government employees “may receive compensation for the time served at the rate of GS-15 step 10, plus transportation and per diem for overnight travel.” That indicates the highest level of pay for typical federal government employees.
The emails reportedly show that Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, pushed for Fernando.
A top official in the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security explained to a press aide, “The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him. ... Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”
"S" apparently refers to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox News on Friday the suggestion Clinton got Fernando onto a board that advised on the use of nuclear weapons is “even more significant” than reports her private emails had details on drone strikes.
“He was appointed to the group, which has some of the most sensitive secrets because it looks at Pakistan, North Korea, Russia,” Gingrich said. “It is very clear that this was just pure corruption. This was cash for a seat on a board. “
At the time, Fernando’s appointment seemed to confuse some staffers, according to emails.
“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.
The news organization first contacted the State Department in August 2011 and asked for a copy of Fernando’s resume.
Subsequent emails show officials trying to slow-walk the process.
One press aide wrote that “it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of.”
“We must protect the Secretary's and Under Secretary's name, as well as the integrity of the Board. I think it's important to get down to the bottom of this before there's any response … As you can see from the attached, it's natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members," press aide Jamie Mannina wrote.
According to the emails, Mannina was instructed by Mills to stall with ABC News. When Mannina did get back several days after the initial inquiry, it was only to say Fernando had resigned.
“Mr. Fernando chose to resign from the Board earlier this month citing additional time needed to devote to his business,” Mannina wrote. Fernando was working at the time at the firm he founded and later sold, Chopper Trading.
Fernando, an early supporter of Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, maxed out the number of contributions he could give to her campaign and to HillPAC in 2007-2008.
He also helped raise more than $100,000 for her and ended up giving the William J. Clinton Foundation $250,000 and $30,000 to advocacy group WomenCount, which helped Clinton with her 2008 campaign.
It's not a US presidential election if the 6 Corporations that own the media don't make/steal 2 BILLION in adverts dollars every few years from the sole two parties.
It's not a US presidential election if the 6 Corporations that own the media don't make/steal 2 BILLION in adverts dollars every few years from the sole two parties.
not sure how anyone can say any FT agreement is good for any country in totality ...
There's nothing that is good for any one country in totality. The only nation that could exact that type of deal would be Rome circa 100 B.C. Other than that, you have to review the effect on balance. And our history, through the tariffs and trade wars, in my opinion, show that tariffs are harmful to economic prosperity. That doesn't mean it doesn't hurt individuals or individual companies. But this is the same argument that liberals (rightly) made on Obamacare. It didn't help everyone, and certainly some people (like me) saw their premiums rise and service reduced. But on balance, it helped more people than it hurt.
It's not a US presidential election if the 6 Corporations that own the media don't make/steal 2 BILLION in adverts dollars every few years from the sole two parties.
Two billion dollars is obscene. But the whole two billion doesn't go toward corporate media advertising. It goes toward travel, meals, facility rentals, office space, campaign staff salaries, office equipment, technology, etc., across all 50 states for every candidate on the respective party's ticket. Regardless, it's obscene.
It's not a US presidential election if the 6 Corporations that own the media don't make/steal 2 BILLION in adverts dollars every few years from the sole two parties.
I have received 8 glossy card stock mailers telling me to vote for Rob Portman, because he stands against Obama's war on coal
I am so excited to vote for Strickland (who isn't awesome, honestly) and every few days I get these colorful reminders of how badly I dislike Portman lol
I understand it's a numbers game, but the amount of money wasted on people who's minds are already decided is just sad.
Got beef with radio if I don't play they show They don't play my hits, well I don't give a shit, so Rap mags try and use my black ass So advertisers can give 'em more cash for ads, fuckers
It's not a US presidential election if the 6 Corporations that own the media don't make/steal 2 BILLION in adverts dollars every few years from the sole two parties.
Got beef with radio if I don't play they show They don't play my hits, well I don't give a shit, so Rap mags try and use my black ass So advertisers can give 'em more cash for ads, fuckers
It's not a US presidential election if the 6 Corporations that own the media don't make/steal 2 BILLION in adverts dollars every few years from the sole two parties.
I have received 8 glossy card stock mailers telling me to vote for Rob Portman, because he stands against Obama's war on coal
I am so excited to vote for Strickland (who isn't awesome, honestly) and every few days I get these colorful reminders of how badly I dislike Portman lol
I understand it's a numbers game, but the amount of money wasted on people who's minds are already decided is just sad.
I wouldn't be surprised to see S. Brown on the ticket as VP.
Looks like Sanders is going to back Clinton in the interest of defeating the real enemy.
Doesn't mean his supporters will. And according to one poll since so many are fans here of polls, yesterday's TYT poll of if Bernie Sanders supporters are going to vote for Clinton or not, 87% said they will not.
Looks like Sanders is going to back Clinton in the interest of defeating the real enemy.
Doesn't mean his supporters will. And according to one poll since so many are fans here of polls, yesterday's TYT poll of if Bernie Sanders supporters are going to vote for Clinton or not, 87% said they will not.
Can you link to the poll? Those numbers are inverted to the other polls on the same subject.
Looks like Sanders is going to back Clinton in the interest of defeating the real enemy.
Doesn't mean his supporters will. And according to one poll since so many are fans here of polls, yesterday's TYT poll of if Bernie Sanders supporters are going to vote for Clinton or not, 87% said they will not.
Can you link to the poll? Those numbers are inverted to the other polls on the same subject.
Comments
If anything, watch your fill of MSM with a skeptical eye, because they lie much more than you think. They all have some kind of bias, unless it's public funded or independent news. PBS is no longer publicly funded, btw, they now take corporate money, as does NPR. Both are now biased.
I don't get it,
Presumptive?
So why not just have the election today and be done with it?
BTW - who is withholding info? I have not heard that the State dept is refusing to comply with any court order related to the emails.
I'll comment on the TPP once we finish this.
The fact that Obama told the JD to withhold her emails from the public until after the election tells me that they are trying to pull a curtain over the voters eyes instead of running an honest campaign. I do feel sorry for the Bernie supporters...
I guess we'll just wait and see what the FBI says...but damnit if they aren't taking their sweet time.
ABC News reported that copies of internal emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicate Rajiv K. Fernando had thin qualifications for a seat on the board, other than his close connection to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, had been a fundraiser for Democratic candidates and a financial contributor to the Clinton Foundation and even traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa. The board he was appointed to – the International Security Advisory Board – included nuclear scientists, members of Congress and former cabinet secretaries.
The board is a governmental body, overseen by the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, that advises the department on arms control and related issues. According to the group’s charter, members who are not full-time government employees “may receive compensation for the time served at the rate of GS-15 step 10, plus transportation and per diem for overnight travel.” That indicates the highest level of pay for typical federal government employees.
The emails reportedly show that Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, pushed for Fernando.
A top official in the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security explained to a press aide, “The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him. ... Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”
"S" apparently refers to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox News on Friday the suggestion Clinton got Fernando onto a board that advised on the use of nuclear weapons is “even more significant” than reports her private emails had details on drone strikes.
“He was appointed to the group, which has some of the most sensitive secrets because it looks at Pakistan, North Korea, Russia,” Gingrich said. “It is very clear that this was just pure corruption. This was cash for a seat on a board. “
At the time, Fernando’s appointment seemed to confuse some staffers, according to emails.
“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.
The news organization first contacted the State Department in August 2011 and asked for a copy of Fernando’s resume.
Subsequent emails show officials trying to slow-walk the process.
One press aide wrote that “it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of.”
“We must protect the Secretary's and Under Secretary's name, as well as the integrity of the Board. I think it's important to get down to the bottom of this before there's any response … As you can see from the attached, it's natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members," press aide Jamie Mannina wrote.
According to the emails, Mannina was instructed by Mills to stall with ABC News. When Mannina did get back several days after the initial inquiry, it was only to say Fernando had resigned.
“Mr. Fernando chose to resign from the Board earlier this month citing additional time needed to devote to his business,” Mannina wrote. Fernando was working at the time at the firm he founded and later sold, Chopper Trading.
Fernando, an early supporter of Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, maxed out the number of contributions he could give to her campaign and to HillPAC in 2007-2008.
He also helped raise more than $100,000 for her and ended up giving the William J. Clinton Foundation $250,000 and $30,000 to advocacy group WomenCount, which helped Clinton with her 2008 campaign.
who says money can't buy love ?
Godfather.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
But this is the same argument that liberals (rightly) made on Obamacare. It didn't help everyone, and certainly some people (like me) saw their premiums rise and service reduced. But on balance, it helped more people than it hurt.
I am so excited to vote for Strickland (who isn't awesome, honestly) and every few days I get these colorful reminders of how badly I dislike Portman lol
I understand it's a numbers game, but the amount of money wasted on people who's minds are already decided is just sad.
They don't play my hits, well I don't give a shit, so
Rap mags try and use my black ass
So advertisers can give 'em more cash for ads, fuckers
lol