Russia's Influence On The American Election
Comments
-
Not sure but finding is NOT hacking, maybe find them on ebay.JimmyV said:
One is talking about a candidate in the election asking a foreign power to hack his opponent in the election. How else do you suppose Russia was going to find anything? If you feel that is degrading our conversation I don't know what to tell you.JC29856 said:
Would this be classified as conversation degradation?PJ_Soul said:
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief!JC29856 said:
No to all the above...PJ_Soul said:
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.JC29856 said:
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s).PJ_Soul said:
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?JC29856 said:WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant.
Clear
Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop.
I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
here I thought we were talking about a WaPo article that was talking about Russia Russia Russia undermining democracy by having a hand in the elections, and I get a politifact reference to wikileaks. ignoring that wikileaks has 100% track record and has stated that the leak wasnt a hack from Russia Russia Russia, how did we go from Russia Russia Russia election outcome to wikileaks?
how about this, "Stood at a podium in full of our press corps and begged the Russians to hack our election" in reality, “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” One is talking about hacking and the other is talking about finding. One is talking about elections the other is talking about deleted emails, you see the conversation degradation?
This guy sells damaged hard drives for $1,000s. Maybe he knows something.
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=cheesybay&ftab=AllFeedback&myworld=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2050430.m2531.l45850 -
Maybe they are in a dumpster in Moscow? A trapper keeper in Saint Petersburg? Of course he was talking about hacking.JC29856 said:
Not sure but finding is NOT hacking, maybe find them on ebay.JimmyV said:
One is talking about a candidate in the election asking a foreign power to hack his opponent in the election. How else do you suppose Russia was going to find anything? If you feel that is degrading our conversation I don't know what to tell you.JC29856 said:
Would this be classified as conversation degradation?PJ_Soul said:
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief!JC29856 said:
No to all the above...PJ_Soul said:
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.JC29856 said:
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s).PJ_Soul said:
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?JC29856 said:WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant.
Clear
Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop.
I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
here I thought we were talking about a WaPo article that was talking about Russia Russia Russia undermining democracy by having a hand in the elections, and I get a politifact reference to wikileaks. ignoring that wikileaks has 100% track record and has stated that the leak wasnt a hack from Russia Russia Russia, how did we go from Russia Russia Russia election outcome to wikileaks?
how about this, "Stood at a podium in full of our press corps and begged the Russians to hack our election" in reality, “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” One is talking about hacking and the other is talking about finding. One is talking about elections the other is talking about deleted emails, you see the conversation degradation?
This guy sells damaged hard drives for $1,000s. Maybe he knows something.
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=cheesybay&ftab=AllFeedback&myworld=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2050430.m2531.l4585___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
High standards:polaris_x said:
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...CM189191 said:I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum:
...thoughts?
-The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization
-The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas:
-Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price?
-NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization.
-BBC is a British public service broadcaster
-AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.0 -
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.CM189191 said:
High standards:polaris_x said:
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...CM189191 said:I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum:
...thoughts?
-The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization
-The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas:
-Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price?
-NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization.
-BBC is a British public service broadcaster
-AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
Bloggers, bloggers, bloggers!!!jeffbr said:
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.CM189191 said:
High standards:polaris_x said:
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...CM189191 said:I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum:
...thoughts?
-The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization
-The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas:
-Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price?
-NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization.
-BBC is a British public service broadcaster
-AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Seriously? I wish someone would unplug the interwebs and there to be only 3 channels of shit to choose from on the idiot box for a month. Get your news and information the old fashioned way, read.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I don't really have the time to point out everything ... i'll just say that these media outlets continue to support the neo-liberal movement that despite it's outward appearance - ultimately serves the corporate agenda ...CM189191 said:
High standards:polaris_x said:
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...CM189191 said:I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum:
...thoughts?
-The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization
-The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas:
-Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price?
-NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization.
-BBC is a British public service broadcaster
-AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
where is the independent reporting on syria? ... these outlets often support state-sponsored terrorists because it suits its agenda ... why is it that americans support the "rebels" in syria? ... why is it that all the reporting makes Assad the bad guy? ... a sovereign country that's last election saw over a 70% turnout that resulted in over 70% voting for this president ... why do americans think its ok to fund rebel groups that are in cahoots with ISIS? ... why do these media outlets perpetuate the notion that this is some kind of civil war when it is a terrorist uprising supported by the US and Saudi Arabia?
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything? ... they are other newspapers handing out awards to each other ...
the only media outlet i'm not sure of is npr
0 -
it's hard to find unbiased sources ... and I'm not saying that those organizations don't report the truth all the time ... just that they are influenced and biased ... for me - I try to think critically about subjects ... i read from various sources and the material has to reconcile ... for example - just using syria again ... when I read that they reported that Assad bombed his own hospital ... i ask myself ... why would he do that? ... it makes no sense ... so, I dig deeper and I find out that the US subsequently retracts their statement on the hospital bombing but the media doesn't report on the retraction ... they just ignored it ...jeffbr said:
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.CM189191 said:
High standards:polaris_x said:
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...CM189191 said:I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum:
...thoughts?
-The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization
-The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas:
-Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price?
-NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization.
-BBC is a British public service broadcaster
-AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.0 -
Ryan used illegally hacked material against Democratic House candidates: report
The New York Times reports The Congressional Leadership Fund used info leaked by Russian hackers in campaign ads
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/14/gop-super-pac-linked-to-paul-ryan-used-illegally-hacked-material-against-democratic-house-candidates-report/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
0 -
I have admitted plenty where and when it has mattered. I'm not obligated to tell you or anybody else on this forum every single thought I've ever had -- which is why I have 800 posts over 13 years. I share most of my thoughts where they actually make a difference, with people who are in a position to do something about it.Free said:what dreams said:
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.Free said:
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?what dreams said:
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.JimmyV said:I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
Still can't admit that your party is the problem can you? The first step to getting better and learning from this awful experience is admitting the problem. Good luck with that and God help us.what dreams said:
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.Free said:
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?what dreams said:
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.JimmyV said:I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
The party will change. I've said that before. I'm saying it now again. It will change, but not in the snap of a finger like you want it (like a three year old wants things now or throws a fit). Processes are in motion for change to happen. You just don't see it because you see everything through your narrow, jaded viewpoint and have zero involvement with the party on the ground.
My saying that voters got it wrong does not negate my belief that the party will change. Those two ideas are distinct concepts that do not cancel each other out. Critical thinkers can understand that complexity.0 -
since 1917polaris_x said:
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?CM189191 said:
High standards:polaris_x said:
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...CM189191 said:I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum:
...thoughts?
-The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization
-The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas:
-Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price?
-NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization.
-BBC is a British public service broadcaster
-AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
0 -
Critical thinkers do not put a candidate like Hillary up.what dreams said:
My saying that voters got it wrong does not negate my belief that the party will change. Those two ideas are distinct concepts that do not cancel each other out. Critical thinkers can understand that complexity.Free said:what dreams said:
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.Free said:
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?what dreams said:
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.JimmyV said:I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
Still can't admit that your party is the problem can you? The first step to getting better and learning from this awful experience is admitting the problem. Good luck with that and God help us.what dreams said:
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.Free said:
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?what dreams said:
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.JimmyV said:I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.0 -
Has anyone seen Hillary? Heard from her? Has she had a post election press conference? How about the winner, the Don? Where's he at? Will he hold a press conference? I'd like someone to ask him if any of his business enterprises received financing from Russia, Russia, Russia and if so, how much and what are the terms of re-payment. Surely being as smart as he claims to be, he can answer the question, question, question. Will he answer the question if its tweeted to him? Someone on here have a twitter account and can ask for me? I don't do Twitter or Facetard. I have a few other questions I'd like to know the answers to as well. But only the Don can answer them.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I personally did not put Hillary up. I voted for Sanders in the primary. I've also said that maybe 20 times on this forum.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Critical thinkers do not put a candidate like Hillary up.what dreams said:
My saying that voters got it wrong does not negate my belief that the party will change. Those two ideas are distinct concepts that do not cancel each other out. Critical thinkers can understand that complexity.Free said:what dreams said:
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.Free said:
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?what dreams said:
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.JimmyV said:I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
Still can't admit that your party is the problem can you? The first step to getting better and learning from this awful experience is admitting the problem. Good luck with that and God help us.what dreams said:
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.Free said:
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?what dreams said:
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.JimmyV said:I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.0 -
I say keep posting it. Free speech for all!!PJ_Soul said:
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief!JC29856 said:
No to all the above...PJ_Soul said:
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.JC29856 said:
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s).PJ_Soul said:
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?JC29856 said:WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant.
Clear
Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop.
I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!0 -
Mainstream news is minimal partisan bias?? If anyone believes that garbage they will believe anything.CM189191 said:I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum:
...thoughts?
If you don't want bias, either turn on international news or just simply kill your TV. Good God.0 -
He never answered my conversation degradation questions so I invoked the Veddie storyteller response.Free said:
I say keep posting it. Free speech for all!!PJ_Soul said:
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief!JC29856 said:
No to all the above...PJ_Soul said:
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.JC29856 said:
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s).PJ_Soul said:
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?JC29856 said:WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant.
Clear
Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop.
I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help