Hillary won more votes for President
Comments
-
I did 8 shows this last one... my wife will kill me if they tour again before next fall...tonifig8 said:
Well said. Plenty of substance and plenty to digest.mrussel1 said:
I'd be down with that.. I usually make 5+ shows each tour so I'm always around.tonifig8 said:mrussel1 said:
Yes, he is that clown.... the ultimate hack.tonifig8 said:mrussel1 said:
WHAT ABOUT SEAN HANNITY? Has anyone called Sean Hannity and asked him?Gern Blansten said:
Neither is Trump. It's politics.tonifig8 said:Gern Blansten said:
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.mrussel1 said:
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.HughFreakingDillon said:
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.mrussel1 said:
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.HughFreakingDillon said:
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.dignin said:
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?HughFreakingDillon said:
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.JC29856 said:
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.HughFreakingDillon said:
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.JC29856 said:
Your giving her too much credit with journalistHughFreakingDillon said:
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example:
Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some
Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
You mean Trump's homie? The guy that knows the truth about Trump's claim that he wasn't for the war? Or am I getting him and the other clown Beck confused... These guys all look alike and act alike- hard to remember.
Hey - you asked a question about West's comments above. I answered but would love to hear your response. I'm not looking for a row, rather a real conversation about his comments.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the email leaks thread. If you have some time join the convo. There's some good laughs and serious shit going down over there.
As far as brother West's message- I can't really give a solid opinion on it which was why I asked for thoughts on it. Also, I wanted to see the responses by other genuine progressives- Do we share the same sentiment?
I trust West and believe him to be an honest human being with good intentions. I've heard him debate issues, I've heard several of his speeches, and I've seen him speak several times on shows. My judgement tells me he's a good guy. But I don't know enough about some of his statements to get into a serious convo regarding them. I have my biased opinion on issues like Honduras where I perceive it's more of the US meddling with foreign affairs in order to get an advantage. We've seen it happen throughout history.
When he stated possibly going to war with Russia I could totally see that. Clinton is a war hawk and her aggressive talk about Russia is alarming- she made an aggressive comment during the last debate. The media spinning the news in her favor will make things look like a legit threat.
His comment on Brother Bernie Sanders … "he was the standard-bearer for truth and justice" - Absolutely agree with that comment, and you know it. Sanders has proven to be a good man and those email leaks show that he was double crossed. Clinton is not a progressive, as I think you've acknowledged as well. More of a centrist, something you have self proclaimed as well. I too see myself as more of a centrist, and don;t agree with most whacky liberals. I'm a progressive at heart and on a lot of issues, but I will always support the truth and "right over wrong" all day.
Most of the comments mentioned by West are things that have been kicked up and down this thread. Sorry if that wasn't the convo you were looking for. We'll have to grab a beer and some tacos sometime and I'll pick your brain.
(not in a silence of the lambs type of way)
haha
West is a good guy, even if I disagree with him. I think he is holding Clinton to a standard that I don't think he held Sanders to (like the Crime Bill for example). Re: Russia, I think Clinton is absolutely posturing and I agree with it. There's a foreign policy saying that you are "strong in public and absolutely brutal in private". Putin hates Clinton. There is no doubt about that. He blames her and our ambassador for the strong protests against Russia in the Ukraine and for really tough statements made after he re-took power. But our disagreements don't come close to armed conflict. But you can't cozy up to a KGB colonel and she doesn't.
Regarding the emails. They are disappointing I would say. But nothing in there surprises me. I won't defend them but I wouldn't call them disqualifying, particularly compared to the alternative. I'm also not sure if there is anything in there from Clinton herself that are damming, but I might be wrong.
Clinton is a progressive on social issues. She's a centrist on economic issues. That pretty much embodies me. It's also pretty damn close to Obama too.
We'll have to get JC and unsung involved for a great conversation. I'll sit back and enjoy the discussion. Now all we need is a damn tour.
Back to the serious talk0 -
Hilliary refers to Aleppo rebels as freedom fighters. Nusra the main faction is just another name for isis, trying to establish a Sunni only state. The step down moderate rebels mour zinki backed by the us behead a 12 year old and film it to prove it's US loyalty.
US backed freedom fighting moderates!0 -
It's complicated. We hate the Assad regime. He is corrupt, tied to Russia, gases his own people, etc. There are true rebels fighting the regime. But there are also ISIS fighters coming in. Worse, if al-Assad falls, it will create teh power vacuum that will lead to an ISIS state. That's why this issue is so complex and difficult. If someone here as a practical solution, I'm open to hearing it.JC29856 said:Hilliary refers to Aleppo rebels as freedom fighters. Nusra the main faction is just another name for isis, trying to establish a Sunni only state. The step down moderate rebels mour zinki backed by the us behead a 12 year old and film it to prove it's US loyalty.
US backed freedom fighting moderates!0 -
I'll say this with respect to a complex issue such as this. Break it down into 4 parts.mrussel1 said:
It's complicated. We hate the Assad regime. He is corrupt, tied to Russia, gases his own people, etc. There are true rebels fighting the regime. But there are also ISIS fighters coming in. Worse, if al-Assad falls, it will create teh power vacuum that will lead to an ISIS state. That's why this issue is so complex and difficult. If someone here as a practical solution, I'm open to hearing it.JC29856 said:Hilliary refers to Aleppo rebels as freedom fighters. Nusra the main faction is just another name for isis, trying to establish a Sunni only state. The step down moderate rebels mour zinki backed by the us behead a 12 year old and film it to prove it's US loyalty.
US backed freedom fighting moderates!
1 what we know
2 what we don't know
3 what we could do
4 what we shouldnt do
Start with what we know and what we shouldn't do and go from there. I'm sure we will disagree on the what we shouldn't do but did anyway.0 -
I assume this isn't a question for us to answer, rather how you would attempt to address the issue were you an analyst, etc., right?JC29856 said:
I'll say this with respect to a complex issue such as this. Break it down into 4 parts.mrussel1 said:
It's complicated. We hate the Assad regime. He is corrupt, tied to Russia, gases his own people, etc. There are true rebels fighting the regime. But there are also ISIS fighters coming in. Worse, if al-Assad falls, it will create teh power vacuum that will lead to an ISIS state. That's why this issue is so complex and difficult. If someone here as a practical solution, I'm open to hearing it.JC29856 said:Hilliary refers to Aleppo rebels as freedom fighters. Nusra the main faction is just another name for isis, trying to establish a Sunni only state. The step down moderate rebels mour zinki backed by the us behead a 12 year old and film it to prove it's US loyalty.
US backed freedom fighting moderates!
1 what we know
2 what we don't know
3 what we could do
4 what we shouldnt do
Start with what we know and what we shouldn't do and go from there. I'm sure we will disagree on the what we shouldn't do but did anyway.
But this is why I am typically not overly zealous in criticisms of any administration regarding foreign policy decisions. They are always extremely complex and fraught with risk. It's easy to look back and say, well that was a terrible idea to support the Arab Spring or do this, or that, but it was entirely rational at the time. The exception is Iraq of course. That mess was entirely self-created on our part.0 -
^^^ I totally agree.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider
By Malia Zimmerman, Adam Housley Published October 12, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
Andrew Napolitano, former judge and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, said many law enforcement agents involved with the Clinton email investigation have similar beliefs.Post edited by pjalive21 on0 -
^^ Wow. Non-attributed source backed by Andrew Napolitano, who is a super douche. yawn...Somehow I don't think this will be the lead on ABC news tonight.0
-
For me, the part that stands out, and what I figure may have some or everything to do with charges not being laid, is that the material was deemed classified retroactively. When it was actually emailed it was not marked confidential. Would that not make all the difference in the world?With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
-
"the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com"pjalive21 said:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider
By Malia Zimmerman, Adam Housley Published October 12, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
Andrew Napolitano, former judge and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, said many law enforcement agents involved with the Clinton email investigation have similar beliefs.
GEE, I BELIEVE IT NOW!!!
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
msnbc just verified. it must be SOLID0
-
It really is Clinton news network.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as 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.Post edited by Free on0 -
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?Free said:
It really is Clinton news network.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as 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.0 -
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!mrussel1 said:
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?Free said:
It really is Clinton news network.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as 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.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Yeah, but I was talking about the US specifically. I hear you though.mcgruff10 said:
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!mrussel1 said:
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?Free said:
It really is Clinton news network.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as 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.0 -
Let s create an objective nationally news broadcast in the us!mrussel1 said:
Yeah, but I was talking about the US specifically. I hear you though.mcgruff10 said:
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!mrussel1 said:
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?Free said:
It really is Clinton news network.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as 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.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
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 perspectivemcgruff10 said:
BBC news seems objective. They actually report global news!mrussel1 said:
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?Free said:
It really is Clinton news network.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as 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.0 -
mrussel1 said:
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?Free said:
It really is Clinton news network.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as 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.
0 -
That's pretty funny. Hadn't seen it before.Free said:mrussel1 said:
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?Free said:
It really is Clinton news network.JC29856 said:Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as 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.0
This discussion has been closed.
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