2016 Presidential Horse Race

[brick4956]

https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPr...0_mega_thread_re_clinton_foundation/?sort=new

This has a lot of good dirt on Clinton

 

[brick4956]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-co...v-1363-Documents-referenced-in-OIG-Report.pdf

 

[Irish YJ]

https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPr...0_mega_thread_re_clinton_foundation/?sort=new

This has a lot of good dirt on Clinton

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-co...v-1363-Documents-referenced-in-OIG-Report.pdf

Yup, there's so much out there it's sad. The next couple of weeks should be interesting.

 

[brick4956]

Wikileaks actually has the emails that original guccifer supposedly aquiredo when he had hacked into Clinton's private server. Oh and the Clinton Foundation allegedly used the same server according to documents that were posted in that pdf link I just posted

 

[Buster Bluth]

Like links to Pravda on the Potomac (Wash Post)?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Washington Post is similar to InfoWars?

 

[connor_in]

I didn't even open the link.

Posting links to infowars should be a bannable offense. Only half-joking.

Didn't open the link but the story is complete BS? OKAY

Story simply posts MSNBC video of HRC walking right by MSNBC reporter asking a question and getting completely ignored and then the reporter and the anchor laughing about it. The story recounts this and mentions the 200 days since a press conference (referencing a WaPo article). Sorry for posting such sick and slanted media.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Didn't open the link but the story is complete BS? OKAY

Story simply posts MSNBC video of HRC walking right by MSNBC reporter asking a question and getting completely ignored and then the reporter and the anchor laughing about it. The story recounts this and mentions the 200 days since a press conference (referencing a WaPo article). Sorry for posting such sick and slanted media.

Who said the story was BS?

 

[connor_in]

Who said the story was BS?

Sorry, your apparent total disdain to even view the story influenced me to believe that since you feel the site has no integrity, then you must not have any faith in the story either.

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xe99v8_ODNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was no secret that many of the 17 Republican for President, most were just trying to make themselves a nice chunk of change off book sales and maybe a Fox News gig....but this is something else.

Trump is a businessman after all. I didn't want to believe that Trump is doing all of this to be able to start a media company after the election, but maybe he's looking at Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's piles of cash and wants to throw his weight around in that direction.

Reminds me of a great clip from Bill Maher a few years ago, in which he called Republicans out for not caring about trying to win a national election but just cash in on books and other media.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Sorry, your apparent total disdain to even view the story influenced me to believe that since you feel the site has no integrity, then you must not have any faith in the story either.

Yeah I have complete disdain for infowars. It's a rag.

I didn't expect to have to comment on it like six times though hah

But here is Alex Jones' show just a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsUBcpasPOE

 

[phgreek]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xe99v8_ODNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was no secret that many of the 17 Republican for President, most were just trying to make themselves a nice chunk of change off book sales and maybe a Fox News gig....but this is something else.

Trump is a businessman after all. I didn't want to believe that Trump is doing all of this to be able to start a media company after the election, but maybe he's looking at Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's piles of cash and wants to throw his weight around in that direction.

Reminds me of a great clip from Bill Maher a few years ago, in which he called Republicans out for not caring about trying to win a national election but just cash in on books and other media.

somewhere in here was an exchange that amounted to questioning source credibility...and then I see atop this post....Rachel fuckin Maddow...WOW.

 

[Irish YJ]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Washington Post is similar to InfoWars?

It's (PoP) probably a little crazier.. just a bit more polished passing off its crae crae.

 

[pkt77242]

David Petraeus: ISIS is on its way to defeat but terrorism threat persists (Opinions) - CNN.com

An interesting interview that covers ISIS, gun control and a wide range of other topics.

 

[GATTACA!]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xe99v8_ODNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It was no secret that many of the 17 Republican for President, most were just trying to make themselves a nice chunk of change off book sales and maybe a Fox News gig....but this is something else.

Trump is a businessman after all. I didn't want to believe that Trump is doing all of this to be able to start a media company after the election, but maybe he's looking at Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's piles of cash and wants to throw his weight around in that direction.

Reminds me of a great clip from Bill Maher a few years ago, in which he called Republicans out for not caring about trying to win a national election but just cash in on books and other media.

Yeah maybe if he keeps this schtick up long enough he will be able to get gigs giving $200k speeches on wall street.........oh wait

 

[NDinL.A.]

somewhere in here was an exchange that amounted to questioning source credibility...and then I see atop this post....Rachel fuckin Maddow...WOW.

This was widely reported all over the place. The link was to Maddow but I saw it in several places. The conversation shouldn't be about Maddow, it should be about how incredibly dirty Trump is, and how he was able to get away with it during he primaries and how fucked the Republican Party is because he went unchecked for so long.

Yeah maybe if he keeps this schtick up long enough he will be able to get gigs giving $200k speeches on wall street.........oh wait

Again, showing why my (former) party is so fucked. Pointing to Hillary instead of admitting what a scumbag Trump is. I mean, he's so incredibly bad that he is getting his ass handed to him so far by the easiest to beat candidate in presidential history, but his supporters (and those who choose party over principal) ignore it and go after Hillary.

I think almost everyone here agrees that these two candidates are a joke and a nightmare at the same time. But Wooly and Lax nailed it IMO when they said they'll take status quo for 4 years over probable economic implosion and a complete meltdown of our standing in the world as the global leader, among many other horrible things a Trump presidency will surely bring (and this is coming from both conservative and liberal experts).

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Isn't the whole idea of a Hilary Presidency basically based on status quo? I can't recall her being a proponent for any out of the box ideas in the way Sanders or The Donald have? I don't think she's serious about change in any way, shape, or form.

Hilary (and the Clintons in general) has been bought more than a tenured Vegas hooker. See Walmart connection to Hilldog, as well as Bill's post presidency connection. Several other examples as well, but Walmart is an blatant one and an easy google find.

Maybe you guys missed the point. HRC's donors DO NOT want E. Warren to be her VP. Warren has built a career on going after Wall Street, etc. In case you haven't figured it out yet, politicians do what their donors want. So IF Hillary chooses Warren as a running mate, it's a direct disregard for what her donors want her to do. This isn't about status quo versus change in regards to policy. It's about whether or not Hillary will bow her head to her donors and do what they want. Or will she give them the finger and pick Warren, essentially forfeiting future contributions (according to one source, who's a donor).

 

[phgreek]

This was widely reported all over the place. The link was to Maddow but I saw it in several places. The conversation shouldn't be about Maddow, it should be about how incredibly dirty Trump is, and how he was able to get away with it during he primaries and how fucked the Republican Party is because he went unchecked for so long.



Again, showing why my (former) party is so fucked. Pointing to Hillary instead of admitting what a scumbag Trump is. I mean, he's so incredibly bad that he is getting his ass handed to him so far by the easiest to beat candidate in presidential history, but his supporters (and those who choose party over principal) ignore it and go after Hillary.

I think almost everyone here agrees that these two candidates are a joke and a nightmare at the same time. But Wooly and Lax nailed it IMO when they said they'll take status quo for 4 years over probable economic implosion and a complete meltdown of our standing in the world as the global leader, among many other horrible things a Trump presidency will surely bring (and this is coming from both conservative and liberal experts).

went out of my way to point out the irony...a HUGE part of which is that the source credibility thing was brought up on something....drum roll please...that was reported elsewhere.

I get the entire Trump thing...I'm not in here pitching the Trump machine...most you'll get out of me is I'd pick him over Hillary Clinton, whom it is clear, I hate so much, I'd vote for a monkey first because the monkey has a shot of doing the right thing by accident.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This was widely reported all over the place. The link was to Maddow but I saw it in several places. The conversation shouldn't be about Maddow, it should be about how incredibly dirty Trump is, and how he was able to get away with it during he primaries and how fucked the Republican Party is because he went unchecked for so long.



Again, showing why my (former) party is so fucked. Pointing to Hillary instead of admitting what a scumbag Trump is. I mean, he's so incredibly bad that he is getting his ass handed to him so far by the easiest to beat candidate in presidential history, but his supporters (and those who choose party over principal) ignore it and go after Hillary.

I think almost everyone here agrees that these two candidates are a joke and a nightmare at the same time. But Wooly and Lax nailed it IMO when they said they'll take status quo for 4 years over probable economic implosion and a complete meltdown of our standing in the world as the global leader, among many other horrible things a Trump presidency will surely bring (and this is coming from both conservative and liberal experts).

Reps for the first two paragraphs. I'm so sick and tired of BOTH parties pointing fingers in the other direction instead of owning up to what's wrong within themselves and their own party. Hillary is a joke. So is Donald. Stop having a dick measuring contest on who's the bigger joke. Just accept the fact that both parties nominated turds and lets move on with trying to figure out how to fix stuff.

To the last paragraph, I agree to an extent. Two things though: 1) Like Buster pointed out, HRC is a complete liability when it comes to foreign policy. So is Trump. But we shouldn't act like it's a no-brainer that Hillary won't make things far worse. Perpetual war in the Middle East has done this country a far greater disservice than one can possibly imagine and Hillary has been on the wrong side of the vote count every single time. That worries me. 2) If things are going well in your life, then yea, accepting more of the same is the far better choice. But what about the people who are struggling as a direct result of bad policies implemented by each POTUS over the last 40 years? There's plenty of blame to go around (it's not just Rs or Ds, it's everyone). When you look at it from that perspective, it's easy to see how huge amounts of the population want to turn this shit on its head. It's why Trump and Bernie did far better than anyone could have initially predicted.

 

[Irish YJ]

Maybe you guys missed the point. HRC's donors DO NOT want E. Warren to be her VP. Warren has built a career on going after Wall Street, etc. In case you haven't figured it out yet, politicians do what their donors want. So IF Hillary chooses Warren as a running mate, it's a direct disregard for what her donors want her to do. This isn't about status quo versus change in regards to policy. It's about whether or not Hillary will bow her head to her donors and do what they want. Or will she give them the finger and pick Warren, essentially forfeiting future contributions (according to one source, who's a donor).

confused. what didn't I get?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

confused. what didn't I get?

You quoted my post and then said something that didn't have much to do with what I was talking about besides Hillary has mega donors...I didn't say you were confused. Just that you made no mention of my actual point.

My point is that Hillary's donors are basically trying to pick the VP, and especially influence her on who NOT to pick in order to suit their best interests.

 

[Irish YJ]

You quoted my post and then said something that didn't have much to do with what I was talking about besides Hillary has mega donors...I didn't say you were confused. Just that you made no mention of my actual point.

My point is that Hillary's donors are basically trying to pick the VP, and especially influence her on who NOT to pick in order to suit their best interests.

My reply was meant to suggest she's been bought before, and will be bought again. If there's serious money at risk, my bet is she sides with the money... if she does pick warren, it's probably because there's more money somewhere else...

 

[Buster Bluth]

somewhere in here was an exchange that amounted to questioning source credibility...and then I see atop this post....Rachel fuckin Maddow...WOW.

...are you seriously trying to suggest that Rachel Maddow (I don't care for her fwiw) is somehow on par with Alex Jones?

Alex Jones is a certifiable lunatic. His media outlets are an embarrassment.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

...are you seriously trying to suggest that Rachel Maddow (I don't care for her fwiw) is somehow on par with Alex Jones?

Alex Jones is a certifiable lunatic. His media outlets are an embarrassment.

^This. He's a tin foil hat wearing crazy person.

You may not agree with much of what Maddow says, just like I don't agree with much of what Bill O'Reilly says. But they're both living in the real world. Info Wars is on par with the "History" channel shows on aliens.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yeah maybe if he keeps this schtick up long enough he will be able to get gigs giving $200k speeches on wall street.........oh wait

Donald Trump makes a lot of money for a speech - Business Insider

Forbes Welcome

An examination of the highest speaking fees ever paid puts Donald Trump Donald Trump on top with the staggering $1.5 million the Learning Annex paid him for each speech he delivered at the company’s real estate “wealth expos” in 2006 and 2007, more than was earned from addresses by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

 

[potownhero]

...are you seriously trying to suggest that Rachel Maddow (I don't care for her fwiw) is somehow on par with Alex Jones?

Alex Jones is a certifiable lunatic. His media outlets are an embarrassment.

I've never seen the Alex Jones guy you talk about, but it's common knowledge that Rachel Maddow is not an honest newsperson.

Just off top of my head, I can remember at least 2 instances when she's been called out by other news networks for her dishonesty.

 

[Irish YJ]

...are you seriously trying to suggest that Rachel Maddow (I don't care for her fwiw) is somehow on par with Alex Jones?

Alex Jones is a certifiable lunatic. His media outlets are an embarrassment.

favorite line?

I've never seen the Alex Jones guy you talk about, but it's common knowledge that Rachel Maddow is not an honest newsperson.

Just off top of my head, I can remember at least 2 instances when she's been called out by other news networks for her dishonesty.

Sound like two peas in a pod (HRC and Maddow). Running mate 2016?

 

[connor_in]

^This. He's a tin foil hat wearing crazy person.

You may not agree with much of what Maddow says, just like I don't agree with much of what Bill O'Reilly says. But they're both living in the real world. Info Wars is on par with the "History" channel shows on aliens.

Quick question: As you guys are bashing Alex Jones & Inforwars, who, honestly I am not very familiar with, does that automatically mean the article I posted from the link at Drudge is incorrect? Is the article, detailing the fact that HRC has not had a press conference in 200 days and that when an MSNBC reporter tried to ask a question, she was ignored and then she and the anchor laughed about it because it happens all the time, incorrect?

Whether the source be HuffPo, WaPo, Media Matters, NewsMax, FNC, Infowars...if the information is correct, then the information is correct. The focus of the issue should be on the information, unless of course whatever site chooses to skew/spin that, which while their might be some of that deep into the item, I think the main part of the article was factual and used the direct MSNBC video as reference.

 

[kmoose]

...are you seriously trying to suggest that Rachel Maddow (I don't care for her fwiw) is somehow on par with Alex Jones?

Alex Jones is a certifiable lunatic. His media outlets are an embarrassment.

I think that he was suggesting that, like Alex Jones, you cannot place much faith in Rachel Maddow's "reporting". Just because one snake is more venomous than the other, that doesn't make the second snake a kitten.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think that he was suggesting that, like Alex Jones, you cannot place much faith in Rachel Maddow's "reporting". Just because one snake is more venomous than the other, that doesn't make the second snake a kitten.

There is no comparison between Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow to be made. I can't even believe we're having this conversation or that the conservatives on this board got so god damn defensive.

We've got a pretty good corner of the internet here at IE. We can do better than that clown Alex Jones or anything posted on his site whether it's true or not. It's like trying to cite a wiki page on a dissertation, completely useless.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[kmoose]

There is no comparison between Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow to be made. I can't even believe we're having this conversation or that the conservatives on this board got so god damn defensive.

We've got a pretty good corner of the internet here at IE. We can do better than that clown Alex Jones or anything posted on his site whether it's true or not. It's like trying to cite a wiki page on a dissertation, completely useless.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

We can do better than a lying Rachel Maddow as well?