Indictments coming...

[ivwshane]

You realize your candidate lost to the person who lost to the worst candidate in history, right? Have you considered that Sanders lost because he was a bad candidate and people liked Clinton better?

The thought has never crossed his mind. In his mind Sanders lost because of corruption. He can't point to any actual corruption but his gut knows what the truth is.

His truthyness has never been more truthful!

 

[zinfamous]

I wonder how the loonytoons in the right are going to convince themselves that this one agent somehow followed around the Trump family for the previous decades and invented all of these fake documents regarding their illegal improprieties and foreign relationships to enemy entities. I wonder how they rationalize this agent's tweets and emails as some nefarious deep-state plot that goes back to the 80s, simply to compromise future president trump and his glorious plans to MAGA.


I wonder how they will do that, though I already see the wheels spinning in Ackmed's brain, because he is starting to question this agent's involvement in the campaign and how it seems to have spearheaded initial investigations. lol, this is cute. the chorus of the gaslighted. I wonder how they will react when Orange Julius goes down, whining like a little toddler, blaming everyone but his own criminal self.

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder how the loonytoons in the right are going to convince themselves that this one agent somehow followed around the Trump family for the previous decades and invented all of these fake documents regarding their illegal improprieties and foreign relationships to enemy entities. I wonder how they rationalize this agent's tweets and emails as some nefarious deep-state plot that goes back to the 80s, simply to compromise future president trump and his glorious plans to MAGA.


I wonder how they will do that, though I already see the wheels spinning in Ackmed's brain, because he is starting to question this agent's involvement in the campaign and how it seems to have spearheaded initial investigations. lol, this is cute. the chorus of the gaslighted. I wonder how they will react when Orange Julius goes down, whining like a little toddler, blaming everyone but his own criminal self.

Yes, as things have gotten worse for Trump in recent weeks there has been a marked shift in conservative media from ‘nothing will come of this!’ to ‘whatever comes of this is illegitimate!’

They don’t even know what they’re covering up and they don’t care. All from the people who claim they are the patriotic ones.

 

[Lash444]

You realize your candidate lost to the person who lost to the worst candidate in history, right? Have you considered that Sanders lost because he was a bad candidate and people liked Clinton better?

I am going to guess it had more to do with the fact that mainstream media refused to give him any coverage. Considering he was an independent and gathering a huge following, he really should have been garnering a lot more media coverage than he was. Heres a guy with no party ties winning debates against one of the chosen political families. In any universe where the media isn't in someone's back pocket, that story would be covered to death. Go ahead, pretend that didn't happen or have any bearing on the election. Considering what he was up against, and how much his voice was muffled, the man took it to the wire.

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...irms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I am going to guess it had more to do with the fact that mainstream media refused to give him any coverage. Considering he was an independent and gathering a huge following, he really should have been garnering a lot more media coverage than he was. Heres a guy with no party ties winning debates against one of the chosen political families. In any universe where the media isn't in someone's back pocket, that story would be covered to death. Go ahead, pretend that didn't happen or have any bearing on the election. Considering what he was up against, and how much his voice was muffled, the man took it to the wire.

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...irms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media

That's not really true. Both Dem candidates got little exposure early on due to the farce that was the GOP primary race. That impacted both candidates but this negatively impacted Sanders more as he was not know as Clinton was.

He was also the most favorably reported on candidate overall. Here is the Harvard study. What they concluded was what hurt Sanders coverage the most was his perceived poor debate performance. Your characterization is not reflected in the article you linked.

 

[fskimospy]

I am going to guess it had more to do with the fact that mainstream media refused to give him any coverage. Considering he was an independent and gathering a huge following, he really should have been garnering a lot more media coverage than he was. Heres a guy with no party ties winning debates against one of the chosen political families. In any universe where the media isn't in someone's back pocket, that story would be covered to death. Go ahead, pretend that didn't happen or have any bearing on the election. Considering what he was up against, and how much his voice was muffled, the man took it to the wire.

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...irms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media

Yes, such a huge following that he lost by millions of votes.

This is the same argument that almost every losing primary candidate makes. ‘I lost because the media didn’t pay enough attention to me!’ Maybe the reason they weren’t paying more attention is because he was losing. Primaries always work that way, it’s not some media conspiracy against Sanders.

And by the way I will never cease being amazed that the media is frequently portrayed as being in the pocket of the person they covered overwhelmingly negatively. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense to you?

 

[fskimospy]

That's not really true. Both Dem candidates got little exposure early on due to the farce that was the GOP primary race. That impacted both candidates but this negatively impacted Sanders more as he was not know as Clinton was.

He was also the most favorably reported on candidate overall. Here is the Harvard study. What they concluded was what hurt Sanders coverage the most was his perceived poor debate performance. Your characterization is not reflected in the article you linked.

It’s a pretty odd argument that Clinton had the media in her pocket because they reported on her more when you realize those reports were overwhelmingly against her.

Clinton actually had the easiest case of any candidate in 2016 that the media was biased against her, not for her.

 

[Lash444]

Yes, such a huge following that he lost by millions of votes.

This is the same argument that almost every losing primary candidate makes. ‘I lost because the media didn’t pay enough attention to me!’ Maybe the reason they weren’t paying more attention is because he was losing. Primaries always work that way, it’s not some media conspiracy against Sanders.

And by the way I will never cease being amazed that the media is frequently portrayed as being in the pocket of the person they covered overwhelmingly negatively. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense to you?

"The study found that five Republican candidates—Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson—each got more coverage than Sanders during 2015 and that Clinton herself received three times as much press than the Vermont senator."

The two winners of the primaries clearly had the most coverage with the most amount of negative ads. Roy Moore's going to probably win Alabama. Don't tell me media coverage doesn't work. Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.

Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm pretty sure that "Clinton Waterboys" wouldn't be the ones that voted for Trump.

We all have our own choices, to make, yes? Would you not agree that the ultimate responsibility of the individual casting their vote, lies on that that individual? But please, let's keep hearing how people that cast votes for Trump's opponent are the ones responsible for Trump's win. Quite sad that this failure of logic keeps clawing its way back from the grave.

It's clawing back because it is true. In 2016, there was a considerable populist movement. Clinton and her surrogates sought to suppress it because it was her turn. Sanders lost because the machine tipped the scales. I hold accountable those responsible for tipping those scales.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The other possibility is that he wanted to remove any appearance of bias, but don't let that stop you from jumping to your preferred conclusion.

The only reason to remove the appearance of bias if there is evidence of bias to give that appearance.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No what he saw was the potential appearance of bias. Not evidence. That is a huge difference from a legal stand point.

Evidence would mean this guy took actual action based on his views towards Trump. There is NO evidence of this that you can cite.

No evidence save the text messages that Mueller cited. I am happy to retract my position if the text messages prove to be nothing.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No evidence save the text messages that Mueller cited. I am happy to retract my position if the text messages prove to be nothing.

So you know nothing of what it says but you have decided it MUST prove bias unless shown otherwise?

OK then.

 

[Thebobo]

Not unsurprising that people around here aren't talking about that. If on the other foot, they would be all about it. How it is not a big deal to them in incredible. Just more hypocrisy from the lefties here. Clear bias in a pretty big way, in several big "cases". He obviously had a bias agenda and ranked very highly. Passed judgement while having a conflict of interest to say the least. Hmmm, now where have I see this before.

Well your fox buddy Judge Andrew P. Napolitano says it's a nothing burger.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5667643292001/?#sp=show-clips

 

[ivwshane]

"The study found that five Republican candidates—Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson—each got more coverage than Sanders during 2015 and that Clinton herself received three times as much press than the Vermont senator."

The two winners of the primaries clearly had the most coverage with the most amount of negative ads. Roy Moore's going to probably win Alabama. Don't tell me media coverage doesn't work. Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.

Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk

So when provided evidence that the coverage she received was overwhelmingly negative your response is to double down.

Got it. Bernie supporters are fucking dumb.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The only reason to remove the appearance of bias if there is evidence of bias to give that appearance.

No it's not. Give you an example. If a judge were to recuse themselves from a case due to some kind of relationship with an involved party. They are removing the appearance of bias. That doesn't mean there was bias. You can remove appearance without any sort of bias actually being exerted.

 

[fskimospy]

"The study found that five Republican candidates—Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson—each got more coverage than Sanders during 2015 and that Clinton herself received three times as much press than the Vermont senator."

The two winners of the primaries clearly had the most coverage with the most amount of negative ads. Roy Moore's going to probably win Alabama. Don't tell me media coverage doesn't work.

So to be clear, your argument is that the media was conspiring to get Clinton elected by telling the voters bad things about her? ...really?

This would be pretty funny considering that Trump supporters claim the media was biased for Clinton because they reported on Trump often, but negatively. I guess it’s the Law of Universal Clinton bias. Say lots of bad things about her? Sign of bias in her favor. Say lots of bad things about her opponent? Sign of bias in her favor.

Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.

Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk

You have to be joking. Facebook polls are not scientific, therefore they are meaningless. This is exactly the same argument Trump tried to use as to why he won the debates.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.

Yeah this right here tells me there's no point engaging you further on this topic.

 

[fskimospy]

No evidence save the text messages that Mueller cited. I am happy to retract my position if the text messages prove to be nothing.

That is not evidence he took any improper action against Trump whatsoever. Saying something bad about someone in a text is not evidence of professional misconduct on this planet or any other. Show us even a single shred of evidence he committed professional misconduct.

Also, the idea that the only reason to remove the appearance of bias is if there is evidence of bias is badly wrong. As mentioned, judges commonly recuse themselves from cases for the appearance of possible bias even when it is literally impossible for a biased action to have yet taken place.

 

[brycejones]

Also, Facebook polling had Bernie winning the debate by a wide margin, yet CNN triumphantly proclaimed Clinton the winner.

Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk

This is Trumptard level stupid...

 

[Blackjack200]

I read today that more millennials voted for Sanders in the primary that Clinton and Trump combined. Whatever happened in the Democratic primary, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sanders had broader appeal to the general electorate, and he remains a much more popular politician than either of the two GE candidates.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No it's not. Give you an example. If a judge were to recuse themselves from a case due to some kind of relationship with an involved party. They are removing the appearance of bias. That doesn't mean there was bias. You can remove appearance without any sort of bias actually being exerted.

Not the correct example because the agent did not remove himself, Mueller had no choice but to. When a superior has to remove someone in response to an action that is called damage control.

Listen, I trust Mueller and I trusted Comey. I firmly believe Clinton waterboys and Lynch herself exerted bias and influence in favor of Clinton, which is why Comey went rogue. Tarmac meetings and federal bureau of matters.

I also believe Trump fired Comey for subsequently setting his aim on Trump.

This is what happens when both political parties nominate candidates that are both subject to fvcking FBI investigations.

 

[fskimospy]

I read today that more millennials voted for Sanders in the primary that Clinton and Trump combined. Whatever happened in the Democratic primary, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sanders had broader appeal to the general electorate, and he remains a much more popular politician than either of the two GE candidates.

This is a pretty similar phenomenon to 'the backup quarterback is the most popular guy in town'. After Clinton lost to Obama in 2008 her popularity skyrocketed. I do not find it at all obvious that Sanders had broader appeal to the general electorate either. He remained popular because he was never viewed as a genuine threat by the right. If Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee in 2020 his popularity will plummet. I would bet money on this.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That is not evidence he took any improper action against Trump whatsoever. Saying something bad about someone in a text is not evidence of professional misconduct on this planet or any other. Show us even a single shred of evidence he committed professional misconduct.

Also, the idea that the only reason to remove the appearance of bias is if there is evidence of bias is badly wrong. As mentioned, judges commonly recuse themselves from cases for the appearance of possible bias even when it is literally impossible for a biased action to have yet taken place.

In what world is an FBI agent texting negative things about the President he is literally and actively investigating not a source of professional misconduct?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

In what world is an FBI agent texting negative things about the President he is literally and actively investigating not a source of professional misconduct?

Uhhh.. because misconduct would be conduct during the course of his duties. Saying Trump is a raging asshole isn't misconduct. It's an opinion that might demonstrate appearance of bias.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I read today that more millennials voted for Sanders in the primary that Clinton and Trump combined. Whatever happened in the Democratic primary, it seems pretty obvious to me that Sanders had broader appeal to the general electorate, and he remains a much more popular politician than either of the two GE candidates.

This may be true, I just go back to what's been said over the decades and by Bernie. Get involved and always vote, every election always. Understand the consequences of not voting or a protest vote.