That was pretty underhanded... sneaking in some climate change fear-mongering in there.

Oh no, sir. I KNOW he lied repeatedly, he wrote a book about how to get ahead by lying.
On the other side, as you put it (and you missed me screaming for months that there aren't only two horrendous choices) was a normal, underhanded, misdirecting politician.

Email cover-up? Really? What crime was she covering, now that we have seen them all....none. Was she transparent about it, no, but as evidence that Trump is at least as bad on that front if not worse....tax returns is all I need say.
Pay for play, after Devos blatantly bought a cabinet position you would actually blindly make that claim with no evidence? Let me guess, you're afraid of the fish people Alex Jones told you about too. Is she corrupt, yes, is she corrupt compared to a man that's screwed over every business partner he's ever had and the taxpayer by intentionally bankrupting his companies repeatedly by hiring and massively overpaying other Trump companies, using that method to steal all funds and assets and build up massive debt, then declaring bankruptcy, stiffing his partners and creditors, and walking away (or in a few cases doing it over before being forced to leave), no. By comparison she's above reproach. Clinton may fit the definition of corrupt, but the word barely covers the insane backstabbing, admitted and repeated bribery (remember he claimed to have bought numerous politicians by bribing them, he thinks it's how government works), and theft from his partners that Trump is proud of.

So yes, tissue paper thin glass snow globe......

They did come out to vote against a black guy, but the left and center came out to vote FOR a black guy....but they didn't go vote for an underhanded over connected white woman, IMO. Also, Trump was the first candidate to court the white racist voter rather than shun and insult them....so he got far more of their votes.

While I agree, being on RT does not mean the story is falsified, but it does mean you can't assume it's not.

When propaganda machines masquerade as news, you're better off just ignoring them, even though they will likely tell the truth every now and then. The issue is you can't tell, without extraordinary investigation, which is real reporting and which is pure propaganda, and which is a mixture. What this means is most people who get their news from these organizations will be constantly misinformed and less knowledgeable about the actual facts, having been duped by propagandists.

No reputable reporter would tarnish their reputation by joining one of these lie factories, IMO. That Chris Hedges ended up here means he made a HUGE mistake somewhere and is no longer working as an actual reporter but instead has become a purveyor of biased opinion.

What I think swayed tens of thousands of voters was the reporting of the underhanded collusion between Clinton and the DNC. Most didn't vote for Trump, they didn't vote for president at all, or went 3rd party.

What happened in 2001-2002 was the administration cherry picked and twisted intelligence to make a case for war against a country that had not attacked us, the intelligence community was not on board for the most part, and many declassified reports indicate they were not at all confident about WMD's or them having any hand in 9/11, contrary to the administrations public and zealous position at the time.....but that is why it is relevant. Trump has shown he'll take his own advice and viewpoint over intelligence professionals, so the idea that he'll lie about, twist, and ignore intelligence reports is relevant....he's already done so and he's not even president yet.

Sorry for a wall of repeated text, I tire of my replies being erased without being read.....

newtboy says...


Let me be clear about how those you lambast see it......

Forcefully nominating Clinton was the single action that made the most difference in interfering with stopping Trump. It gave him more votes than he earned himself. His entire campaign was "if not me, you get Clinton" and that argument won him the election.
The DNC is responsible for that action...and to a lesser extent her supporters like you that put blinders on to her innumerable flaws and the vitriolic hatred against her and chose her over a probable winner with a penis. Once it was clear they cheated to help her, it was over for her. She was not going to get enough Sanders votes no matter what anyone said, she just raped them of their primary vote, losing their election vote in the process.
THAT is a stone cold fact.

She could never have won...she's just too despised by the right, and they (clearly) act on their anger. You should have pushed for Warren instead of Clinton if it was just a genital thing for you. Even if she had won, we would have lost. She would (continue to) be a lightning rod for right wing hatred, and the obstructionism of the Obama administration would look like heaven compared to the division she would foster.

But you don't read or listen. You'll probably just erase this like every other post....so perhaps I'll copy it on my page so you can't.

Grow up.




bareboards2 said:

Let me be clear about something.

We are only responsible for our own actions. We are not responsible for other people's actions. We cannot change them.

We live in the present. Not the past.

So we choose for ourselves what we do now.

Donald Trump should not be President.

Every action taken that interfered with stopping Trump means that a choice was made in that present moment to help him.

That is a stone cold fact.



1 second ago

up0down












newtboy says...

And that's why you lost. You don't listen....you instruct and then shame as if you're their mom and they owe you a duty to obey. You aren't, they don't.
Sanders lost because of underhanded collusion between the DNC and Clinton. He may have lost without that cheating...we'll never know. When she and her subordinates cheated...they lost the election right then.
My support or lack thereof made not a whit of difference, she won California.....and my ballot had her name marked (even if not by my own hand) just so she might also win the popular vote...so you're totally barking up the wrong tree. In the end, I found her the lesser of 2 evils and 4 unqualified....but she was SO unacceptable to so many that the one that was both evil and unqualified won, because SHE drove his voters to the polls in record numbers, an argument I made in February as to why she was the WORST choice.
That is the truth, a truth I pointed out 8-9 months back when there was still a chance.
Independent Sanders supporters told you to support him, not the hated, smarmy, dishonest, under FBI investigation, baggage handler that tied Trump in polls at best. He was the democratic candidate that CRUSHED him in all polls, and you didn't support him or support the rule of law/election rules, and Trump is president. See how that's 100% YOUR fault and not theirs?....probably not, you don't read replies or accept responsibility for your own actions, because that would be acting too much like an adult.
Sweet zombie Jesus.




bareboards2 said:

I didn't read it, @newtboy.

Grow up. Sanders lost. You and others like your threw a hissy fit.

Trump is president because you didn't listen to Sanders.

That is the bald faced truth.

Sanders told you to support her and you didn't.

And Trump is President.

This is your responsibility.



1 second ago

I agree that the feeling that Trump is a political hand grenade likely had a lot to do with his winning, but so did the (well founded) feeling that Clinton is underhanded and deceitful.

Given a decent candidate, in any party, I think we would have seen the biggest landslide victory in American election history, but both major parties, and the 3 largest 'minor' parties all put up candidates that only appealed to their base (and often not even them). We had one, Sanders, and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by smearing and cheating him out of a nomination....and now they reap the rewards for those actions, and we all suffer for it. Anyone involved in the Clinton campaign should retire from politics today, they are now forever tainted and will hurt any future candidate if they are involved. Chelsie should stay out too. That may not be fair, but it's reality. This campaign has made their name unelectable, due in large part to how they ran it, not what her opponent said about her.

I don't like Trump. Yet with all that's known about Hillary's corruption, there is no way I could vote for her in good conscience. The democratic party had the opportunity to push forward a fantastic candidate with a spotless record in his public service. Instead, they used backroom deals and underhanded means to thwart democracy. I see no reason to reward such behavior.

As president, Hillary would likely get one or two bills passed improving some kind of social service-improved access to healthcare, or healthy foods or something like that. And the rest of her time will be devoted to enhancing the corporatist agendas of her owners. She is a puppet to those donors.

If I lived the the US (and I don't) I would be deciding between Stein and Johnson.

I see no reason to reward Hillary's corruption with a mandate.

To bad they decided to forget this moral outrage this cycle, or we would have a different Democratic nominee and it would be no contest. Instead they decided that this time, ignoring and changing the rules would be the preferred methodology, the only method possible to make their friend 'win' the primary, leaving us with a 50/50 chance of president Trump, and a 100% chance of another 4 years of partisan deadlock and further division. The Republicans are already saying that if she wins, they'll be fine with only 8 justices for 4 years and won't even hold hearings on nominees.
If not for the likely alternative this cycle, I would say the Democrats deserve to lose and absolutely should not be rewarded for the underhanded bullshit they pulled. Lucky for them, the Republicans have countered her with the only person they could find that's almost certainly worse in every way, and a bunch of congressmen/women that support him. The dems have certainly lost my support until they clean house and figure out some reparation...maybe a pre-emptive backing of Sanders for president in 2020?
Before someone tries to spout some b.s. to try to shame me, a no vote for Clinton is NOT a vote for Trump.

I think it is stupid to whine about the email leaks "unfairly" damaging Hillary's campaign.

The DNC could have easily avoided the fallout / resignations / etc. by simply not doing shady, underhanded shit. When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't bitch about who snitched on you -- a better response would be to learn that you can't get caught if you don't do anything wrong.


Sorta reminds me of earlier in the campaign when Hillary complained that it was unfair for people to want to see her transcripts of paid speeches given to Wall Street banks. She said that other candidates weren't expected to do that, so it was an unfair double standard. Bernie Sanders response was great -- he said he'd be 100% willing to hand over any of his transcripts, except for one minor problem: he never made any paid speeches to Wall Street banks.


With regards to Wikileaks, I have zero problems with how they handled things and don't care at all who their source was -- Russia, some other very biased source with a clear agenda to damage Hillary, whatever. The only thing that matters is, are the emails true / legit? I haven't heard anyone suggest that they aren't; just bitching about it being "unfair" that all the dirt is on Hillary and the DNC.

Wikileaks relies on sources. You know, leakers. I'm confident that if they had dirt on Trump or any other candidate, they'd put it out there. But Wikileaks can't make candidates or parties do questionable shit, and even when candidates or parties do do questionable shit, they still need someone to catch them and then leak the information to Wikileaks.

Sometimes, if they don't have any dirt on somebody, it might be because there isn't any dirt to be had... Just like Sanders' transcripts of Wall Street speeches.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

I'm afraid this is foreshadowing of the election. Trump has won.
Sanders voters are mostly not Democrats....or weren't until they had to be to vote for him. That means they won't be voting for the democrat that underhandedly cheated them out of their chosen nominee, she doesn't represent their morals or goals in the least, why would they?
Democrats can whine about it all they want, it won't change the fact that they have blown this election as if it was their plan all along. They absolutely deserve to lose too, but so do the Republicans.

Thank goodness I'm a white male, so the least in the crosshairs of a Trump presidency I can be without also being a billionaire.
That said, I think you're mostly right...assuming he doesn't abuse the powers of the presidency...but it is a near certainty that he will abuse them.
Legally, he can do little, properly even less domestically, but since when does Trump follow the rules.
Let's just look at Texas, who made a clearly illegal law designed to close planned parenthood clinics, knowing full well it would be struck down, but it had the effect they wanted of closing those clinics in the interim, and they won't be re-opening. Expect Trump to use that, and other underhanded tactics to do things the president "can't" do, knowing that if his rule is struck down, it will already have done it's job. I think he'll be more damaging than you do both because the Republicans are going to back him AND because he'll just go around congress when they won't.
I realized yesterday that one plan they undoubtedly have is, as soon as he's president, his children will start illegally taking people's property by force to expand their empire, and Trump will pardon them for the crimes they commit in the thefts. I expect the Trumps to actually be multi billionaires by the end of his presidency (assuming the dollar is still worth anything), not just claim it. There's no way that family doesn't see this as a way to make money.

I would boo him saying that too. I would never under any circumstance vote for that underhanded unethical candidate. Clearly, they were booing his suggestion that they vote for Clinton, not booing Sanders himself. And so we get more misleading information coming from Clinton supporters.
Clinton is a non starter for those that find morals and ethics important. She's proven time and time again to be completely untrustworthy. Not a single 'mea culpa' or even 'I'm sorry' from them over the clearly biased disaster of a 'primary' where the DNC did everything possible to dissuade and hinder potential Sanders voters.
Clinton is also a bully and a demagogue....one that was just caught in ANOTHER scandal, this time for illicitly colluding with her cohorts in the DNC to marginalize Sanders from the onset and deny his supporters the ability to vote for him.
If you supported her from the start, believing the lies she and the DNC fed you, and continue to support her after the truth has come out, you are the problem.
She should be disqualified for what she and Wasserman Shultz did together. Instead, she's already given Wasserman Shultz a cushy job, and a promise of more if she wins.

Oh yeah, and as for the tag...most of Bernie's supporters AREN'T Democrats...something that's clearly been missed by Clinton and her supporters that expect them to vote for her. Dems aren't eating their own, Independents are walking away from Democrats, which means they lose the election.

Thanks DNC, you just elected Trump by cheating for Clinton.

More endless cranial rectosis from these idiotic Clinton (and therefore in reality Trump) supporters that would rather put her up as the nominee and lose to Trump than be honest, follow the rules, and have a fair election.

He didn't lose....there was never a contest, it was totally rigged for her in every way possible, and now we have MORE proof of that. Where's the apology from all the asshole Clinton supporters that were angrily and snidely deriding and denigrating Sanders supporters for the claim there was collusion and unfairness in the DNC? Haven't heard a single 'mea culpa' from anyone, just attempted deflection of 'The Russians did this to help Trump' but not a single 'this is really bad and unacceptable from a political party' or even a BP style "we're sorry". Fuck you braindead underhanded people. You are handing Trump the presidency with your bullshit lies and cheating.

Clinton should be disqualified for cheating, and anyone involved should be barred from politics for life. Instead, she's already given Shultz a cushy job for handing her the nomination.

A lot of her issues come from her time in Arkansas, her legal cases, and her underhanded wall street support in the 90's. She has been lucky so far to not be caught red handed on anything, but she is definitely on par with a Nixon or Rumsfeld. Obama isn't corrupt in my opinion.