Because you limit yourself to known liberal propaganda. That and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. Take information from them into a court of law and they would dismiss it instantly.
Sanders Vs Clinton
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
How would you possibly know what I read and don’t read man?
What a silly assumption.
Whenever you bring up Wikipedia I always supply you with alternate means of source (you just choose to ignore that and focus on what you can pick apart).
I limit myself…okay guy calling the kettle black you don’t know shit about me.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-reportCREDITPHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN LOCHER / APNEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Bernie Sanders failed to impress major media outlets over the weekend as he barely managed to win seventy per cent of the vote in three western primaries.The major cable networks briefly mentioned Sanders’s vote tallies in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii but noted that he ran out of steam well shy of eighty per cent.“There’s no point in sugarcoating it,” one analyst put it. “Rough night for Sanders.”According to one cable executive, Sanders needs to “put up some big numbers fast” if he expects the networks to continue giving his campaign airtime.“It’s going to be harder and harder to justify covering him while he’s stuck down in the seventy-per-cent range,” the executive said.While Sanders campaign officials remain optimistic about the upcoming primary in Wisconsin, media outlets are calling it a “do or die” state after his sputtering finishes over the weekend.“I think if he limps across the finish line with, say, seventy-five or seventy-nine per cent, it’s going to be time for him to reassess things,” one cable representative said. “That would have to be a wake-up call.”A spokesperson for CNN could not be reached for comment, as the network was busy preparing a ninety-minute special on the birth of Donald Trump’s new grandchild.
Good point I dont know what you read. I only know what you post which is always one sided.
Hmmm…I call them out from both sides…god forbid Clinton wins.
I think your preconceived notions of what I believe aren’t being filtered properly through your Judging function.
You wouldn’t know if it were one sided anyhow because you dismiss anything I post or link to without reading…call me liar.
*general farting noises*
Just so long as it supports his side, then it’s quite fine I’m sure though we’ll hear all about how that’s untrue in response I’m sure.
Ive never called you a liar. This takes me back to the days of when muir used to accuse me of calling him crazy. I do not believe you are a liar. I believe you believe what you post. I do believe you are uninformed on a lot of things though.
I thought it would be funny if someone took note of that.
This is what I would say. They are a company in the business of making money. Every company talks themselves up, about how you need them or their products. Because they need you as a consumer. So keeping that in mind...that they want to say only the best things they can about themselves, this is the best they can do.
Think about it.
From where I see it either Hillary or Bernie are better choices than Trump, Cruz or Kasich. When you hear the stuff the right wing brings up about Hillary, its really inconsequential compared to the stuff that Reagan and Bush did during their presidencies and the sad part about is we don't even know the half of it! Benghazi is nothing compared to Iran-Contra or the illegal and immoral war started by Bush. She is mild compared to those two. The so called e-mail scandal isn't even illegal and likely not a prosecutable crime. So they really have nothing on her.
On the plus side I may just be in love with Sarah Silverman, so that made reading the latest posting in the thread worthwhile
On the plus side I may just be in love with Sarah Silverman, so that made reading the latest posting in the thread worthwhile
Hilary her stuff is pre-presidency and it already reeks and she's is super inconsistent.
Most of the things she claims to be against are things she was among the first to sign for.
How can someone trust such a deceptive person?
It's like your mom telling you you're her favorite, and hearing her tell her friend the next day that she hates your guts and is going to sell you because she can buy something she likes from that money.
Besides, every time she is up against another "Democrat" she pulls the <her opponent> needs to change his tone card, or she won't go to a debate with them.
She did that this week with birdy sanders, and she did that before with obama. Wtf is this person doing in politics in the first place? She's already neglecting her duties before even taking office.
Being a president means you got to talk to people you don't like to resolve issues. What's next? Hillary becomes president, but wants nothing to do with fixing say the whole isis issue because they got to change their tone first?
Hell naw, she ain't presidential material and she ain't vice president material. And the whole thing that her being a woman means she is automatically against the establishment is ludicrous, she's been one of it's biggest supporters since she entered politics. Don't just take my word for it, look at everything she has signed, things she's said in the past and claims to be against now. Also just like obama, hillary was super against gay marriage just recently. Both of them changed their opinion only when the courts made their ruling to just role with the flow.
People should not vote based on what they hear people say in a debate or in a clip on tv or at a rally, they should vote on people based on the topics they've been consistent about.
Those are the only topics you can count on for a person to try to bring change to, the rest is simply negotiable noise that will be sold off in exchange for a presidency and support from other politicians.
From that point of view, Bernie is the best bet, and Trump whilst hes an idiot might at least shake the current establishment lose a little.
Bernie dislikes war to say the least, and will try to fix national issues rather than send half your community off to die for some pointless war in the middle east.
Trump is a businessman, hes more likely to strike a deal with people than to start a war.
Clinton would start WW3 without a moment's thought if the neocons wanted her to.
Trump has already bowed out of debates, largely because he was afraid of Megyn Kelley. The problem with Trump is that he the least qualified person to ever run for president. He is also extremely arrogant and does not listen to the opinions of others. Is he more likely to strike deal than start a war? What if his ego is hurt? What happens then? What if the Mexicans just refuse to pay for the wall? What happens next?
I do agree that Bernie is the best bet without question, but in a contest between Hillary and Trump, you should take Hillary every time. She is smarter and more competent than Trump. Trump doesn't know what he doesn't know and that's what makes him dangerous.
I see Artisan you are from Europe, so perhaps you are like me and watching this whole thing as a spectator.
Hillary admitted to not knowing how to operate a fax machine as little as a year ago. You are right, her intelligence is off the chart.
Did you read what I posted - I said call me a liar if you do indeed read the citations and links that I post…and muir was generally right about most things like that.
I believe…I believe…I believe….is all I see but still nothing with any real proof to back up what you say.
I believe that you are talking about yourself more than you are me.
But I could be wrong, I believe you are uninformed about a lot of things.
(You see how that last part was very unnecessary? Childish to resort to name calling all the time)
Last edited:
