Trump Getting Hammered by Mainstream Media

[bbedward]

She's lied many times - I don't think that's a secret.

 

But what OBF doesn't understand is she didn't lie - she just is absolutely clueless as to what classified markings mean or what material was classified. Even though Comey said it's incredibly unlikely someone in her position wouldn't know what a classified marking means - and even went as far as to say that parties should know what material is classified even without the markings.

 

Though I can't really come up with any silly defense for her lying about Comey saying she was 'Truthful'

 

---

 

E-mails are the tip of the iceberg of the entire Clinton Foundation - which is a huge scandal. It'll be one of the biggest we've ever seen in the US

[OldBrownsFan]

Then she was incredibly incompetent for a sec of state ...........at the minimum she was guilty of gross negligence in handling classified material and she should have been referred for criminal prosecution by the FBI...

[Unsympathetic]

Hillary arms terrorists but want to ban guns from law abiding US citizens.

 

This statement is a lie. You have zero FACT to base this assertion on.

 

You're trying to use emotion to scare people. That's not what she said - because it's not what she actually wants.

[Unsympathetic]

Then she was incredibly incompetent for a sec of state ...........at the minimum she was guilty of gross negligence in handling classified material and she should have been referred for criminal prosecution by the FBI...

 

And Bush's team should have been referred for prosecution as well.. for deliberately destroying 22 million of their own emails.

 

Because, you see, they did exactly the same thing. And that's a pbs link. You know, a group that actually deals with fact.. unlike Breitbart.

 

But that's OK, because they're Republican, right? There's an acronym for this -- IOKIYAR.

 

And when you think to yourself "Yes, it is OK" -- That's what's called using emotion to make decisions rather than fact... which is my entire point.

[OldBrownsFan]

Again you lie. But hey, parsing nuance is something that Republicans are incapable of doing either personally or professionally, so I'm not shocked.

 

You clearly didn't even read the link you posted -- "Comey said there is "no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI" about her email practices."

 

In Another Unprecedented Development, Clinton Scandal Massively Overblown

 

She lied on Fox. What part of her lying to Chris Wallace are you not understanding?

 

Video: Watch the moment(s) Hillary Clinton lies through her teeth on Fox News Sunday

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/01/video-watch-the-moments-hillary-clinton-lies-through-her-teeth-on-fox-news-sunday/

 

 

Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie: The Quick List of Clinton’s Eight E-mail Lies

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437606/hillary-clintons-eight-email-lies-exposed-james-comey

 

[bbedward]

 

And Bush's team should have been referred for prosecution as well.. for deliberately destroying 22 million of their own emails.

 

Because, you see, they did exactly the same thing. And that's a pbs link. You know, a group that actually deals with fact.. unlike Breitbart.

 

But that's OK, because they're Republican, right? There's an acronym for this -- IOKIYAR.

 

And when you think to yourself "Yes, it is OK" -- That's what's called using emotion to make decisions rather than fact... which is my entire point.

I don't see the point in deflecting to a previous administration that isn't involved in any way in the 2016 election.

 

Well some previous Bush advisors and donors are joining Clinton - so maybe they're involved a little bit in the 2016 election.

[OldBrownsFan]

[Unsympathetic]

They set the narratives

 

You don't get it. If you're biased against FACT then of course everything seems "against" you.. because your position isn't based in anything but emotions, which are by their very nature objectively false.

 

If you want "to be covered equally" -- then base a policy on fact. One. But Republicans can't do it, because they're simply incapable.

 

 

It's fun that you "feel" the newsmedia are "liberal" -- when in reality they're NEOliberal. Here's fact: News organizations have become the mouthpiece of big money corporations... which are the definition of not liberal in any way, shape, or form.

 

NPR stands for Nice Polite Republicans.. not liberal at all. NYT has entire sections of its paper dedicated to multimillion dollar real estate.. not liberal at all.

 

 

You think I'm liberal? Dude, I do NOT like the D party -- but they're better than the alternative in 2016.

[OldBrownsFan]

You think I'm liberal? Dude, I do NOT like the D party -- but they're better than the alternative in 2016.

 

***********

 

I don't know anything about you except you are lying to yourself if you believe Hillary Clinton has not been lying about her emails.

[OldBrownsFan]

NYT has entire sections of its paper dedicated to multimillion dollar real estate.. not liberal at all.

******************************

 

NY Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has a Liberal Bias [Video]

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/ny-times-public-editor-admits-paper-has-a-liberal-bias-video/

[The Cysko Kid]

 

And Bush's team should have been referred for prosecution as well.. for deliberately destroying 22 million of their own emails.

 

Because, you see, they did exactly the same thing. And that's a pbs link. You know, a group that actually deals with fact.. unlike Breitbart.

 

But that's OK, because they're Republican, right? There's an acronym for this -- IOKIYAR.

 

And when you think to yourself "Yes, it is OK" -- That's what's called using emotion to make decisions rather than fact... which is my entire point.

Ok. So because bush was a liar it's ok for hillary? Bush has been gone for eight years. Move on.

[Unsympathetic]

She lied on Fox. What part of her lying to Chris Wallace are you not understanding?

 

What part of "This wasn't a problem for you.. until a Clinton did it" are you not understanding?

 

 

The act itself clearly isn't a problem -- if it was, you'd be screaming for the heads of Bush's team to be in jail.. But you're not, and that's telling.

 

Since the act isn't the problem, the only thing left is the partisan hackery of "Must Inflate Something, Anything To Attack This Person With" -- and the inflation isn't based on fact, it's based purely on emotion.

 

I have no sympathy for your self-serving posturing. You don't care what actually happens.. you just want Clinton to be attacked.

[Unsympathetic]

Ok. So because bush was a liar it's ok for hillary? Bush has been gone for eight years. Move on.

 

Either the standards are equal.... or there are no standards.

 

Pick one.

 

I'll move on when you do the same.

[OldBrownsFan]

Since the act isn't the problem, the only thing left is the partisan hackery of "Must Inflate Something, Anything To Attack This Person With" -- which isn't based on fact.

 

++++++++++++++++++

 

The act is the problem. Clinton put our national security at risk so she could hide her emails from the public eye. You keep saying all the criticism is because of emotions....no it is based on overwhelming evidence.

 

You can't have it both ways with Hillary Clinton. Either she should have been criminally charged or she proved herself to be so incompetent she should never be commander in chief.......it is one or the other

[Unsympathetic]

Nope, that's not what I said.

 

You, personally, are an incompetent, untrustworthy liar.

 

The point is that you're applying a separate level of scrutiny to Clinton.. because the definition that you just said.. wasn't around when Clinton was SoS.

 

You want to apply some definition? You need to show it was a policy at the time.

 

The chief issue is that there was NO policy against it --- you're lying.

 

 

So, either both the entire Bush and Reagan administrations are locked up after the fact for things that they did which weren't specified as crimes at the time... or this isn't an issue. You do realize that Reagan sold arms to the Contra rebels, right? And that IS actually illegal?

 

 

 

Trump's actions after saying that the "election is rigged" is far,far worse than anything Clinton ever did. What, you don't think your personal address would get published to receive a "visit" because you voted the wrong way?

 

Still waiting on that proof that Obama was born in Kenya, by the way.

[OldBrownsFan]

Nope, that's not what I said.

 

You, personally, are an incompetent, untrustworthy liar.

You think I'm liberal? Dude, I do NOT like the D party -- but they're better than the alternative in 2016.

 

**************************

 

You are a liberal alright. Resort to personal attacks just like the libs do when they can't win the argument.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

Either the standards are equal.... or there are no standards.

 

Pick one.

 

I'll move on when you do the same.

I voted against bush twice. Don't ever try to think you know me.

[Clevfan4life]

You think I'm liberal? Dude, I do NOT like the D party -- but they're better than the alternative in 2016.

 

**************************

 

You are a liberal alright. Resort to personal attacks just like the libs do when they can't win the argument.

 

Because no conservative has ever been known to do exactly that

[Unsympathetic]

You think I'm liberal? Dude, I do NOT like the D party -- but they're better than the alternative in 2016.

 

**************************

 

You are a liberal alright. Resort to personal attacks just like the libs do when they can't win the argument.

 

Actually, it's just like a conservative to resort to a personal attack when you can't stay focused on an issue.. because you know you've lost.

 

Only a conservative would think that all "liberals" think alike.

[OldBrownsFan]

Nope, that's not what I said.

 

You, personally, are an incompetent, untrustworthy liar.

 

The point is that you're applying a separate level of scrutiny to Clinton.. because the definition that you just said.. wasn't around when Clinton was SoS.

 

You want to apply some definition? You need to show it was a policy at the time.

 

The chief issue is that there was NO policy against it --- you're lying.

 

 

So, either both the entire Bush and Reagan administrations are locked up after the fact for things that they did which weren't specified as crimes at the time... or this isn't an issue.

 

I said Clinton lied multiple times about her emails. She did.

I said she put our national security at stake with an unsecured email server handling classified information. She did.

I said she is either criminally or negligently guilty and she is. Negligent handling of classified information is a crime.

You said NY Times was not liberal and I posted where their own editor admitted they had a liberal bias.

 

Clinton Broke Federal Rules With Email Server, Audit Finds

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated federal records rules through her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, a State Department audit has concluded.

"At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department issues before leaving government service," says an audit by the State Department Inspector General, obtained by NBC News.

"Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [state] Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-broke-federal-rules-email-server-audit-finds-n580131

[OldBrownsFan]

 

Actually, it's just like a conservative to resort to a personal attack when you can't stay focused on an issue.. because you know you've lost.

 

Only a conservative would think that all "liberals" think alike.

 

Did you forget already that you are the one here making personal attacks?

[The Cysko Kid]

Oh waaah personal attacks. I fail to see why anyone gets riled up by personal attacks from strangers on the internet. I could give a shit what names anyone calls me. At the end of the day I don't sit there and brood that some twat on the internet doesn't like me and called me a mean name. If you can't handle personal attacks you really shouldn't be here.

[OldBrownsFan]

Oh waaah personal attacks. I fail to see why anyone gets riled up by personal attacks from strangers on the internet. I could give a shit what names anyone calls me. At the end of the day I don't sit there and brood that some twat on the internet doesn't like me and called me a mean name. If you can't handle personal attacks you really shouldn't be here.

 

Personal attacks is not winning an argument but the last resort of those losing one. Let me know when I make a personal attack because I would rather admit I was wrong then to go there...but that is just me.

[Unsympathetic]

Did you forget already that you are the one here making personal attacks?

 

You're not morally superior to anyone. Get over yourself. You want respect? Then show it.

 

You saying to someone else "You're making personal attacks" -- is a personal attack.

 

What's wrong, little baby - you can dish it out but you can't take it? Suck it up, buttercup.

[OldBrownsFan]

 

You're not morally superior to anyone. Get over yourself. You want respect? Then show it.

 

You saying to someone else "You're making personal attacks" -- is a personal attack.

 

What's wrong, little baby - you can dish it out but you can't take it? Suck it up, buttercup.

That is your intelligent response. I rest my case.

[Westside Steve]

 

Your feelings don't make Hillary actually guilty of something.

 

 

I'll care about Benghazi after you piss on Reagan's grave for being personally responsible for the 300+ Marine dead in Beirut - and not one second before. Until then, your double standard shows you to be a partisan hack.

God forbid someone seem like a partisan huh? Now you can spit out Hillary's dick.

WSS

[Unsympathetic]

I'm fully aware that you're going to vote for Trump.

 

I'm not sure I'd want to follow someone who deliberately finds the stupidest possible thing to do or say in any given situation, but hey, he has a TV show, so that must be A Good Thing!

 

It will be fun to see Trump’s stormtroopers self-appointed “fraud monitors” doing their best to intimidate voters at the polls. I wouldn’t be even slightly surprised if groups of his heavily armed mouth-breathing neo-nazi supporters decide to “take back” the country by opening fire on the inauguration -- after his comments the last few days regarding "The Election Is Rigged" nonsense. Watering the tree of liberty and all that.

[Westside Steve]

I'm fully aware that you're going to vote for Trump.

 

I'm not sure I'd want to follow someone who deliberately finds the stupidest possible thing to do or say in any given situation, but hey, he has a TV show, so that must be A Good Thing!

 

I wouldnt be even slightly surprised if groups of his heavily armed mouth-breathing neo-nazi supporters decide to take back the country by opening fire on the inauguration -- after his comments the last few days regarding "The Election Is Rigged" nonsense.

 

Watering the tree of liberty and all that.

Well, and I'm not just trying to insult you, but that remark was stupid. Just foolish and incorrect. You can hate Donald Trump all you want. You can love Hillary Clinton all you want. Trump is not my first choice or second or third or fourth in the Republican party but it is what it is. I'm voting for him on some of the issues and partially because Hillary is the most corrupt candidate either party has presented in many decades.

 

Yes I would like to seal up the border but allow more immigrants in legally.

And I'm very concerned about allowing hundreds of thousands unvetted refugees from third world hellholes to enter the country.

And I think we would be wise to work together with the Russians to fight common enemies like Isis.

And I respect police officers more than thugs in the BLM movement.

And I have no problem slapping a tariff on companies that move production elsewhere.

 

What does Hillary bring to the table that might impress me? How about you? Is it just your blind slobbering hatred of Donald Trump?

 

WSS

[bbedward]

[OldBrownsFan]

We know what we will have with a Clinton presidency. She has promised to be Obama's third term. I guess if you think the country is doing so well it would make perfect sense to go with Clinton. The polling shows most people feel the country is going in the wrong direction.

 

Trump was down the list for me as well but I believe he will be better with his supreme court appointments, better on the second amendment, make better trade deals, will do better with helping veterans, and secure our southern border. I think if he surrounds himself with good advisers he could be a very good president.

 

I have also been critical of Trump many times on the Browns Forum but the bottom line for me Is I would prefer to take a chance with Trump than continue with the Obama administration polices. Our economy has been pitiful for 8 years and we have had anemic growth and the worst recovery coming out of a recession since the Great Depression. I am all in for Trump now the race is between him and Clinton.