maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:25 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2741 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 27296
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 16848
From The Hill:

Quote:
The broadcast evening newscasts on three major networks on Thursday didn't mention bombshell revelations by former Democratic National Committee interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile.

Brazile has written in a new book that she discovered evidence that she said showed Hillary Clinton’s campaign "rigged" the Democratic presidential primary.

"ABC's World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News" and "CBS Evening News" all didn't report the allegations by Brazile on Thursday evening despite it receiving considerable coverage on cable news and in print and online media.


So Donna Brazille’s, who was interim head of the DNC, revelation that the HRC campaign commandeered the Democratic Party mere months after she announced her candidacy and before even a single primary vote had been cast doesn’t warrant even a mention on any of the big 3’s evening news?

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:37 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 24345
Reputation points: 17550
Maybe they were counting on Brazilleian TV to cover it.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:23 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 24345
Reputation points: 17550
When Trump called Rosie O'Donnell a "fat pig" after she insulted him...he was berated for being a "sexist pig"....but if you are the LA Times....then it's OK to make fun of the weight of a Trump WH female aide.


There is an expression for that type of behavior. This is a two-time Pulitzer prize winner. Maybe there is a category for fat jokes.


Quote:
Los Angeles Times political columnist David Horsey body shamed White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders in his latest anti-Trump hit piece, referring to her appearance as like a “chunky soccer mom.”







Horsey originally wrote Wednesday that Sanders “does not look like the kind of woman” that President Trump would chose for the high-profile role, assuming he would prefer “sleek beauties with long legs and stiletto heels” who could pass for “arm candy” in addition to serving as the White House’s top spokesperson.


The Times’ two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist and columnist went on to mention that First Daughter Ivanka Trump and First Lady Melania Trump are closer to the “Barbie dolls in short, tight skirts” that he envisions Trump preferring at the press briefing podium on a regular basis.




“By comparison, Sanders looks more like a slightly chunky soccer mom who organizes snacks for the kids’ games,” Horsey wrote. “Rather than the fake eyelashes and formal dresses she puts on for news briefings, Sanders seems as if she’d be more comfortable in sweats and running shoes.”


"Sanders looks more like a slightly chunky soccer mom who organizes snacks for the kids’ games"
- L.A. Times columnist David Horsey
The L.A. Times columnist even offered an insulting, backhanded compliment.

“Yet, even if Trump privately wishes he had a supermodel for a press secretary, he is lucky to have Sanders,” he wrote.



Sanders, who was promoted from deputy press secretary when Sean Spicer stepped down earlier this year, is the daughter of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. She has been working in politics her entire adult life and is well respected among GOP insiders.

Back in 2010, well before landing a job in Trump’s White House, Time named her one of its “40 under 40,” a group of young civic leaders that the magazine considered “rising stars of American politics.”

However, the Times columnist went on to call Sanders a liar, a “failure” and a “pro” at being ignorant. He also, in another recent column about the recent allegations of powerful men sexually harassing women, referred to Trump as a “sexually aggressive creep.”

The Times’ editorial board claims on its website to “feel a special obligation to defend civil liberties and human rights” and counts “extraordinary cultural diversity” among its “distinguishing strengths.”

It’s curious to think what Horsey, who is politically correct when it’s convenient, would feel about fat shaming Sanders on a day when it doesn’t fit his anti-Trump agenda. It should be noted that Horsey doesn’t only shame the appearance of females, as he has mocked Trump in cartoons, calling him a “bloated orange mess,” among other things.

The L.A. Times and Horsey did not immediately respond to separate requests for comment.

Shortly after Fox News asked for comment, the Times removed all references to Sanders’ appearance and added a note from Horsey.

"I want to apologize to Times readers – and to Sarah Huckabee Sanders -- for a description that was insensitive and failed to meet the standards of our newspaper. It also failed to meet the expectations I have for myself. It surely won’t be my last mistake, but this particular error will be scrupulously avoided in my future commentaries. I’ve removed the offending description,” he wrote.




Brian Flood covers the media for Fox News.

Follow him on Twitter at @briansflood.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:27 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 17972
Reputation points: 14886
chijohnaok wrote:

So Donna Brazille’s, who was interim head of the DNC, revelation that the HRC campaign commandeered the Democratic Party mere months after she announced her candidacy and before even a single primary vote had been cast doesn’t warrant even a mention on any of the big 3’s evening news?



They were busy spending that time to create the propaganda the Dems told them to. Scrambling.

For example check out MSNBC's (the epitome of fake corporate news media) article on it, which they finally got around to concocting.

The spin is so great, it could reverse time faster than Superman:

:roll:


Memo Reveals Details of Hillary Clinton-DNC Deal

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but required they be related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements. :lol: :lol:

The document provides more context to the explosive claims made by former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile in a forthcoming book, an excerpt of which was published this week.

The August 26, 2015, memorandum of understanding from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to DNC CEO Amy Dacey details the relationship between Clinton's campaign and the DNC long before she won her party's nomination.

In exchange for Hillary for America's (HFA) helping the cash-strapped DNC raise money, the party committee agreed "that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research."

Specifically, the DNC agreed to hire a communications director from "one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA." And while the DNC maintained "the authority to make the final decision" on senior staff in the communications, technology and research departments, the party organization said it would choose "between candidates acceptable to HFA."

The memo stipulates the DNC had to hire a communications director by September 11, 2015, months before the first nominating contests in early 2016.

However, the memo also made clear that the arrangement pertained to only the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility that it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.

Still, it clearly allowed the Clinton campaign to influence DNC decisions made during an active primary, even if intended for preparations later.

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary," the memo states.

"Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates," it continues.

The Clinton campaign agreed to make an initial payment of $1.2 million to DNC, which was crippled by debt at the time, as well as providing a monthly allowance and other funds. The agreement appears intended to give the campaign oversight over how its money was spent.

The agreement supplemented a separate Clinton-DNC standard joint fundraising agreement, which was first reported over a year and a half ago, but gained new attention this week with Brazile’s book.

In an excerpt of her book, "Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House," published this week in Politico, Brazile wrote she was stunned to find out about the agreement, which she called a "cancer" on the party and claimed led the DNC to treat Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., unfairly during the primaries.

The Sanders' campaign later signed its own joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, but did not utilize it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... al-n817411



It leads off by saying it was fair for Clinton to bribe her way into controlling the DNC before their candidates were even picked, and that other candidates could've also tried to out-bribe them. So, by MSNBC & the DNC's rationale, it was all fair! Then proceeds to lightly tiptoe into the fact that the Clinton campaign bought them, and was telling them what to do, as if it was no big deal. :lol: :lol:

MSNBC = fake news.

_________________
..
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 24345
Reputation points: 17550
Trump criticized "W" and utterly destroyed "low energy" Jeb so it may not be a surprise but Bush 41 "doesn't like" Trump. :lol:

He admits to voting for Hillary? WTF?

Quote:
Former President George H.W. Bush says he is not too excited about "blowhard" President Trump and confirmed in a new book that he voted for Hillary Clinton.







“I don’t like him,” Bush, 93, says in the book, according to a review by The New York Times. “I don’t know much about him, but I know he’s a blowhard. And I’m not too excited about him being a leader.”

In the book, titled “The Last Republicans,” the 41st president also revealed that he voted for Trump’s Democrat rival Clinton in the 2016 White House race.




The new book, by author Mark K. Undegrove, consists mostly of interviews about look back at the Republican Party over the past few decades and explores the connection between the elder Bush and his son, former President George W. Bush.

The younger Bush told Undegrove that he voted for “none of the above.”

The father and son each raise concerns that Trump has essentially blown up the GOP to the extent that the New York businessman and first-time politician could be the party’s last president for a long while, according to The Times review.



They also suggest that Trump has wrecked their longtime efforts to continue to build a political party committed to free trade and immigration and the continuation of United States as a world leader in democracy.

The preview of the new book comes after a speech by the younger Bush in which he said “bigotry seems emboldened” in the United States and warned that Americans need to reject “white supremacy.” He doesn’t specifically mention Trump by name.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 17972
Reputation points: 14886
LOL

Elder Bush should go back to grabbing ass from his wheelchair. His senility has fully taken over. :lol:

What am I talking about?! He's one of the Globalists just like the Clintons.

_________________
..
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9801
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 11378
I think, "Syndicalist" is more accurate than "Globalist." I honestly fail to see the descriptive benefit of distinguishing any of the establishiment scions as "globalists" and Trump as "not globalist."

Establishment versus Anti-Establishment (or as I prefer disestablishmentarian) seems to suffice.

People who are opposed to Trump for rational (not equivalent to reasonable) reasons are generally opposed to him because he threatens the balance of power on which their syndicate is based, not (from what I can see) because he is opposed to "globalism" whatever the heck that might mean.

I mean, what is a "anti-globalist" after all? A guy and his family living on the coast of Antarctica in non-sovereign space (and likely in breach of international law) who eeks out a subsistence lifestyle living farming penguins?

The beginning of the end for the "anti-globalists" was probably sometime around 6000 before the present, and the last resisters to be forced into the globalist network were likely done for by the 1950s.

We are all "globalists" now, whether we have passed the denial stage yet or not . . .

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:07 am 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 17972
Reputation points: 14886
Anthropoid wrote:
I think, "Syndicalist" is more accurate than "Globalist." I honestly fail to see the descriptive benefit of distinguishing any of the establishiment scions as "globalists" and Trump as "not globalist."

Establishment versus Anti-Establishment (or as I prefer disestablishmentarian) seems to suffice.

People who are opposed to Trump for rational (not equivalent to reasonable) reasons are generally opposed to him because he threatens the balance of power on which their syndicate is based, not (from what I can see) because he is opposed to "globalism" whatever the heck that might mean.

I mean, what is a "anti-globalist" after all? A guy and his family living on the coast of Antarctica in non-sovereign space (and likely in breach of international law) who eeks out a subsistence lifestyle living farming penguins?

The beginning of the end for the "anti-globalists" was probably sometime around 6000 before the present, and the last resisters to be forced into the globalist network were likely done for by the 1950s.

We are all "globalists" now, whether we have passed the denial stage yet or not . . .



Potato - potato.

_________________
..
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9801
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 11378
NefariousKoel wrote:
Anthropoid wrote:
I think, "Syndicalist" is more accurate than "Globalist." I honestly fail to see the descriptive benefit of distinguishing any of the establishiment scions as "globalists" and Trump as "not globalist."

Establishment versus Anti-Establishment (or as I prefer disestablishmentarian) seems to suffice.

People who are opposed to Trump for rational (not equivalent to reasonable) reasons are generally opposed to him because he threatens the balance of power on which their syndicate is based, not (from what I can see) because he is opposed to "globalism" whatever the heck that might mean.

I mean, what is a "anti-globalist" after all? A guy and his family living on the coast of Antarctica in non-sovereign space (and likely in breach of international law) who eeks out a subsistence lifestyle living farming penguins?

The beginning of the end for the "anti-globalists" was probably sometime around 6000 before the present, and the last resisters to be forced into the globalist network were likely done for by the 1950s.

We are all "globalists" now, whether we have passed the denial stage yet or not . . .



Potato - potato.


:mrgreen: Great production value


Ginger Rogers was a hot pootatoe . . . though the voice . . . meh . . .

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Election 2016
PostPosted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:58 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 27296
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 16848
Anthropoid wrote:
I think, "Syndicalist" is more accurate than "Globalist." I honestly fail to see the descriptive benefit of distinguishing any of the establishiment scions as "globalists" and Trump as "not globalist."

Establishment versus Anti-Establishment (or as I prefer disestablishmentarian) seems to suffice.

People who are opposed to Trump for rational (not equivalent to reasonable) reasons are generally opposed to him because he threatens the balance of power on which their syndicate is based, not (from what I can see) because he is opposed to "globalism" whatever the heck that might mean.

I mean, what is a "anti-globalist" after all? A guy and his family living on the coast of Antarctica in non-sovereign space (and likely in breach of international law) who eeks out a subsistence lifestyle living farming penguins?

The beginning of the end for the "anti-globalists" was probably sometime around 6000 before the present, and the last resisters to be forced into the globalist network were likely done for by the 1950s.

We are all "globalists" now, whether we have passed the denial stage yet or not . . .



I disagree.

"Globalist" is the correct term, particularly when referring to Bush Sr.

Quote:
The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

From Bush Sr's Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union:

Quote:
Mr. President and Mr. Speaker and Members of the United States Congress:

I come to this House of the people to speak to you and all Americans, certain that we stand at a defining hour. Halfway around the world, we are engaged in a great struggle in the skies and on the seas and sands. We know why we're there: We are Americans, part of something larger than ourselves. For two centuries, we've done the hard work of freedom. And tonight, we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity.

What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind -- peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle and worthy of our children's future.

The community of nations has resolutely gathered to condemn and repel lawless aggression. Saddam Hussein's unprovoked invasion -- his ruthless, systematic rape of a peaceful neighbor -- violated everything the community of nations holds dear. The world has said this aggression would not stand, and it will not stand. Together, we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants. The world has answered Saddam's invasion with 12 United Nations resolutions, starting with a demand for Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal, and backed up by forces from 28 countries of 6 continents. With few exceptions, the world now stands as one.


Speech continued at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=19253

The WIkipedia quote about lays out what a globalist is.
And the text from George Bush Sr's speech pretty much steps right into that.

Trump has mocked the UN.
He has cut US contributions to it.
He has pulled the US out of some UN organizations.
Trump=MAGA

George Bush Sr was most definitely a "globalist".
Trump, not so much.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2741 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group