|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 18 2016 22:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Are you talking about the email/memo from Clinton's campaign to the DNC detailing her strategy for the general in May 2015 when Bernie was polling at 7% nationally and wasn't even technically in the race or something else here? Because I've only seen that memo, which is so far from collusion it's pretty amusing.
I suggest looking into it more. They weren't just detailing a strategy for the general, they were talking strategy for the primary in preparation for the general. I see Biff took the "muddy the waters on ethics" note well.
|
On June 18 2016 15:49 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 09:09 SolaR- wrote:My girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend(who I despise) posted this blog in support of personally attacking people in arguments. The main premise is that personal attacks can be used effectively against opposing opinions or viewpoints by exploiting how inept the person voicing that opinion really is. The blog says that we should stifle people with oppressive(or what that person deems as oppressive) opinions or ideas with these personal attacks. It goes on to say that in reaction to the personal attacks, people take the moral high ground saying that they will not resort to your level. The blog claims that this is just posturing, and the person being attacked has no real argument but to take the moral high ground on your personal attacks. Quite frankly, I find this blog to be really ridiculous. I was just curious to see what you guys think. This blog cites Neil Postman's, Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book that I have read. I think the author of this blog is misrepresenting the book, and unfairly attacking it to support his own agenda. I think it is important for two opposing views to respect each other, and If you want to convince a person of anything you must first gain their respect. samkriss.wordpress.com while this blog certainly has it weaknesses, it is miles ahead of everything you and most others have posted in this thread.
Looking at your recent post history, most of it is filled with one line jabs or insults at whoever you're debating. Your tone has a hint of a superiority complex. No wonder you defend the blog.
|
On June 18 2016 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 22:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Are you talking about the email/memo from Clinton's campaign to the DNC detailing her strategy for the general in May 2015 when Bernie was polling at 7% nationally and wasn't even technically in the race or something else here? Because I've only seen that memo, which is so far from collusion it's pretty amusing. I suggest looking into it more. They weren't just detailing a strategy for the general, they were talking strategy for the primary in preparation for the general. I see Biff took the "muddy the waters on ethics" note well.
The only source I could find boils down to that memo so there's not more for me to look into; if you have additional info, I'd love to hear it. The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. If Bernie sent an identical memo to the DNC, would you have an equivalent problem with it?
For reference, this is the entire text of the memo:
+ Show Spoiler +To: The Democratic National Committee
Re: 2016 GOP presidential candidates
Date: May 26, 2015
Below, please find a suggested strategy for positioning and public messaging around the 2016 Republican presidential field. Ultimately, we need to
Our Goals& Strategy
Our goals in the coming months will be to frame the Republican field and the eventual nominee early and to provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC. Over the long-term, these efforts will be aimed at getting us the best match-up in the general election, and weakening the eventual nominee through the course of the primary. We have outlined three strategies to obtain our goal:
1) Highlight when GOP candidates are outside of the mainstream on key issues, ideally driving the rest of the field to follow with positions that will hurt them in a general election;
2) Damage Republican presidential candidates’ credibility with voters by looking for targeted opportunities to undermine their specific messaging;
3) Use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC
Operationalizing the Strategy
Highlighting Extreme or Unpopular Positions
There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety and volume of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. In these issues, we would elevate statements and policies from any candidate—including second and third-tier candidates—on issues that will make them seem too far to the right on social issues and too far from the priorities of everyday Americans on economic issues.
Undermining Their Message& Credibility, Based on our General Election Priorities
In addition to pinning down the field on key issues, we will work to undermine the Republican candidate’s specific messaging, while keeping in mind which candidates and which messages we believe are most powerful. These messages and the responses to them will change given new campaign positioning and new learnings from polling and research, but on these issues, we will keep the focus on the most likely candidates to allow some possibility for growth with the weaker candidates.
• Jeb Bush
o What to undermine: the notion he is a “moderate” or concerned about regular Americans; perceived inroads with the Latino population.
• Marco Rubio
o What to undermine: the idea he has “fresh” ideas; his perceived appeal to Latinos and younger voters
• Scott Walker
o What to undermine: his Wisconsin record, particularly on jobs; the idea he can rally working- and middle class Americans.
• Rand Paul
o What to undermine: the idea he is a “different” kind of Republican; his stance on the military and his appeal to millennials and communities of color.
• Chris Christie
o What to undermine: his success as governor, his hypocrisy in telling it like it is vs. his ethical issues and acts of a typical politician.
Muddying the Waters
As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on Hillary Clinton for decades. HRC’s critics have been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do so with reckless abandon. While reporters have much less of an appetite for ethics stories about GOP candidates, we will utilize the research to place highly targeted hits—for example, GOP candidates taking positions supported by their major super PAC donors.
Tactics
Working with the DNC and allied groups, we will use several different methods to land these attacks, including:
• Reporter Outreach: Working through the DNC and others, we should use background briefings, prep with reporters for interviews with GOP candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message.
• Releases and Social Media: Where appropriate these attacks can be leveraged for more public release, particularly the attacks around specific issues where a public release can point out that Republicans are outside of the mainstream.
• Bracketing Events: Both the DNC and outside groups are looking to do events and press surrounding Republican events to insert our messaging into their press and to force them to answer questions around key issues.
We look forward to discussing this strategy further. Our goal is to use this conversation to answer the questions who do we want to run against and how best to leverage other candidates to maneuver them into the right place.
None of which to me suggests anything about rigging the primary process. And this is the only "smoking gun" on this story I've seen on r/politics.
|
The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around.
What do you suppose their response was?
|
On June 18 2016 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. What do you suppose their response was?
I don't know and neither do you. Would you have an equivalent problem with an identical memo from the Sanders campaign or not, GH?
Edit: If you can find a response indicating they would rig the primary for her rather than just saying "okay that seems like a good way to strategize against the GOP," then you'll have actual evidence of collusion. But there isn't one yet. So the email alone isn't evidence of collusion at all.
|
On June 18 2016 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. What do you suppose their response was? I don't know and neither do you. Would you have an equivalent problem with an identical memo from the Sanders campaign or not, GH? Edit: If you can find a response indicating they would rig the primary for her rather than just saying "okay that seems like a good way to strategize against the GOP," then you'll have actual evidence of collusion. But there isn't one yet. So the email alone isn't evidence of collusion at all.
Yes, I would. Telling the DNC to "muddy the waters" around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance, for someone who isn't even the nominee is problematic during the first months of the primary (or at all really).
|
On June 18 2016 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. What do you suppose their response was? I don't know and neither do you. Would you have an equivalent problem with an identical memo from the Sanders campaign or not, GH? Edit: If you can find a response indicating they would rig the primary for her rather than just saying "okay that seems like a good way to strategize against the GOP," then you'll have actual evidence of collusion. But there isn't one yet. So the email alone isn't evidence of collusion at all. Yes, I would. Telling the DNC to "muddy the waters" around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance, for someone who isn't even the nominee is problematic during the first months of the primary (or at all really).
So we've gone from "they were colluding" to "one line of the memo that the DNC may not have even acted on is objectionable."
The memo in question's explanation of what "muddying the waters" consists of is this:
"As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on Hillary Clinton for decades. HRC’s critics have been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do so with reckless abandon. While reporters have much less of an appetite for ethics stories about GOP candidates, we will utilize the research to place highly targeted hits—for example, GOP candidates taking positions supported by their major super PAC donors."
Which boils down to aggressively pointing out hypocrisy and would have proven even more beneficial for Sanders than it would for Clinton. And, notably, does NOT ask the DNC to do anything-the "we" is the Clinton campaign throughout the memo. Strike that, "we" means different things in different awkward places; typically DNC is referred to as DNC, though.
|
On June 19 2016 00:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. What do you suppose their response was? I don't know and neither do you. Would you have an equivalent problem with an identical memo from the Sanders campaign or not, GH? Edit: If you can find a response indicating they would rig the primary for her rather than just saying "okay that seems like a good way to strategize against the GOP," then you'll have actual evidence of collusion. But there isn't one yet. So the email alone isn't evidence of collusion at all. Yes, I would. Telling the DNC to "muddy the waters" around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance, for someone who isn't even the nominee is problematic during the first months of the primary (or at all really). So we've gone from "they were colluding" to "one line of the memo that the DNC may not have even acted on is objectionable." The memo in question's explanation of what "muddying the waters" consists of is this: "As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on Hillary Clinton for decades. HRC’s critics have been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do so with reckless abandon. While reporters have much less of an appetite for ethics stories about GOP candidates, we will utilize the research to place highly targeted hits—for example, GOP candidates taking positions supported by their major super PAC donors." Which boils down to aggressively pointing out hypocrisy and would have proven even more beneficial for Sanders than it would for Clinton. And, notably, does NOT ask the DNC to do anything-the "we" is the Clinton campaign throughout the memo. Strike that it's really vague.
I don't think we have the same understanding of the phrase "muddy the waters", because mine (and any I can find anywhere) doesn't match up with "aggressively pointing out hypocrisy"
|
On June 19 2016 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2016 00:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. What do you suppose their response was? I don't know and neither do you. Would you have an equivalent problem with an identical memo from the Sanders campaign or not, GH? Edit: If you can find a response indicating they would rig the primary for her rather than just saying "okay that seems like a good way to strategize against the GOP," then you'll have actual evidence of collusion. But there isn't one yet. So the email alone isn't evidence of collusion at all. Yes, I would. Telling the DNC to "muddy the waters" around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance, for someone who isn't even the nominee is problematic during the first months of the primary (or at all really). So we've gone from "they were colluding" to "one line of the memo that the DNC may not have even acted on is objectionable." The memo in question's explanation of what "muddying the waters" consists of is this: "As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on Hillary Clinton for decades. HRC’s critics have been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do so with reckless abandon. While reporters have much less of an appetite for ethics stories about GOP candidates, we will utilize the research to place highly targeted hits—for example, GOP candidates taking positions supported by their major super PAC donors." Which boils down to aggressively pointing out hypocrisy and would have proven even more beneficial for Sanders than it would for Clinton. And, notably, does NOT ask the DNC to do anything-the "we" is the Clinton campaign throughout the memo. Strike that it's really vague. I don't think we have the same understanding of the phrase "muddy the waters", because mine (and any I can find anywhere) doesn't match up with "aggressively pointing out hypocrisy"
I don't think we have the same understanding of what outlines are, given that the component of the memo I quoted is titled "muddying the waters" and defines their strategy for it. Which part of that component/strategy is not pointing out hypocrisy (there's only 1 sentence in it that's not objective fact so I'm assuming you're saying placing targeted hits on GOP candidates attacking Clinton based upon them doing similar things is not pointing out hypocrisy)?
|
On June 19 2016 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2016 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2016 00:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. What do you suppose their response was? I don't know and neither do you. Would you have an equivalent problem with an identical memo from the Sanders campaign or not, GH? Edit: If you can find a response indicating they would rig the primary for her rather than just saying "okay that seems like a good way to strategize against the GOP," then you'll have actual evidence of collusion. But there isn't one yet. So the email alone isn't evidence of collusion at all. Yes, I would. Telling the DNC to "muddy the waters" around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance, for someone who isn't even the nominee is problematic during the first months of the primary (or at all really). So we've gone from "they were colluding" to "one line of the memo that the DNC may not have even acted on is objectionable." The memo in question's explanation of what "muddying the waters" consists of is this: "As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on Hillary Clinton for decades. HRC’s critics have been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do so with reckless abandon. While reporters have much less of an appetite for ethics stories about GOP candidates, we will utilize the research to place highly targeted hits—for example, GOP candidates taking positions supported by their major super PAC donors." Which boils down to aggressively pointing out hypocrisy and would have proven even more beneficial for Sanders than it would for Clinton. And, notably, does NOT ask the DNC to do anything-the "we" is the Clinton campaign throughout the memo. Strike that it's really vague. I don't think we have the same understanding of the phrase "muddy the waters", because mine (and any I can find anywhere) doesn't match up with "aggressively pointing out hypocrisy" I don't think we have the same understanding of what outlines are, given that the component of the memo I quoted is titled "muddying the waters" and defines their strategy for it. Which part of that component/strategy is not pointing out hypocrisy (there's only 1 sentence in it that's not objective fact so I'm assuming you're saying placing targeted hits on GOP candidates attacking Clinton based upon them doing similar things is not pointing out hypocrisy)?
Alright, so "but they do it too" is what it is, I suppose. That's not Bernie's strategy on those topics and I doubt he wanted or wants the DNC to be reduced to that sort of situation. You don't seem to dispute that they were muddying the waters (by the traditional meaning), just that you don't think there's a problem with it because of how they were doing it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this sanders situation will simply continue given the content of their beliefs. about 15-20% of the sanders voters will stay home or vote for trump. sanders himself would take a long long time to do anything productive, and will be confused by criticism when he isn't asking his followers to vote for clinton but simply to 'defeat trump'.
it'll be a lol worthy moment when the same wishy washy leftists unable to see the danger of the sanders situation gets a reality check.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
|
On June 19 2016 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2016 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2016 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2016 00:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. What do you suppose their response was? I don't know and neither do you. Would you have an equivalent problem with an identical memo from the Sanders campaign or not, GH? Edit: If you can find a response indicating they would rig the primary for her rather than just saying "okay that seems like a good way to strategize against the GOP," then you'll have actual evidence of collusion. But there isn't one yet. So the email alone isn't evidence of collusion at all. Yes, I would. Telling the DNC to "muddy the waters" around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance, for someone who isn't even the nominee is problematic during the first months of the primary (or at all really). So we've gone from "they were colluding" to "one line of the memo that the DNC may not have even acted on is objectionable." The memo in question's explanation of what "muddying the waters" consists of is this: "As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on Hillary Clinton for decades. HRC’s critics have been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do so with reckless abandon. While reporters have much less of an appetite for ethics stories about GOP candidates, we will utilize the research to place highly targeted hits—for example, GOP candidates taking positions supported by their major super PAC donors." Which boils down to aggressively pointing out hypocrisy and would have proven even more beneficial for Sanders than it would for Clinton. And, notably, does NOT ask the DNC to do anything-the "we" is the Clinton campaign throughout the memo. Strike that it's really vague. I don't think we have the same understanding of the phrase "muddy the waters", because mine (and any I can find anywhere) doesn't match up with "aggressively pointing out hypocrisy" I don't think we have the same understanding of what outlines are, given that the component of the memo I quoted is titled "muddying the waters" and defines their strategy for it. Which part of that component/strategy is not pointing out hypocrisy (there's only 1 sentence in it that's not objective fact so I'm assuming you're saying placing targeted hits on GOP candidates attacking Clinton based upon them doing similar things is not pointing out hypocrisy)? Alright, so "but they do it too" is what it is, I suppose. That's not Bernie's strategy on those topics and I doubt he wanted or wants the DNC to be reduced to that sort of situation. You don't seem to dispute that they were muddying the waters (by the traditional meaning), just that you don't think there's a problem with it because of how they were doing it.
Are you saying Bernie's strategy in the general would not have been pointing out GOP candidates take positions supported by their major superPAC donors or that he wouldn't have leveraged off the record comments/etc.? And no, I don't think there's a problem with placing targeted media hits on GOP candidates when you're the Democratic National Committee, especially when it would support the nominee no matter who they are.
Any: my main point is no matter how much I look at this document I can't see how it proves in any way, shape, or form that the DNC intervened in the primary process in favor of Clinton, which is how I see it pitched sometimes-and them interfering in the general election is kind of their job as the DNC. Heck, this cycle placing media/scandal hits on Republican candidates during the primary would have HELPED Sanders more than hurt him-made it easier to draw a contrast that Clinton couldn't.
|
On June 19 2016 01:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2016 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2016 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2016 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 19 2016 00:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2016 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 18 2016 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:The main issue I have with saying that suggests collusion is that it's from the campaign to the DNC, not the other way around. What do you suppose their response was? I don't know and neither do you. Would you have an equivalent problem with an identical memo from the Sanders campaign or not, GH? Edit: If you can find a response indicating they would rig the primary for her rather than just saying "okay that seems like a good way to strategize against the GOP," then you'll have actual evidence of collusion. But there isn't one yet. So the email alone isn't evidence of collusion at all. Yes, I would. Telling the DNC to "muddy the waters" around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance, for someone who isn't even the nominee is problematic during the first months of the primary (or at all really). So we've gone from "they were colluding" to "one line of the memo that the DNC may not have even acted on is objectionable." The memo in question's explanation of what "muddying the waters" consists of is this: "As we all know, the right wing attack machine has been building its opposition research on Hillary Clinton for decades. HRC’s critics have been telegraphing they are ready to attack and do so with reckless abandon. While reporters have much less of an appetite for ethics stories about GOP candidates, we will utilize the research to place highly targeted hits—for example, GOP candidates taking positions supported by their major super PAC donors." Which boils down to aggressively pointing out hypocrisy and would have proven even more beneficial for Sanders than it would for Clinton. And, notably, does NOT ask the DNC to do anything-the "we" is the Clinton campaign throughout the memo. Strike that it's really vague. I don't think we have the same understanding of the phrase "muddy the waters", because mine (and any I can find anywhere) doesn't match up with "aggressively pointing out hypocrisy" I don't think we have the same understanding of what outlines are, given that the component of the memo I quoted is titled "muddying the waters" and defines their strategy for it. Which part of that component/strategy is not pointing out hypocrisy (there's only 1 sentence in it that's not objective fact so I'm assuming you're saying placing targeted hits on GOP candidates attacking Clinton based upon them doing similar things is not pointing out hypocrisy)? Alright, so "but they do it too" is what it is, I suppose. That's not Bernie's strategy on those topics and I doubt he wanted or wants the DNC to be reduced to that sort of situation. You don't seem to dispute that they were muddying the waters (by the traditional meaning), just that you don't think there's a problem with it because of how they were doing it. Are you saying Bernie's strategy in the general would not have been pointing out GOP candidates take positions supported by their major superPAC donors or that he wouldn't have leveraged off the record comments/etc.? And no, I don't think there's a problem with placing targeted media hits on GOP candidates when you're the Democratic National Committee, especially when it would support the nominee no matter who they are. Any: my main point is no matter how much I look at this document I can't see how it proves in any way, shape, or form that the DNC intervened in the primary process in favor of Clinton, which is how I see it pitched sometimes-and them interfering in the general election is kind of their job as the DNC. Heck, this cycle placing media/scandal hits on Republican candidates during the primary would have HELPED Sanders more than hurt him-made it easier to draw a contrast that Clinton couldn't.
For the most part, Bernie supporters don't really need "facts" or "proof" of anything. If you are against them, then you are corrupt, if the evidence is against them then its corruption, and anyone who does not walk in line step is obviously corporate shills. They have a lot in common with the Tea Party in that way. Once you see that, then it becomes obvious why people like GH and his ilk act the way they do. Its a slash and burn zero tolerance policy for opinions other than their own. Hence why his argument against you is that the memo is obviously evil just because it doesn't actively support Bernie.
|
Highlights how misguided this whole thing is. Check the occupations here:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PblLqZ3.png)
Yeah, take down those oligarch art teachers, you champion of democracy! This is why no one takes these sorts of leaks and whatnot seriously. When you look at the people doing it, it's hard to have faith in the credibility or the intent.
You can also feel the Bernie rhetoric in this guy's posts. It's just sad. Bernie somehow made people more mad at the DNC than republicans, lol.
|
On June 19 2016 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Yeah, take down those oligarch art teachers, you champion of democracy! This is why no one takes these sorts of leaks and whatnot seriously. When you look at the people doing it, it's hard to have faith in the credibility or the intent.
You can also feel the Bernie rhetoric in this guy's posts. It's just sad. Bernie somehow made people more mad at the DNC than republicans, lol.
I mean, it is not without reason that people are mad at the DNC.
For fuck's sake, you could say the same about Trump - that it's sad that people are mad at Trump for being a racist sexist fascist super-Hitler because a large portion of the attacks against him are ill-conceived and stupid. And yes, a lot of those attacks are, in fact, pretty stupid and wrong and made by idiots. Yet that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate grievances against him.
|
i see attorneys, ceos, and "philanthropists" on that list, not art teachers . . .
|
On June 19 2016 04:14 IgnE wrote:
i see attorneys, ceos, and "philanthropists" on that list, not art teachers . . .
Row 6.
|
F*** all the illuminati and rich clans which try to rule the governments.”
Guccifer 2.0, fighting the good fight against the illuminati in American politics.
|
Are any of these leaks going to make mainstream news though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
