So the owner of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas ..

[accountinquestion]

I don't like the idea of what Hillary did but I am not seeing how it compares to Trump. Even GWB did something very similar to Hillary. https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/...ls-497373.html

You have no idea whether Russians and CHinese hacked her server but it was done on a shitty microsoft server by a putz IT guy who didn't have it encrypted properly at the start. If she should have went to jail, then I suspect there are lots of people in GWB's administration who should have also.


References, please?. Everything i'm reading said she didn't have any top secret documents but apparently the subject matter she discussed made the emails deemed sensitive and secret after the fact.

From wiki -
Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret".

SO she did not deliberately take classified documents and send them via email. If you believe that then well this all goes back to her lock her up.





Just because you think your dear beloved ex-president is above any rules doesn't mean the rest of us believe he can totally snub this country's security.

THERE WAS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO INDICT HILLARY. THE FBI HELPED HER BY NOT CHARGING HER. THE FBI INVENTS CHARGES ON REPUBLICANS AND COVERS UP DEMOCRAT CRIMES.

Yes, to the same extent GWB should have been indicted. He did the same shit. Look it up. Pull your head out of your partisan ass. What Trump did is considerably different than either of those.

GWB and Hillary did it as part of their job. Likely to prevent partisan hacks from weaponizing emails. I don't like it, but what either did is not the same as Trump.

Trump and his 'lock her up lock her up'. What a piece of shit that guy.

As far as media etc, again it goes both ways. Look into history of Fox News and Trump. Just liberals don't whine about it as much and perhaps it isn't the same as what Twitter did. Twitter however never claimed to be anything like a news organization.

FOX NEWS IS ABOUT 2% OF THE MEDIA. THE MSM IS 98% IN THE TANK FOR DEMS. THE LATEST BOMBSHELL STORY IS BIDEN BEING BRIBED BY BURISMA. A TON OF EVIDENCE THERE. BUT IT IS NOT EVEN BEING REPORTED IN THE MSM.

Fox is the biggest conservative News outlet, right? Actually their viewership is more than CNN and MSNBC COMBINED and it isn't even close. 2% ? Ditz, is that you? And now they don't count? lol. Do you crack up at yourself when you look in the mirror? "A ton of evidence". Maybe if you live on Mars with Ditz. Anyway, it is reported by the MSM, just do a google. If it does in fact have gravity behind it then it will be all over the place.


LOL....THE DEMS ARE AFTER TAKING AWAY YOUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS BUT YOU BITCH ABOUT REPUBLICANS TRYING TO KEEP PORNOGRAPHY OUT OF GRADE SCHOOLS.

THE FIRST THING THE FASCIST DEMS WANT TO REMOVE FROM YOU ARE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS. IT'S ALWAYS THE FIRST THING FASCISTS REMOVE.

Pornography in grade schools ? lol. Okey dokey. I'm sure there are some books that would be best to not be in the library but it is all political stunts. Having a book about some trans kid doesn't make it porn.

As far as Fascists - not only is this nonsensical but you do realize that Trump has suggested we suspend the Constitution because he LOST. This is a joke.

You obviously haven't seen the latest primetime viewership stats:

CNN 600,000
FNC 1.5 million
MSNBC 1.7 million.

That's right. MSNBC is beating FNC ever since the idiots fired Tucker Carlson.

Watch Comey state that classified information was on Hillary's server.



Trump was president for 4 years and didn't do anything to Hillary. But dems are to much sleazeball to give Trump the same respect.

Please show the quote where Trump said "suspend the constitution." No hearsay allowed. Only video of Trump saying that or any official document of Trump saying that is allowed. No lying bastards used as source, please.

And puhleeeeeeeese, quit using fake fucking news sources for any of your cited information.

Then kill yourself.

Ok so Tucker made Fox go under MSNBC. I guess that settles it.

"FOX NEWS IS ABOUT 2% OF THE MEDIA. THE MSM IS 98% IN THE TANK FOR DEMS. THE LATEST BOMBSHELL STORY IS BIDEN BEING BRIBED BY BURISMA. A TON OF EVIDENCE THERE. BUT IT IS NOT EVEN BEING REPORTED IN THE MSM."

I can't argue with that, just that as of a month ago Fox was actually the most wildly viewed news source. I am not sure how to quantify "the media". Just nonsense.

lol at me reading news outlet viewerships. You are correct. It is not relevant to me in any way so yea, I can say I kept up on them.

Here is the quote from trump.
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/media-...set-off-alarms
Ok, it wasn't "suspend" the word was "terminate". Oh you got me Ditz. Nice strawman ya fuckin goofball.

I said that Comey said yes, there was classified stuff. I believe if you talk about classified stuff then that is implied to be classified. This is not the same as taking the original documents. I may be wrong about this but I try to stay away from hack news sources. I did come up with Fox for you just so you don't claim it is made up. lol making news up.

You'll never change your mind about anything. Maybe you changed it on Rob Singer when he talked you into his bs. lol. Ok 1 time, I am AGAIN wrong.

Fist of all, Fox News is part of the lamestream media. They are part of the uniparty (democrats and republicans) that run the country. I don't know where you came up with FNC being "the most wildly viewed news source. In primetime they were at 3 million viewers, about 2 million for MSNBC and 600,000 for CNN. The network news channels pull about 15 million. So Fox News ain't jackshit compared to the MSM.

And Tucker did not make FNC go under MSNBC. FNC did that to themselves when they fired Tucker without good cause. They still to this day haven't given a reason for the firing. It pissed their viewership off to the point FNC lost over a 3rd of it's audience.

But cable and network are dying anyway. Digital/streaming is the wave of the future. I've just about totally switched over. I don't watch FNC since Tucker left. And all I watched was his opening monologue anyway. As KJ said, cable news is entertainment. I only want the meat and potatoes. I don't want the filler.

You have to go to digital/streaming to get the real stories, to get to the truth. Cable and network is all propaganda.

It should be clear when I say "Tucker made .." what was meant. We all know Tucker was fired and his departure hurt Fox. What else could I have meant? You are correcting that?

I have to admit I had no idea people following ABC/NBC news that much. I like to watch things on my schedule so I don't even consider them. I learned something here.

Throw in all the big city newspapers, and social media, liberals easily control 98% of the news.

I can't begin to argue with this and don't care to but 98% does seem a bit extreme. I saw this years ago and find it interesting. It seems reasonable to me.

Actually there are 2 made by different people.

https://adfontesmedia.com/gallery/

and https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

I believe Epoch Times is some Chinese thing but not entirely sure.

[tableplay]

You seem oddly selective in what you decide to guess about and that which you refuse to guess about,

I don't know what Trump's motivations were. Do you want me to lie and say I do ?

Well you seem to readily impute motives when the politics differ significantly from your own.

What motives did I assign ? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[mickeycrimm]

I don't like the idea of what Hillary did but I am not seeing how it compares to Trump. Even GWB did something very similar to Hillary. https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/...ls-497373.html

You have no idea whether Russians and CHinese hacked her server but it was done on a shitty microsoft server by a putz IT guy who didn't have it encrypted properly at the start. If she should have went to jail, then I suspect there are lots of people in GWB's administration who should have also.


References, please?. Everything i'm reading said she didn't have any top secret documents but apparently the subject matter she discussed made the emails deemed sensitive and secret after the fact.

From wiki -
Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret".

SO she did not deliberately take classified documents and send them via email. If you believe that then well this all goes back to her lock her up.





Just because you think your dear beloved ex-president is above any rules doesn't mean the rest of us believe he can totally snub this country's security.

THERE WAS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO INDICT HILLARY. THE FBI HELPED HER BY NOT CHARGING HER. THE FBI INVENTS CHARGES ON REPUBLICANS AND COVERS UP DEMOCRAT CRIMES.

Yes, to the same extent GWB should have been indicted. He did the same shit. Look it up. Pull your head out of your partisan ass. What Trump did is considerably different than either of those.

GWB and Hillary did it as part of their job. Likely to prevent partisan hacks from weaponizing emails. I don't like it, but what either did is not the same as Trump.

Trump and his 'lock her up lock her up'. What a piece of shit that guy.

As far as media etc, again it goes both ways. Look into history of Fox News and Trump. Just liberals don't whine about it as much and perhaps it isn't the same as what Twitter did. Twitter however never claimed to be anything like a news organization.

FOX NEWS IS ABOUT 2% OF THE MEDIA. THE MSM IS 98% IN THE TANK FOR DEMS. THE LATEST BOMBSHELL STORY IS BIDEN BEING BRIBED BY BURISMA. A TON OF EVIDENCE THERE. BUT IT IS NOT EVEN BEING REPORTED IN THE MSM.

Fox is the biggest conservative News outlet, right? Actually their viewership is more than CNN and MSNBC COMBINED and it isn't even close. 2% ? Ditz, is that you? And now they don't count? lol. Do you crack up at yourself when you look in the mirror? "A ton of evidence". Maybe if you live on Mars with Ditz. Anyway, it is reported by the MSM, just do a google. If it does in fact have gravity behind it then it will be all over the place.


LOL....THE DEMS ARE AFTER TAKING AWAY YOUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS BUT YOU BITCH ABOUT REPUBLICANS TRYING TO KEEP PORNOGRAPHY OUT OF GRADE SCHOOLS.

THE FIRST THING THE FASCIST DEMS WANT TO REMOVE FROM YOU ARE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS. IT'S ALWAYS THE FIRST THING FASCISTS REMOVE.

Pornography in grade schools ? lol. Okey dokey. I'm sure there are some books that would be best to not be in the library but it is all political stunts. Having a book about some trans kid doesn't make it porn.

As far as Fascists - not only is this nonsensical but you do realize that Trump has suggested we suspend the Constitution because he LOST. This is a joke.

You obviously haven't seen the latest primetime viewership stats:

CNN 600,000
FNC 1.5 million
MSNBC 1.7 million.

That's right. MSNBC is beating FNC ever since the idiots fired Tucker Carlson.

Watch Comey state that classified information was on Hillary's server.



Trump was president for 4 years and didn't do anything to Hillary. But dems are to much sleazeball to give Trump the same respect.

Please show the quote where Trump said "suspend the constitution." No hearsay allowed. Only video of Trump saying that or any official document of Trump saying that is allowed. No lying bastards used as source, please.

And puhleeeeeeeese, quit using fake fucking news sources for any of your cited information.

Then kill yourself.

Ok so Tucker made Fox go under MSNBC. I guess that settles it.

"FOX NEWS IS ABOUT 2% OF THE MEDIA. THE MSM IS 98% IN THE TANK FOR DEMS. THE LATEST BOMBSHELL STORY IS BIDEN BEING BRIBED BY BURISMA. A TON OF EVIDENCE THERE. BUT IT IS NOT EVEN BEING REPORTED IN THE MSM."

I can't argue with that, just that as of a month ago Fox was actually the most wildly viewed news source. I am not sure how to quantify "the media". Just nonsense.

lol at me reading news outlet viewerships. You are correct. It is not relevant to me in any way so yea, I can say I kept up on them.

Here is the quote from trump.
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/media-...set-off-alarms
Ok, it wasn't "suspend" the word was "terminate". Oh you got me Ditz. Nice strawman ya fuckin goofball.

I said that Comey said yes, there was classified stuff. I believe if you talk about classified stuff then that is implied to be classified. This is not the same as taking the original documents. I may be wrong about this but I try to stay away from hack news sources. I did come up with Fox for you just so you don't claim it is made up. lol making news up.

You'll never change your mind about anything. Maybe you changed it on Rob Singer when he talked you into his bs. lol. Ok 1 time, I am AGAIN wrong.

Fist of all, Fox News is part of the lamestream media. They are part of the uniparty (democrats and republicans) that run the country. I don't know where you came up with FNC being "the most wildly viewed news source. In primetime they were at 3 million viewers, about 2 million for MSNBC and 600,000 for CNN. The network news channels pull about 15 million. So Fox News ain't jackshit compared to the MSM.

And Tucker did not make FNC go under MSNBC. FNC did that to themselves when they fired Tucker without good cause. They still to this day haven't given a reason for the firing. It pissed their viewership off to the point FNC lost over a 3rd of it's audience.

But cable and network are dying anyway. Digital/streaming is the wave of the future. I've just about totally switched over. I don't watch FNC since Tucker left. And all I watched was his opening monologue anyway. As KJ said, cable news is entertainment. I only want the meat and potatoes. I don't want the filler.

You have to go to digital/streaming to get the real stories, to get to the truth. Cable and network is all propaganda.

It should be clear when I say "Tucker made .." what was meant. We all know Tucker was fired and his departure hurt Fox. What else could I have meant? You are correcting that?

I have to admit I had no idea people following ABC/NBC news that much. I like to watch things on my schedule so I don't even consider them. I learned something here.

Throw in all the big city newspapers, and social media, liberals easily control 98% of the news.

I can't begin to argue with this and don't care to but 98% does seem a bit extreme. I saw this years ago and find it interesting. It seems reasonable to me.

Actually there are 2 made by different people.

https://adfontesmedia.com/gallery/

and https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

I believe Epoch Times is some Chinese thing but not entirely sure.

Two things about the chart. It doesn't show the multitude of big city liberal newspapers. It doesn't show the viewership numbers/readership numbers. Just the three networks on the left wipe out all of the right. Most of the stuff on the lower right is hardly watched by anyone.

[accountinquestion]

I don't know what Trump's motivations were. Do you want me to lie and say I do ?

Well you seem to readily impute motives when the politics differ significantly from your own.

What motives did I assign ? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I thought you assigned motives to why Clinton got rid of Glass-Steagall but I may be wrong. I don't care, just answering your question.

[accountinquestion]

I can't begin to argue with this and don't care to but 98% does seem a bit extreme. I saw this years ago and find it interesting. It seems reasonable to me.

Actually there are 2 made by different people.

https://adfontesmedia.com/gallery/

and https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

I believe Epoch Times is some Chinese thing but not entirely sure.

Two things about the chart. It doesn't show the multitude of big city liberal newspapers. It doesn't show the viewership numbers/readership numbers. Just the three networks on the left wipe out all of the right. Most of the stuff on the lower right is hardly watched by anyone.

I didn't mean to imply the charts suggested anything as far as numbers. They're just neat graphs if you haven't seen them before.

The ones on the bottom left don't seem like they'd be read much either. Some of them I don't even recognize the name. Also don't recognize Jesse Watters on right side.

I have to wonder though, lets assume you're right - that yes there are far more liberal news outlets.

Why is that? Could it be supply and demand?

[mickeycrimm]

I can't begin to argue with this and don't care to but 98% does seem a bit extreme. I saw this years ago and find it interesting. It seems reasonable to me.

Actually there are 2 made by different people.

https://adfontesmedia.com/gallery/

and https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

I believe Epoch Times is some Chinese thing but not entirely sure.

Two things about the chart. It doesn't show the multitude of big city liberal newspapers. It doesn't show the viewership numbers/readership numbers. Just the three networks on the left wipe out all of the right. Most of the stuff on the lower right is hardly watched by anyone.

I didn't mean to imply the charts suggested anything as far as numbers. They're just neat graphs if you haven't seen them before.

The ones on the bottom left don't seem like they'd be read much either. Some of them I don't even recognize the name. Also don't recognize Jesse Watters on right side.

I have to wonder though, lets assume you're right - that yes there are far more liberal news outlets.

Why is that? Could it be supply and demand?

Jesse Watters has a 1 hour show on FNC at 7 PM easter, Monday thru Friday. Strange that graph would have the FNC logo plus list Jesse separately. He's part of FNC.

[mickeycrimm]

Well you seem to readily impute motives when the politics differ significantly from your own.

What motives did I assign ? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I thought you assigned motives to why Clinton got rid of Glass-Steagall but I may be wrong. I don't care, just answering your question.

At the time I supported Bill Clinton. That was before the party went so far left. I remember when he left office everyone was saying what a great job he had done. But looking back, he made some mistakes. Besides a bad agreement with North Korea he negotiated us into some very bad trade agreements around the world. Trump campaigned on renegotiating the agreements putting America first. And he followed thru when elected.

[tableplay]

Well you seem to readily impute motives when the politics differ significantly from your own.

What motives did I assign ? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I thought you assigned motives to why Clinton got rid of Glass-Steagall but I may be wrong. I don't care, just answering your question.

No I didn't. I stated that I don't care what Clinton's motivations were. Then I wrote that it probably had to do with favors he owed to his bankster friends since you asked me why I thought he did it. Otherwise, if you had not asked me why, I would not have mentioned anything at all except for the fact that he repealed it.

[accountinquestion]

What motives did I assign ? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I thought you assigned motives to why Clinton got rid of Glass-Steagall but I may be wrong. I don't care, just answering your question.

No I didn't. I stated that I don't care what Clinton's motivations were. Then I wrote that it probably had to do with favors he owed to his bankster friends since you asked me why I thought he did it. Otherwise, if you had not asked me why, I would not have mentioned anything at all except for the fact that he repealed it.

And .. so you were assigning Clinton the motive of doing it because banker friends he needed to pay back.

Yet when Trump moves around boxes with classified stuff in it after being confronted by law enforcement you can't begin to create a motive. All at once you're giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, that is what I meant.

[tableplay]

I thought you assigned motives to why Clinton got rid of Glass-Steagall but I may be wrong. I don't care, just answering your question.

No I didn't. I stated that I don't care what Clinton's motivations were. Then I wrote that it probably had to do with favors he owed to his bankster friends since you asked me why I thought he did it. Otherwise, if you had not asked me why, I would not have mentioned anything at all except for the fact that he repealed it.

And .. so you were assigning Clinton the motive of doing it because banker friends he needed to pay back.

Yet when Trump moves around boxes with classified stuff in it after being confronted by law enforcement you can't begin to create a motive. All at once you're giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, that is what I meant.

Would I have mentioned what Clinton's motivations might have been if you hadn't asked me what they were ? I would have assigned no motivations to Clinton or to Trump if you hadn't asked that question. Or would you have preferred I simply ignore your question ?

[unowme]

Ponder this. Maybe Clinton's motivation was he thought it would benefit economic growth to relax banking regulations and didn't see the risk. Maybe Trump moved boxes because there was no good inventory of what all was in those boxes and he needed to separate items and documents he would declare personal and fight to keep vs items and documents he didn't care to declare personal and would not fight to keep. Maybe there's no nefarious motivation in any of this.