PDA

View Full Version : tPF Jill Stein Censored on PBS NewsHour



Chris
08-27-2016, 02:38 PM
Most of the video shows what was cut--most of the criticism of Clinton. The tail end of the video explains that was captured live stream but PBS posted edited version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqdl_CGCGk

The Xl
08-27-2016, 03:37 PM
That's our MSM for ya.

MisterVeritis
08-27-2016, 03:42 PM
Most of the video shows what was cut--most of the criticism of Clinton. The tail end of the video explains that was captured live stream but PBS posted edited version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqdl_CGCGk
PBS. True state-run media. Are taxpayers still funding it?

Chris
08-27-2016, 04:08 PM
PBS. True state-run media. Are taxpayers still funding it?

No worse than any alphabet.

She really rears into Clinton.

Peter1469
08-27-2016, 04:26 PM
Tax payer dollars at work.

MisterVeritis
08-27-2016, 04:39 PM
No worse than any alphabet.

She really rears into Clinton.
Except that we, the productive, are forced to pay for it.

MisterVeritis
08-27-2016, 04:40 PM
Tax payer dollars at work.
Shovel-ready jobs.

Captain Obvious
08-27-2016, 05:27 PM
Freedom no longer frees you

Chris
08-27-2016, 06:10 PM
Except that we, the productive, are forced to pay for it.

All the odder when Stein is far to the left of Clinton.

donttread
08-27-2016, 07:40 PM
Most of the video shows what was cut--most of the criticism of Clinton. The tail end of the video explains that was captured live stream but PBS posted edited version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqdl_CGCGk

Now they should lose there funding. The media ignores all he other parties and then when one does get a chance to communication throuh media they censor her for ragng on the hag.
This is bullshit, and certainly not the kind of crap tax dollars should be spent on.

Chris
08-27-2016, 08:14 PM
Now they should lose there funding. The media ignores all he other parties and then when one does get a chance to communication throuh media they censor her for ragng on the hag.
This is bullshit, and certainly not the kind of crap tax dollars should be spent on.

They probably should but will just call it editing to fit the time.

Chloe
08-27-2016, 08:14 PM
It's a shame. Put Stein and Clinton in the same room together to discuss ideas and people would quickly see Clinton for the fraud that she is in my opinion.

TrueBlue
08-27-2016, 09:18 PM
It's a shame. Put Stein and Clinton in the same room together to discuss ideas and people would quickly see Clinton for the fraud that she is in my opinion.
Aw no. And in my opinion, Stein sure appears to be nothing more than the female version of Bernie Sanders making all kinds of wild promises as he did. But talk is cheap. Sanders did not have a way to pay for all of his promises and neither does Stein. She needs to put her money where her mouth is already and quit criticizing Clinton who has a real, pragmatic and workable plan for Americans to help them get ahead. The reason Stein is so low in the polls is that she is just not ready for big time adult politics and needs to go back to her medical practice.

Ethereal
08-27-2016, 09:28 PM
This is why I always laugh at westerners who act like we live in a free and open society.

It doesn't matter how much freedom of speech you have codified into your laws if the corporate overlords can just censor what the masses are able to hear.

So while Jill Stein might not get her door kicked in for saying what she said, like in other authoritarian countries, it makes little effective difference because most Americans won't get to hear it anyway. For all intents and purposes, she might as well be rotting away in a prison cell somewhere with a sock in her mouth.

And wouldn't you know it? Facebook is also censoring the video...


Facebook Censors Video Exposing PBS Cutting Hillary/TPP Criticism From Jill Stein Interview (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/27/facebook-censors-video-exposing-pbs-cutting-hillarytpp-criticism-jill-stein-interview/)

by DUSTIN STOCKTON | 27 Aug 2016

Facebook is censoring a video created by Green candidate Dr. Jill Stein supporter Matt Orfalea that exposes PBS Newshour cutting Stein’s criticism of Hillary Clinton, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and Obamacare.

Breitbart News reported on the Orfalea’s video exposing the Hillary bias and now it appears Facebook is censoring the exposure of censorship. Orfalea told Breitbart News: “It’s insane.”

...

Ethereal
08-27-2016, 09:31 PM
Aw no. And in my opinion, Stein sure appears to be nothing more than the female version of Bernie Sanders making all kinds of wild promises as he did. But talk is cheap. Sanders did not have a way to pay for all of his promises and neither does Stein. She needs to put her money where her mouth is already and quit criticizing Clinton who has a real, pragmatic and workable plan for Americans to help them get ahead. The reason Stein is so low in the polls is that she is just not ready for big time adult politics and needs to go back to her medical practice.


The reason why Stein is low in the polls is because she is being systematically marginalized by the corporate-government complex and its two party duopoly.

The only way a crook like Clinton can win is by leveraging the rigged political system. In an open and fair election, Clinton wouldn't stand a chance.

TrueBlue
08-27-2016, 09:41 PM
The reason why Stein is low in the polls is because she is being systematically marginalized by the corporate-government complex and its two party duopoly.

The only way a crook like Clinton can win is by leveraging the rigged political system. In an open and fair election, Clinton wouldn't stand a chance.
You can spin that any way you like but the fact of the matter is that this is a very open and fair election. How? Because ultimately it is the PEOPLE of this country who are going to vote for Hillary Clinton and when they cast their vote they are speaking as to whom they prefer and want to be the next President of the United States. Besides that, Hillary is well ahead in electoral votes compared to weak Donald and that is what really matters in the end.

Ethereal
08-27-2016, 09:50 PM
You can spin that any way you like but the fact of the matter is that this is a very open and fair election. How? Because ultimately it is the PEOPLE of this country who are going to vote for Hillary Clinton and when they cast their vote they are speaking as to whom they prefer and want to be the next President of the United States. Besides that, Hillary is well ahead in electoral votes compared to weak Donald and that is what really matters in the end.

I'm not spinning anything.

The electoral process is rigged by the establishment.

We see evidence of this almost every day.

Whether it's the DNC manipulating the primary process in order to benefit Clinton at Sanders' expense, or PBS outright censoring Jill Stein during an interview, there is really no end to the corruption and anti-democratic machinations engendered by the system.

And even if Hillary Clinton beats Donald Trump, it will not be "the people" who helped her do it. It will be about 20% of the population who elects her, just like it did with Obama. The remaining 80% of Americans will either vote against her, not vote for anyone, or are ineligible to vote.

When 20% of the country is dictating to the remaining 80%, there is absolutely no basis for claiming "the people" are the ones making the decisions.

TrueBlue
08-27-2016, 10:00 PM
I'm not spinning anything.

The electoral process is rigged by the establishment.

We see evidence of this almost every day.

Whether it's the DNC manipulating the primary process in order to benefit Clinton at Sanders' expense, or PBS outright censoring Jill Stein during an interview, there is really no end to the corruption and anti-democratic machinations engendered by the system.

And even if Hillary Clinton beats Donald Trump, it will not be "the people" who helped her do it. It will be about 20% of the population who elects her, just like it did with Obama. The remaining 80% of Americans will either vote against her, not vote for anyone, or are ineligible to vote.

When 20% of the country is dictating to the remaining 80%, there is absolutely no basis for claiming "the people" are the ones making the decisions.
The basis is right there and if it isn't "the people" making the decision to elect Hillary president then whose is it? The plants? The animals? The rocks and minerals? No, you just don't like the fact that since you dislike her but so many other voting Americans across the country, including Republicans and Independents don't and will vote for her in November she will obviously win. That's what your gripe is all about. As to throwing in your red herrings, that's all they are, red herrings. When the electoral votes are counted and Hillary Clinton wins the presidency you can be left to sulk and suck on your lollipop. But that's o.k., that's alright. I'll understand. Defeat is a real bitch isn't it.

Ethereal
08-27-2016, 10:03 PM
The basis is right there and if it isn't "the people" making the decision to elect Hillary president then whose is it? The plants? The animals? The rocks and minerals? No, you just don't like the fact that since you dislike her but so many other voting Americans across the country, including Republicans and Independents don't and will vote for her in November she will obviously win. That's what your gripe is all about. As to throwing in your red herrings, that's all they are, red herrings. When the electoral votes are counted and Hillary Clinton wins the presidency you can be left to sulk and suck on your lollipop. But that's o.k., that's alright. I'll understand. Defeat is a real $#@! isn't it.


I already told you who is making the decision. About 20% of the population. The remaining 80% will either vote against her or not vote at all.

And it's because the system is rigged in favor of pro-establishment candidates.

The only people who refuse to admit this are the fringe minority of people who support pro-establishment candidates, like you.

Dr. Who
08-27-2016, 10:16 PM
You can spin that any way you like but the fact of the matter is that this is a very open and fair election. How? Because ultimately it is the PEOPLE of this country who are going to vote for Hillary Clinton and when they cast their vote they are speaking as to whom they prefer and want to be the next President of the United States. Besides that, Hillary is well ahead in electoral votes compared to weak Donald and that is what really matters in the end.
I'm sorry True, but censorship of other ideas is really the hallmark of an authoritarian society. The people of America are only really being allowed to hear the ideas of the sanctioned political parties. This is scarcely different than North Korea or the Middle East. The fact that the censorship most generally stems from corporate media choices and their unholy alliance with the duopoly in America, doesn't make it any better or any less of an assault on freedom of expression or freedom of political ideology.

Dr. Who
08-27-2016, 10:22 PM
The basis is right there and if it isn't "the people" making the decision to elect Hillary president then whose is it? The plants? The animals? The rocks and minerals? No, you just don't like the fact that since you dislike her but so many other voting Americans across the country, including Republicans and Independents don't and will vote for her in November she will obviously win. That's what your gripe is all about. As to throwing in your red herrings, that's all they are, red herrings. When the electoral votes are counted and Hillary Clinton wins the presidency you can be left to sulk and suck on your lollipop. But that's o.k., that's alright. I'll understand. Defeat is a real bitch isn't it.

The fact is that this is not about Hillary or Trump, but about the fact that only the reigning parties of America are given any air time. Third parties are shut out in general. Do you think that America is not capable of making its own decisions about political candidates without having corporate media sources deciding for everyone who may be heard? What kind of freedom is that?

Ethereal
08-27-2016, 10:27 PM
The fact is that this is not about Hillary or Trump, but about the fact that only the reigning parties of America are given any air time. Third parties are shut out in general. Do you think that America is not capable of making its own decisions about political candidates without having corporate media sources deciding for everyone who may be heard? What kind of freedom is that?

Third parties face a classic conundrum.

They can't get coverage because they aren't well known, but they aren't well known because they can't get coverage.

And when they do get coverage, the establishment does everything it can to minimize its potential effect on the people.

TrueBlue
08-27-2016, 10:33 PM
I'm sorry True, but censorship of other ideas is really the hallmark of an authoritarian society. The people of America are only really being allowed to hear the ideas of the sanctioned political parties. This is scarcely different than North Korea or the Middle East. The fact that the censorship most generally stems from corporate media choices and their unholy alliance with the duopoly in America, doesn't make it any better or any less of an assault on freedom of expression or freedom of political ideology.
Is that so? Well I'll tell you something. The press/media has not been fair to Hillary Clinton one iota. All of the publicity, sound bites, photo-ops are all about Trump. No doubt about it. Every time you turn on a TV set or the radio it is about Trump not Hillary. Therefore, if we want to talk censorship, that is a prime example, Who. The fact that she is where she is right now and doing so well in the polls and in popularity is due to grassroots support for her and nothing else.

But to get back on the topic of this thread, if Stein was as strong a candidate as some purport her to be she would already be making great headway in much the same manner as Sanders did before long a while back with little resources. But again, it's not that anyone is keeping her back from anything. It is that her message is just not resonating with the American voter. She is not feeling the pulse of Americans thus, she is not receiving the support she may have thought she would.

TrueBlue
08-27-2016, 10:38 PM
The fact is that this is not about Hillary or Trump, but about the fact that only the reigning parties of America are given any air time. Third parties are shut out in general. Do you think that America is not capable of making its own decisions about political candidates without having corporate media sources deciding for everyone who may be heard? What kind of freedom is that?
Yet where there's a will there's a way. If ol' Bernie had not been a go-getter he too would have fallen by the wayside early on. Only he didn't. It was his grassroots support that carried him forward.

Dr. Who
08-27-2016, 10:51 PM
Is that so? Well I'll tell you something. The press/media has not been fair to Hillary Clinton one iota. All of the publicity, sound bites, photo-ops are all about Trump. No doubt about it. Every time you turn on a TV set or the radio it is about Trump not Hillary. Therefore, if we want to talk censorship, that is a prime example, Who. The fact that she is where she is right now and doing so well in the polls and in popularity is due to grassroots support for her and nothing else.

But to get back on the topic of this thread, if Stein was as strong a candidate as some purport her to be she would already be making great headway in much the same manner as Sanders did before long a while back with little resources. But again, it's not that anyone is keeping her back from anything. It is that her message is just not resonating with the American voter. She is not feeling the pulse of Americans thus, she is not receiving the support she may have thought she would.
Sanders made a decision to run under the Democratic banner in order to have his ideas heard, otherwise he would have been consigned to third party ignominy both unheard and condemned for his radical ideas.

Dr. Who
08-27-2016, 10:54 PM
Yet where there's a will there's a way. If ol' Bernie had not been a go-getter he too would have fallen by the wayside early on. Only he didn't. It was his grassroots support that carried him forward.


Which just underscores the idea that the American public entertains more political ideology than just the Democrats and the Republicans or the difference between bread with cheese or cheese with bread.

Dr. Who
08-27-2016, 10:58 PM
Is that so? Well I'll tell you something. The press/media has not been fair to Hillary Clinton one iota. All of the publicity, sound bites, photo-ops are all about Trump. No doubt about it. Every time you turn on a TV set or the radio it is about Trump not Hillary. Therefore, if we want to talk censorship, that is a prime example, Who. The fact that she is where she is right now and doing so well in the polls and in popularity is due to grassroots support for her and nothing else.

But to get back on the topic of this thread, if Stein was as strong a candidate as some purport her to be she would already be making great headway in much the same manner as Sanders did before long a while back with little resources. But again, it's not that anyone is keeping her back from anything. It is that her message is just not resonating with the American voter. She is not feeling the pulse of Americans thus, she is not receiving the support she may have thought she would.
If a third party candidate cannot get into the debates or be covered by the mainstream media, they are fighting an uphill battle to even be recognized as a political option, never mind being allowed the airtime to promote their ideas.

TrueBlue
08-27-2016, 10:58 PM
Which just underscores the idea that the American public entertains more political ideology than just the Democrats and the Republicans or the difference between bread with cheese or cheese with bread.
If it underscores anything it underscores the fact that to get anywhere you have to fight for it if there is opposition to you from the press and media. That's the KEY to ultimate success.

Ethereal
08-27-2016, 11:06 PM
If it underscores anything it underscores the fact that to get anywhere you have to fight for it if there is opposition to you from the press and media. That's the KEY to ultimate success.


The key to success is rigging the system so that 20% of the country can dictate to the remaining 80%.

TrueBlue
08-27-2016, 11:08 PM
Sanders made a decision to run under the Democratic banner in order to have his ideas heard, otherwise he would have been consigned to third party ignominy both unheard and condemned for his radical ideas.
Yet, and in retrospect, he was smart enough to have thought well ahead to do that and got to high places as he did although he did not win the nomination. That's why third party candidates such as Stein and Johnson do not amount to much in most American eyes. They like to stick to their own obscure political party with ideas that are mostly not supported by mainstream Americans. Bernie may have stood a better chance since he was neither a Libertarian nor a Green Party candidate but an Independent. That was smart.

TrueBlue
08-27-2016, 11:10 PM
And with that I bid goodnight. Hugs to all! I enjoyed our discourse.

Dr. Who
08-27-2016, 11:34 PM
Yet, and in retrospect, he was smart enough to have thought well ahead to do that and got to high places as he did although he did not win the nomination. That's why third party candidates such as Stein and Johnson do not amount to much in most American eyes. They like to stick to their own obscure political party with ideas that are mostly not supported by mainstream Americans. Bernie may have stood a better chance since he was neither a Libertarian nor a Green Party candidate but an Independent. That was smart.

Yet you still miss the point that he necessarily had to go against his own ideological beliefs in order to be heard and considering the amount of support that he did receive, the American public is not just an amalgam of Democrats and Republicans, but many different political ideologies who are being jammed into either round or square holes because their choices are being artificially circumscribed.

Professor Peabody
08-28-2016, 04:42 AM
Is that so? Well I'll tell you something. The press/media has not been fair to Hillary Clinton one iota. All of the publicity, sound bites, photo-ops are all about Trump. No doubt about it. Every time you turn on a TV set or the radio it is about Trump not Hillary. Therefore, if we want to talk censorship, that is a prime example, Who. The fact that she is where she is right now and doing so well in the polls and in popularity is due to grassroots support for her and nothing else.

But to get back on the topic of this thread, if Stein was as strong a candidate as some purport her to be she would already be making great headway in much the same manner as Sanders did before long a while back with little resources. But again, it's not that anyone is keeping her back from anything. It is that her message is just not resonating with the American voter. She is not feeling the pulse of Americans thus, she is not receiving the support she may have thought she would.

Hillary should try answering a few questions then........


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTPkujVgC8g

Hillary Clinton Ignores Reporter Questions on Clinton Foundation Donations (turn the sound up a bit)

It's not just the Conservatives that want answers to those questions, independents and more importantly Sanders supporters want to hear her explain her actions too.

AeonPax
08-28-2016, 05:35 AM
`
`
'I'm looking to establish peace in the Middle East" Hillary Clinton never said.....and never will.

donttread
08-28-2016, 07:22 AM
They probably should but will just call it editing to fit the time.

I'm sure you're right. It looks like PBS is just another donkephant lap dog, but not one we should be paying for

donttread
08-28-2016, 07:27 AM
`
`
'I'm looking to establish peace in the Middle East" Hillary Clinton never said.....and never will.

Nobody, especially the Britts and Americans have wanted true peace in the ME in a very long time. So ironically by not openly lying about our intentions like many of the rest Hilary may actually be ( in this one area) more honest than previous regimes have been.
Of course she won't openly admit our goal for the region has always been instability and conflict. But every time she doesn't open her mouth it's one more lie not told.

donttread
08-28-2016, 07:29 AM
Is that so? Well I'll tell you something. The press/media has not been fair to Hillary Clinton one iota. All of the publicity, sound bites, photo-ops are all about Trump. No doubt about it. Every time you turn on a TV set or the radio it is about Trump not Hillary. Therefore, if we want to talk censorship, that is a prime example, Who. The fact that she is where she is right now and doing so well in the polls and in popularity is due to grassroots support for her and nothing else.

But to get back on the topic of this thread, if Stein was as strong a candidate as some purport her to be she would already be making great headway in much the same manner as Sanders did before long a while back with little resources. But again, it's not that anyone is keeping her back from anything. It is that her message is just not resonating with the American voter. She is not feeling the pulse of Americans thus, she is not receiving the support she may have thought she would.

One question True: Does the DNC pay you or do you post this propaganda for free?

donttread
08-28-2016, 07:31 AM
The fact is that this is not about Hillary or Trump, but about the fact that only the reigning parties of America are given any air time. Third parties are shut out in general. Do you think that America is not capable of making its own decisions about political candidates without having corporate media sources deciding for everyone who may be heard? What kind of freedom is that?

The answer lies at our finger tips where we can find info on both sides of most issues , voting records vs. rhetoric , but we still seem to have a need to have two "choices" rammed down our throats by partisian controled MSM

donttread
08-28-2016, 07:39 AM
It's a shame. Put Stein and Clinton in the same room together to discuss ideas and people would quickly see Clinton for the fraud that she is in my opinion.

Chloe that is why the Stein's , Johnson's and to some extent the Pauls are kept out of the mainstream by the "two major parties" . Take Jill Stein for example ( which pretty much applies to the others listed as well) . She can answer questions based upon truth, common sense and long term planing . The donkephant can't do that because they are so very bought and paid for. The only way they can win or even do decently well in public forum is when they are only being compared to other bought and paid for main stream politicians.
So they try to limit discussion to the other side of the donkephant which is just as corrupt as they are.

Chris
08-28-2016, 10:03 AM
Is that so? Well I'll tell you something. The press/media has not been fair to Hillary Clinton one iota. All of the publicity, sound bites, photo-ops are all about Trump. No doubt about it. Every time you turn on a TV set or the radio it is about Trump not Hillary. Therefore, if we want to talk censorship, that is a prime example, Who. The fact that she is where she is right now and doing so well in the polls and in popularity is due to grassroots support for her and nothing else.

But to get back on the topic of this thread, if Stein was as strong a candidate as some purport her to be she would already be making great headway in much the same manner as Sanders did before long a while back with little resources. But again, it's not that anyone is keeping her back from anything. It is that her message is just not resonating with the American voter. She is not feeling the pulse of Americans thus, she is not receiving the support she may have thought she would.

"All of the publicity, sound bites, photo-ops are all about Trump" have been negative. Most of "the publicity, sound bites, photo-ops" for Clinton are positive. Speaking of bias.

Stein's problem, like Johnson, is she has to fight the system, including a media that rarely gives them a voice.

Chris
08-28-2016, 10:53 AM
Also in response to TrueBlue's


But to get back on the topic of this thread, if Stein was as strong a candidate as some purport her to be she would already be making great headway in much the same manner as Sanders did before long a while back with little resources.

Actually the topic is Stein's criticism of Clinton, which I don't see you countering. A subtopic is media censorship protecting Clinton. The strength of Klein's candidacy is not the topic.

TrueBlue
08-28-2016, 06:57 PM
Hillary should try answering a few questions then........


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTPkujVgC8g

Hillary Clinton Ignores Reporter Questions on Clinton Foundation Donations (turn the sound up a bit)

It's not just the Conservatives that want answers to those questions, independents and more importantly Sanders supporters want to hear her explain her actions too.
So, we're off Stein again and into Clinton. And what was Chris just saying? :) But just this once I'll reply to your Clinton question but remember she's not the topic of this thread so don't get carried away here and neither will I.

As far as Clinton is concerned with the politicos and others after her like a pack of rabid dogs chasing a virtual non-issue is it any wonder she would not give them the time of day. And she shouldn't up and until someone in actual legal authority brings out viable charges, that may never come, that she must be faced with legally. That's how it works, fyi.

TrueBlue
08-28-2016, 07:04 PM
Also in response to @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308)'s



Actually the topic is Stein's criticism of Clinton, which I don't see you countering. A subtopic is media censorship protecting Clinton. The strength of Klein's candidacy is not the topic.
Of course she's going to go against Clinton. That's a given during political season against her perceived main competitor and opponent to the nation's highest office ("perceived" because Stein may well not even receive the chance to debate with her or be formally recognized.) But even Stein cannot prove that Hillary Clinton did anything wrong to be faced with any charges. Therefore, it's sour grapes on her part and end of story.

TrueBlue
08-28-2016, 07:19 PM
`
`
'I'm looking to establish peace in the Middle East" Hillary Clinton never said.....and never will.
Actually, she did. Read the following.

Clinton: U.S. Plans New Push on Arab-Israeli Peace

https://shadowproof.com/2011/04/12/clinton-u-s-plans-new-push-on-arab-israeli-peace/

"The United States plans a new push to promote comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday, suggesting reinvigorated U.S. role in trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

“It is very unfortunate,” he added. “We all know that if one wants to advance peace in the Middle East you don’t put the Palestinian question on the backburner, you put it on the front burner. There has to be a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Chris
08-28-2016, 07:39 PM
Of course she's going to go against Clinton. That's a given during political season against her perceived main competitor and opponent to the nation's highest office ("perceived" because Stein may well not even receive the chance to debate with her or be formally recognized.) But even Stein cannot prove that Hillary Clinton did anything wrong to be faced with any charges. Therefore, it's sour grapes on her part and end of story.

You still offer no counter to Stein's criticism.

TrueBlue
08-28-2016, 08:01 PM
You still offer no counter to Stein's criticism.
Her criticism of Clinton boils down to nothing more than trying to win political points by espousing empty rhetoric. Again, that's what a losing candidate that cannot hit the ground running does. Whatever she says about Hillary is actually not worth reading or listening to as it is much the same as any losing opponent would say about another in trying to derail their candidacy. If she and her points were actually viable and worth listening to then the vast majority of Americans, of which I am part of, would be actively listening to her and she would be way up in the polls and even the media would grant her time to present her case to the American people. But why waste one's time. She is faring far worse than even Johnson. Therefore, it's safe to say that she's not going anywhere. She will not gain in the polls. She is lost cause and done. Beyond that, there is nothing farther to say about her. I listen to the winning candidates not the losers. End of story.

Chris
08-28-2016, 08:05 PM
Her criticism of Clinton boils down to nothing more than trying to win political points by espousing empty rhetoric. Again, that's what a losing candidate that cannot hit the ground running does. Whatever she says about Hillary is actually not worth reading or listening to as it is much the same as any losing opponent would say about another in trying to derail their candidacy. If she and her points were actually viable and worth listening to then the vast majority of Americans, of which I am part of, would be actively listening to her and she would be way up in the polls and even the media would grant her time to present her case to the American people. But why waste one's time. She is faring far worse than even Johnson. Therefore, it's safe to say that she's not going anywhere. She will not gain in the polls. She is lost cause and done. Beyond that, there is nothing farther to say about her. I listen to the winning candidates not the losers. End of story.

Attacking Klein does not defend Clinton.

It's ok, she's a liar and criminal and can't be defended.

I expected you to attack Trump now. ..

AeonPax
08-28-2016, 08:19 PM
Actually, she did. Read the following.<snip>
`
So she did but Hillary is such a lying sack of shit, nobody believed her and they were right not to.

Chris
08-28-2016, 08:52 PM
A grifter and a grafter.