The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news

[Edge-]

Well, Donna Brazile did leak that one debate question to Hillary. I figure that's worth at least three quarters of a million votes.

Brazile is a piece of shit for her behavior, don't get me wrong. But come the fuck on, do you think that a question about the water crisis in Flint wouldn't have been one of the questions they prepped like hell for?

I'm not excusing Brazile's behavior in the slightest, she's a fucking disgrace for behaving so stupidly. But let's not pretend like that question was some non-standard question that Hillary wasn't already heavily prepping for.

[Hooked]

The left will never catch up to the right, the left still uses a 1960's format of meaningless chants and protests marches with signs. The right uses memes and the internet to get its message out there.

[Felya]

Well, Donna Brazile did leak that one debate question to Hillary. I figure that's worth at least three quarters of a million votes.

There is a big problem with even that. What was asked during the primaries debate that was surprise? What was that hidden jab or question, that Hillary would otherwise be unprepared for? Primaries were nothing, but generic soft balls. The whole concept is flawed in it self. Why would you tell Hillary a question she would otherwise not be prepared for, instead of not asking it? Why the show and dance, instead of simply doing nothing.

[Hooked]

Well, Donna Brazile did leak that one debate question to Hillary. I figure that's worth at least three quarters of a million votes.

She said "from time to time she gets questions in advance" that doesn't indicate 1 leak, that indicates pipe burst.

Donna brazile is as dirty as they come, embrace her progressives, we will see where that leads you.

[Felya]

The left will never catch up to the right, the left still uses a 1960's format of meaningless chants and protests marches with signs. The right uses memes and the internet to get its message out there.

Oh please... if Ednus ever said that the right was just a bunch of meme kids, you'd be calling for his head.

- - - Updated - - -

She said "from time to time she gets questions in advance" that doesn't indicate 1 leak, that indicates pipe burst.

Donna brazile is as dirty as they come, embrace her progressives, we will see where that leads you.

What was the question?

[Hooked]

Oh please... if Ednus ever said that the right was just a bunch of meme kids, you'd be calling for his head.

- - - Updated - - -



What was the question?

You have got to be kidding me, the left is so funny now.

In answer to what was the question?, Hillary was given the debate questions in advance of the debate. If you don't have a problem with that I don't know what to say. Its so horrible what donna braziles record shows, wasn't she arrested for some stuff in the 80's?. Donna brazile is scum.

[Felya]

Just for the record, the average Democratic voter wanted Hillary, to the tune of about a million more votes. So, assuming the media presented a narrative that Hillary was the preferred candidate of Democratic voters, that's not proof, in and of itself, of collusion between the Clinton campaign and the media.

Only 58% of the registered voters identify as either party.

[Garnier Fructis]

If you buy into the fake news yea that's the conclusion you come too.

Alternatively, my interpretation is fine and people finding all sorts of conspiracy in the emails are simply not as smart as they think they are, or not as good at reading as they think they are.

I'll never forget how well the email saga started, with one of the first 'smoking guns' being an email that 'showed' Hillary calling Arabs a derogatory name. It was great, because the emailgaters were literally too stupid to realize that Hillary didn't actually write it. So, yeah. That's the caliber of people who think the emails were meaningful.

[Sneezeburger]

Brazile is a piece of shit for her behavior, don't get me wrong. But come the fuck on, do you think that a question about the water crisis in Flint wouldn't have been one of the questions they prepped like hell for?

I'm not excusing Brazile's behavior in the slightest, she's a fucking disgrace for behaving so stupidly. But let's not pretend like that question was some non-standard question that Hillary wasn't already heavily prepping for.

I should have added the /s.

[Felya]

You have got to be kidding me, the left is so funny now.

Are they doing it with memes on the internet? >.<

[Sneezeburger]

Only 58% of the registered voters identify as either party.

And? It was a Democratic primary. Party primaries are generally more concerned with the opinions of their members.

[Hooked]

Are they doing it with memes on the internet? >.<

No the left isn't savvy enough to make memes that matter. They are still doing it with signs and obstructing peoples rights to move freely because of their protests. No one likes leftists anymore, they have become terrorists.

They block freeways, they block ambulances, they block roads. Who in the fuck likes that shit?


[Infracted]

[Sneezeburger]

No the left isn't savvy enough to make memes that matter. They are still doing it with signs and obstructing peoples rights to move freely because of their protests. No one likes leftists anymore, they have become terrorists.

"Memes that matter"

I fucking hate this country sometimes.

[Taneras]

Alternatively, my interpretation is fine and people finding all sorts of conspiracy in the emails are simply not as smart as they think they are, or not as good at reading as they think they are.

What's your interpretation of this?

"On Jul 7, 2015, at 10:30 PM, Leibovich, Mark <leibovich@nytimes.com> wrote:

i wanted the option to use all -- and you could veto what you didn't want.
That's why i selected the 5 or 6 I sent to you...The moose is good, but I'd
really love to use the other things i sent, too. They were all on point.
Sorry for mis-communique here, but do you you think you can check?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:

Uh, I thought you told me that you wanted us to pick.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Mark Leibovich <leibovich@nytimes.com> wrote:
>
> So, just the moose (sans Palin), and none of the other stuff I sent you?
> The last 2 questions, I don't believe, I asked to use....
>
>
>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:31 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
>>
>> My apologies for the delay. I finally had to get her in person.
>>
>> Fine to use the moose, but appreciate leaving the mention of Sarah Palin
out.
>>
>> From last two questions, fine to use everything from the paragraph
>> starting "and to get serious for just a minute..." till the end of the
>> interview as on the record - with the exception of this passage which
>> I ask you leave out: "and gay rights has moved much faster than
>> women's rights or civil rights, which is an interesting phenomenon
>> somebody in the future will unpack."
>>
>> Let me know if that is not clear. Working from an iPhone on the plane
>> so am not able to access the transcript to cut and paste. If helpful,
>> we can do that when we land.
>>
>> Pleasure doing business!
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone"

Sounds like the Hillary campaign was "doing business" with the New York Times and had control over the stories that were run about her. If this was "just describing mundane standard shit that journalists have always been doing" I have to wonder if the Trump campaign was ever contacted in the same manner about the dozens of stories the New York Times ran about him?

[Sneezeburger]

What's your interpretation of this?

"On Jul 7, 2015, at 10:30 PM, Leibovich, Mark <leibovich@nytimes.com> wrote:

i wanted the option to use all -- and you could veto what you didn't want.
That's why i selected the 5 or 6 I sent to you...The moose is good, but I'd
really love to use the other things i sent, too. They were all on point.
Sorry for mis-communique here, but do you you think you can check?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:

Uh, I thought you told me that you wanted us to pick.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Mark Leibovich <leibovich@nytimes.com> wrote:
>
> So, just the moose (sans Palin), and none of the other stuff I sent you?
> The last 2 questions, I don't believe, I asked to use....
>
>
>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:31 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
>>
>> My apologies for the delay. I finally had to get her in person.
>>
>> Fine to use the moose, but appreciate leaving the mention of Sarah Palin
out.
>>
>> From last two questions, fine to use everything from the paragraph
>> starting "and to get serious for just a minute..." till the end of the
>> interview as on the record - with the exception of this passage which
>> I ask you leave out: "and gay rights has moved much faster than
>> women's rights or civil rights, which is an interesting phenomenon
>> somebody in the future will unpack."
>>
>> Let me know if that is not clear. Working from an iPhone on the plane
>> so am not able to access the transcript to cut and paste. If helpful,
>> we can do that when we land.
>>
>> Pleasure doing business!
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone"

Sounds like the Hillary campaign was "doing business" with the New York Times and had control over the stories that were run about her. If this was "just describing mundane standard shit that journalists have always been doing" I have to wonder if the Trump campaign was ever contacted in the same manner about the dozens of stories the New York Times ran about him?

What's the context in which these emails were sent? What did the finished product look like? Were there any falsehoods in what was eventually produced? Is there any evidence this doesn't happen with other candidates?

[May90]

What's your interpretation of this?

"On Jul 7, 2015, at 10:30 PM, Leibovich, Mark <leibovich@nytimes.com> wrote:

i wanted the option to use all -- and you could veto what you didn't want.
That's why i selected the 5 or 6 I sent to you...The moose is good, but I'd
really love to use the other things i sent, too. They were all on point.
Sorry for mis-communique here, but do you you think you can check?

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:

Uh, I thought you told me that you wanted us to pick.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Mark Leibovich <leibovich@nytimes.com> wrote:
>
> So, just the moose (sans Palin), and none of the other stuff I sent you?
> The last 2 questions, I don't believe, I asked to use....
>
>
>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:31 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
>>
>> My apologies for the delay. I finally had to get her in person.
>>
>> Fine to use the moose, but appreciate leaving the mention of Sarah Palin
out.
>>
>> From last two questions, fine to use everything from the paragraph
>> starting "and to get serious for just a minute..." till the end of the
>> interview as on the record - with the exception of this passage which
>> I ask you leave out: "and gay rights has moved much faster than
>> women's rights or civil rights, which is an interesting phenomenon
>> somebody in the future will unpack."
>>
>> Let me know if that is not clear. Working from an iPhone on the plane
>> so am not able to access the transcript to cut and paste. If helpful,
>> we can do that when we land.
>>
>> Pleasure doing business!
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone"

Sounds like the Hillary campaign was "doing business" with the New York Times and had control over the stories that were run about her. If this was "just describing mundane standard shit that journalists have always been doing" I have to wonder if the Trump campaign was ever contacted in the same manner about the dozens of stories the New York Times ran about him?

My interpretation is: some bored student quickly typed this nonsense with grammar errors and unrealistic style in Notepad, and then it spread around naturally.

[Sneezeburger]

It's this combined with a general inability to reason well, but if you try to tell them that then you're just some liberal elitist and this is why Trump won.

Liberal elitist is so 2012. Now they just call you a cuck.

[Taneras]

What's the context in which these emails were sent?

Mark Leibovich, a writer for the New York Times, was discussing an article he was going to run about Hillary Clinton with Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton's communications director.

What did the finished product look like?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/m...nton.html?_r=1

It followed Jennifer Palmieri requests. While the "her" that Jennifer needed to talk to before she replied back to Mark wasn't named, its not outlandish to imagine that the "her" was Hillary.

Were there any falsehoods in what was eventually produced?

Not the point of contention. Mass media colluding with a presidential candidate during an election is the definition of propaganda. The New York Times promotes themselves as an unbiased group of journalists. If they were called the "New York Cheerleaders for Democrats" and were unabashed about their leanings then no this wouldn't be a problem.

Is there any evidence this doesn't happen with other candidates?

Is there any evidence that God doesn't exist? Asking proof of a negative isn't a reasonable expectation. Moreover, its pretty clear that Trump wasn't contacted, unless you are going to argue that he wanted the New York Times to cover him in the way that they did.

[Sneezeburger]

I was accused of being the liberal elite just a couple of weeks ago actually. Apparently thinking the electorate is generally ignorant and irrational does not go over well with the electorate.

That actually makes me feel nostalgic. That, in turn, makes me feel really sad.

[Taneras]

My interpretation is: some bored student quickly typed this nonsense with grammar errors and unrealistic style in Notepad, and then it spread around naturally.

I have some ocreanfront property I'd like to sell you in South Dakota Interested?