Politics Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen

Seriously. No trust issues with Bernie or Obama or Ted Kennedy or ...

There's a there there.

 

So, is your argument here that public perception = reality?

If the public thinks Libertarians are lunatics, that means they are lunatics?

Interesting theory.

barfo

 

My argument is the facts known to the public yield this result.

As long as you're going to attack the "bias" of RT, how about the bias of the source of the "no scant evidence" source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c19242-097c-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html

Is it any wonder that if you’re a conservative looking for unbiased news — and they do; they don’t want only Sean Hannity’s interpretation of the news — that you might feel unwelcome, or dissed or slighted, by the printed Post or the online version? And might you distrust the news when it’s wrapped in so much liberal commentary?

(Patrick B. Pexton is the ombudsman of the WaPost).

 

I'm just responding to your ravings - I don't think I ever claimed that that article, or the Washington Post in particular, was unbiased.

However, now that you bring it up, I do think there is a fundamental difference between the Washington Post and the propaganda arm of a foreign government. Maybe you don't?

Sorry, can't read it without paying them 99 cents, which I simply can't afford. Maybe after Trump cuts my taxes (or raises them, depending on which day of the week it is).

I'll take your word for it that conservatives look for unbiased news. They certainly appear to have very little ability to recognize it once they find it, so maybe that's the real problem.

barfo

 

She absolutely said "what difference does it make."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...t-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"




She lied about it being a protest. Her emails actually show she knew it was a terrorist attack.

 

You brought up bias as if it makes a whole lot of difference if the emails are what they printed.

 

No, I brought up the fact that you mischaracterized the source. It wasn't RT I was accusing of bias. I was accusing you of bias. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

barfo

 

I showed no bias. Just pointed out what the source is.

If you can show the emails they included in the article are not legit, I'm waiting. Somehow, I doubt you can.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-emails/

In the exchange from the night of the attack, Clinton told her daughter Chelsea -- who was using the pseudonym "Diane Reynolds" -- that the attack was launched by "an Al Queda-like group."

...

On the same night Clinton wrote the email to her daughter, she also released a public statement condemning the attack, which noted, "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

In the days and weeks that followed, the administration struggled to explain the attacks, and came under a firestorm of criticism for drawing a connection between the attack and an anti-Islam video released in the United States.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/benghazi-hearing-whats-new/

The first was an email sent Sept. 12, 2012, by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that summarized a call between Clinton and then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil a day after the attacks in Benghazi. That email quotes Clinton as saying, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

 

Waiting for barfo to deflect with some attack on CNN or the author.

In 3....2.....1

 

Sure, an 'official russian news site'. And the KKK is an 'activist group' and Hitler was an 'inspirational leader'.

I can't. Nor can you show they are legit. So I guess it's a draw, except that I won't be trafficking in conspiracy theories if it doesn't end up the way I expect.

barfo

 

I guess you lose.

The emails had Hiliar's email address as well as blumenthal's. WaPost reports the emails were published by RT.com. Not sure I should believe you or the newspapers. Ok, I am sure not to believe you.

As reported by WaPost and NYTimes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/

Hacked e-mails indicate that Hillary Clinton used a domain registered the day of her Senate hearings

By Philip Bump March 2, 2015

• Why Clinton’s private e-mail address is bad news

Hillary Clinton's private e-mail address that she used while secretary of state reinforces everything people don't like about her, argues The Post's Chris Cillizza, and is very dangerous to her presidential ambitions. (The Washington Post)

The New York Times reported Monday night that, during her tenure at the State Department, Hillary Clinton never used her official e-mail account to conduct communications, relying instead on a private e-mail account. As the Times notes, only official accounts are automatically retained under the Federal Records Act, meaning that none of Clinton's e-mail communication was preserved.

In March 2013, an adviser to Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, had his e-mail hacked by "Guccifer" -- the Romanian hacker perhaps best known for revealing George W. Bush's paintings to the world. At the time, Gawker reported that Blumenthal was communicating with an account that appeared to belong to Clinton at the "clintonemail.com" domain. The content of some of those e-mails was published by RT.com.