Fox News: John Brennan Suppressed Intel Saying Russia Wanted Hillary Clinton to Win

No they are not. see #25 But, as for your 'deligitimizing" just about every source I ever list, be it an individual, or news source, if it's left or left of center, I get a 'biased" ( thus they won't read it) answer from most here on the right. So don't lecture me on 'deligitimizing opposing points of view" you guys do it ALL THE TIME. I get this EVERY DAY I comment on this forum. As for 'lazy" I put a lot of work in to many of my comments. I've posted long comments, and what is the common response? "TDS" I get that crap all the time. The right is filled with lazy ****s who don't want to do the hard work and offer a reasonable rebuttal. Not all of you, but there are plenty of you on this forum.

 

Yes it is breotbart snd CNN have about the level of reliability. However leaning to the right being the correct way to lean, you can just chuck CNN in the toilet from which it came.

 

It's what one might expect of a former Communist party voter.

 

Like the folks watching Eliot Ness just go on and on and on uprooting crime in Chicago.-- so boring.

 

Makes one wonder how he got that information. Do you suppose maybe from the Senate computers he hacked? Just an idle thought..........

 

It's funny that dems think this is a small potatoes nothing burger.

If only half of all this is true, its the biggest political crime in us history.. about 1000 times worse than Watergate.

 

It doesn't matter. Common sense told us that years ago. The Mueller investigation told us nothing went on between Russia and the campaign.

 

CNN's rating is 'mixed' so on mixed, for me, it's a case by case basis. Breitbart's rating is 'questionable' and that's when I don't even consider anything they publish.
Sorry, more people vote for democrats, on the whole, than they vote for republicans ( 2016 prez race, 2018 house and senate ) so it would seem America leans slightly to the left, and leaning to the right isn't where the winds are blowing.

 

Which the hated right wing nut job who is always wrong, Sean Hannity, told us all along.

So that leaves Trump haters two choices.

1. Admit Sean Hannity was right and that they were wrong.

2. Just be wrong and have nothing of value to add to the conversation.

It's a proven fact, Trump had nothing to do with Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
It's also a proven fact Kavanaugh did not try to rape Ford

And lastly it's a proven fact Trump didn't pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden.

Fabrications of the far left nothing more.. they owe apologies to the administration, to Trump and to the American people.
Their proper posture at the moment? Contrition.

 

They lean left because they believe the lies of the left that get shoveled on them from the school system as kids. From colleges in their young adulthood and the msm throughout adult hood.

 

How about all the crimes of all modern US Presidents?



****, the gov on both sides of the fence have been doing a lot of bad **** for a long long time. Why stop with the CIA? Remember Hoover? Spied on everyone.

And this WH is NOT 'draining the swamp' he's installing swamp creatures galore.

But, at this juncture in time, it's a side show, the fire is in the WH, and the only way to put it out is to vote the SOB's out of office.

 

Too bad you couldn't have told them that in 2016. The right place to deal with it is at the ballot box.

 

She couldn't do it with 3 million more votes, frustrating. I doubt Biden is going to repeat her mistake by not focusing on the swing states.

 

Clinton failed because she her message was more of the same to an electorate that didn't want more of the same. She was very much disliked. Biden at least is better liked. But he will fail as well.

 

Yadda yadda yadda. I remember when I was 14, my sister dated a guy, a right winger, handed me all sorts of brochures on "Illuminati" 'Trilateral commission" conspiracy crap, how the commies ( democrats were always called commies by guys like him ) were everywhere in government, and the brochures were very convincing ( to a 14 year old kid ).
I voted for repubs up until the late 8os because I believed all their tropes about "small government".and conspiracy theories. So, I started to question 'what, precisely', does that mean, small government? " it seemed to me that the only way to know that is to look at their legislative proposals, and it was always some variant on more goodies for the rich, and less goodies for the poor. I'm sorry, but what portion of my 92 year old mother's $800 SocSec check do you guys want to cut? Some kind of 'small government' that would make, letting people like my mom starve, and she can't live on that, anyway, without my help.

I don't recall any of my teachers throughout grade school mention left or right politics at all. In my college years, my poly sci prof was a republican. My English teacher was a lib, but she never talked politics at all. I really don't know where you get this "lies from the school system" crap you think is true. What people on the right are good at are spouting platitudes and generalities. I'm into specifics, specific policies I'll debate, but arguing about platitudes is a fool's errand.

So, if you want to debate something specific, start a thread and let's get at it.

 

Getting 3 million more votes is not failure in my book. The people wanted her more than Trump. Winning by a fluke of the electoral college is thin win, it's certainly not a mandate.

 

Winning the way our Constitution has demanded since it was ratified is a fluke? OOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKK

 

The people of California wanted Clinton more the Trump. The people in the other 49 states combined wanted Trump. I don't know what you mean by "fluke." If you mean like a loophole, that's utter nonsense. The electoral college work exactly as designed. If you mean it's like something you don't like, then fluke is a very poor choice of words. Getting 60% of the electoral college vote isn't peanuts (or thin.)

 

No fluke. The electoral college has worked the same way since the beginning. Her failure was to lose the election. Incidentally, if there were no electoral college, the campaigns would have been run differently. You can't compare the two.

 

From your link

and - the task force consisted of only a few hand picked staff from those agencies - hand picked by people with an agenda.

Hard to say who would have been more loony with respect to ramping up the cold war arms race between Trump and Clinton. At the end of day it likely mattered little - both were going to be neocons and Establishment wonks.

What Russia would like to see is an Anti Establishment movement that would upset the status quo - and so should you.

 

I can think of one scumbag who is lower than Brennan - Barack Obama.

 

Noam Chomsky?

Talk about crap sources. You complain about Breitbart and then cite a discredited pseudo intellectual Leftist charlatan who ran interference for the genocidaires in the Khmer Rouge?

The Chomsky Hoax
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

PUHLEEEEEZE....

 

Your anecdotal experience is the opposite of mine.

My highschool biology teacher said to our class. Some people believe God created everything and legally i have to say that but it's a lie.

 

Obama is a conservative?

lol. Obama says this, and then mysteriously during his next term...Russia finds its way into the voting systems. You leftists really love to "whatabout".

 

1. The EC as it exists today was NOT what was constitutionally intended when it was created. Today, it's merely a rubber stamp, which defeats the entire reason it was created, of which the EC was supposed to be a body of learned men and civic leaders who would choose for the electorate in the event they deemed that the electorate had gone astray in it's choice. The EC was intended to prevent 'mob rule' as the populace can easily be persuaded by demagogues who are master manipulators with spoken oratory, but who lack requisite qualifications of character, civics knowledge, foreign policy, etc and the EC was supposed to be composed of educated civic leaders of position and responsibility who knew about such things to prevent the nomination from being hijacked by hucksters. Had the EC been restored to it's original purpose, there is no way in hell a reality show host with a nefarious past would have ever been nominated.

2. When the EC was created, in my opinion the framers never imagined that one state could have forty million inhabitants, that a few states would exist with a vastly disproportional number of citizens compared to most states, and it was never intended for a situation to exist where the popular vote would be countermanded by the electoral college. "Fluke" simply means an 'unexpected win', and given polls indicated Hillary would gain the most votes, and that is what occurred, it was assumed she'd be president. Therefore, that Trump won without the popular vote, being unexpected, is therefore, a 'fluke'.