Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frank Underwood" data-source="post: 62436" data-attributes="member: 35">Hillary&#039;s militarism, social conservatism record, and anti-universal health care rhetoric already had me leaning towards Stein.&nbsp; The emails were simply the final nail in the coffin.&nbsp; If a person tries to cover up a murder, they are not absolved of the crime if a third party exposes them.&nbsp; It makes no difference what their motives were.&nbsp; The Russian hacking and possible collusion with Trump is its own issue, and should be investigated thorougly.&nbsp; But many people concerned with Russian interference conveniently try to absolve the DNC of any wrongdoing because they were hacked.&nbsp; Putin shouldn&#039;t have tipped the scales for Trump any more than the DNC should have tipped them for Hillary.&nbsp; That&#039;s the inconvenient truth Hillary supporters try to supress.Thankfully, there are actual progressive commentators who disseminate it for me while airing the clips.My approach is to report on it accurately without letting it override everything else.&nbsp; Report on skepticism in the intelligence community if it exists.&nbsp; If that changes, report on that as well.&nbsp; Don&#039;t resort to hyperbole by referring to Russian election meddling as &quot;warfare.&quot;&nbsp; As we all know, actual warfare on our part doesn&#039;t resort in any investigation (just ask George Bush), and you&#039;re absolved of supporting militarism around the world if you&#039;re a Democrat (just ask Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton).&nbsp; Lastly, don&#039;t infer that withdrawing troops from Russia is some how a bad thing.&nbsp; That&#039;s something a person hoping for war would think.Oh, I accepted the reality of it.&nbsp; In doing so, I also accepted the reality that the majority of voters are brainwashed to the point of refusing to think outside of the box.&nbsp; We live in the Internet age.&nbsp; Until a year and a half ago, I didn&#039;t even know who Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were.&nbsp; But thanks to online media, they were able to get exposure for their policy positions.&nbsp; People need to be able to think for themselves.Trump is overt, in your face corrupt.&nbsp; What you see is what you get.But when you consider Hillary has been involved in policies that increased the prison population, gutted welfare, stifled gay rights, sent jobs overseas, bailed out Wall Street on the tax payer&#039;s dime, and spread militarism in the Middle East, it&#039;s hard to find a kind word for her as well.&nbsp; Not to mention her support of the Patriot Act, using dog whistle language such as &quot;super predators,&quot; refusing to discuss universal health care because it will &quot;never come to pass,&quot; admitting to having both a public and private position on the issues, and, ironically, supporting election meddling in Palestine.&nbsp; So yeah, I find Hillary&#039;s flaws to be more than just minor inconveniences.Yeah, it was the nerve that&#039;s tired of being personally shit on for standing by what I believe in.&nbsp; By the way, that brick wall isn&#039;t any softer on this end either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frank Underwood, post: 62436, member: 35"] Hillary's militarism, social conservatism record, and anti-universal health care rhetoric already had me leaning towards Stein. The emails were simply the final nail in the coffin. If a person tries to cover up a murder, they are not absolved of the crime if a third party exposes them. It makes no difference what their motives were. The Russian hacking and possible collusion with Trump is its own issue, and should be investigated thorougly. But many people concerned with Russian interference conveniently try to absolve the DNC of any wrongdoing because they were hacked. Putin shouldn't have tipped the scales for Trump any more than the DNC should have tipped them for Hillary. That's the inconvenient truth Hillary supporters try to supress. Thankfully, there are actual progressive commentators who disseminate it for me while airing the clips. My approach is to report on it accurately without letting it override everything else. Report on skepticism in the intelligence community if it exists. If that changes, report on that as well. Don't resort to hyperbole by referring to Russian election meddling as "warfare." As we all know, actual warfare on our part doesn't resort in any investigation (just ask George Bush), and you're absolved of supporting militarism around the world if you're a Democrat (just ask Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton). Lastly, don't infer that withdrawing troops from Russia is some how a bad thing. That's something a person hoping for war would think. Oh, I accepted the reality of it. In doing so, I also accepted the reality that the majority of voters are brainwashed to the point of refusing to think outside of the box. We live in the Internet age. Until a year and a half ago, I didn't even know who Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were. But thanks to online media, they were able to get exposure for their policy positions. People need to be able to think for themselves. Trump is overt, in your face corrupt. What you see is what you get. But when you consider Hillary has been involved in policies that increased the prison population, gutted welfare, stifled gay rights, sent jobs overseas, bailed out Wall Street on the tax payer's dime, and spread militarism in the Middle East, it's hard to find a kind word for her as well. Not to mention her support of the Patriot Act, using dog whistle language such as "super predators," refusing to discuss universal health care because it will "never come to pass," admitting to having both a public and private position on the issues, and, ironically, supporting election meddling in Palestine. So yeah, I find Hillary's flaws to be more than just minor inconveniences. Yeah, it was the nerve that's tired of being personally shit on for standing by what I believe in. By the way, that brick wall isn't any softer on this end either. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?