Look at 'em schemin'! OMG, you guys, the noose is definitely tightening around the many foul crimes Hillary Clinton committed while Secretary of State, when she did all kinds of rotten stuff that would simply shock you, and which any ordinary American would surely be jailed for. Consider this
Have any reporters out there ever looked at any of Hillary's policy positions? Because she has a metric fuckton of them. She's got policies for everything, but no one other than nerdy, overly enthusiastic supporters like me seems to know that.
I just wonder, because I feel like if reporters ever looked at her policies, then maybe they could write about them or talk about them. You know, instead of writing and talking about coughing and birthday parties. I mean, they don't have to praise her policies or anything. They can pick them apart if they prefer. But at least then the discussion would be about something relevant to a possible Hillary presidency, and maybe I wouldn't lose so many IQ points whenever I read or watch something that calls itself news.
When is the WSJ going to investigate just-as-important scandal of why Hollywood won't cast Seann Williams Scott anymore (because Hillary had him blacklisted) or ten stars who are only in relationships for the money (which Hilary paid to the parties involved).
Wow, I can totally do this political journalmalism stuff too. Meet your next correspondent, WSJ!
I know, the uppity witch! Doesn't she know that it's harder to rant about "the system" being corrupt and ineffectual when she uses it to actually help people? Like how selfish are you, Hillz?
I always found it so laughable when the most ardent Berners would tell me that they can't support Hillary because she won't overturn Citizens' United. They genuinely didn't know that the original case came about because those jerks wanted to raise free money to make a hate film about Hillary.
All of this is media attempting to discredit a great organization and Hillary. http://mediamatters.org/blo...
new report from The Wall Street Journal provides an excellent example of the media’s tendency to suggest malfeasance around events related to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, even when they have found no evidence to support that impression. Based on documents and spin from a right-wing organization, the story actually scandalizes Clinton’s attendance at her husband’s birthday party.
Publication bias -- the tendency to publish stories regardless of whether they prove the premise the reporters set out to investigate -- is one of the most pernicious aspects of press coverage of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. As Vox’s Matt Yglesias has put it, “Journalists need to admit when we’ve struck out” in order to avoid providing readers “a distorted picture of reality simply because everyone is trying to be interesting.”
Well, con-fucking-gratulations, lamestream media.
You have me absolutely goddamned convinced now that Hillary Clinton is the least corrupt Presidential candidate of my lifetime.
Seriously.
25 years of unceasing effort amounts to this?
DELETE YOUR JERBS, reporters.
After this, now I HAVE to vote for ol'Hillz, because she apparently has the effective tenacity of Dr Doom (Dr Doomette?).
Have any reporters out there ever looked at any of Hillary's policy positions? Because she has a metric fuckton of them. She's got policies for everything, but no one other than nerdy, overly enthusiastic supporters like me seems to know that.
I just wonder, because I feel like if reporters ever looked at her policies, then maybe they could write about them or talk about them. You know, instead of writing and talking about coughing and birthday parties. I mean, they don't have to praise her policies or anything. They can pick them apart if they prefer. But at least then the discussion would be about something relevant to a possible Hillary presidency, and maybe I wouldn't lose so many IQ points whenever I read or watch something that calls itself news.
When is the WSJ going to investigate just-as-important scandal of why Hollywood won't cast Seann Williams Scott anymore (because Hillary had him blacklisted) or ten stars who are only in relationships for the money (which Hilary paid to the parties involved).
Wow, I can totally do this political journalmalism stuff too. Meet your next correspondent, WSJ!
I know, the uppity witch! Doesn't she know that it's harder to rant about "the system" being corrupt and ineffectual when she uses it to actually help people? Like how selfish are you, Hillz?
"Mrs. Clinton, when you went home with the Bill Clinton after his 65th birthday party,did you spend the night with him? The whole night?"
Well, shoe shopping is clearly allowed.
Reminds me of another WingNut "scandal" from a few years back:http://www.huffingtonpost.c...
Nice photo of Bill and President Clinton.
Well...
I always found it so laughable when the most ardent Berners would tell me that they can't support Hillary because she won't overturn Citizens' United. They genuinely didn't know that the original case came about because those jerks wanted to raise free money to make a hate film about Hillary.
More of an -ogyny, if you ask me, which you won't because of your misandry.
Well, I used the suffix for the former, so I figured I'd mix things up and use the prefix for the latter. :-)
To be fair, Melania was never a super model. If he had been, she wouldn't be married to Bizaaro World Tom Brady.
You don`t seem overly smrt.
All of this is media attempting to discredit a great organization and Hillary. http://mediamatters.org/blo...
new report from The Wall Street Journal provides an excellent example of the media’s tendency to suggest malfeasance around events related to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, even when they have found no evidence to support that impression. Based on documents and spin from a right-wing organization, the story actually scandalizes Clinton’s attendance at her husband’s birthday party.
Publication bias -- the tendency to publish stories regardless of whether they prove the premise the reporters set out to investigate -- is one of the most pernicious aspects of press coverage of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. As Vox’s Matt Yglesias has put it, “Journalists need to admit when we’ve struck out” in order to avoid providing readers “a distorted picture of reality simply because everyone is trying to be interesting.”