She's Baaaaaaaack....Or Is She?

[Revoltingest]

If the rumor isn’t true in the first place....

I made clear from the outset that this was unverified.
No need to get all upset over a point of mine which
you merely parroted.

.... there’s no “issue” to discuss.....

And yet you see fit to ignore the issue you deny,
only to object to my source with the lamest of arguments,
ie, that you & your judge say he's not a "real journalist".

To say I’ve only cited one judge’s opinion to support that claim is a straw man, and you know that.

You're misusing the term, "straw man".
I simply showed that you lacked a cogent argument to claim something as fact.
It was an opinion. I corrected you. No straw in that.

You can have the last word on Drudge ... if you want to eat that stuff be my guest.

Thank you for abandoning that lost cause.

You've ignored the plausibility (more than mere possibility) of a
Bloomberg Hillary ticket. She recently polled above all the party's
competitors, so she has popularity among Dems. Bloomberg would
see not only that, but also the perception that she's a senior statesman,
which compensates for his lack of experience on the national stage.

Come on, guy....you can do better than automatic objection & whataboutism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gods! Hillary again? The perennial masturbatory fantasies of the Right are truly disgusting.

Late to the game, & reduced to repeating others, eh.
Feel free to pollute someone else's thread with your sexual metaphors.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you think it's OK to create threads based on no sources?

You think it's OK to respond with absolutely comment about the possibility of this ticket?

 

[Revoltingest]

Thats absolutely hillifying!

I'm wagering that Bloomberg's campaign won't gain traction.
The primary process is passing him by. And I don't think a
brokered nomination process would favor him.
But who knows....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I made clear from the outset that this was unverified.
No need to get all upset over a point of mine which
you merely parroted.

And yet you see fit to ignore the issue you deny,
only to object to my source with the lamest of arguments,
ie, that you & your judge say he's not a "real journalist".

You're misusing the term, "straw man".
I simply showed that you lacked a cogent argument to claim something as fact.
It was an opinion. I corrected you. No straw in that.

Thank you for abandoning that lost cause.

You've ignored the plausibility (more than mere possibility) of a
Bloomberg Hillary ticket. She recently polled above all the party's
competitors, so she has popularity among Dems. Bloomberg would
see not only that, but also the perception that she's a senior statesman,
which compensates for his lack of experience on the national stage.

Come on, guy....you can do better than automatic objection & whataboutism.

For the record, I didn’t ignore the possibility of a Bloomberg-Hillary ticket. Why would you say that? See post #53.

If there is something else I should have addressed, please let me know.

I agree with you her being on the ticket is a possibility. Anything is possible - just look at our current President. What was certain is that RW media would speculate about her being on the ticket, no matter how likely or unlikely it is.

From my perspective the one glaring reason she shouldn’t be on the ticket is Trump beat her last time. It’s the exact same reason RW media would love to see her on the ticket.

 

[Revoltingest]

For the record, I didn’t ignore the possibility of a Bloomberg-Hillary ticket. Why would you say that? See post #53.

You toss me a bone, agreement...& then go back to deflecting from it.
Not totally ignored....but hardly sticking to the subject.

If there is something else I should have addressed, please let me know.

I agree with you her being on the ticket is a possibility. Anything is possible - just look at our current President. What was certain is that RW media would speculate about her being on the ticket, no matter how likely or unlikely it is.

From my perspective the one glaring reason she shouldn’t be on the ticket is Trump beat her last time. It’s the exact same reason RW media would love to see her on the ticket.

Trump did indeed beat hear last time, but that was with her as
the would be Prez. As 2nd fiddle to Bloomberg, I think she'd
fare better, ie, as a supporting character rather than the star.
Bloomberg has more the personality to charge hard into a
campaign.
If he did win the nomination, I'd have to look harder at him.
There's always the possibility that he could portend better
results that would Trump. Yes...the lesser of 2 evils again.

I feel less disagreeable this morning. (I had something
called the "Meat Mountain" last nite. I'm still on a meat high.)
Help me stay this way.

 

[Wu Wei]

In the news....

Sources close to the Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that the candidate is considering Hillary Clinton as a running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force... MORE


No sources.
No verification.
But it was just too juicy a headline to languish elsewhere.

Are they trying to get me to vote for Trump again?

 

[Wu Wei]

We should also note that she had well under 50% of the vote.
So it would be more accurate to say that the country wanted
neither Trump nor Hillary, but that they unwanted her slightly
less. A ringing endorsement in @columbus's mind, eh.

Exactly, they disliked her more than they disliked Trump...so pretty much the person they hated least won

 

[tytlyf]

Liberals had been suppressing Bill Clinton's scandals, perhaps
under the guise of calling it "gossip". But it was up to Matt Drudge
to expose what became important, with even left leaning media
belatedly covering it.

Sure, whatever you say. Now we have 5 pages of your gossip, fictional thread.

So think of RT, Russia’s propaganda news network. Their slogan is, “Question More.” Now, what are they trying to say here? On the face of it, they’re just saying, “We’re going to give you all the possibilities and that will make you more free.” But the Russian spin doctors and media strategists discovered long ago that when you open the information space to every kind of conspiracy theory, you destroy reality.
So “Question More” seems to be in the service of more objectivity and knowledge but, in fact, it destroys it. And that’s the distinctive nature of the novel propaganda
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/18/20898584/fox-news-trump-propaganda-jason-stanley

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, whatever you say. Now we have 5 pages of your gossip, fictional thread.

Bless your heart.
Some more fiction for you to enjoy....
Bloomberg rises to 4th place in new national poll

 

[tytlyf]

In the news....

Sources close to the Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that the candidate is considering Hillary Clinton as a running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force... MORE

Changing the source to CNBC doesn't change anything. The original source is the Dailymail. I'll ask again, do you think the Dailymail is a credible and reputable outlet for information?

 

[tytlyf]

Bless your heart.
Some more fiction for you to enjoy....
Bloomberg rises to 4th place in new national poll

All you do here is spread propaganda. And you're paid to do it. How bout a real job?

 

[columbus]

From my perspective the one glaring reason she shouldn’t be on the ticket is Trump beat her last time. It’s the exact same reason RW media would love to see her on the ticket.

Except that by democratic standards Trump didn't beat her. He played a rigged system better, which isn't the same thing.

I think the biggest problem that she, the DNC, and her supporters made was the one thing I predicted could cost her the presidency.
Over confidence.
Her polls were so high the she put too much effort into places they thought they could flip, like Arizona and North Carolina, and not enough into places that seemed safe, like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

I honestly didn't expect that. After over confidence cost her the nomination in 2008, I didn't expect that.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

All you do here is spread propaganda. And you're paid to do it. How bout a real job?

That's nice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that by democratic standards Trump didn't beat her. He played a rigged system better, which isn't the same thing.

They played by the same rules.
He beat her at the game.
Think about it....you supported someone so lame she
lost to the worst candidate ever offered by the Pubs.
You cannot excuse it by crying "But the rules were unfair!".
Learn from it.
Give us someone worth voting for...someone not as bad as Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

All you do here is spread propaganda. And you're paid to do it. How bout a real job?

Oh, you lefties....lacking real conversation, all you have is invective.
Although I'll give you credit for not invoking genitalia.

 

[tytlyf]

Oh, you lefties....lacking real conversation, all you have is invective.
Although I'll give you credit for not invoking genitalia.

Conversation with someone who avoids giving honest answers? The rudderless ship is all over the place again. Trying to deflect and change the topic.
This is expected from you.
You sit here on this forum all day long, posting more than any other person here in the entire forum. Spreading propaganda and conspiracy theories.
Learn some skills in life, there are better ways to make a paycheck

 

[Revoltingest]

Conversation with someone who avoids giving honest answers? The rudderless ship is all over the place again. Trying to deflect and change the topic.
This is expected from you.
You sit here on this forum all day long, posting more than any other person here in the entire forum. Spreading propaganda and conspiracy theories.
Learn some skills in life, there are better ways to make a paycheck

If you really want answers to questions, I offer some sage advice....
1) Be interesting.
2) Questions should be genuine, ie, neither loaded nor rhetorical.
3) Be friendlier.
4) See #1 & #2 again.

 

[tytlyf]

If you really want answers to questions, I offer some sage advice....
1) Be interesting.
2) Questions should be genuine, ie, neither loaded nor rhetorical.
3) Be friendlier.
4) See #1 & #2 again.

Irrelevant, you created this thread and you failed to answer responses.
Let's try the question again.
"Why do you think the Dailymail is a credible and trustworthy outlet?"

You don't answer because you know you're intentionally tossing propaganda into the mix.
"We report, You decide" = Translation: We'll give you tons of information from everywhere, you decide if it's real.

Your thread is proof of propaganda and the problem America faces in the digital age. You should stop contributing to the problem. Paid or not.

 

[SoyLeche]

Exactly, they disliked her more than they disliked Trump...so pretty much the person they hated least won

She got 3 million more votes than he did, FWIW.