Seat fillers needed for DNC proceedings tonight should some delegates decide to walk out. Will need to be available for interviews promoting unity within the Democrat party. Will be conducting interviews near the media tent for consideration. Please arrive early as primetime coverage starts at 9PM.
Myth-busting website Snopes flagrantly lied about the lack of visible American flags on the first day of the Democratic Convention, claiming an image from the second day of the convention was actually from the first day in an attempt to debunk a factual story from The Daily Caller.
First, the facts. TheDC reported on Monday about the lack of visible American flags at day one of the convention. Several flags were briefly on stage for the national anthem and pledge of allegiance, at which point they were carried off stage, as the C-SPAN video for Monday clearly shows at the 35:40 mark. Even PolitiFact, which tends to lean to the left, noted that “when the color guard left, so did the physical flag.” After that point, the stage was devoid of any American flags for the remainder of day one.
As reported by TheDC, the DNC added flags to the stage for the second day of the convention — Tuesday, July 26. That same day, Snopes writer Dan Evon wrote a “fact-check” article declaring it “false” that: “No American flags were on display at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.”
Evon offered as proof A) a screenshot from PBS’ coverage of day one, taken during the pledge of allegiance — before the flags were removed — and B) the below screenshot of C-SPAN’s day two coverage (visible at the 6:36 mark here) and claimed it was from day one of the convention. In fact, Mallory Weggemann — the paralympic swimmer who gave Tuesday’s pledge of allegiance — can be seen sitting in her wheelchair as the flag-bearers walk past her.
Snopes presented the above image as a screenshot from day one of the convention, captioning it: “Contrary to claims that flags were added to the DNC’s staging only after the Democrats were criticized for not displaying any flags at the event, photographs captured U.S. flags being set up on the stage prior to the start of the convention and in place on the stage during Day 1 of the event.” In other words, Snopes — which presents itself as a credible media source for debunking lies on the internet — flat out lied.
What’s worse, Snopes appears to have ripped that image from left-wing non-proft Media Matters’ coverage of the story. But even Media Matters — known for its misleading claims and hatchet jobs — didn’t claim that the screenshot came from Monday’s coverage. Apparently, it was too much for Evon to actually watch the convention on which he was presenting himself as the authoritative source.
Snopes also used the below Media Matters clip from Fox News as “proof” that flags were present on day one of the convention. But that video, like Snopes’ borrowed screenshot, came from day two of the convention. That clip, like the above image, confirmed TheDC’s report that the flags which were missing on day one were added to the stage for day two.
By press time, Snopes had not returned TheDC’s inquiries about their clear falsehoods.
So there were flags present the first day on huge video screens and physically during the pledge. You and the DC are just parsing words to create a lie. Sad you seem to not value honesty in your candidate. No parsing necessary there, lol. And really isn't sad that flags for him are just props devoid of meaning?
I think the optics of Cruz getting booed while he's saying vote your conscience and God bless America wasn't really a great vision of unity. Maybe it won't pay off but I think Hillary actually is trying to reach out to the ones booing.
Actually comparing the two conventions, Clinton's was more positive not just about her but about the country and why we love it. Trump's was an angrier and negative view of the country. I think he had to rely on speakers that were endorsing him just because he was the republican candidate and it looked weak. He says it wasn't a dark vision that he presented but it clearly was. Guess we'll see how the country feels now that both conventions are done.
It was a chore listening to Hillary's nomination acceptance speech.
She has an annoying shrill voice that could scrape the paint off a garage door.
And the Hillary convention Gestapo also had crowds of people who were instructed to overwhelm Bernie Sanders protest chants by shouting louder over them "HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY!" to drown them out.
There is so much about this DNC convention that is just plain creepy... ramming through a candidate under multiple FBI investigations... even though Hillary completely outgunned Bernie Sanders from the outset, they still felt a need to violate rules to and exhibit manifest unfair bias brush him aside... Bernie Sanders intimidated into unwillingly endorsing a Hillary Clinton he clearly ideologically and personally despises... taking away signs from Bernie Sanders supporters who continue to voice dissent (they even booed BERNIE SANDERS when he instructed them to support Hillary Clinton!)... DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was clearly guilty of bias toward Bernie Sanderss and rigging Frau Hitlery's nomination (and when forced to resign WAS IMMEDIATELY RE-HIRED THE SAME DAY TO A HIGH POSITION IN THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN!)... shouting "black lives matter" during a moment of silence for murdered cops... the absence of flags the first day (and that even a factcheck site tried to edit reality in an Orwellian re-write the facts!)... burning of the American flag by Democrats (Bernie supporters), and open display of the Soviet and Palestinian flags.
And more than anything, ALL the disturbing lack of ethics and blatant unapologetic criminal activity by candidate Hillary Clinton herself. And yet 40% or so of Democrats still blindly support her, no matter what indefensible breach of law and ethics. She has shit on U.S. national security, allowed foreign governments and corporations to purchase her silence and loyalty with huge donations and speaking fees to the Clinton Foundation, shit on the DNC rules process to ram through her nomination, strong-armed and intimidated Bernie Sanders into reluctantly supporting her, and when his supporters wouldn't go along with it, strong-armed them into silence, taken away their Bernie signs, and forced them to leave the auditorium. The kind of tactics you'd see in Russia, China, or some other brutal dictatorship. How could ANYONE still support this evil cunt bitch?!?
You can bet if she were elected, she would continue Obama's practice of using the IRS to audit her political enemies, and to suppress political opposition to her re-election. Among many other unconscionable ruthless criminal acts.
Oh heck yeah, what a beautiful display of unity this convention was, right M E M?
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Sanders thoughts about a Trump presidency were pretty clear before the convention WB. In this very serious time your party chose a reality star with no values and tells obvious lies. That says something about your party's own values. And you can avoid the truth but Sanders under any measure had less people choosing him over Clinton during the primary when it came time to go and pick. Picking the person with less votes isn't democratic or fair.
Throughout the day, various Bernie Sanders said they were planning to walk out of the Democratic National Convention, and many more wore fluorescent-colored "Enough is Enough" Sanders t-shirts. They also said their seats were being replaced by Clinton supporters as they walked out.
The protesters who began a march in the halls of the Wells Fargo Center were from the California delegation and held up a California flag as well as smaller American flags and signs in support of presumptive Green party presidential nominee Jill Stein.
"They have stolen the election," Bernie Sanders delegate Carlos Marroquin told onlookers. "Hillary Clinton and the DNC stole the election."
Marroquin said "millions of people" had lost their vote "because of the corruption that happened at the DNC," referring to the perceived collusion between the party and Clinton.
More Sanders delegates and supporters with credentials joined the protest, which soon turned into a media scrum.
"It's so easy to preach this idea of unity, of getting over it," California delegate Martha Meccano said. "We talked to Clinton delegates, all they said was grow up." Meccano said Clinton supporters argued Sanders supporters should vote for her to stop Trump, but Meccano rejected the argument. "We're not going to vote out of fear," she said.
Sanders thoughts about a Trump presidency were pretty clear before the convention WB. In this very serious time your party chose a reality star with no values and tells obvious lies. That says something about your party's own values. And you can avoid the truth but Sanders under any measure had less people choosing him over Clinton during the primary when it came time to go and pick. Picking the person with less votes isn't democratic or fair.
And your party chose a petty vile FBI INVESTIGATED sack of human shit, who FBI director James Comey clearly said is guilty of all charges, but who for corrupt reasons will not be prosecuted. She is literally guilty of treason regarding her illegal private e-mail server, that has already disclosed top secret information, for which General Petraeus and others in her State Department were convicted for far less!
Regarding Trump, you have insults, but you have no solid basis for saying he is unqualified to be President. Trump is a very successful businessman, with clear experience in managing budgets and creating jobs. While he has had some unsuccessful ventures, he has had a far higher ratio of success than most businesses. As contrasted with Hillary, where HER ENTIRE CAREER has been mired in scandal, corruption, insider trading, radical Marxism, and just pure vindictiveness. Dwight Eisenhower, among many others before him, had no prior experience in Washington government.
One of the things that make me burn the most regarding Hillary Clinton is her CONSISTENT open contempt for our military, law enforcement, national security, and rule of law. The Benghazi Negligence and cover-up. Contempt for the families of those who died in Benghazi because of her negligence! The woman has cold blood and scales just below the smile she gives to the cameras. The way she treated (And still treats) Secret Service, that makes her loathed by them, to the point that they say it is among them considered "punishment" to be assigned to protect her. Corruption of the Clinton Foundation (also under FBI investigation). Keeping an illegal private e-mail server, destroying 30,000-plus e-mails under subpoena, and then destroying the hard-drive,despite it also being under subpoena! There is absolutely no way you can convince anyone but the politically uninformed that Hillary Clinton is worthy of the presidency, or that Donald Trump is somehow less qualified.
One of the main reasons I like Trump is because both parties have been part of the "Washington establishment" that has been selling out American workers with international free trade agreements and offshoring of jobs and factories to third-world countries, has undermined U.S. sovereignty, fostered U.S. dependency on foreign goods, lack of border security and uncontrolled illegal immigration, admitting hundreds of thousands of muslim refugees whose identity and safety to the nation cannot be verified, printing of trillions of dollars that threaten to collapse our currency.
Both parties have enabled this, for 25-plus years. And when Democrat liars say "Well even many Republicans don't support Trump" that bypasses that they are Republicans who have sold out conservative values and are part of the same corrupt 2-headed beast with the Democrats (Boehner, McConnell, John Roberts, James Comey... ) who even when they have the power to stop the corrupt system, just don't. (i.e., "The fix is in.") If they don't support Trump, that just demonstrates to me and millions of others that Trump is the guy to support if this corruption is ever to be cut away.
Trump is the only one who makes a priority of changing these destructive forces. Whereas Hillary has made clear nothing will change if she is elected, and if anything will accelerate this destruction.
Regarding Bernie Sanders, your argument is the same as saying that if your grandmother is going to die, it's okay to kill her rather than care for her. The leadership in the DNC (as incriminatingly released in the Wikileaked e-mails) show the entire Democrat leadership plotting every last slanderous and anti-Semitic dirty trick to destroy him pre-emptively, including DNC chair Debbi Wasserman-Schultz! Including her DNC chair replacement Donna Brazile!! Your eagerness to abandon the rules to advance your candidate Frau Hitlery just manifests your own corruption. That you support any dirty trick, any abandonment of the rule of law, any treason, that advances your agenda.
If the debates are run in in the same Democrat-partisan way as they were under Martha Raddatz and Candy Crowly in the 2012 debates, where they co-debated alongside Joe Biden and Barack Obama, and in Crowley's case fronted false information that bailed out Obama (and was not corrected by CNN until a day later when no one was watching), then Trump not participating with that kind of bias against him is a damn good idea.
Lol, you already know how he plays. The debates are set up by a bipartisan commission. He and you don't want them because Clinton will beat the shit out of him.
I don't know, MEM. Remember how, at every debate, everyone assumed this would be the time Trump took a tumble and, yet, he just seemed to keep going up in the polls?
I realize that this is a general election, not a primary, but at some point you have to wonder if the American people care that much about who can score rhetorical niceties.
I also heard a report (unconfirmed) that the DNC was trying to schedule the debates on nights where there wouldn't be a lot of men watching (football game nights on other channels, for example) as a way to "rig" the viewership. So I could see Trump refusing to participate if that's the case.
I don't know, MEM. Remember how, at every debate, everyone assumed this would be the time Trump took a tumble and, yet, he just seemed to keep going up in the polls?
I realize that this is a general election, not a primary, but at some point you have to wonder if the American people care that much about who can score rhetorical niceties.
I also heard a report (unconfirmed) that the DNC was trying to schedule the debates on nights where there wouldn't be a lot of men watching (football game nights on other channels, for example) as a way to "rig" the viewership.
Well, gee, there's no history of the DNC doing THAT before, is there? Just every DNC primary debate this election year. The DNC has been coddling and protecting Hillary every step of the way, whereas Trump has made himself more available to every GOP primary stacked against him, and to every liberal media interview stacked against him. And there is absolutely no denying that the media, and even the GOP, did everything they could to shoot down Trump as a candidate.
The difference is the GOP did everything within the rules to stop Trump, whereas the DNC went way beyond that broke every rule attempting to pre-emptively knock out Sanders.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
As previously noted a bipartisan committee set up the debates. Any calls of it being rigged is probably just Trump willing to call something rigged as a stratagy.
As previously noted a bipartisan committee set up the debates. Any calls of it being rigged is probably just Trump willing to call something rigged as a stratagy.
Anyone who is not a DNC zombie could plainly see the bias in the 2012 debates. The moderators were debate participants on the side of Obama and Biden. There is absolutely no disputing that.
I don't really have insults but Trump being Trump. Debates are coming up. My guess is he will try to get out of them btw
Apparently they're locked in. I think Clinton will devastate Trump intellectually. But Trump will come out of it sounding more grounded.
I think that's a fair speculation of how it will come across to both sides.
Frau Hitlery had an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday today. Her answers came across as very nuanced and insincere, carefully evading the minefield of her own making when asked about the array of scandals that surround her candidacy. Just so much obfuscation, and anyone who is not already a Hillary supporter could plainly see that.
Interesting note, Trump actually had the republican party weaken their position when it came to Russia. Couldn't even begin to imagine what WB would be saying if it was Clinton. As for the debate schedule, Trump is the one asking for special treatment. I think given his Russian connections it's past time to show the country his taxes. It's time to put country before your party boys.
Interesting note, Trump actually had the republican party weaken their position when it came to Russia. Couldn't even begin to imagine what WB would be saying if it was Clinton.
I don't see enough specifics there to see a lucid point. "Weaken their position" how?
Originally Posted By: M E M
As for the debate schedule, Trump is the one asking for special treatment.
And by "special treatment", you mean he simply wants a moderator who does not co-debate him alongside Hillary Clinton, and throw Hillary a lifeline when Trump out-debates her. And NOT select a debate broadcast time that excludes the white male demographic that are his strongest supporters.
Originally Posted By: M E M
I think given his Russian connections it's past time to show the country his taxes. It's time to put country before your party boys.
A lot of innuendo and speculation, with no specifics. As compared with Hillary Clinton's blatant treason in her negligence over Benghazi, and with her illegal private e-mail server that was ripe for the hacking by the Russians and Chinese. Not to mention her hatred of police and military, her Alinsky RULES FOR RADICALS-training in Cultural Marxism, and her general contempt for the nation she would lead. She wants the power and prestige of the office, but like her Kenyan predecessor, is not a believer in America or its exceptionalism, only in what she can radically transform it into.
Google trump Russia Gop plank WB and you won't like what comes up. Trump asked for few changes but specifically fought to weaken language against Russia.
Google trump Russia Gop plank WB and you won't like what comes up. Trump asked for few changes but specifically fought to weaken language against Russia.
Just pointing out from the outset, Obama has not provided ANY aid to Ukraine for the 2 years or so of the ongoing Ukranian conflict. Interesting that you call this "treason" by Trump (hypothetical treason, if elected) but don't hold the same standard to the ACTUAL "treason" by Obama over the last 2 years.
I don't see anything in the Wash Post that contradicts what I said above. The Trump group didn't include language that obligates the U.S. to provide military aid to Ukraine, but still leaves a nonspecific door open to provide Ukraine whatever is deemed "necessary" assistance, which could include military, but does not obligate.
And I'm very sure that if Trump did insist on specific language to provide military aid, the same Washington Post and other lying pro-Hillary liberal media would say "Trump is a warmonger, he's going to start a war!" That they would never do with even the most hawkish remarks by Hillary.
Trump could always provide assistance as soon as the election is over, without it being used to bludgeon him by a one-sided media during the election. (and this article was written BEFORE the Republican convention, so some of this issue may not be the same as what is in this WP hit-piece article).
Also, I'd like to point out that Ukraine is not a NATO member we are obligated to protect. And it's in the center of Eurasia, where Russia has a great logistical advantage.
I frankly think this is a dishonest attack on Trump, where you hold ambiguity of language by Trump's platform on Ukraine to a standard you don't hold actual YEARS of callous indifference by Hillary and Obama, who are actually in a position to help Ukraine. (vs. Trump, who may or may not be able to finally do so in January 2017, if he wins).
A dishonest partisan attack, no doubt launched to divert from discussion of Hillary Clinton's hacked e-mails that are ACTUAL treason. And her treason through nations buying her loyalty through the Clinton Foundation. And her leaving an ambassador and U.S. soldiers to die in Benghazi.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
WB even you acknowledge he made changes to the GOP platform regarding Ukraine. In the Stephanopoulos interview he denies being involved in those changes. That is Trump lying. I well remember how you said you felt about Obama and the Ukraine. Now, lol
Again, if Trump made a strong stance now on Ukraine, the DNC/liberal media alliance would just divert and make that an issue. Only YOU are making an issue of it now, Trump has not given a decisive stance on Ukraine, just left his options open, if he is the president on January 20th.
Newt Gingrich giving opinion on Frau Hitlery's nomination acceptance speech on July 28th, overview of their dysfunctional convention, and of her inherent flaws as a candidate.
Again, if Trump made a strong stance now on Ukraine, the DNC/liberal media alliance would just divert and make that an issue. Only YOU are making an issue of it now, Trump has not given a decisive issue on the subject, just left his options open, if he is the president on January 20th.
This is spin on your part. He lied about even being involved in changing your party's platform concerning Russia. That should concern you
Still waiting for you to address the actual YEARS of negligence and "treason" by Obama and Hillary, who have been in an actual position to help Ukraine. But instead you partisanly harp on Trump for a hypothetical position he hasn't even specifically taken!
The real issue is Frau Hitlery's (and Obama's) ACTUAL treason.
