Fauxcohontas on Hillary in 2004, 'she's a puppet to corporate doners.'
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Yep exactly, especially when there is a totally different standard applied to the RINO's and conservatives.
The media in general are such ass covering lying scumbags. Of course with 85+% of them donating to and voting for fools like hildabeast hard to understand how any of them can be objective at all.
The media in general are such ass covering lying scumbags. Of course with 85+% of them donating to and voting for fools like hildabeast hard to understand how any of them can be objective at all.
The lesser of many evils argument makes sense at some level... that is all I've got. Give it up to Warren for being willing to say what she believes knowing it wasn't the expedient thing to do...
Last edited:
So you're agreeing that she's nothing more than another political hypocrite that changes her tune when it's politically necessary.
The liar fits right in with her Washington coworkers.
That's why she's also called Liarwatha.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=207 there ya go David....it fluctuates a bit for sure but the gist is that a majority >50% vote for the democrat so how can they possibly be unbiased. My estimate of 85+ may be a tad off although I have to admit my research skills are a bit deficient, and I would be surprised at all if it was closer to 90% for the rodent-in -chief.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/
"Among Washington correspondents, the ones who dominate national political coverage, it’s even more skewed, said Tim Groseclose, author of “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.” More than 90 percent of D.C. journalists vote Democratic, with an even higher number giving to Democrats or liberal-leaning political action committees, the author said."
Hell, research isn't necessary. Just watch tv. Anyone with half a brain can figure it out.
But you seem to have... you sure about that half thing. Maybe you got a source for that ;-)
What I think I am saying is that Elizabeth Warren is a politician.
It is possible for her to support Hillary now, DESPITE her belief that HRC is a shill to special interests - if only because she believes that HRC is a better choice than the Trumpster fire.
From the fount of all knowledge (Wikipedia): "Hypocrisy is the contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, esp. with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretense, sham. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another. In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles."
Would I call Warren a hypocrite? I would if she now pretended that something dramatic has changed with HRC... If she said, consider the alternative then probably not.
I buy 54% (one of the stats in the linked article). I don't buy 85+%. Several studies suggest a 4:1 ration, but only 28% of media types identifying as Democrats (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...licans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/ ).
Yep. And just like the rest, she'll say whatever she has to say to keep her pockets filled and secure her next stream of taxpayer and special interest riches.
You think she might be hoping for a cabinet position like Liar of State? Her Native American heritage should help her secure a spot.
Denounce her. I know you are an intelligent man of character.
Yeah, not so much.... She is a professional politician - damning enough in my book.
