Surprising news from debate.
- Thread starter dave
- Start date
So, who has been reporting on these emails? The NY Times. Washington Post. LA Times. CNN. MSNBC. You know, the same people who protected Bill during Monica by reporting about it 24/7.
Exactly, they see conspiracy in everything, as if ANY media outlet wouldn't die for actual proof of some wrongdoing so they could beat everyone with the scoop.So, who has been reporting on these emails? The NY Times. Washington Post. LA Times. CNN. MSNBC. You know, the same people who protected Bill during Monica by reporting about it 24/7.
Isn't Hillary man enough to fend for herself? Why does she need Bernie to stand up for her? Way to set back women's lib.So, who has been reporting on these emails? The NY Times. Washington Post. LA Times. CNN. MSNBC. You know, the same people who protected Bill during Monica by reporting about it 24/7.
I've always said that Bill should have refused to testify in Paula Jones lawsuit as a sitting President. I thought he got bad advice. The courts have no jurisdiction over the President, only congress. I said he should have said, "I'll testify after leaving office." Then Congress could have weighed in and possibly impeach him, they did anyway because he lied in sworn testimony. If they had impeached him, by the time he would have testified, he would have been out of office anyway.So, who has been reporting on these emails? The NY Times. Washington Post. LA Times. CNN. MSNBC. You know, the same people who protected Bill during Monica by reporting about it 24/7.
The same ones who cheered last night.So, who has been reporting on these emails? The NY Times. Washington Post. LA Times. CNN. MSNBC. You know, the same people who protected Bill during Monica by reporting about it 24/7.
A conspiracy? Is reading so difficult for your ilk? A reporter reported that the press room erupted into cheering over Sanders comment. Perhaps it was because they were upset he was tired of them doing their job? The only conspiracy is the moron ignoring the stated facts.
Last edited:
So you have no idea how to characterize the reaction from persons in the press room upon hearing Saunders' comment regarding the email issue, we just know that it was a noisy reaction. Were there other non-press persons in the press room? Keep the theories coming.
But what was the reaction? an "explosion"? You offer your guess on what an explosion is (cheering, thus showing support for her) and that's wonderful. I'd say that many were surprised by Saunders' comments and that would have caused a noisy reaction by the people in that room. All I have to go on is that tweet you posted and that's not much. When Trump says something crazy in a debate, there's probably a reaction in the press room there as well but that doesn't mean they all (or any) support him. As I said, keep the theories coming.
Why is that a probability? What do you place that theory on? Do you have any basis at all for that statement? If you can garner such support, will you share with the rest of us why you assume, "that doesn't mean they all(or any) support him)? Do you always question the word of a fellow man with such flimsy reasoning? And, then postulate something that has zero validity? That is sad that you would have such little regard for a fellow being on a WV board.
lol say what? You sound like you're as big a dope as Dave which is saying something.