Ex-DNC Chair Donna Brazile Signs With Fox News as a Contributor
Threadmancy ahoy! This news article slipped past me in March, but after Trump commented on it in his rant against FOX, I followed it up. Turns out my prediction was off by four months.
-
Features
Donna Brazile Thought of Replacing Clinton
- Thread starter Trausti
- Start date
Ex-DNC Chair Donna Brazile Signs With Fox News as a Contributor
Threadmancy ahoy! This news article slipped past me in March, but after Trump commented on it in his rant against FOX, I followed it up. Turns out my prediction was off by four months.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Hey, I didn't resurrect the thread.
That was me, be a smug prick at my prediction on Braziles' career trajectory and how predictable FOX news is. Hire a former Democrat who harbours a shit ton of resentment and put a microphone on them to show how fair and balanced they are. In the early 2000s it was Dick(head) Morris, now it's Donna Brazile.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...-explains-why-she-is-working-for-fox-news/amp
Probably her real reason is the salary offered. Fox, yeah, well they don't want to look biased.
Probably her real reason is the salary offered. Fox, yeah, well they don't want to look biased.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,011
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
A political whore*.
* I used the term 'political whore' for either sex. I often think that should be the caption for those large panel guests, "The Political Whores".
Well she played a big role in ensuring Clinton was the nominee so she played a big role in getting Trump elected, so why wouldn't Fox love her
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Wow. She's still that much of a threat that three years into another President's term--the one that actually lost the vote--his cucks are instructed to smear her further.
And with something that isn't even a smear, no less; just a normal consideration/concern about a candidate's health noted as little more than a passing footnote.
Amazing.
And with something that isn't even a smear, no less; just a normal consideration/concern about a candidate's health noted as little more than a passing footnote.
Amazing.
Elixir
Made in America
A long time... it took them thirty years to create the strawwoman and they gotta get their mileage out of it. But don't get too loud about that...
"Remember Trump???!!" will probably still be hung around republitards' necks fifty years from now.
Republicans like to gloat and mock Democrats. Hillary took what should have been a cake walk and turned it into the biggest electoral upset loss in US presidential politics pretty much ever. This is the woman who failed so badly that she had to write a book and go on a not-apology tour just so she could live with herself. Of course Republicans will keep bringing that up, and Donna to Fox is a natural fit for it.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I think that anyone who claims that the dems should have won in 2016 really doesn't understand the American system. First off, Trump beat 12 or 13 very qualified and deeply funded republicans before he turned to Clinton. Secondly, you don't understand that the system is stacked against the democrats. The republicans can win with millions of fewer voters. The republicans are incredibly united. Trump got incredible free press. Russian bots. White males have substantially more power than any other group. I can go on and on.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
You don't need to. Hillary won the vote, which conclusively proves she was the preferred choice and therefore the better of the two candidates. Trump didn't win on merits, he won on a technicality only.
End of debate.
End of debate.
He won. She lost. Her being the Democrat nominee and failing is why Donald Trump is your president. End of debate.
Which was the vast majority prior to Hillary's shocking loss.
Deeply funded yes. Very qualified? Hardly.
Aside from the Russian bots, Obama faced the same hurdles and won twice.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Not really. After W's second term, it was easier for a Democrat to win. Likewise, after Obama's second term it was easier for a Republican to win. So back in 2008 and up to the election, Obama did not face a difficult Trump. But up to 2016, Clinton did face a difficult Trump. The media gave him a free pass, essentially covering him because they are instant gratifier sensationalists and not because they covered stories that ought to be covered. Obama did not have to go 1-1 like that in the same context. So, no, Obama did not face the same hurdles.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
False. Your ignorance of our process is appalling, but common. You can at least rest assured that you are as ignorant as millions of others.
She won the vote, which is the ONLY measure of who is the preferred candidate among all Americans. The fact that the EC randomly restructures that vote has absolutely no bearing on which candidate was the more popular and therefore the one the most Americans wanted as their president.
Which in turn is the only measure of any possible “best” candidate. There literally is no way to pick a candidate that will lose the popular vote, but win the EC. It’s not possible. It can only happen by fluke/luck, not design as evidenced by the fact that ALL candidates act on the knowledge that they must win certain State’s electoral votes.
Nor is it possible for any party to just pick a candidate to back that has an “ability” to lose the popular vote, yet win the EC. Without cheating, that is.
The fact that the restructuring resulted in a statistically unlikely technicality of a shift in the arbitrary weighting of less than 1% of certain votes in only a handful of counties in just three states further proves that there is no mandate to Trump’s occupation, setting aside entirely the fact that the election was massively interfered with by a clandestine foreign attack throwing the entire legitimacy of the election out the window all in its own sake.
It does not matter that he is in the office, so pointing to that fact is utterly meaningless. He did not earn the office, he did not win the vote and he was not the preferred candidate.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
The facts. In little more than a sidenote, Brazile was worried for a candidate’s health for about three seconds. The right-wing noise machine pounced on it, twisted it and regurgitated it for its mindless soldiers to spread, because, clearly, Hillary Clinton is still their greatest threat and biggest worry.
Why? Because she won the vote fair and square, while Trump had to commit treason to get into office.
Iow, death knell for whitey in America. And they all know it. Their actions/rhetoric and focus all prove it.
In a nut.
You live in a delusion wherein President Hillary Clinton is a thing?
She lost the election, knowing very well how your system works. She failed to court the vote where it mattered and she gave your country to Donald Trump. She, not Russians, not Comey, not Bernie Sanderd is primarily responsible and should own it. She is a monumental historical failure that cost you all dearly.
She was expected to and could have and should have won in a landslide. It shouldn't even have been close, nevermind a loss.
He did win, by the system that you have had in place for many years (and continue to have). It is a system that Hillary knows very well too. She was the career politician and political insider. He was a complete outsider.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Ffs, give it a fucking rest. She won the popular vote, which is the ONLY measure of preference of the American people that exists. Period. Absolutely nothing will ever change that fact.
She won, he lost, but due to a less than 1% sliver of votes in just a handful of counties in only three states, a technicality that artificially contermands national POPULAR PREFERENCE got triggered and resulted in Trump being President instead of the rightful winner of the national election.
There simply is no justification for your vote to count the equivalent of, say, 10,000 other votes. None. It doesn't matter that those are the rules; they are not justifiable in regard to NATIONAL POPULAR PREFERENCE OF AMERICANS. GET IT?
That archaic technicality is what got triggered, not by design or strategy or superior candidacy; by treasonous influence, gerrymandering, media influence and 98% dumb fucking luck.
Which means, he has no mandate; he did not earn the office; there is no way to strategize winning the EC, while losing the popular vote; and, most importantly, he cheated by committing treasonous acts.
He will go down in history as the worst President to have yet existed.
What should have happened is a revote. The election was compromised. No question about it. It should have been thrown out and a new one conducted in its place.
But what should happen and what does happen rarely coincide in politics, but that doesn't change the fact that voter preference was overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.
Last edited: