TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

ELB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:The dems are masters at managing the media. The repubs are the jv team when it comes to managing the media and news cycles.

It's hard to "manage" people on the enemy team. As many of the DNC emails have proved, the mainstream media is simply another propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. As Glenn Reynolds says, "journalists" are largely Democratic operatives with bylines.

...

I probably didn't make it clear that it's the Republicans that have a hard time "managing" because the press is the enemy. The Dems can obfuscate and delay until the press moves on because the Dems know the press will not push the issue and will allow it to die -- there is unspoken collusion -- but if the issue involves Republicans, it will drag on and be resurrected at every opportunity. With the Dems (and the DNC emails are showing this) "managing" means cooperation both overtly and more insidiously by common purpose. Just like Islamofascists put out calls for lone wolves and every nut on the planet responds without direct cooperation, the DNC puts out talking points and the press responds with articles supporting them. Doesn't take much to manage that. That's why the "Russians are helping Trump" story spread so fast -- all the Dem party apparatus had to do was toss that point out the window, and the media ran with it. While ignoring previous accounts of donations of Russian and Russian-connected money to the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politic ... 03212.html

Trump asks Russia to find the missing Hillary emails.

LOL

You know they are coming.

I agree ELB. I was mostly thinking of managing the process and situations. They seem to be very good at it. However, they are getting more and more exposed as time goes on.

For those of you that didn't understand what I was saying about managing the news cycle. Here it's a prime example with the FBI assisting.

https://twitter.com/Boerneman/status/772150928967344128

Abraham wrote:Watch "House of Cards" with Keven Spacey.

It's a model of the clintons.

The problem, of course, is that Alan Sorkin has made the clintonesque character a republican instead of a democrat......which would have been the more accurate portrayal. But this is the liberal perception of DC — that all democrats are forthright and honest, and all republicans are evil and many have substance abuse problems. I quit watching the show. It was too obviously slanted in one direction.

mojo84 wrote:For those of you that didn't understand what I was saying about managing the news cycle. Here it's a prime example with the FBI assisting.

https://twitter.com/Boerneman/status/772150928967344128

Fixed the link for you......

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mojo84 wrote:For those of you that didn't understand what I was saying about managing the news cycle. Here it's a prime example with the FBI assisting.

https://twitter.com/Boerneman/status/772150928967344128

Fixed the link for you......

I didn't realize it wasn't working as it seemed to be working on my phone. Thanks

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Abraham wrote:Watch "House of Cards" with Keven Spacey.

It's a model of the clintons.

The problem, of course, is that Alan Sorkin has made the clintonesque character a republican instead of a democrat......which would have been the more accurate portrayal. But this is the liberal perception of DC — that all democrats are forthright and honest, and all republicans are evil and many have substance abuse problems. I quit watching the show. It was too obviously slanted in one direction.

Spacey's character, Frank Underwood, is definitely a democrat. The show seems to portray DC more accurately than I want to believe.

Hillary Clinton suggested to FBI investigators in a July interview that she had little understanding of classified information when she served as secretary of state.

Clinton told FBI agents she could not remember ever receiving any training for how to preserve federal records or treat classified material.

Anybody want to try to convince me that there was never a document somewhere with her signature on it saying that she had been trained on and fully understood the proper procedures for handling classified information? Whether it still exists is debatable, but I have a real problem believing that she never signed anything along those lines.

KD5NRH wrote:

Hillary Clinton suggested to FBI investigators in a July interview that she had little understanding of classified information when she served as secretary of state.

Clinton told FBI agents she could not remember ever receiving any training for how to preserve federal records or treat classified material.

Anybody want to try to convince me that there was never a document somewhere with her signature on it saying that she had been trained on and fully understood the proper procedures for handling classified information? Whether it still exists is debatable, but I have a real problem believing that she never signed anything along those lines.

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/28875 ... promo=true

We're gonna' need all the help we can get from whatever quarter.

Freeloaders outnumber thinking American workers and the biased, left wing media is trying its best to swing votes to the left.

Oldgringo wrote:We're gonna' need all the help we can get from whatever quarter.

Freeloaders outnumber thinking American workers and the biased, left wing media is trying its best to swing votes to the left.

I disagree. It may be close, but the vast majority of the polls the MSM puts out are heavily skewed, sometimes representing 12 or 15% Democrats over Republicans, and giving undecideds to Clinton. We'll see on November 8th, but even in liberal Austin, I have had a hard time finding even a small number of Clinton supporters.

By the same token, I run into Trump supporters of all socioeconomic groups, all races, and all religions. I think the numbers the MSM puts out are vastly underestimating the real support. What matters is that these people get off their butts and go to the polls.

I'm pretty disgusted with the notion of election integrity.

There is a point of law ignored in Texas elections that has, in other states, wrecked election results.

I tried for years to get anyone from either party to listen.

The only luck I've had was with a computer security guy from Rice University who had testified before the Legislature. He agreed my complaint was a valid security hole.

When all the FBI warnings came out, I tried to get Senator Schwerner's office to listen. No luck.

I believe I could disrupt an election. I won't because I was raised better, but that's not really good security. I should be locked out of being able to attack an election, not trusted to behave.

Sigh.

Wish I knew a politician with a functioning brain.

treadlightly wrote:I'm pretty disgusted with the notion of election integrity.

There is a point of law ignored in Texas elections that has, in other states, wrecked election results.

I tried for years to get anyone from either party to listen.

The only luck I've had was with a computer security guy from Rice University who had testified before the Legislature. He agreed my complaint was a valid security hole.

When all the FBI warnings came out, I tried to get Senator Schwerner's office to listen. No luck.

I believe I could disrupt an election. I won't because I was raised better, but that's not really good security. I should be locked out of being able to attack an election, not trusted to behave.

Sigh.

Wish I knew a politician with a functioning brain.

I agree as and can confirm it is absolutely possible, and not all that difficult, to disrupt electronic voting machines. Eric Schmidt didn't "guarantee" Clinton's election more than 3 years ago on a whim.

mojo84 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Abraham wrote:Watch "House of Cards" with Keven Spacey.

It's a model of the clintons.

The problem, of course, is that Alan Sorkin has made the clintonesque character a republican instead of a democrat......which would have been the more accurate portrayal. But this is the liberal perception of DC — that all democrats are forthright and honest, and all republicans are evil and many have substance abuse problems. I quit watching the show. It was too obviously slanted in one direction.

Spacey's character, Frank Underwood, is definitely a democrat. The show seems to portray DC more accurately than I want to believe.

OK.....now I'm confused......I remember it the other way around. Maybe I'm having a senior moment?