| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:Well folks, treason season started early this year...
Category:News & Politics, Accidents & Explosions
Tags:russia, donald trump, Hillary Clinton, election 2016, BUT HILLARY AND TRUMP ARE EXACTLY THE SAME GUYS
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
Skeletor Finds His Christmas Spirit
Bobby & The Midnites - I Want To Live In America (1984)
Canada-Home of the Beaver
Raggedy Ann and Andy: 'The Pumpkin Who Wouldn't Smile'
Tom Waits - San Diego Serenade
ALF cartoon theme song.
Hippie balances over 3000 coins on a single dime
What Adult Swim did on April Fool's Day this year
I didn't count on being happy.
Check out this home gym setup. Web pressing 255 lbs (116 kgs)
Comment count is 59
William Burns - 2016-07-27
Nobody's saying Hillary and Trump are the same. It's just that they're both to the right of Ronald Reagan, and how are we supposed to reverse that trend?
Meerkat - 2016-07-27
I don't expect you to reverse the trend, Mr. Burns. I expect you to die.

OxygenThief - 2016-07-27
Learning from history might be a good first step.

William Burns - 2016-07-27
What does that mean? Al Gore didn't lose Florida because of Ralph Nader, he lost because of Diebolt, Jeb Bush and a crooked Supreme Court.

Simillion - 2016-07-27
yes, clearly, the voters make absolutely no difference in the outcome. Sorry, no

William Burns - 2016-07-27
Not in Florida they didn't. Blaming the powerless for the actions of the powerful is not going to get us anywhere.

So tell me, how do we get the Democratic party to stop creeping to the right?

William Burns - 2016-07-27
If it's just a matter of "do you want fascism gradually or all-at-once," why not take the fast lane and vote Trump?

(Note: I live in CA so I get to vote for Jill Stein no prob.)

Bort - 2016-07-27
The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right. What's happening is, there are enough Republicans in Congress to block any and all good legislation, including jobs bills and wage hikes and so forth, the sort of things Democrats have been calling for all along but have not had the numbers to pass.

The solution doesn't lie with "the Democrats", the solution lies with the voters. A 41% turnout rate in 2010 handed the House and most of the states to the Republicans, and a 37% turnout rate in 2014 handed the Senate to the Republcans. So that's a lot of voter dereliction of duty we need to reverse just to get back to where things were in 2010. Filibuster reform would be good too, but since the Democrats are minorities in both chambers at this point, it's a secondary issue.

William Burns - 2016-07-27
So I suppose the 111th congress just doesn't count. Obama never tried for a Public Option, never ended any of our wars, didn't do anything to dial back the War on Drugs and did the bare minimum to curb reckless speculation. You can't really blame the public for their lack of enthusiasm.

Bort - 2016-07-27
William Burns, you are pretty much the problem here. The Democrats fought long and hard to get you a public option, and the problem was that they couldn't get 60 votes with only 58 Democrats in the Senate. The public option failed ultimately because of Joe Lieberman, not because of Obama or any Democrat:


This has been very old news for a very long time. Why didn't you know this? Perhaps you should quit being so outraged and find better sources of information.

By the way I always come back to the public option because there is no clearer example of the Democrats fighting to get you what you want, failing only on numbers, and taking the blame for the Republicans' obstruction.

William Burns - 2016-07-27
Joseph Lieberman WAS a democrat, and a very conservative one. Obama was totally unwilling to use the bully pulpit to reign in conservative elements of his own party because the people bankrolling his campaign never wanted a public option in the first place.

But, no, it's the libs who are to blame.

Bort - 2016-07-27
In 2009-2010 Lieberman was an Independent, you mong. And you actually believe the "bully pulpit" is magic? Like I said, put down the outrage and acquaint yourself with some better information sources.

William Burns - 2016-07-27
I was wrong about when Lieberman switched sides, but he was always a conservative and never anything but an impediment to the Democratic party. The Bush admin never had any problem bullying the Dems to go along with every crazy idea they had, wonder why?

Baron_Von_Bad_Beaver - 2016-07-27
You're changing the subject, William

Bort - 2016-07-27
Democrats opposed plenty during Bush's presidency. For example, remember how Bush privatized Social Security in 2005? Turns out it didn't happen, because Democrats blocked it.

The one thing Democrats don't do is abuse the filibuster. Before you start making like filibuster-abuse is a good and sane practice that the Democrats should consider, remember that the Republicans had the ability to filibuster the New Deal, yet did not. In fact there is no record of them filibustering at all during FDR's presidency. That's because Republicans were sane back then and understood that you don't bring government to a halt just because you're not getting your way.

William Burns - 2016-07-27
Why hasn't filibuster reform been put on the table yet? Could it be that Democrats are perfectly happy to but put in the position of being a do-nothing party? They seem to have unilaterally disarmed themselves. How do we get more progressives into office when the DNC is actively campaigning against them? What penalty is the DNC going to face for sabotaging Bernie Sanders' campaign?

Old_Zircon - 2016-07-27
The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

The Democratic Party isn't creeping to the Right."

Xenocide - 2016-07-27
Burns is exactly the sort of spoiled, tantrum-throwing faux-liberal who is holding the left back. No matter what the party accomplishes, it's never good enough for them, because these people think the entire political process exists solely to cater to their specific beliefs, and any victory or accomplishment, no matter how historic, is meaningless if these people can find the tiniest deviation from how they wanted it to work out in their imaginations. They don't give two shits about progress, they care about being catered to.

This is how we ended up with people who actually think that Hillary freaking Clinton isn't "progressive" enough. The woman who redefined the role of the first lady, has been the right's ultimate boogeyman for 20 years, and oh yeah, whose voting record is 95% identical to that of Bernie Sanders. Nope, welcome to Opposite World, where Hillary isn't liberal because she won a primary and hurt some Berniebro feelings.

Like, I can see an argument for her being dishonest, or out of touch, or in league with some sketchy people. But saying she isn't progressive requires such a hyper-specific, made-up definition of the term that you may as well drop the act and admit that your definition of a "serious progressive candidate" begins and ends with "is named Bernie Sanders."

Bort - 2016-07-27
"Why hasn't filibuster reform been put on the table yet? Could it be that Democrats are perfectly happy to but put in the position of being a do-nothing party?"

I agree that Reid and other Democrats blew their opportunity to fix the filibuster in 2011 and 2013. They did do a smaller fix to it to block filibusters on most federal appointments, but as for the rest, I suspect they have a view of history about it that you do not because you're a tard. Besides the fact that the filibuster has historically not been an ongoing problem until lately and you don't want to change rules that have generally worked well, there is also the reality that the Democrats knew they would be the minority someday and might need the filibuster themselves.

The best fix to the filibuster is, the filibusterers need to stay in the Senate chamber for the duration of the filibuster. No going home, no meeting with constituents or lobbyists, no fundraising activities. The filibuster is an abuse of the cloture rule that says 60 Senators need to agree that debate is finished on an item, so by damn make them stay and watch the debate. If they are sincere about the need to filibuster they'll do it, but if it's a frivolous matter they won't want to go to the hassle.

OZ - repetition is a poor substitute for sarcasm, and sarcasm is a poor substitute for thought.

William Burns - 2016-07-27
Do you think the Tea Party held back the conservative agenda?

bawbag - 2016-07-27
I for one cannot wait for all the long-winded screeching about how this is free speech.
Void 71 - 2016-07-27
Is there any country that doesn't have access to those e-mails? All they had to do was figure out her Hotmail password, which was probably something like 'presidenthillary'.
chumbucket - 2016-07-27
oh then she must have changed it as I was always able to get in with "ANumberOne"

Maggot Brain - 2016-07-27
Wasn't the name of the Russian hacker group that got into the DNC computers named "Little Brown Bear?" Aww, that's cute! That's the thing that no one ever says about the Russians, they are really good at coming up with cute shit. Check out Cheburashka sometime. Too cute!
fedex - 2016-07-27
Yeah, and if anyone could hack this, it's the Russians or the Chinese amirite?!

Miss Henson's 6th grade class - 2016-07-27
Never mind the Katyusha rocket.

BHWW - 2016-07-27
Not to be a wet blanket, and you don't have to be a stumper for Trump to think this (I'm not) but the increasingly hysterical cries by both the left and neoconservatives like Jeremy Kircheck and Max Boot that Putin is the all powerful overlord of a Evil Russian Empire (a nation that, while it still has nukes, also has a faltering economy, a ramshackle military and declining birthrates) are well, ridiculous.

Here, we have Robbie Mook, Clinton wonk, telling Jake Tapper that "experts" are saying the Russians were responsible.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tapper-to-clinton-campaign-manager- you-really-think-dnc-leak-was-the-russians-helping-trump/

The "Experts" being this company that was paid by the DNC to investigate, so obviously they're totally objective.


Other experts with no financial stake in this have said otherwise: http://time.com/4372161/democratic-national-committee-hackers/

“What top U.S. technologists know for sure is that at least two groups of hackers were willing to take a major risk – and make a substantial investment – to access the DNC’s network. Who is behind the attacks remains unclear – and, unfortunately, a satisfying answer isn’t likely to come any time soon.

“’Attribution is incredibly difficult – I wouldn’t say impossible, but it’s very difficult,’ Nathaniel Gleicher, the head of cybersecurity strategy at Illumio, told Time. ‘Investigations like this do not wrap up quickly and often do not wrap up at all because it’s very hard to tell where they came from.’

“Amit Yoran, the president of the cybersecurity firm RSA was also noncommittal on whether there’d ever be a smoking gun.

“’I think attribution is one of those topics that people like to rush to because it makes for sexier reporting – you want to make a meaningful story for non-technologists,’ he told Time. ‘Saying you know who was responsible makes for a very compelling story. But it’s also very hard to do well in the cyber domain, especially over a short period of time with a sophisticated actor.’ ”

The other sources being cited include Franklin Foer, fired from the New Republic

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/20 16/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_loo ks_a_lot_like.html

And Jeffery Goldberg: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/clinton-t rump-putin-nato/492332/

and we are getting into a sort of non-Red Red-Scare here, approaching "None Dare Call It Treason" levels of hysteria and imbuing Russia with near supernatural powers.

If you listen to some of the "smart set" the Russians are the puppet masters behind Trump, and Brexit, and Jeremy Corbyn, and Hungary's Viktor Obran, and the rise of the Euro far-right:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/putin-s-hand -grows-stronger-as-right-wing-parties-advance-in-europe

the Euro far-left:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/08/is-putin-play ing-puppetmaster-in-greece.html

and even more.

To quote an article by Adam Johnson at AlterNet where he dug into Foer's article:

“The entire premise of the piece relies on the paranoid assumption that Putin wants to "destroy the West": ‘Vladimir Putin has a plan for destroying the West – and that plan looks a lot like Donald Trump.’

“Wait, what? Putin may want to undermine the West. He may want to curb the expansion of NATO, but destroy it? Is he Magneto? This is the type of unhinged, over-the-top language that goes unchallenged when discussing the US favorite Eastern menace.”
StanleyPain - 2016-07-27
I don't really need a bunch of regressive apologist articles to explain to me why an ex KGB fascist who murders his political opponents, journalists, and has brought Russia closer to Stalin-era garbage than any other contemporary Russian leader is a bad person, thanks.

Gmork - 2016-07-27
Stars for Stanley.

BHWW - 2016-07-27
Also, from Gawker of all places, in a short piece by Hamilton Nolan who has impressed me even as I've disagreed with many of his opinions, but compared to the usual sociopathic striving of other Gawker contributors...

http://gawker.com/if-russia-really-did-the-dnc-hack-thanks-rus sia-1784393706

"Let us accept, for the moment, the assertion that this hack was perpetrated by the Russian government for the express purpose of influencing the U.S. election—an assertion that remains very much unproven. Let’s say that Vladimir Putin had his people steal all the DNC’s emails, passed them to Wikileaks, and then had Wikileaks put them out on the eve of the Democratic convention, hoping to embarrass the party and Hillary Clinton.

From a strictly journalistic perspective: so fucking what?"

"News is news. The emails that came out in the DNC hack had real news value. They had so much news value, in fact, that they got the (corrupt!) head of the DNC deposed from her job. They had so much news value that the DNC was forced to issue a groveling apology to a major presidential candidate because of the “inexcusable” behavior exposed in the emails."

"It is the ass-backwards product of a “politics is everything” mindstate. It leads professional journalists to argue that it would be preferable if the release of important and valuable information about powerful political institutions never happened—in essence, that they would prefer that the public know less."

"Also, the pundits who are dropping their monocles in their soup over this “strike against our civic infrastructure” by a foreign government should recall that that U.S.A. has meddled in a few foreign governments in our time. We might not want to hang our outrage on that one."
Rodents of Unusual Size - 2016-07-27
Oh my God, this is so fantastic.
cognitivedissonance - 2016-07-27
But, of course, Obama is guilty of treason just generally.
dairyqueenlatifah - 2016-07-27
He's also a terrorist. And a Muslim Jihadist. And a Zionist Jew. And a fraud artist from Africa. And a communist. And a socialist. And the Antichrist. And a racist. And did 9/11. And orchestrated Sandy Hook. And ordered the Boston Marathon Bombing. And is literally Hitler. And is literally Mao. And is Anti-American. And...

EvilHomer - 2016-07-27
And signed the NDAA. And never closed Guantanamo Bay. And waged war on Libya, Syria, and a half-dozen other countries. And introduced a failed healthcare reform act that turned out to be a giant swindle meant primarily to enrich the insurance industry. And let the PATRIOT Act (which was written by his own neocon Veep) continue. And stacked his advisory positions with absolute monsters like Henry Kissinger, Rahm Emanuel, Cass Sunstein, and Hillary Clinton, forever destroying what little leftist credibility the Democrats had remaining.

The Boston Bombing probably wasn't him. I see no reason to involve Obama, when Graham Fuller and the CIA could have easily handled it themselves. But... yeah, DQL, on the whole, I guess you're right. It'll be good to finally get rid of him.

If the worst dirt on Trump ("literally Hitler!", "fraud artist from New York!", "secret National Socialist!") anyone can dig up so far is that this one time he made a sarcastic joke on TV, then things are already looking up!

dairyqueenlatifah - 2016-07-27
Oh, I won't dispute any of that EvilHomer. You're absolutely right. I'm not denying he's overseen a lot of shitty things. I was merely pointing out that he's been accused of every outlandishly evil thing under the sun, many of those accusations made before he was even in office.

And you're right about the other side too. I loathe Trump, and even I can help but roll my eyes when the usual suspects call him a racist/sexist/xenophobic/Hitler 2.0. In fact I've pointed that out here more than once (only to be told I'm an awful human being who probably works for Brietbart and that Trump really is literally Hitler.)

EvilHomer - 2016-07-27
Yeah, there's always a lot of disinformation floating around, and the truly sad part is, people get so focused on the lies and half-truths that the majority of the public doesn't stop to examine the real problems with all these candidates.

Which, ironically or not, is precisely the way Cass Sunstein and his libertarian-paternalist buddies envision their ideal world operating!

spikestoyiu - 2016-07-28
"The Boston Bombing probably wasn't him. I see no reason to involve Obama, when Graham Fuller and the CIA could have easily handled it themselves."


EvilHomer - 2016-07-27
I don't get it.
Oscar Wildcat - 2016-07-27
He's calling on foreign powers to attack the United States.

EvilHomer - 2016-07-27
Is he?

I had to watch it a couple times to make sure, but all he's doing is making a sarcastic joke. He doesn't even "ask" the Russians to do anything; he only says he hopes they'll be able to find some missing emails (which is much worse for Hillary - given that she was the one who actually lost our state secrets - than it is for DT).

Unless... do you think perhaps he is speaking in code? Like, maybe Mr Trump is a secret Russian spy, and this press conference is his way of covertly issuing orders to his army of secret Russian hackers, lurking just beyond reach, in their chanboards deep within the Dark Net?

EvilHomer - 2016-07-27
You know... given that his wife is Russian, and his kids are obvious half-Russian pseudo-Americans - I think you just might be on to something, Mr Wildcat!

Dear God, I better hurry and tell the blogosphere about this!

EvilHomer - 2016-07-27
Now I'm picturing a world in which Trump is not our new Hitler, but our new Stalin. There's a big statue of him in Blue Square, Ivankagrad (formerly Times Square, New York), and every year the neckbearded members of the Trumpshovik NKVD gather before it, to commemorate the anniversary of the Glorious Hackvolution which lead to the downfall of our hated imperialist regime.

dairyqueenlatifah - 2016-07-27
I honestly wonder if the people calling him "The Next Hitler" even ever learned who Hitler was, his goals, and what he stood for.

Millions of people are probably rolling in their fucking mass graves every time they hear someone minimize the horrific shit Hitler enacted by equating it to a mouthy unfiltered 21st century businessman who has a few stances on immigration that he hasn't thought through.

Oscar Wildcat - 2016-07-27
We'd better call homeland security. I saw something, and now I need to say something. Dude is a cold clocking terrorist, by current standards.

There's some Stalin there, but I'm drawn to the southern americas for Trumpian inspiration. First, skin and salt Juan and Evita Peron. Throw in a rhetorical dash of Fidel Castro. Add just a pinch of Baby Doc Duvalier's menace. Serve piping hot!

Miss Henson's 6th grade class - 2016-07-27
I think Oscar's right, but I tend to think that Trump would be more of a right-wing Chavez than someone like Perón.

Gmork - 2016-07-28
DQL all the comparisons I've heard of Trump to Hitler seem to be referring to Hitler circa 1933. Perhaps that will help you understand the comparison.

Binro the Heretic - 2016-07-27

Holy shit!
Anaxagoras - 2016-07-27
I know, right?

He's like a 1950's stand-up comic.
"Take my opponent's e-mails. Please!"

Ninehells - 2016-07-27
Trump got all his best material from Glen Beck. But, you know, back before he was cool.
Lord_Crocodilicus - 2016-07-27
So if all that's in the emails is yoga schedules, why is this news and who even cares?
William Burns - 2016-07-27
Maybe you should read them:


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campai gn-blames-russia-wikileaks-sanders-dnc-emails

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigge d-dnc-undermined-democracy/

StanleyPain - 2016-07-28
the emails don't "prove" anything. What they show is that the DNC was not a fan of Sanders and thought his campaign was taking votes away from Hillary.

This is not news. There's is nothing illegal in the emails. There is no evidence anything illegal was done, despite the screamy Sanders regressives. There is nothing in the emails except private conversations that show that the DNC basically wasn't going to support Sanders as a Democratic candidate. Asshole-ish, maybe. Unethical, maybe. Dick move, probably.

But it does not remotely constitute "rigging elections" or any of the other shit that uneducated facebook-socialists are claiming it does. It's amazing that Sanders himself even sees this and is more mature about it than the people who claim to represent him.

William Burns - 2016-07-28
People don't represent politicians, you've got that flipped.

EvilHomer - 2016-07-28
Mr Pain - The emails prove, and you have conceded that they prove, there was an institutional bias against Bernie Sanders (a "conspiracy theory" that the Sanders camp has been alleging for months). The fact that his own party was institutionally biased against his supporters lends credence to the numerous allegations of outright discrimination that have arisen over the course of the campaign, and it demonstrates what (let's be honest) we have all know this entire time: that the DNC establishment had already selected Hillary as their candidate, and never intended to allow Bernie the nomination, regardless of the will of the people.

In addition, the emails prove that there was, and continues to be, intimate collusion between the corporate media establishment and the DNC. Despite massive losses in consumer trust and market-share, the corporate media still wields a great deal of power, and their influence, weaponized as it was against the Sanders campaign, may well have cost Bernie the small number of votes he needed to secure the nomination! So, not only have the emails revealed what has long been theorized by outside observers - that the corporate media has an institutional bias in favor of the Democratic Party - they have also shown direct evidence of internal party tampering, tampering which probably cost Sanders his nomination, and the Democrats their presidency.

There is nothing "illegal" in the emails, at least so far as I am aware, and the truth is no serious observer has claimed that. Rather, what people have been pointing out is that the emails are proof of institutional bias, and then expressed their outrage at this - and outrage is PERFECTLY understandable.

The only thing I don't understand here is why the outrage, which at this point is near-universal and crosses all possible partisan bounds (including into the third parties and independents), is very-conspicuously *not* coming from those inside Camp Hillary, as well. One would think that Hillary's supporters, were they honest and ethical people, would want to keep their party's integrity intact. One would assume that, faced with revelations of internal malfeasance, there would be a great and immediate cry to make things right, to purify the neoliberal-establishment wing of the Democratic Party of all these corrupting influences.

And yet, we do NOT see this. Instead, what we see are further attacks on young Sanders supporters. We see Her Majesty bestow lavish rewards upon the guilty perpetrators, and we see an acceleration in this self-destructive process of "walling ourselves off from all outside political and intellectual influences" which has come to define the Clinton-Loyalist Ghetto.

Lord_Crocodilicus - 2016-07-28
Wait, what are you boys talking about? I'm referring to the emails that she sent on her private server. The DNC bullshit is a non-story aside from the fact that Bernie disgraced himself.

Old_Zircon - 2016-07-28
I'd say Sanders is the only one involved in this shit show who DIDN'T disgrace himself.

Lord_Crocodilicus - 2016-07-28
Well, he could've been a true comrade.

Aernaroth2 - 2016-07-28
I would have figured Trump would have a better handle on the legal ramifications of espionage given he had Roy Cohn as a lawyer for a while.
Bort - 2017-08-17
Hey fucktards, looks like you got the Trump you wanted after all. I know a lot of you are too broken to be capable of shame, so at least be proud of what you accomplished.

Perhaps you shouldn't have been such screechy jackasses and instead gotten behind the candidate who could have stopped him.
Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement