---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 BTW Judy, in July, the New York Times declared it was the duty of the media to 
stop Trump.
 

 You'll have to do better than that. Give me a URL, or a date. Given the way 
you twist things, I'll need to see what the Times actually said.
 

 You also told me earlier last month that Hillary did *not* support open 
borders, Yet Wikileaks revealed E-mails in which she declared to a Brazilian 
bank that she was all for open borders for the western hemisphere.
 

 She didn't mean "open borders" for people to immigrate, sorry. She was talking 
about hemisphere-wide clean energy. Her immigration policy is for increased 
border security, not open borders.
 

 You also told me that Hillary is not a liar but earlier in a post this summer 
you declared that she doesn't lie any more than any other politician. Either 
you don't know what she stands for or you're lying for her. Which is it?
 

 Either you're lying for Trump, or you have a very poor command of English. 
Which is it? A liar is someone who habitually lies; she doesn't.
 
 Yes, the media does conspire with her. They give her veto power over her 
quotes that they want to use and advice about how to help her campaign.
 

 Documentation, please.
 

 How much time has been spent by the media covering the Wikileaks releases?
 

 Oh, lots. The Times has a story almost every day. So does Politico. So does 
WaPo.
 

 Not much because it's bad news for her while they will go to the ends of the 
earth to cover a few women that claim, without proof, to have been *assaulted* 
by Trump and who's stories have been thoroughly discredited.
 

 The media didn't have to go anywhere to find these women; they came out of the 
woodwork of their own accord, enraged, after Trump denied sexually assaulting 
women at the second debate. And *none* of their stories so far has been 
discredited. You keep telling this lie over and over.
 

 How many interviews have they done of Clinton's victims?
 

 You mean "alleged victims." Back when it was relevant, they were interviewed 
to death. We can just go back and look at what they said back then. There's no 
reason to re-interview them. And in any case, Bill Clinton isn't running for 
president, so they're irrelevant.
 


 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 10:34 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is It?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 Well Feste, it is rigged. When the media openly declares it is their duty to 
stop him
 

 They haven't done that.
 

 and they conspire with her campaign,
 

 They haven't done that either.
 

 as is revealed in the Wikileaks e-mails, they are no longer objectively 
reporting the news but trying to influence an election. This will make it very 
difficult for Hillary to govern even if she is elected.
 

 Of course it's going to be very difficult for Hillary to govern. But not 
because the media have conspired with her campaign. It'll be very difficult for 
her to govern because of reflexive GOP resistance and the spreading of lies 
about her and about the media by the right wing, as well as the lies Trump will 
continue to spread about the election being "rigged" after she's in the White 
House.
 

 

 

 There will be a resistance to her presidency like has never been seen before. 

 
 


 From: feste37 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 9:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is It?

 
   Even though he seems certain to lose, I am still worried, because he is 
angry and unhinged and could cause a lot of trouble between now and Election 
Day, and also afterwards. He is openly saying the election is rigged, which is 
very dangerous. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote :

 





 


 













 


 










              • ... emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... feste37
            • Re:... Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
        • Re: [Fairfie... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • Re: [Fai... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [FairfieldLi... emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re: [Fairfie... Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]
        • Re: [Fairfie... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • Re: [Fai... emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
  • Re: [FairfieldLife] Which... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to