It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Schumer tells Clinton 'blame yourself,' Trump echoes criticism

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I had not seen this during the past weekend. I think the timing of Schumer speaking about this says volumes. Schumer is the de facto leader of the democrats. What does he know about "blaming russia" that we do not? If there were really evidence that damns President Trump Schumer would not have said this. If there were real evidence "russia" had ANY effect Schumer does not say this. If the head of the democratic party believes this why is there an ongoing investigation?

www.foxnews.com...


Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer had choice words for Hillary Clinton in an interview over the weekend, blasting the Democratic presidential nominee for blaming Russia for her loss to now-President Trump -- who picked up on the jab in a Monday morning tweet. “When you lose to somebody who has a 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things—Comey, Russia—you blame yourself,” Schumer told the Washington Post. “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”

Yeah Chuck we actually do believe you are against Trump, still.
I think it is very very interesting that Schumer is putting this out now.
What does Chuck know that we do not?




posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


What does Chuck know that we do not?

That it does't matter who sits in the oval office, the country is being run into the ground by Corporatocracy, the presider is but a scape goat to blame for when things go bad, which they are. But don't focus on that part, just the designed distraction and divisiveness of the 'two party system'.

Back to the disagreement.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Ol' where's the camera Chuck! This guy is a grade A POS. Him and Hillary are cut from the same rotten cloth. But even he knows the Clinton crime family is done. Otherwise he'd still be kissing their butt, it's what politicians do.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Now it does not matter who is in the white house?

Alrighty then........



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I think the last six months or so has been eye opening for who owns the Republican party. Conservatives sent Trump to the White House, as a Republican candidate. Now Republicans are not getting it done. The Democrat party may just be able to jump back in the game since I believe you are going to see Conservatives abandon the Republican establishment in the next election. I won't actually vote Democrat but I will either abstain from voting for a RINO or I will vote for a lesser known candidate who supports conservative values even if they have no chance of winning the election.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

He is just trying to cover his ass while the official Leftist narrative known as "But..But..Russia" continues to unravel.
My guess is he is getting tired of lying to cover other lies.
You can only do it for so long before everyone sees through the BS.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

Were he "any other democrat" I would agree. When the leader of the party says this......it is time to move on.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Without an actual message for the voters beyond trump is bad and russia Democrats have no shot, their new slogan shows they seem more out of touch than the average rich person.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi




Conservatives sent Trump to the White House, as a Republican candidate. Now Republicans are not getting it done.

I agree.
I think the american people wanted action on several items and are seeing none.
I think without significant action on a few important items the house race in 18 will be crazy.
A serious third party would be able to gain ground in this midterm imo.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Schumer's BS is just an attempt to divert Democrat exposures that have all but wrecked the Party.

It's too late for them I believe.

They've toasted themselves into ashes.




posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Schumer's BS is just an attempt to divert Democrat exposures that have all but wrecked the Party. It's too late for them I believe. They've toasted themselves into ashes.

By not following through with their campaign promises the gop is doing the same.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

You know what tipped me off that Schumer is the "de facto leader" of the Dems (as you called him)?

When Alex Soros, George's son was posting photos on Instagram of the two of them at a luncheon, praising Schumer's character.


Soros effectively buys a lot of dems and libs




posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And that Corporatocracy, with it's minions manning the microphones of the corporate owned media across the country continue to obfuscate the cause of our problems by placing all the blame on which ever ''adminisstration was previously in power.

Some of us hold the position that you touch on, that the president is pretty much the guy who stands at the head of the room and calls out B7-----G2-------O9 until somebody gets happy and calls bingo. Those who can understand this can also see that the power of the corporations is the engine that runs things.

Where democracy supplanted monarchs and rebooted some of the world, corporatism is supplanting the structure of nations. And the thing is is that it is not national corporations, it is international corporations that are spanning the globe like an octopus. All the rest of this is smoke and mirrors.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

A serious third party would be able to gain ground in this midterm imo.


There are those of us who have been voting third party for decades in the hope of breaking the two party system. But it may be that it is to late as there is the appearance that both of those parties are fracturing, and I think that is good. But to my mind, a third party at this point would only revitalize the concept of finding our leaders through the ''established channels''. In the past the established channels were the Dems and Repubs. Adding only one party to that only continues the illusion.

What I see as a possibility is a wide open field. Everyone knew Trump was not a Republican. Trump was a branded celebrity and THAT is what got him into the game in the first place. And he did it, to a large degree, without the support of that party. He relied upon the media coverage of his celebrity.

Likewise, in 2020 that lesson may have been learned and celebs from across the board may come out of the woodwork. Business tycoons, sports heros, movie stars, hell maybe even a Kardashian or two could grab enough headlines and internet strength to make the run. All without any party affiliation at all.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire




What I see as a possibility is a wide open field. Everyone knew Trump was not a Republican. Trump was a branded celebrity and THAT is what got him into the game in the first place. And he did it, to a large degree, without the support of that party. He relied upon the media coverage of his celebrity. Likewise, in 2020 that lesson may have been learned and celebs from across the board may come out of the woodwork. Business tycoons, sports heros, movie stars, hell maybe even a Kardashian or two could grab enough headlines and internet strength to make the run. All without any party affiliation at all.

I agree
I hope more people that are not "career politicians" get involved.
I think that is what part of the "russia" hysteria is over. Keeping people that are not "career politicians" out of the system.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

yep. Career politicians, big problem. The leadership 'class'... But that leadership class has failed us. Their leadership has constantly demonstrated that they govern for themselves as exemplified by their retirement packages and their health care programs and their constant raises even in light of stagnant wages for the rest of us.

Originally the framers wanted to avoid elections based simply on popularity, though this now seems to have gone by the way ages ago. Kennedy beat Nixon due in large part because he was considered handsome and did well in front of the camera while Nixon was a craggy kind of guy and sweated in front of the camera.

And as much as I like the idea of breaking free of that leadership ''class' and finding candidates from other corners of society, there is that danger still of just electing someone who is popular.

But as I think on it now the whole issue may be moot. If, as many believe, the potus is nothing more than a face or a symbol of dying democracy and the real power lays within the corportocracy itself, then does it matter if we elect a competent CEO or a bozo? Will it matter? All they will really do is assuage part of the population until the next election and another face will come on and assuage another part of the population. And back and forth it goes, one side pitted against the other as the corporations cinch up the noose around us.



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The fact is that even with interference by Russia, the Democrats should have been able to put up a candidate who could have handily beaten Trump.

They even had one in Sanders but the DNC leadership worked to the benefit of Clinton instead.

Another, perhaps bigger issue is that there's no practical way of gauging what impact Russian meddling had on the outcome and insisting that the Kremlin managed to sway votes ultimately only serves to alienate those who voted for Trump. After all, nobody wants to be told, let alone actually believe, that they've been effectively manipulated — though of course, they'll eagerly believe it of "the other side."

That's of course assuming that interference can be both definitively proven and with facts in hand, that most of the public can be convinced of it. Then there are the issues of attacking the integrity of the election and addressing our own domestic propaganda and how voters are manipulated by politicians, the media, campaigns, etc.

And how could one tease out the effect of meddling from among the constellation of contributing factors from Clinton's own lackluster campaign, her history of lying about her emails, past scandals, years of Benghazi witch hunts to Comey's announcements, etc? It's a fool's errand.

So in my opinion, it's a non-starter and it seems that this was recognized early on as few have taken the step of making the claim that without the meddling, Trump would have lost.

edit on 2017-7-24 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




The fact is that even with interference by Russia, the Democrats should have been able to put up a candidate who could have handily beaten Trump. They even had one in Sanders but the DNC leadership worked to the benefit of Clinton instead.

I do not disagree with that.



Another, perhaps bigger issue is that there's no practical way of gauging what impact Russian meddling had on the outcome and insisting that the Kremlin managed to sway votes ultimately only serves to alienate those who voted for Trump. After all, nobody wants to be told, let alone actually believe, that they've been effectively manipulated — though of course, they'll eagerly believe it of "the other side." That's of course assuming that interference can be both definitively proven and with facts in hand, that most of the public can be convinced of it. Then there are the issues of attacking the integrity of the election and addressing our own domestic propaganda and how voters are manipulated by politicians, the media, campaigns, etc.

I do not disagree with that as well.



So in my opinion, it's a non-starter and it seems that this was recognized early on as few have taken the step of making the claim that without the meddling, Trump would have lost.

Ok
then why the ongoing investigation?



posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
He knows political common sense. Even Bill Clinton and James Carville told Hillary she didn’t have a message…


No one wins the presidency without a dynamic message, Trump as crazy as he is still had a message, and Hillary had nothing



posted on Jul, 25 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: intrptr


Now it does not matter who is in the white house?



Not to the Oligarchy. Has anything changed?




top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join