Sound familiar?

[Nightshade]

If you've lived through the "Clinton era," you're bound to be familiar with this pattern:

"Clinton Scandal Ritual: lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time. When it passes, call the story “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. 'As I’ve repeatedly said..."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/travel-back ... 1473982077

Of course a compliant media is instrumental in making the "ritual" work.

[vision]

Your posts need larger, bolder text. Also, you should try colors. I used to be a professional designer. Here are some "danger" colors you can use that match this board's scheme for higher impact:

Compliment (#fc4d08)

Split Compliment (#fc0824)
Split Compliment (#fcaf08)

Triad (#fc08b7)

Another thing you might consider is getting away from the default text color for something more readable. Generally you don't want white on black, but a muted or off-white works well. This text color is #cfcfc0 and is probably a little too warm and friendly for your posts, but you get the idea. It's much easier on the eyes, especially if you have a lot of text to read. I know you aren't good with words though, and most of your posts involve robotically pasting copy from another source. Still, sometimes you paste a lot of text, so it's something to consider. Had you dressed up your post and made it more visually appealing I might have read it! (Or maybe not, it's hard to say really. You're like a broken record.)

[Nightshade]

I guess the topic of the thread is too much for Vision to intellectually address.

[Vander]

Haha. "Intellectually address" a Peggy Noonan article. One might ask, well why do voters "have the impression Hillary isn't trustworthy?" It's behind a paywall so I didn't read it, but I'm willing to wager Noonan fails to mention her own role in why voters might have that impression.

Hack.

[Krom]

Reads some extremist conservative echo chamber author who's entire revenue source is built upon generating outrage about everything even remotely associated with the democrat party, selects random polished verbal diarrhea of a click bait article #89374120347, picks some dingleberry line out of it and all but empty quotes it in a new thread and then tries to defend the topic with comments referencing "intellect".

You're right, it definitely sounds familiar.

[vision]

I guess the topic of the thread is too much for Vision to intellectually address.

I would much rather address your poor posting patterns and design choices!

[Tunnelcat]

OK NS. If you don't like either Clinton OR Trump, as you claim, start posting a few hit pieces about Trump since you seem so adroit with finding all the Clinton scandals that we all pretty much already know about or suspect. So far, the lion's share of your hit pieces are about Clinton.

[callmeslick]

moreover,they are mainly fact-free, or untroubled by context. Not so much factual hit pieces as they tend towards opinion reposts.

[woodchip]

And your posts are any better?