Re: She's good! NOM Archived Message Posted by dovetailjoint on June 1, 2019, 7:13 pm, in reply to "She's good! NOM" I think Anderson's piece puts virtually everything one reads in the Guardian or the BBC about recent politics in the US, to shame. It's just so much better, obviously true and clear-eyed in the precision of the arguments put forward. Only the ####ers at the Guardian don't like the result of the election, at all. The public are no longer prepared to be led by the Gaurdian preisthood, telling them how to think and act. So the ####ers at the Guardian tie themselves into knots and their writing becomes unreadable and stupid, confused and illogical, because they are attempting to deny the truth of what happened; that they lost fair and square because not enough people voted for their preferred candidate in the right places. Clinton's arrogance and brazen entitlement to rule, cost them the election, not the Russians. The Russians and Assange weren't significant enough to swing the election one way or another. The Democrats chose the wrong candidate. They thought playing the gender card after they played the race card, was gonna be enough. It wasn't. Anderson thinks clearer and writes clearer than anyone employed at 'wank central' the ####ing Guardian! Message Thread: The Guardian on Pamela Anderson - margo June 1, 2019, 3:13 pm Typo: 'on-topic' or 'topical' (nm) - margo June 1, 2019, 3:20 pm Text of Anderson's article - margo June 1, 2019, 3:25 pm She's good! NOM - Rhisiart Gwilym June 1, 2019, 6:30 pm Re: She's good! NOM - dovetailjoint June 1, 2019, 7:13 pm Re: She's good! NOM - dovetailjoint June 1, 2019, 7:38 pm   Searching