Clinton didn't win because she was a woman.

Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she is a woman.

She lost because she is a cunt.
 
Oh my, no. Gabbard is truly someone who has accomplished almost nothing and is severely lacking ethically, particularly in comparison to Clinton. I'd vote for Gabbard over Trump, but not over any decent Republican candidate. She'd be one of the worst major-party nominees ever.



What are you talking about?
Whats your problem with Tulsi Gabbard ?

From what i have seen she is a risk taker and for a politician a pretty straight shooter.
 
Whats your problem with Tulsi Gabbard ?

From what i have seen she is a risk taker and for a politician a pretty straight shooter.

She's nowhere near qualified to run for president. She's very unimpressive generally. And she has some serious ethical issues. I don't want to beat Trump with a left-leaning version of him.
 
Oh my, no. Gabbard is truly someone who has accomplished almost nothing and is severely lacking ethically, particularly in comparison to Clinton. I'd vote for Gabbard over Trump, but not over any decent Republican candidate. She'd be one of the worst major-party nominees ever.
I read your reply as sarcastic. By doing nothing, I presume you mean Gabbard doing nothing for Wall Street. By severely lacking ethically, I hope you mean considered ethically lacking by unethical corporate Democrats. Please tell me you're not serious.
 
She's nowhere near qualified to run for president. She's very unimpressive generally. And she has some serious ethical issues. I don't want to beat Trump with a left-leaning version of him.



Holy shit, the delusion is strong here.


Please, tell us how Obama was more qualified than here?


She is about the best of the democrat party in 2017.
 
Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she is a woman.

She lost because she is a cunt.


LOL, a slight modification... she didn't lose because she has a cunt, she lost because she is one.
 
She's nowhere near qualified to run for president. She's very unimpressive generally. And she has some serious ethical issues. I don't want to beat Trump with a left-leaning version of him.
Alright. So you are serious. The issue is not beating Trump, because there are many Trumps waiting to replace Trump. And Gabbard is not a left-leaning version of Trump. Have you listened to Mark Blyth on Youtube describe the concept of Global Trumpism?

I admit I have not really deeply researched Gabbard's motivations, but I do know that mainstream Democrats dislike her, like they dislike Sanders, for committing some party heresies. A kind of smarmy disapproval based on non-issues. To me, that's a positive characteristic in a candidate. Again, I freely admit I might be missing something about her. But Clinton is a corrupt monster.

Are you possibly one of those Democrats who thinks Clinton would have been a pretty good president, but not as awesome as Obama? For some reason I remember you as being more intelligent than that.
 
I read your reply as sarcastic. By doing nothing, I presume you mean Gabbard doing nothing for Wall Street. By severely lacking ethically, I hope you mean considered ethically lacking by unethical corporate Democrats. Please tell me you're not serious.

When I say she has accomplished nothing, I'm referring to her poor educational background, lack of any private-sector success, and lack of experience in gov't (to be fair, she's only 36). She's already violated House ethics rules. Of course I'm serious.

Holy shit, the delusion is strong here.

Please, tell us how Obama was more qualified than here?

Jeez, you can't make a single post without some lame insult, can you?

Obama was a Constitutional Law professor, a former editor and then president of the Harvard Law Review, a community organizer, a lawyer, a best-selling author, he had been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he'd gotten some good laws passed. And note that he was still considered arguably too inexperienced the first time. Gabbard isn't even close to having the resume that Obama did.
 
I can't get over her Gaddafi response, but even more so the audio where she laughed when discussing getting the child rapist off.

I'm sure her clit lickers will say "She was a lawyer, it was her job blah blah blah"

Look, I get that and that's not the point. The point is her response to the passed polygraph test. Her natural response when explaining how she lost faith in polygraph tests after her client failed was to laugh, and it wasn't even like a hidden recording she didn't know about. She did so openly.

I would think that anyone who is not a sociopath when reflecting on getting what they believed to be a child rapist off the hook would have made that statement with a solemn tone in their voice. That it would deeply disturb them, but not Hillary. It amused her.
 
Alright. So you are serious. The issue is not beating Trump, because there are many Trumps waiting to replace Trump. And Gabbard is not a left-leaning version of Trump. Have you listened to Mark Blythe on Youtube describe the concept of Global Trumpism?

In the sense that she's grossly unqualified and highly unethical but might appeal to rubes. Maybe more of a left-leaning Palin?

I admit I have not really deeply researched Gabbard's motivations, but I do know that mainstream Democrats dislike her, like they dislike Sanders, for committing some party heresies. A kind of smarmy disapproval based on non-issues. To me, that's a positive characteristic in a candidate. Again, I freely admit I might be missing something about her. But Clinton is a corrupt monster.

Are you possibly one of those Democrats who thinks Clinton would have been a pretty good president, but not as awesome as Obama? For some reason I remember you as being more intelligent than that.

Clinton is not a corrupt monster. That's just stupid. The worst thing the GOP has been able to pin on her is violating State Department IT security protocols, which isn't even an ethical issue. And, sure, if you want a candidate that knowledgeable people who lean left dislike and don't care about the reasons for that dislike, Gabbard is your gal. And, sure, Clinton would likely have been a very good president, though, yeah, not likely as good as Obama.
 
Clinton didn't win because she was a woman.

Translation - "I'm stupid enough to believe this."

Stop watching CNN and MSNBC, and realise Hillary wasn't a popular even among Democrat voters.

She was such a horrible candidate, Donald 'Grab Women By The Pussy' Trump, beat her by an electoral landslide.
 
When I say she has accomplished nothing, I'm referring to her poor educational background, lack of any private-sector success, and lack of experience in gov't (to be fair, she's only 36). She's already violated House ethics rules. Of course I'm serious.



Jeez, you can't make a single post without some lame insult, can you?

Obama was a Constitutional Law professor, a former editor and then president of the Harvard Law Review, a community organizer, a lawyer, a best-selling author, he had been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he'd gotten some good laws passed. And note that he was still considered arguably too inexperienced the first time. Gabbard isn't even close to having the resume that Obama did.



It's not name calling, it's pointing out that your post is delusional.


First off, she has military service, and actually sacrificed for her country.

By 20, she'll have about 7 years of experience in government.

She does not tow the party line, to her own detriment.

She publicly called out obama for supporting AQ and Isis, an incredibly brave move, which resulted in much backlash from her own party.

Vice chair of the dnc, until she stepped down over the treatment of Bernie Sanders.

Passed bills/introduced bills from va reform and national security to decriminalization of marijuana.




I'm going to have to go with military experience + participation in government going back to 2002 as well as 7 years serving in congress, over being a college professor, and 2 year senator.
 
In the sense that she's grossly unqualified and highly unethical but might appeal to rubes. Maybe more of a left-leaning Palin?
You see, I think I know your perspective well. I work for a large defense contractor, and I've been there forever so most of my friends and acquaintances are Ph.Ds in physics or engineering. I am one of the former. These friends -- the Democratic ones -- tend to say what you say. On the other hand, the few right-leaning colleagues tend to repeat the usual right-wing talking points. Clinton being corrupt is one of them (Clinton for prison, etc). Some of the people who are very senior (like hanging out with former presidents senior) also repeat some of the right-wing talking points. I have heard very powerful people deny climate change so sometimes its tough for me to remain respectful and objective. I ask myself what makes these amazing people deny facts that are as plain as the nose on their face. Anyhow, what is most remarkable is that often the anti-Democratic talking points used by Republican types are correct. They (Republicans) believe these talking points (Clinton for prison) because doing so strengthens their worldview, rather than invalidating it. Similarly, the anti-Republican talking points thrown around by the majority of my contemporaries are correct and do not compromise the Democratic loyalist worldview.

Clinton is not a corrupt monster. That's just stupid. The worst thing the GOP has been able to pin on her is violating State Department IT security protocols, which isn't even an ethical issue. And, sure, if you want a candidate that knowledgeable people who lean left dislike and don't care about the reasons for that dislike, Gabbard is your gal. And, sure, Clinton would likely have been a very good president, though, yeah, not likely as good as Obama.
Again, I'm faced with this denial of the obvious any time I talk politics at work. I would suggest reading the right-wing talking points on Clinton's corruption, and then see if you can successfully refute it. I bet in many cases you can't, just like the right cannot refute most of the left's anti-Trump talking points because they're often correct.
 
It's not name calling, it's pointing out that your post is delusional.

You think it's "delusional" to think that a 36-year-old with minimal education and experience in gov't is not qualified to be the president of America? Really?

She does not tow the party line, to her own detriment.

The term is "toe the party line," and this couldn't be more wrong. The only reason we're talking about someone so grossly unqualified is the self-serving steps she's taken.

Again, I'm faced with this denial of the obvious any time I talk politics at work. I would suggest reading the right-wing talking points on Clinton's corruption, and then see if you can successfully refute it. I bet in many cases you can't, just like the right cannot refute most of the left's anti-Trump talking points because they're often correct.

I would suggest that you consider that I have read right-wing talking points on Clinton and that's precisely why I think it's such a stupid claim. In all of your responses, you haven't even attempted to argue in favor of your point so I'm not even sure how crazy you're getting with it. Do you think she's a murderer and a child sex trafficker or do you just buy CTs about her (extremely highly rated) charity work or what? The extreme nature of your claim suggests that you're a full-on nutter. I'd call Weinstein or Trump "corrupt monsters." Clinton wasn't careful enough to avoid getting hacked as SoS. Not remotely comparable.

What's the basis of your defense of someone like Gabbard? Everything I said about her is objectively true, isn't it?
 
Really?? I thought she didnt win because she failed to canpaign in states with the right number of electoral college votes.

But if you say so
 
You think it's "delusional" to think that a 36-year-old with minimal education and experience in gov't is not qualified to be the president of America? Really?



The term is "toe the party line," and this couldn't be more wrong. The only reason we're talking about someone so grossly unqualified is the self-serving steps she's taken.



I would suggest that you consider that I have read right-wing talking points on Clinton and that's precisely why I think it's such a stupid claim. In all of your responses, you haven't even attempted to argue in favor of your point so I'm not even sure how crazy you're getting with it. Do you think she's a murderer and a child sex trafficker or do you just buy CTs about her (extremely highly rated) charity work or what?

What's the basis of your defense of someone like Gabbard? Everything I said about her is objectively true, isn't it?



By 20 she'll have 7 years as a congresswoman. She began her public service in 2002, and has over a decade of military service.


Obama was a two year senator.



Remind us how 2 years is greater than 7.
 
I don't know if this was the only reason but I believe it was part of it, I work with a guy who says it all the time that he would never trust a woman in office . he can't be the only one.
 
By 20 she'll have 7 years as a congresswoman. She began her public service in 2002, and has over a decade of military service.

Obama was a two year senator.

Remind us how 2 years is greater than 7.

Obama was elected senator in 2004. The Senate is much higher-level experience than the House. And the rest of Obama's resume absolutely blows hers out of the water. It's frankly an embarrassing comparison for her.
 
I would suggest that you consider that I have read right-wing talking points on Clinton and that's precisely why I think it's such a stupid claim.
The Clinton foundation is corrupt. Its a classical type of corrupt political vehicle. More generally, both Clinton and our good friend Obama are well-known to have been tightly coupled to Wall Street. It was when I heard Chomsky talk about this in 2008 that I realized that there was such a thing as "corporate" Democrats. You know for sure that when a person deifies A and demonizes B, where A and B are (Repub,Dem) or (Dem,Repub), that there is a lack of objective thought.

In all of your responses, you haven't even attempted to argue in favor of your point so I'm not even sure how crazy you're getting with it. Do you think she's a murderer and a child sex trafficker or do you just buy CTs about her (extremely highly rated) charity work or what?
I don't really feel like writing long-winded posts in favour of this, like I don't want to write a long-winded post about the reality of climate change or the lack of evidence for god. It always ends up being a TL;DR. I've got better things to do today.

What's the basis of your defense of someone like Gabbard? Everything I said about her is objectively true, isn't it?
I think @bobgeese did a nice job with the list of bullet points.
 
The Clinton foundation is corrupt. Its a classical type of corrupt political vehicle.

How so?

More generally, both Clinton and our good friend Obama are well-known to have been tightly coupled to Wall Street.

Then why did Obama sign Dodd-Frank? Why was Clinton pushing for further Wall Street reform? I think saying "X is tightly coupled to Wall Street" is just another vacuous partisan attack without tying it to specific policy claims. Further, tying claims of corruption to legitimate differences of opinion is harmful to the goal of actually trying to get things right (rather than just cheerleading the way geese does).

I don't really feel like writing long-winded posts in favour of this, like I don't want to write a long-winded post about the reality of climate change or the lack of evidence for god. It always ends up being a TL;DR. I've got better things to do today.

Well, if you ever decide to give the issue more thought, I think you'll see where you're wrong.
 
Back
Top