- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 76,917
- Reaction score
- 17,505
Personal, and SUPREMELY petty.She essentially called him a worthless shit heel of a Senator, who nobody likes, and a sexist to boot.
I don't know, seems kind of personal...
Personal, and SUPREMELY petty.She essentially called him a worthless shit heel of a Senator, who nobody likes, and a sexist to boot.
I don't know, seems kind of personal...
Because she's trying to tank one of the leading Democratic contenders, and is doing so with gross personal attacks.
I don't really like, either of these people but it's always confused me how some Bernie supporters froth at the mouth with the "HE'S NEVER CHANGED HIS MORALS!!!"
And I'm over here like "he's been preaching the same shit for near 50 years... maybe there's a reason no one goes along with it?"
She called him a sexist fraud. That's ok with you?The only thing that it is really upsetting there was this: "I'm not going to go there yet" in response to the question about whether she'd endorse and campaign for him. I'm not sure what role he'd want her to take, but I think she should do whatever she can to help whoever wins the nomination. She'll lose a lot of support and hurt her legacy if she doesn't.
Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of either and though the memes of "Hillary Clinton killed XYZ person" can be funny at times... she isn't really a nice person. Her laughing as a defense attorney about a rape victim will ALWAYS bother me. I know defense attorneys have to represent/choose to represent some reprehensible people but you can do it in a way that isn't, well, laughing/joking about a victim.I think in a lot of ways, Hilary Clinton has been overly vilified and Bernie has been overly romanticized.
It’s poorly worded but valid criticism.I don't see anything wrong with her criticism of Bernie Sanders here at all. She spoke plainly and honestly, and did not use any terrible personal attacks in the process.
She said he's a career politician, he struggles to get anything done, and that people do not like him or want to work with him. Seems perfectly fair. Those are the types of criticisms that are actually relevant in the political process.
There are plenty of things that Clinton does that warrant criticism. But often times I find people dishes out terrible attacks against her for next to no reason. The same people who accuse her of being a mass murdering war mongering child abuser, will then act disgusted when she offers valid criticism of a politician that they like. It doesn't really make any sense.
in before c*nt, censor happy mods merge this.
She essentially called him a worthless shit heel of a Senator, who nobody likes, and a sexist to boot.
I don't know, seems kind of personal...
Yeah, I'm serious. Why should I be upset by her opinion here?
Because she lied about him being sexist, about him urging supporters to attack Harris and Warren, and about him making "very personal attacks" on Warren?
She's saying that an unapproved call script saying that Warren is awesome, Warren is the caller's second favorite candidate, but that her base is insufficiently working class is a "very personal" attack. I think pretty much everything she said (in re his 2016 campaign and his relationships with Warren and Harris) was in bad faith, but that characterization kind of pushes it out of the area of deniability.
She called him a sexist fraud. That's ok with you?
Being intentionally obtuse is a bad look for you.Didn't see that, and I searched the interview for "sexist" and "fraud" and didn't find anything. If you're referring to where she talks about his online supporters' relentless attacks, obviously you know I agree with that.