- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,164
Hildawg has the reputation of being the opposite of mean? Do you live on Earth?
Yeah, but if you get your info from the nuttersphere, you probably don't recognize it.
Came up in a recent discussion so here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08
The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she’d spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda.
Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who’ve worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter’s preschool graduation. Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head-nodding, politician way; in a real person way.
This same story has repeated itself throughout Clinton’s career: those who initially view her as distrustful and divisive from afar find her genuine and cooperative in person. It was the case with voters in New York, Republicans in the Senate, Obama people in the White House, and heads of state all over the world. There’s a reason being America’s chief diplomat was the specific job Obama asked Hillary to do—she has the perfect personality for it.
That seems like a pretty typical set of observations from people who actually interact with her. You can hate her party or policy preferences or whatever, but her reputation in terms of how she treats people on an individual level is pretty bulletproof.
And this is really 1st year stuff anyway. It's called 'defamation by implication'. It's like saying publicly "The guy takes pictures of little kids ffs"
He didn't call the other party aphile but the implication was clear. That constitutes grounds for a civil suit.
work with me here, m8
I was joking about you saying that it was good to see someone finally "stand up" to someone who has been smeared more than anyone in public life. But if you actually think another of Gabbard's crazy lawsuits has any merit, I'd be happy to make a bet about it.