The Democratic Presidential Debates

mickeyrat

CM189191 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

umm the proof is an article from Feb before she announced?

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

umm the proof is an article from Feb before she announced?

After...

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

umm the proof is an article from Feb before she announced?

After...

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

well I think they are doing a piss poor job then.

dignin

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

umm the proof is an article from Feb before she announced?

After...

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

well I think they are doing a piss poor job then.

That's the point. She would be the Stein candidate. No illusions on her winning, but just drawing enough votes to hand the victory to Trump.

jeffbr

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

mickeyrat

dignin said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

CM189191 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

umm the proof is an article from Feb before she announced?

After...

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

well I think they are doing a piss poor job then.

That's the point. She would be the Stein candidate. No illusions on her winning, but just drawing enough votes to hand the victory to Trump.

so which party would she switch to? gonna have to , in order to be on all ballots nationwide.....

mrussel1

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

I think she is helping, if there is a nugget of truth to what she is saying.  She's making the nation aware that should Tulsi decide to run as a third party, that it would help Trump and Putin.  One might think of it as a preemptive strike.  I'm also sure she doesn't mind a bit of revenge after she resigned from the DNC vice chair to endorse Bernie. 

Ledbetterman10

CM189191 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

More of a "strong argument in favor of" than "proof" but I'll take it. And now that I think of it, I did see some pro-Gabbard ads in a strange place online the other day that made me do a double-take. I can't remember where but I remembered being surprised to see a Democrat's ad there. 

jeffbr

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

I think she is helping, if there is a nugget of truth to what she is saying.  She's making the nation aware that should Tulsi decide to run as a third party, that it would help Trump and Putin.  One might think of it as a preemptive strike.  I'm also sure she doesn't mind a bit of revenge after she resigned from the DNC vice chair to endorse Bernie. 

That could be, and I'll start disparaging Tulsi if she goes back on her word and runs as a 3rd party candidate. But until then I'm reserving judgement. We saw how unhelpful it was for the Bernie Bros to go after Clinton before and after she got the nomination, and the Dems seem to have a knack for missing layups. It is one thing to have the candidates go after each other, but quite another to have someone who was in a position of power in the party, who is now without any standing (other than being a citizen with a voice) take pot shots. She didn't like it done to her, and yet she seems comfortable doing it to others. It only fuels the right at this point. FoxNews is loving this.

I'm on board with pairing down the field, and I'm not invested in Gabbard. I personally think anyone not polling above 5% currently should bow out for the good of the race. But sniping from the sidelines by disgraced candidates isn't the way I'd recommend pairing things down. It is just bad optics. Hillary couldn't get the job done, and should only be considered a credible expert in losing national elections. 

HughFreakingDillon

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

i have no issues with a private citizen voicing their political opinion. 

HughFreakingDillon

Ledbetterman10 said:

CM189191 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

More of a "strong argument in favor of" than "proof" but I'll take it. And now that I think of it, I did see some pro-Gabbard ads in a strange place online the other day that made me do a double-take. I can't remember where but I remembered being surprised to see a Democrat's ad there. 

just say it: pornhub. lol

jeffbr

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

i have no issues with a private citizen voicing their political opinion. 

Of course. Neither do I. But she certainly has more access than you or I. My point is that she is just a citizen with an opinion. But she'll be treated as Dem royalty and given air time. I just find her unhelpful at this stage.

mrussel1

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

I think she is helping, if there is a nugget of truth to what she is saying.  She's making the nation aware that should Tulsi decide to run as a third party, that it would help Trump and Putin.  One might think of it as a preemptive strike.  I'm also sure she doesn't mind a bit of revenge after she resigned from the DNC vice chair to endorse Bernie. 

That could be, and I'll start disparaging Tulsi if she goes back on her word and runs as a 3rd party candidate. But until then I'm reserving judgement. We saw how unhelpful it was for the Bernie Bros to go after Clinton before and after she got the nomination, and the Dems seem to have a knack for missing layups. It is one thing to have the candidates go after each other, but quite another to have someone who was in a position of power in the party, who is now without any standing (other than being a citizen with a voice) take pot shots. She didn't like it done to her, and yet she seems comfortable doing it to others. It only fuels the right at this point. FoxNews is loving this.

I'm on board with pairing down the field, and I'm not invested in Gabbard. I personally think anyone not polling above 5% currently should bow out for the good of the race. But sniping from the sidelines by disgraced candidates isn't the way I'd recommend pairing things down. It is just bad optics. Hillary couldn't get the job done, and should only be considered a credible expert in losing national elections. 

I actually like Tulsi although I disagree with some positions.  And some of those do align with Russian interests (and Trump of course). Regarding HRC, it's interesting that yours,  and others,  think of her first as a failed candidate.  I think of her as the most consequential first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt,  a Senator and Secretary of State as well. She and Nancy are easily the two most important female politicians in US history.  She has a right to speak,  she's earned it to me.  And for better or worse,  when she speaks she makes news. 

Ledbetterman10

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

I think she is helping, if there is a nugget of truth to what she is saying.  She's making the nation aware that should Tulsi decide to run as a third party, that it would help Trump and Putin.  One might think of it as a preemptive strike.  I'm also sure she doesn't mind a bit of revenge after she resigned from the DNC vice chair to endorse Bernie. 

That could be, and I'll start disparaging Tulsi if she goes back on her word and runs as a 3rd party candidate. But until then I'm reserving judgement. We saw how unhelpful it was for the Bernie Bros to go after Clinton before and after she got the nomination, and the Dems seem to have a knack for missing layups. It is one thing to have the candidates go after each other, but quite another to have someone who was in a position of power in the party, who is now without any standing (other than being a citizen with a voice) take pot shots. She didn't like it done to her, and yet she seems comfortable doing it to others. It only fuels the right at this point. FoxNews is loving this.

I'm on board with pairing down the field, and I'm not invested in Gabbard. I personally think anyone not polling above 5% currently should bow out for the good of the race. But sniping from the sidelines by disgraced candidates isn't the way I'd recommend pairing things down. It is just bad optics. Hillary couldn't get the job done, and should only be considered a credible expert in losing national elections. 

First off, I'm with you 100% as far as Hillary goes. She's a loser, it's her fault Donald Trump is the president, she should just go away.

You mentioned Fox News and speaking of it, Gabbard has been appearing on Tucker Carlson's program pretty frequently. Nothing wrong with that. I liked seeing party-politicians go on the opposite propaganda channel. But I wonder now how Fox News will cover this Clinton/Gabbard thing. Would Carlson and Hannity spin it as "See, the Russians want to help out a Democrat" and try to paint Gabbard as an example of corruption in the democratic party? Or, will they go the route of "Hillary is out here peddling conspiracy theories." It'll be interesting to see. If they go with the latter, it would appear they're sticking up for Gabbard and that would might lend some credence to Hillary's claim. If Carlson and Hannity are coming to Gabbard's defense, it would look like they're hoping she runs third party to assist Trump.

Like you said though, she has already said she won't run as a third party candidate. So like you, unless she flips on that, I'm reserving judgement too.  

HughFreakingDillon

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

i have no issues with a private citizen voicing their political opinion. 

Of course. Neither do I. But she certainly has more access than you or I. My point is that she is just a citizen with an opinion. But she'll be treated as Dem royalty and given air time. I just find her unhelpful at this stage.

i think it would be much worse if she were going after one of the front runners. going after the bottom feeder here is just highlighting russian interference while not moving the needle much. i have no issue with it. 

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

CM189191 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

dignin said:

I don't think she's wrong.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard to Run as Third-Party Candidate

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate?via=twitter_page

So if you don't think she's wrong, you must think she's right. And why is that? I ask because she doesn't give any sort of proof  in article you linked to. She just said "I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians." 

here you go, proof https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

More of a "strong argument in favor of" than "proof" but I'll take it. And now that I think of it, I did see some pro-Gabbard ads in a strange place online the other day that made me do a double-take. I can't remember where but I remembered being surprised to see a Democrat's ad there. 

just say it: pornhub. lol

lol, you got me. 

jeffbr

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

I think she is helping, if there is a nugget of truth to what she is saying.  She's making the nation aware that should Tulsi decide to run as a third party, that it would help Trump and Putin.  One might think of it as a preemptive strike.  I'm also sure she doesn't mind a bit of revenge after she resigned from the DNC vice chair to endorse Bernie. 

That could be, and I'll start disparaging Tulsi if she goes back on her word and runs as a 3rd party candidate. But until then I'm reserving judgement. We saw how unhelpful it was for the Bernie Bros to go after Clinton before and after she got the nomination, and the Dems seem to have a knack for missing layups. It is one thing to have the candidates go after each other, but quite another to have someone who was in a position of power in the party, who is now without any standing (other than being a citizen with a voice) take pot shots. She didn't like it done to her, and yet she seems comfortable doing it to others. It only fuels the right at this point. FoxNews is loving this.

I'm on board with pairing down the field, and I'm not invested in Gabbard. I personally think anyone not polling above 5% currently should bow out for the good of the race. But sniping from the sidelines by disgraced candidates isn't the way I'd recommend pairing things down. It is just bad optics. Hillary couldn't get the job done, and should only be considered a credible expert in losing national elections. 

I actually like Tulsi although I disagree with some positions.  And some of those do align with Russian interests (and Trump of course). Regarding HRC, it's interesting that yours,  and others,  think of her first as a failed candidate.  I think of her as the most consequential first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt,  a Senator and Secretary of State as well. She and Nancy are easily the two most important female politicians in US history.  She has a right to speak,  she's earned it to me.  And for better or worse,  when she speaks she makes news. 

Again, I have no argument with her right to speak, and of course she is going to make news when she does. But I do not have the same level of respect and admiration for her that you do. I found her to be a shady first lady who tried to do more than she was able. She got embroiled in her secret healthcare task force, which ended up in litigation due to the lack of transparency. On the personal side she spent too much time enabling or excusing her husband's inappropriate behavior with women, and denigrating those women when they came forward. She had some success as Sec of State, but also made some poor choices there, so it's hard for me to list that part of her career a real success. There is a reason that she was not well liked by most (in fact, one of the least liked presidential nominees in decades). And no, it isn't because of her gender, as many will claim. She just wasn't very likable or relate-able.  Anyway, I get it. She's allowed to speak. She's not doing any harm (currently). And the press seem to listen to her. I'm just expressing my utter lack of care about what she has and my hope that she fades into history sooner rather than later, as I believe her to be mostly irrelevant.

mrussel1

If we only we were all such a loser like Hillary. 

mrussel1

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

I think she is helping, if there is a nugget of truth to what she is saying.  She's making the nation aware that should Tulsi decide to run as a third party, that it would help Trump and Putin.  One might think of it as a preemptive strike.  I'm also sure she doesn't mind a bit of revenge after she resigned from the DNC vice chair to endorse Bernie. 

That could be, and I'll start disparaging Tulsi if she goes back on her word and runs as a 3rd party candidate. But until then I'm reserving judgement. We saw how unhelpful it was for the Bernie Bros to go after Clinton before and after she got the nomination, and the Dems seem to have a knack for missing layups. It is one thing to have the candidates go after each other, but quite another to have someone who was in a position of power in the party, who is now without any standing (other than being a citizen with a voice) take pot shots. She didn't like it done to her, and yet she seems comfortable doing it to others. It only fuels the right at this point. FoxNews is loving this.

I'm on board with pairing down the field, and I'm not invested in Gabbard. I personally think anyone not polling above 5% currently should bow out for the good of the race. But sniping from the sidelines by disgraced candidates isn't the way I'd recommend pairing things down. It is just bad optics. Hillary couldn't get the job done, and should only be considered a credible expert in losing national elections. 

I actually like Tulsi although I disagree with some positions.  And some of those do align with Russian interests (and Trump of course). Regarding HRC, it's interesting that yours,  and others,  think of her first as a failed candidate.  I think of her as the most consequential first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt,  a Senator and Secretary of State as well. She and Nancy are easily the two most important female politicians in US history.  She has a right to speak,  she's earned it to me.  And for better or worse,  when she speaks she makes news. 

Again, I have no argument with her right to speak, and of course she is going to make news when she does. But I do not have the same level of respect and admiration for her that you do. I found her to be a shady first lady who tried to do more than she was able. She got embroiled in her secret healthcare task force, which ended up in litigation due to the lack of transparency. On the personal side she spent too much time enabling or excusing her husband's inappropriate behavior with women, and denigrating those women when they came forward. She had some success as Sec of State, but also made some poor choices there, so it's hard for me to list that part of her career a real success. There is a reason that she was not well liked by most (in fact, one of the least liked presidential nominees in decades). And no, it isn't because of her gender, as many will claim. She just wasn't very likable or relate-able.  Anyway, I get it. She's allowed to speak. She's not doing any harm (currently). And the press seem to listen to her. I'm just expressing my utter lack of care about what she has and my hope that she fades into history sooner rather than later, as I believe her to be mostly irrelevant.

We'll agree to disagree on this one.  I believe you are taking the most negative interpretation of these events.  The affairs of her husband was a no win situation.  How many women stay or leave when their husband cheats? Probably spilt pretty evenly. 

jeffbr

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

If Hillary wants in the race, she should jump in now. Otherwise I have no use for her blathering. She lost the race, partly because of Russian interference, partly because Comey torpedoed her in the 11th hour, and partly because she is a shitty candidate in a national race. She ran an awful campaign. She was arrogant and ignored key swing states. She was being enabled by the DNC and was just biding her time until she could assume the mantle for which she was destined. Instead she lost. She can either attempt to be helpful (and disparaging other Dems isn't helpful at this point), or she should shut it. She would have been a better choice than Trump by a mile, but remember that the race was considered a shit show with 2 of the least liked candidates in the past 10 presidential elections pitted against one another. The choice was a shit sandwich or a turd burger. Let's not glorify this failed candidate, nor give her more credence than she deserves. 

I think she is helping, if there is a nugget of truth to what she is saying.  She's making the nation aware that should Tulsi decide to run as a third party, that it would help Trump and Putin.  One might think of it as a preemptive strike.  I'm also sure she doesn't mind a bit of revenge after she resigned from the DNC vice chair to endorse Bernie. 

That could be, and I'll start disparaging Tulsi if she goes back on her word and runs as a 3rd party candidate. But until then I'm reserving judgement. We saw how unhelpful it was for the Bernie Bros to go after Clinton before and after she got the nomination, and the Dems seem to have a knack for missing layups. It is one thing to have the candidates go after each other, but quite another to have someone who was in a position of power in the party, who is now without any standing (other than being a citizen with a voice) take pot shots. She didn't like it done to her, and yet she seems comfortable doing it to others. It only fuels the right at this point. FoxNews is loving this.

I'm on board with pairing down the field, and I'm not invested in Gabbard. I personally think anyone not polling above 5% currently should bow out for the good of the race. But sniping from the sidelines by disgraced candidates isn't the way I'd recommend pairing things down. It is just bad optics. Hillary couldn't get the job done, and should only be considered a credible expert in losing national elections. 

I actually like Tulsi although I disagree with some positions.  And some of those do align with Russian interests (and Trump of course). Regarding HRC, it's interesting that yours,  and others,  think of her first as a failed candidate.  I think of her as the most consequential first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt,  a Senator and Secretary of State as well. She and Nancy are easily the two most important female politicians in US history.  She has a right to speak,  she's earned it to me.  And for better or worse,  when she speaks she makes news. 

Again, I have no argument with her right to speak, and of course she is going to make news when she does. But I do not have the same level of respect and admiration for her that you do. I found her to be a shady first lady who tried to do more than she was able. She got embroiled in her secret healthcare task force, which ended up in litigation due to the lack of transparency. On the personal side she spent too much time enabling or excusing her husband's inappropriate behavior with women, and denigrating those women when they came forward. She had some success as Sec of State, but also made some poor choices there, so it's hard for me to list that part of her career a real success. There is a reason that she was not well liked by most (in fact, one of the least liked presidential nominees in decades). And no, it isn't because of her gender, as many will claim. She just wasn't very likable or relate-able.  Anyway, I get it. She's allowed to speak. She's not doing any harm (currently). And the press seem to listen to her. I'm just expressing my utter lack of care about what she has and my hope that she fades into history sooner rather than later, as I believe her to be mostly irrelevant.

We'll agree to disagree on this one.  I believe you are taking the most negative interpretation of these events.  The affairs of her husband was a no win situation.  How many women stay or leave when their husband cheats? Probably spilt pretty evenly. 

Yeah, I recognize that I am overly critical of Hillary. I really did want her to win the presidency. But I thought she was every bit as culpable for her loss as Russia or Comey. I think I'm just still a little pissed at her for missing the easy layup at the buzzer in the championship game. I don't think she's an evil demon, but I also don't think she's deserving of sainthood. Just wanted to remind people that aside from Trump she was the least liked presidential nominee in modern history and there has been some revisionist thought lately that has elevated her status and approval ratings. I simply believe she gets more respect than she deserves in light of her obvious shortcomings. But we can certainly agree to disagree on that.