The Democratic Presidential Debates

Halifax2TheMax

Hillary is still married, for what that is worth, won 3MM+ more votes, for what that is worth, and ran against stolen emails, pilfered DNC documents and a Russian driven/colluded bot farm social media campaign the likes of which has never been seen. She didn't blow it all on her own. She had some help.

mrussel1

jeffbr said:

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.

Hey listen,  I don't think she ran a good campaign.  Im just saying I don't define her life by one three month period. 

And I would expect continued changing narratives about her.  Look how Carter, McCain and Romney have evolved. 

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hillary is still married, for what that is worth, won 3MM+ more votes, for what that is worth, and ran against stolen emails, pilfered DNC documents and a Russian driven/colluded bot farm social media campaign the likes of which has never been seen. She didn't blow it all on her own. She had some help.

and we'll never know if a few stops in Mi Wi and Pa late in the campaign woukd have garnered say 95,000 votes between the 3 states to overcome the actual end result.

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

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.

Hey listen,  I don't think she ran a good campaign.  Im just saying I don't define her life by one three month period. 

And I would expect continued changing narratives about her.  Look how Carter, McCain and Romney have evolved. 

or Bush.....

mcgruff10

We are a little more than a year from Election Day; at what point will we see more people drop out?  At this point in 2016 were this many gop candidates?  

F Me In The Brain

There were a shit ton.
Unfortunately only the shit made it through

darwinstheory

F Me In The Brain said:

There were a shit ton.
Unfortunately only the shit made it through

The biggest, both literally and figuratively, shit shit made it through. 

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

jeffbr said:

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.

Hey listen,  I don't think she ran a good campaign.  Im just saying I don't define her life by one three month period. 

And I would expect continued changing narratives about her.  Look how Carter, McCain and Romney have evolved. 

or Bush.....

I thought about him,  and then I thought about the silly Ellen issue. 

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hillary is still married, for what that is worth, won 3MM+ more votes, for what that is worth, and ran against stolen emails, pilfered DNC documents and a Russian driven/colluded bot farm social media campaign the likes of which has never been seen. She didn't blow it all on her own. She had some help.

and we'll never know if a few stops in Mi Wi and Pa late in the campaign woukd have garnered say 95,000 votes between the 3 states to overcome the actual end result.

And we’ll never know what effect the faux bullshit email investigation had or the total bullshit Benghazi investigations had, despite nothing illegal ever being found. Swift Boating anyone?

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/18/clinton-emails-investigation-ends-state-department

mickeyrat

F Me In The Brain said:

There were a shit ton.
Unfortunately only the shit made it through

but its the best shit. there has never been greater shit. believe me

F Me In The Brain

mickeyrat said:

F Me In The Brain said:

There were a shit ton.
Unfortunately only the shit made it through

but its the best shit. there has never been greater shit. believe me

Making shit Shitty again?

Hi!

I've been very clear, I will not be leaving the Democratic Party, I will not be running as an independent or a third-party candidate," said Gabbard. "I am running as a Democrat to take our party back, away from the control of people like Hillary Clinton and the warmongering and corrupt, powerful establishment and return our party into the hands of the people.”

She is Hillary Clinton. She's a legend. She's going to be in the history books, she's a former nominee of our party, and she just came out against a sitting U.S. congresswoman, a decorated war veteran, and somebody who's running for the nomination of our party with a complete smear and no facts," he said.

"I do not want someone of her stature to legitimate these attacks against anybody," Jones continued. "If you've got real evidence, come forward with it. But if you're just going to smear people casually on podcasts, you are playing right into the Russians' hands." 

Hi!

If I was a candidate polling at one or two percent, this would be a best case scenario. I don’t know if all this attention will help Gabbard qualify for the next debate, but if it does, we know who to thank.

Hi!

Instead of describing Hills comments as despicable, Tulsi should of called them deplorable.

Lerxst1992

Hi! said:

I've been very clear, I will not be leaving the Democratic Party, I will not be running as an independent or a third-party candidate," said Gabbard. "I am running as a Democrat to take our party back, away from the control of people like Hillary Clinton and the warmongering and corrupt, powerful establishment and return our party into the hands of the people.”

She is Hillary Clinton. She's a legend. She's going to be in the history books, she's a former nominee of our party, and she just came out against a sitting U.S. congresswoman, a decorated war veteran, and somebody who's running for the nomination of our party with a complete smear and no facts," he said.

"I do not want someone of her stature to legitimate these attacks against anybody," Jones continued. "If you've got real evidence, come forward with it. But if you're just going to smear people casually on podcasts, you are playing right into the Russians' hands." 

This sounds like what was said on Maher last night?

Hi!

Lerxst1992 said:

Hi! said:

I've been very clear, I will not be leaving the Democratic Party, I will not be running as an independent or a third-party candidate," said Gabbard. "I am running as a Democrat to take our party back, away from the control of people like Hillary Clinton and the warmongering and corrupt, powerful establishment and return our party into the hands of the people.”

She is Hillary Clinton. She's a legend. She's going to be in the history books, she's a former nominee of our party, and she just came out against a sitting U.S. congresswoman, a decorated war veteran, and somebody who's running for the nomination of our party with a complete smear and no facts," he said.

"I do not want someone of her stature to legitimate these attacks against anybody," Jones continued. "If you've got real evidence, come forward with it. But if you're just going to smear people casually on podcasts, you are playing right into the Russians' hands." 

This sounds like what was said on Maher last night?

I haven’t listened to Maher yet, just some clippings from a couple articles I read. One from The Hill, forgot the other.
The quotes are from Yesterday though.

Hi!

Big day/week for Bernie, and he’s got a lot of money to spend. 

ikiT

dignin 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." 

There is plenty of evidence out there, as Hillary alludes to in the interview.

A lot of Russian internet bots and traffic pushing her along. In similar fashion to 2016.

she would know...

jeffbr

As far as I can tell Hillary is playing right into Putin's hand by dividing the party and enabling the GOP and Trump. Hillary needs to STFU. She is irrelevant and only exists to divide at this point. 

dignin

jeffbr said:

As far as I can tell Hillary is playing right into Putin's hand by dividing the party and enabling the GOP and Trump. Hillary needs to STFU. She is irrelevant and only exists to divide at this point. 

Tulsi polling around 1%. I highly doubt this is dividing anyone.

She was right about a lot of things back in 2016 Russian related and I think she's on point here.

I think she is doing a service nipping this stuff in the bud now. Shedding light on it now and getting it over with before the election is smart. If Tulsi did run 3rd party in the general it would be way more damaging.