• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,901
Where do you think I supported her? Because I referenced her worthless polling figures and how if media put all their focus on the shit she's blatantly done she has no chance getting reelected? I'd even go further to say that the NYT's fuck up is going to make her more popular in certain groups because it's the media once again drawing focus to Hilary and Russia but even then I don't see how the blatantly horrible woman's going to maintain any kind of meaningful power after this.

Supporting Terrible people is still supporting terrible people.

Even if they are powerless to do what their horrible beliefs entail.

if people dont actually support people like Tulsi, then they shouldn't create increasingly brain-twisting arguments to play Devi's Advocate for her.
 

ratcliffja

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,891
It's a terrible, nonsensical stance, because if Tulsi were in that position she'd be even worse than the people you hate, yet you like her better because she's powerless. This is the thinking of someone who will only like politicians when they're running for office and will turn on them without fail once elected because they'll actually have to deal with real-life constraints and can't be a perfect ideologue.
Part of me wants to see Sanders win just so his supporters will open their eyes to how quickly things change when you're in charge of the military and have to deal with the realities of working with Congress. Then I remember that my hopes for Trump supporters ever owning up to their mistakes have been completely dashed.
 
Oct 26, 2017
10,499
UK
Supporting Terrible people is still supporting terrible people.

Even if they are powerless to do what their horrible beliefs entail.

Cool, I fully agree and don't think any of the people you've accused have supported terrible people. I hope you stand by that and vote for the candidate who's looking to do the most about America's legacy of horrific foreign policy going forward.
 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
28,394
Phoenix
Part of me wants to see Sanders win just so his supporters will open their eyes to how quickly things change when you're in charge of the military and have to deal with the realities of working with Congress. Then I remember that my hopes for Trump supporters ever owning up to their mistakes have been completely dashed.
If you think the idea of a "Deep State" is only beholden by Trump supporters you are sadly mistaken. If Bernie starts to systematically fail to get policies done, it will be the Bernie supporter equivalent of Deep State. Hillary State or some shit.
 

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,901
Cool, I fully agree and don't think any of the people you've accused have supported terrible people. I hope you stand by that and vote for the candidate who's looking to do the most about America's legacy of horrific foreign policy going forward.

Tell that to the person that would support Tulsi over her primary opponent.
 

mescalineeyes

Banned
May 12, 2018
4,444
Vienna
If you think the idea of a "Deep State" is only beholden by Trump supporters you are sadly mistaken. If Bernie starts to systematically fail to get policies done, it will be the Bernie supporter equivalent of Deep State. Hillary State or some shit.

you don't think centrist dems and corporation(ist)s are trying their darnedest to make sure things like M4A don't happen?

like am I tripping balls?
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Part of me wants to see Sanders win just so his supporters will open their eyes to how quickly things change when you're in charge of the military and have to deal with the realities of working with Congress. Then I remember that my hopes for Trump supporters ever owning up to their mistakes have been completely dashed.
"You only like the beginning of things."
 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
28,394
Phoenix
you don't think centrist dems and corporation(ist)s are trying their darnedest to make sure things like M4A don't happen?

like am I tripping balls?
Well I guess I should just be happy that there are realistic Bernie supporters out there realizing he's probably not going to get much of what he promises because American voters, don't want it. Fucked up as it is. And no it won't be because of the DNC or a conspiracy.

I think a medicare option for all without eliminating private insurance is realistically the only thing a Dem president is likely to get done in 8 years whether their name is Biden, Warren, or Bernie. I'll take it.
 

mescalineeyes

Banned
May 12, 2018
4,444
Vienna
Well I guess I should just be happy that there are realistic Bernie supporters out there realizing he's probably not going to get much of what he promises because American voters, don't want it. Fucked up as it is. And no it won't be because of the DNC or a conspiracy.
if you think that take is spicy coming from me, may I offer up this one:

Bernie won't even make it to the convention and I'm not even super-mad, I'm cool with Liz.
 

SupremeWu

Banned
Dec 19, 2017
2,856
NY Times does it again.

And what's almost worse than the inaccuracy from the NEWSPAPER OF RECORD is that people are trying to shrug it off with bad jokes and memes.

It's a big and embarrasing fuck up and just fuels the trump fake news narrative.
 

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
NY Times does it again.

And what's almost worse than the inaccuracy from the NEWSPAPER OF RECORD is that people are trying to shrug it off with bad jokes and memes.

It's a big and embarrasing fuck up and just fuels the trump fake news narrative.

It changes pretty much nothing. Clinton calls her a Russian asset and points out all the ways they influence her and her supporters.
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
Part of me wants to see Sanders win just so his supporters will open their eyes to how quickly things change when you're in charge of the military and have to deal with the realities of working with Congress. Then I remember that my hopes for Trump supporters ever owning up to their mistakes have been completely dashed.
Right. That's the takeaway from the Trump admin; that the president has no discretionary power. It practically doesn't make a difference who the president even is. Why even vote for a president at all in 2020?
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
"She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up because she's also a Russian asset,"...

K, so that's what I'm seeing as the quote from Politico.

So now we're being told Clinton said she's also a REPUBLICAN asset? What does that change if that's the case? Did Clinton also not say "She's the favorite of the Russians?? Or did Clinton say she's the favorite of the Republicans as well??
The key difference is that Clinton said the Republican party was grooming her to run 3rd party.

That shifts the believability window alot more because there is actual proof of her direct campaigning methods that involves them.
 

SupremeWu

Banned
Dec 19, 2017
2,856
No it doesn't. It's one mistake regarding a somewhat confusing exchange that barely changes the meaning or intent of the conversation.

I don't need to dig in because this correctly hurts NYTs reputation and that's not something worth arguing.

What I will say is that some of these defenses read like when the right trys to defend Fox News and their mistakes -- like the several times they call a disgraced republican politician a democrat, or mis-quote someone.

Either the integrity of factual reporting matters to you or it doesn't. 'Well, it was almost right' isn't what responsible journalism is.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
Do people really think she would have any pull away from Democratic candidates?

This is such a bizarre story
Clinton does which is why she bothered to subtly call out the Republicans grooming her suspect.

All that matters for the Republicans is if the candidate is as effective as Jill Stein.

Frankly this strategy is dumb if they are grooming Gabbard because unlike Stein she gets more attention in conservative news than the other way around.

Tulsi has greater potential to siphon conservative votes to a degree that cancels out her ability to spoil liberal votes.
 

ratcliffja

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,891
Right. That's the takeaway from the Trump admin; that the president has no discretionary power. It practically doesn't make a difference who the president even is. Why even vote for a president at all in 2020?
That's actually the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Because the president has theoretical limits to their power, we must be very selective on who we choose as president. We can choose someone who ignores all boundaries like Trump, someone who wants dramatic change while working within the current constraints like Sanders, someone who wants dramatic change by changing the system she laying future groundwork like Warren, or someone who wants moderate change by working within the current system. For me, it's Warren then Sanders then Biden of realistic nominees because we need dramatic change but I think the best chance for actually getting that done is with Warren.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,097
Sydney
Clinton does which is why she bothered to subtly call out the Republicans grooming her suspect.

All that matters for the Republicans is if the candidate is as effective as Jill Stein.

Frankly this strategy is dumb if they are grooming Gabbard because unlike Stein she gets more attention in conservative news than the other way around.

Tulsi has greater potential to siphon conservative votes to a degree that cancels out her ability to spoil liberal votes.

That's an interesting point, you see Never Trump Republicans praising her.
 

Blade24070

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,995
Christ almighty. NYT wtf. Mistakes happen, but why did it take 4 days to correct it? Now trumpet has more bullshit to spew.
 

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
I don't need to dig in because this correctly hurts NYTs reputation and that's not something worth arguing.

What I will say is that some of these defenses read like when the right trys to defend Fox News and their mistakes -- like the several times they call a disgraced republican politician a democrat, or mis-quote someone.

Either the integrity of factual reporting matters to you or it doesn't. 'Well, it was almost right' isn't what responsible journalism is.

Suggesting it was intentional is nonsense. The exchange is conversational and was either misunderstood when someone read it without paying enough attention to the change of subject or just read it removed from context. The amount of difference the mistake makes is not large. Instead of a Russian asset being groomed by Russia, she's a Russian asset being groomed by Republicans. She's still accused of being a Russian asset which is like 95% of what the discussion here has been about.
 

SaintBowWow

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,082
Because it doesn't really change much. She's still calling Gabbard a Russian asset, she's just saying the republicans are grooming her for a third party run instead of the Russians.
It's just bizarre to me that the primary source has been freely accessible since the article was published and nobody seemed to notice the error.
 
Oct 25, 2017
17,537
yacctn02y4u31.png
 

Boiled Goose

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
9,999
Clinton does which is why she bothered to subtly call out the Republicans grooming her suspect.

All that matters for the Republicans is if the candidate is as effective as Jill Stein.

Frankly this strategy is dumb if they are grooming Gabbard because unlike Stein she gets more attention in conservative news than the other way around.

Tulsi has greater potential to siphon conservative votes to a degree that cancels out her ability to spoil liberal votes.

Clinton's opinion on politics is relevant why?
And why would she be a good messenger?
 

SaintBowWow

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,082
No idea if this has anything to do with it.



Resources must be tight. Now to sit back and read another Bret Stephens column about how people making fun of him on Twitter is fascism.


But my point is that it's been online and in the news for four days and nobody in the public noticed. This was super easy to fact check, anyone can listen to the interview themselves, but somehow word never got around that the reporting on it was misleading.
 

Stryder

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,530
US
User Banned (3 days): Hostility and prior bans for hostility
Hillary is a piece of shit who shut women down who were coming forward about what Bill did to them.

Hillary is an enemy of women and for anyone who stands for the Me Too movement. You're a moron if you support her and should probably fuck off.
 
OP
OP
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Hillary is a piece of shit who shut women down who were coming forward about what Bill did to them.

Hillary is an enemy of women and for anyone who stands for the Me Too movement. You're a moron if you support her and should probably fuck off.

This is certainly a better argument for opposing Hillary than some made here. Thankfully, she is not running for office.
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
Hillary is a piece of shit who shut women down who were coming forward about what Bill did to them.

Hillary is an enemy of women and for anyone who stands for the Me Too movement. You're a moron if you support her and should probably fuck off.
Good thing Hillary Clinton both doesn't hold any office and isn't running for one this time at all then.

Tulsi Gabbard, who the thread is actually about, is both a current holder of political office in the House of Representatives, and is seeking to hold an even higher office. That being the case, by all counts, it would make more sense to talk about her, no?

That people nonetheless want to talk about a nobody going nowhere doing nothing than the person who actually currently does hold political office and is using said position to make some questionable decisions to put it quite mildly to say the least is very interesting indeed.

Like seriously. Hillary is a private citizen. A nobody at this point. Gabbard is the one in the House of Representatives, running to try and be President. So it's weird, in a topic about very-heavily-factually-basee accusations regarding Tulsi Gabbard, that people are more interested in talking about the person who both doesn't hold any office and isn't currently interested in any instead.

That's all to say, if you really nonetheless want to have that discussion, that's more than fine. But this isn't really the place to be having it, is it?
 

Pelican

Member
Oct 26, 2017
424
Maybe getting shit wrong is the new clickbait headline. NYT gets it wrong, gets more clicks. Every other news company fails to check the source, gets more clicks. The new end game of quantity over quality reporting.
 

Deleted member 19003

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,809
Every thread even tangentially related to Hillary Clinton just brings out the crazies wanting so badly to insult her, I swear. Even before the NYT correction, there was absolutely nothing wrong with her statement. Tulsi and anyone defending her on Twitter all come across as morons. That includes Bernie and Yang. Warren was smart in not commenting.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Nov 14, 2017
18,413
Hillary ain't never lied to you clowns.



what a horrible libel by Hillary Clinton to suggest that Tulsi Gabbard might do that thing Tulsi Gabbard is obviously planning to do

SCOOP: @TulsiGabbard breaks bread with Wall Street fat cats at @huntandfishnyc; event sponsored by Dem fundraiser @robertwolf32 as she is said to weigh third-party run more now @FoxBusiness @TeamCavuto dotcom story to come
 

Chie Satonaka

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,623
People were trying SO HARD to defend her, and here's where we are now.

Good work.

What will be the new talking point? "If Hillary wouldn't have said anything, she would have fizzled out and faded away! It's still her fault!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.