Oh, Christ, that’s what you mean? That’s incredibly small potatoes, and is entirely in keeping with his views, which include a belief that the Democratic party is far too cozy with major corporate interests. Attacking those ties is 100% legitimate. I thought you meant something personal.
:rolleyes: I voted for Clinton in November and did data entry for the local Democrats in their canvasing efforts. Back off with that weak sauce, Sherrerd.
Again, that’s ridiculous. A progressive cause is getting corporate money out of politics. Attacking a politician that takes a lot of corporate money is exactly in line with that.
Seriously? The quotations in my post, and any other relevant-period quotations from Sanders on the topic, weren’t personal attacks on Clinton? Seriously?
Sanders relentlessly stated or implied that Clinton was incapable of behaving honorably–that if she took money from Wall Street, she would provide special treatment to Wall Street. Sanders carried water for Putin and Trump in his continual message that Clinton operated by ‘quid pro quo’----when there was no evidence for such a charge.
The only way you could fail to see this is…well, I can’t see how you could fail to see this.
Implying that such a politician is necessarily dirty and corrupt, as Sanders did with Clinton—though not noticeably with Obama, despite Obama’s acceptance of vast sums from Wall Street—is not in line with anything I’d identify as progressive. Or principled, or decent.
Dammit, somebody should have convinced him to put it on the RNC stream behind a paywall. That way, he could have raked in money on both ends (the pay-per-view fee and the extra donors he’d get from making the donor-names-added version the only version).
Someone trying to actually understand another person would probably interpret LHoD’s meaning as “There’s no evidence to support that assertion but even if it’s true to some extent…”
But that Hannity line is great. Just like me being compared to Trump for scoffing at a Kennedy “up and comer”. Good stuff.
Oh, Scrappy Ace is back to prove he never loses an internet argument. You gotta admire his “little engine that could” attitude, if nothing else. And there is nothing else.
There’s your Trump tactics, “bub”.
Johnny and Carnalk - both of you dial it back. This is not the place to engage in petty sniping at each other. Not everything requires a response - I suggest taking the high road.
Thanks–that is of course what I meant. I suppose there’s an epistemic conversation to be had over whether “unfounded” is truly a synonym for “unsubstantiated” or “unsupported,” but given that I’m neither 19 nor stoned, I’m not interested in having that conversation, so folks who were so baffled by my previous post may feel free to swap “unsubstantiated” in for “unfounded” and call it a day.
Even calling it “unsubstantiated” goes against common sense to the point that it’s dismissable as mere cheerleading, or perhaps sour grapes or evasiveness, take your pick.
If the claim is that all of his attacks on her character, continuing long after anyone could see it wasn’t helping anyone but the Republicans, did no damage to her, that’s simply saying he completely sucked as a campaigner. But I don’t think you’re saying that, are you?
We criticize the Trump, the Hannity’s, Ryan’s etc. for saying those things which are not true and not saying those things which are true, and there is no health in them.
It behooves us to speak circumspectly, adhering to clear truths, to distinguish ourselves from the dissemblers.