Yeah, it’s interesting how rare it is for the losing candidate to not speak up. Michael Dukakis became almost invisible after 1988 and Gore has been pretty quiet.
Some of that may be due to that Dukakis was a governor and sought no other offices after his term ran out and Gore turned to environmental activism.
As was I. You brought up electability. I showed it was a two-edged sword. That’s all.
There’s also the simple fact that she is just answering honestly and bluntly the questions she is being asked, which are apparently the questions that some care about hearing what she has to say something about.
Very few give two shits about what she thinks about Kissinger (we already know she did not think him evil incarnate and respected his intelligence) and what she has to say about Weinstein isn’t likely to interest many much. If the documentary maker asked them (I doubt) they may not air the questions/answers because they would be boring.
FWIW to the question of voting for any Democrat over Trump … I’d have a hard time with Gabbard. I think that she would be even more Putin manipulable than Trump is, and long term even more harmful as she would damage all Ds with generational impacts. Even another Trump term would be less harmful than her.
Elizabeth Warren refuses to defend Bernie about the nobody likes him allegation.
The very slim of support from any of Sanders colleagues in the Senate goes to show why he’d be a horrible president. Bullheaded stubbornness and my way or the highway might be good traits if you’re looking to hire a football coach, but not in a President.
Good on her. There’s no percentage in Warren getting drawn into Clinton’s bullshit drama, nor in letting herself be baited by reporters looking for juicy gossip. This campaign shouldn’t be about that. Dale, you should take some pointers from Warren.
I’m a loudmouth on Twitter and a nobody on a message board, standards are different for me than a senator or candidate.
But why be a loudmouth? You often display the traits you hate in the Berniest of Bernie Bros. It’s certainly not the way Mayor Pete asks his supporters to act, istm. I remember a while back you going off on Sanders’ wife. Nobody can take you seriously when you’re so venomous.
She is already past her sell-by date. Maybe a decade ago. Who cares now what she says or does? If she had any sense, she would see that any influence she has is negative. She isn’t a kingmaker, she isn’t anything but a has-been.
[Checks thread and sees that it is on page 6 and that the story gets airplay.]
Apparently quite a few people.
It really isn’t her fault that people do. And I really do believe that she is just saying what she honestly thinks in response to questions she is asked and enjoying the freedom she finally has to not think about whether or not she should say it anymore.
You help sabotage a peace settlement just so the other party can’t take credit for ending the war, then help keep the war going for another 4 years, resulting in additional hundreds of thousands of deaths in that country, plus bombing and destabilizing two neighboring countries, resulting in even more deaths there - fuck yeah, he’s a war criminal.
Just because leftists like Christopher Hitchens and Seymour Hersh claim Kissinger is a war criminal, that doesn’t approach proof. Kissinger isn’t even in the direct chain of command for U.S. military activities so it’s very unlikely any such charges would ever be sustained against him if they had ever been prosecuted. He was an adviser to Nixon and largely took actions in line with most 20th century American Secretaries of State.
Carpet bombing civilians in a country we’re not even at war with is a war crime. Hillary did maintain a relationship with Harvey Weinstein up until his crimes became to obvious to feign ignorance of, and defends her previous association with him through a dismissive ‘oh, well I couldn’t know about the open secret that even people who don’t follow hollywood news have heard of’. If Hillary supporters are going to keep ranting about ‘Bernie Bros’ with its shifting definition, I think it’s only fair to look at ‘Hillary Bros’, and the fact that “Hillary Bros” are people who like carpet bombing civilians and sexually assaulting women is pretty damning.
There are no Hillary supporters because she’s not running for anything. But when she was, she did indeed get some grief for her friendliness towards Kissinger. Not the Weinstein thing though, cause that’s a little whacky.
Cite that Henry Kissinger has ever dropped a single bomb in his entire life. Kissinger to my knowledge doesn’t even know how to fly an airplane. So he never personally dropped a bomb. So did he order bombs to be dropped? I’d question how that could occur, the Secretary of State can’t order the lowest private in the armed forces to make him a ham sandwich, let alone order a bombing campaign.
Even if what you allege is true (which legally it can’t be, since SecState isn’t in the military chain of command), large scale bombing is not a war crime under treaties to which the U.S. is bound. [As a note: Protocol I is an amendment to the Geneva Convention, issued in 1977, that does make “carpet bombing” a war crime. The United States signed it but has never ratified it, meaning we are not participants in it, although I believe our military essentially follows it as if it was ratified. However note that this amendment to the GC did not happen until 1977, years after Kissinger was out of office.] Under the law that the U.S. adhered to in 1968-1972 it is only a war crime if there is no legitimate military interest and the only purpose is to deliberately target and kill civilians.
What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about?
I already explained that was sarcasm.
A new NYT article (may be paywalled) about Bernie’s troll army.
So glad he’s getting some vetting as his support is so strong. Everyone gets their time under the microscope. Bernie never really got that in 2016, but this race is different and Bernie is leading a lot of polls not just a novelty septuagenarian worshipped by millennials.