posted on November 16, 2019 08:15 PM by
u/completely-ineffable
35
u/TiberianRebel28 pointsat 1573946629.000000
I’m going to be so happy when Yang drops out. Yang Gang was amusing
for all of 10 minutes, but goddam if his campaign didn’t attract just
the dumbest motherfuckers in it for the neetbux and the rhyme
> goddam if his campaign didn't attract just the dumbest motherfuckers
Yang supporters are bad, but the most dumbest motherfuckers award goes to Pete supporters.
Hmm I’m not sure about that. I’ve seen some really stupid stuff posted and wildly upvoted by Trump supporters back before their subreddit was quarantined (and could still make the front page).
Even still, Tulsi stans are still acting like Clinton said she was a Russian plant, and the worst barrage I've gotten on twitter in the last 6 months or so was when I said that Williams didn't have a chance.
Nope. What Clinton said was that there was ongoing Russian interference, and that Tulsi was being groomed by Republicans for a third-party run. The initial story misstated the quote, but was already corrected by the time that Tulsi took the stage and complained about "regime change wars" and Clinton.
She then doubled down in an op-ed that came out several days after the record had been corrected. It was bullshit and that she has perpetuated the bullshit shows she cares more about running against Clinton than she does being honest with voters.
(That she has parroted Russian talking points is pretty indisputable, though, from "regime change war" to arguing that Obama wasn't doing enough to bomb Syrians and encouraging more Russian sorties. She's also sought to downplay and excuse Russian influence operations and election meddling. I don't think she's a Russian agent or anything, I just think that she has gone so far round the twist that she's ended up with a superficially appealing anti-imperialist foreign policy that's more an uncritical embrace of any non-American power, which a lot of the conspiratorial left falls into because antithesis is easier than synthesis.)
You know I just double-checked all of this already before you replied and Clinton's statement is ambiguous and *highly suggestive* at best, while later clarifications by Clinton's team are tendentious and dissembling (covering her arse after a bad gaffe) at worst. Meanwhile, Clinton unambiguously stated that the Russians were backing ("grooming") Gabbard.
And this is all regardless of whatever Tulsi Gabbard said (who cares what Tulsi Gabard said, or about her Op-Eds, or any of that? We were talking about Hilary Clinton, the only relevant bit of this very long paragraph are your one-and-a-half opening sentences which only casually reference the alleged misstatement and correction).
Actually, seriously, what's all this about what Tulsi Gabbard said? You write like you have a grudge to vent that has nothing to do with me. In fact like you have a grudge to vent that has nothing to do with this conversation: that opening one and a half sentences that don't even specify the specific misstatedments in the quote or even the quality of their being misstated, despite that being the obvious target of the actual disagreement here.
\[Nah\]([https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/31/tulsi-gabbard-misquotes-hillary-clintons-jab-her/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/31/tulsi-gabbard-misquotes-hillary-clintons-jab-her/))
Clinton did not state that Russians were grooming Gabbard. She said that Republicans were grooming Gabbard. So while you may have "double-checked" this, Clinton's statement did not heavily imply Gabbard was being groomed by Russian influences, and continuing this line of attack on Clinton is silly negative intra-partisanship.
Gabbard parroting pro-Russian talking points and having significant right-wing Russian support are connected, just as muddying the waters about that serves both her interest and Russian interests.
While it may feel like I've got a weird grudge, it's mostly because I've had to go through this same exchange again and again and again with Tulsi stans, repeating the same bullshit you've just trotted out again, and you're putting out heavy Clinton-grudge vibes. I'd like less bullshit in political conversations, and I'm particularly annoyed that this nothingburger is still being served.
I literally barely know who Tulsi Gabbard is: I have no opinion on your opinion of Tulsi Gabbard or your grudge, or indeed your opinion of Tulsi Gabbard fans. Shut up about the Goddamn Tulsi Gabbard fans. Nothing I've said on the subject has anything to do with my opinion of Tulsi Gabbard and everything to do with my interpretation of what I take to be Hillary Clinton's gaffe and yet everything you've said - including your above link, which is about Tulsi Gabbard - is exclusively about Tulsi Gabbard and her fans: plus the added (mere) assertion without explanation that this (your) interpretation of Hillary Clinton's comment is accurate.
And, for the love of God, you can do better than "you're putting out heavy Clinton-grudge vibes" - don't act like you have any idea what are the background motivations of a complete stranger born, raised, and living 3000 miles across the ocean from American electoral intrigues.
You barely know who she is but you chimed in on a comment about her? Then "double checked" the quote but apparently concluded… exactly what Gabbard said but what's been debunked by independent fact checkers?
And I didn't say anything about your motivations — I said that your repeated insistence on a non-existent gaffe is heavy anti-Clinton grudge vibes.
If you don't want to talk about Gabbard fans, don't reply to comments about them, Super Chief. And if you don't want people to assume you have a passing familiarity with American politics, don't reply to threads that are explicitly about American politics on the internet. Someone might assume that you have more than gawping ignorance to comment with.
If you've had repeated interactions with Gabbard supporters, how have you done that? We're talking about a candidate who barely has supporters at all --- low single digits in every single poll I've seen --- and who clearly belongs to the category of "not even worth criticizing."
On the Clinton stuff. Clinton was deliberately vague and conspiratorial in what she wrote. It's her own fault if people read her statement in different ways. If Clinton thinks Republicans will get Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate, that might be something Clinton should encourage; there is some evidence that most of Gabbard's supporters are Republican men.
Finally: what's the point here? Gabbard isn't likely to matter at all next year, and Clinton even less. Why not talk about things that are part of the real story?
I’m still excited about the really dumb math about freedom dividends.
2,000 a year per person is literally more than 100% of total current US
federal government expenditures, and is in fact a very large part of US
GDP. So how will Yang pay for literally the most expensive program in US
history, and indeed perhaps human history? Mostly small efficiencies in
existing programs is the proposal. So… This is maybe the dumbest policy
proposal I’ve ever seen? And we’re even in a Brexit world…
I’m going to be so happy when Yang drops out. Yang Gang was amusing for all of 10 minutes, but goddam if his campaign didn’t attract just the dumbest motherfuckers in it for the neetbux and the rhyme
I’m still excited about the really dumb math about freedom dividends. 2,000 a year per person is literally more than 100% of total current US federal government expenditures, and is in fact a very large part of US GDP. So how will Yang pay for literally the most expensive program in US history, and indeed perhaps human history? Mostly small efficiencies in existing programs is the proposal. So… This is maybe the dumbest policy proposal I’ve ever seen? And we’re even in a Brexit world…