It's a sad thought that Hillary probably would have won if she had made less of an attempt to be presidential, and had just been a dick on Twitter instead.
Like it or not their personality plays a large role in getting votes, despite their actual ability in the political arena. She was just not charismatic enough, something Bill had in spades but was less qualified than Hillary in work experience. I think it would become even worse if the electoral college was done away with, a simple majority would turn campaigning into a singular popularity contest. At least in theory the EC can see the electors use their own judgement in picking the best candidate. I think Trump's twitter antics also set him apart from the pact because people were just tired of the robotic campaigning that all other candidates do (hilariously pointed out about Rubio by Chris Christie). Warren has this problem too. I was watching the last debate and she repeated the same preprogrammed phrase about 8 times in a two minutes when she was asked how her Medicare for all would be funded with taxes on the middle class or not.
For you guys that take issue with Gabbard is it really just that republicans don't hate her enough and nothing else? I can barely fathom that kind of thinking. I also really, really don't get being upset at the people like her and Bernie for calling the party out on their faults. Is there some reason you want the party to stay corrupt? Why? I can understand most positions on policy, even if I disagree, but these sorts of mindsets are baffling to me. What a weird set of standards for vetting candidates.
I dont get it either, not everything is deceitful or underhanded. I would legitimately vote for her. She's softened a bit on her gun control stances and moved toward the middle, and has slowly and quietly backed away from the Green New Deal bullshit, at least for now.
I agree with her on almost everything. The only knock I have towards her is her lack of experience in areas like finance.
Give Republicans time, they’ll learn to hate Gabbard. Not only will they soon realize she’s a practising Hindu, but she’s also from Hawaii.... a foreign country.
The subjects of Gabbard and the media made me think of this. It blows my mind the morons the NYT employees these days. Holy fuck.
I worked with a few agents that were on her protective detail when she was SecState and while all of them disagree with her politics, they also said she was friendly and nice to work for/around, but it that it rarely came out in her public persona.
I'm kind of glad the media is running with stuff like "Gabbard is in with Russia". I know for some people nothing will ever click, but they are doing so much damage to their reputation I think a lot of people will eventually turn away. How many can really take this shit seriously? Wapo recently ran a 'fact check' on a stat Bernie used... except the fact check had no facts whatsoever. They claimed the study he used wasn't peer reviewed. It was. The reviewers wrote them a letter. The authors of the study wrote letters. They still won't put out a retraction or even a revision. They claimed the peer reviewers were biased. This was the American Journal of Medicine, by the way. Rolling Stone did an hour long session with Jimmy Dore about what a joke the media has become. This gives me hope. That's the first time I've seen reporters from a major publication acknowledge that they have a huge fucking problem. I also saw the Gabbard situation was a breaking point for some of the other candidates, which was nice to see.
If you're going to argue that the media is an unreliable joke, you can't then refer to Jimmy fucking Dore in the same post. Jesus.
I really, really wouldn't expect someone who thinks Rachel Maddow is a good reporter to understand the sort of work he is doing. Same for someone who thought Hillary lost because she was too presidential right after she made up a baseless conspiracy theory about a war veteran.
Maybe save that condescension for when you're defending someone who isn't a proud conspiracy theorist, sport. Maybe someone who purports that the label of "conspiracy theorist" has an undue amount of negativity should probably refrain from calling Rachel Maddow that. In any case, I don't understand how it makes any sense at all to have an expectation that the media be perfect, like people are infallible. If 9 out of 10 media outlets report the same thing, but one doesn't, believing the one outlet over the 9 others is about as idiotic as getting your news from dumbasses on YouTube.
Knock it off with attacking people personally. Either have the conversation politely or don’t have it at all.
You two are fucking ridiculous. Just say they are both hacks. And move on. Just because they are hacks that agree with your view point doesn’t mean they aren’t hacks.
Yes, because having a higher expectations than doing fact checks that have fuck all to do with facts is expecting perfection. I don't love Jimmy Dore, but he's a lot better than people like Russia or bust Maddow. I'm continually amazed some of you defend the press. They are objectively awful at their jobs. I don't know why you can't see it.
I don't always agree with Jimmy Dore either, but at least he backs his shit up with actual facts. If I have a choice between him and someone who makes $30,000 per day to tell people that the Russians are going to try to shut down your heat in the winter, the choice is pretty easy.
I enjoy not watching the "news" anymore. I make it a point to avoid any of the MSM tv channels and I'm quite happy. Love me some weather channel though.