Why are Dems so shit at negative stuff?

[Sean]

The Repos have been pushing non scandals as the worst thing since Herod's massacre of the innocents but their candidate is about to go on trial for fraud and child rape. Is there no-one in the DNC with a vicious streak?

 

[sr71plt]

Au Contraire. The Dems' campaign vids that just feature Trump talking have been brilliant.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

Au Contraire. The Dems' campaign vids that just feature Trump talking have been brilliant.

those aren't negative ads. those are truthful ads. Trump is just negative in them bro.

Stew

 

[Sean]

Has Carville retired?

 

[sr71plt]

those aren't negative ads. those are truthful ads. Trump is just negative in them bro.

Stew

Well, yes, you couldn't really refer to Trump without having the negative creep in. (And I do mean creep. )

 

[doctor_insanus]

The Repos have been pushing non scandals as the worst thing since Herod's massacre of the innocents but their candidate is about to go on trial for fraud and child rape. Is there no-one in the DNC with a vicious streak?

Because their base believes they are the worst thing since Herod's massacre. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or not.

You're not dealing with people who have the best grip on reality.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Because their base believes they are the worst thing since Herod's massacre. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or not.

You're not dealing with people who have the best grip on reality.

Exactly. There's no way through that bubble. That is another thing the RNC is good at.

 

[Sean]

Because their base believes they are the worst thing since Herod's massacre. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or not.

You're not dealing with people who have the best grip on reality.

But going negative works. Both campaigns will disagree, but the numbers don't lie. So push Trump the child rapist.

 

[underguy1]

Because their base believes they are the worst thing since Herod's massacre. It doesn't matter if any of it is true or not.

You're not dealing with people who have the best grip on reality.

You're quite correct. But the problem is that no one shilling for, or even voting for Clinton has any better grip on reality.

She will be installed no doubt. But only because the entire process has been a sham.

She is a terrible candidate and a grave danger to the world's people.

We came, we saw, he died.

 

[Sean]

You're quite correct. But the problem is that no one shilling for, or even voting for Clinton has any better grip on reality.

She will be installed no doubt. But only because the entire process has been a sham.

She is a terrible candidate and a grave danger to the world's people.

We came, we saw, he died.

Tell me, underoo, who destroyed the world trade centre?

 

[Disgustipated]

Tell me, underoo, who destroyed the world trade centre?

This one is starting to sound awfully familiar.

 

[underguy1]

Tell me, underoo, who destroyed the world trade centre?

Red herrings to deflect away from your heinous right wing neoconservative champion?

Great company you pretend progressives keep.

 

[Sean]

Red herrings to deflect away from your heinous right wing neoconservative champion?

Great company you pretend progressives keep.

Answer the question. Who do you believe destroyed the World Trade Centre?

 

[underguy1]

Answer the question. Who do you believe destroyed the World Trade Centre?

If you wish to start a 9/11 thread, do so.

But you can't defend your candidate's record honestly, can you, Mr Fake Progressive?

She has the record and the vision

"For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." —Robert Kagan

"I have a sense that she's one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president." —Dick Cheney

"I've known her for many years now, and I respect her intellect. And she ran the State Department in the most effective way that I've ever seen." —Henry Kissinger

Nobody Beats This Record

She says President Obama was wrong not to launch missile strikes on Syria in 2013.
She pushed hard for the overthrow of Qadaffi in 2011.
She supported the coup government in Honduras in 2009.
She has backed escalation and prolongation of war in Afghanistan.
She voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
She skillfully promoted the White House justification for the war on Iraq.
She does not hesitate to back the use of drones for targeted killing.
She has consistently backed the military initiatives of Israel.
She was not ashamed to laugh at the killing of Qadaffi.
She has not hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran.
She is not afraid to antagonize Russia.
She helped facilitate a military coup in Ukraine.
She has the financial support of the arms makers and many of their foreign customers.
She waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
She supported President Bill Clinton's wars and the power of the president to make war without Congress.
She has advocated for arming fighters in Syria.
She supported a surge in Iraq even before President Bush did.

 

[Aglaopheme]

How many posts does it take to go from Trump being accused of child rape to Hillary bashing?

Therein lies your answer.

 

[Sean]

If you wish to start a 9/11 thread, do so.

But you can't defend your candidate's record honestly, can you, Mr Fake Progressive?

My candidate? I'd vote the lesser of two evils. But, to return to my question, who do you believe destroyed the WTC?

 

[underguy1]

My candidate? I'd vote the lesser of two evils. But, to return to my question, who do you believe destroyed the WTC?

Well you've certainly been shilling for her. Aren't you one of those Nulabour plastic progressives? A Blairite scum?

You sure read like one.

 

[Sean]

Well you've certainly been shilling for her. Aren't you one of those Nulabour plastic progressives? A Blairite scum?

You sure read like one.

No, I'm not. Can you point to where I ever have?

Who destroyed the WTC?

 

[underguy1]

No, I'm not. Can you point to where I ever have?

Who destroyed the WTC?

Post #1 in this thread fits. Just because it is indirect doesn't mean you're not a shill.

Who do you think was responsible for a) the destruction of Libya

b) the destruction of Syria

and c) the 'civil war' in Ukraine?

Also, if you can clear up the 2nd law of thermodynamics that might help your credibility gap.

 

[Conager]

Tell me, underoo, who destroyed the world trade centre?

Trick question. There was no World Trade Centre.

The actual name of that collection of buildings was the World Trade Center. The name of the building is in American Standard English because world trade is conducted in American Standard English.

 

[Conager]

Post #1 in this thread fits. Just because it is indirect doesn't mean you're not a shill.

Who do you think was responsible for a) the destruction of Libya

b) the destruction of Syria

and c) the 'civil war' in Ukraine?

Also, if you can clear up the 2nd law of thermodynamics that might help your credibility gap.

He could, but he gets 50 quid an hour to tutor the likes of you. I'm pretty sure that his physics degree comes from the same source that your economics degree comes from.

 

[underguy1]

Trick question. There was no World Trade Centre.

The actual name of that collection of buildings was the World Trade Center. The name of the building is in American Standard English because world trade is conducted in American Standard English.

Pffft. I honestly laughed out loud at that.

Ya gotta love the self importance.

 

[Saint Peter]

He could, but he gets 50 quid an hour to tutor the likes of you. I'm pretty sure that his physics degree comes from the same source that your economics degree comes from.

Trump Uni?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Repos have been pushing non scandals

Yes, violating national security laws, getting caught by the FBI and then being let go with nothing more than a "Bad Hillary!But really, don't worry about it. " is totally non-scandal.

My candidate? I'd vote the lesser of two evils.

And that would be?

The one that represents everything wrong with our government?

Or the one that represents everything wrong with our society??

Which one is HONESTLY worse? Corrupt warmongering thief? Or bigoted shit bag??

Can anyone REALLY answer that question?

 

[Sean]

Post #1 in this thread fits. Just because it is indirect doesn't mean you're not a shill.

Who do you think was responsible for a) the destruction of Libya

b) the destruction of Syria

and c) the 'civil war' in Ukraine?

Also, if you can clear up the 2nd law of thermodynamics that might help your credibility gap.

What do you want to know about the second law of thermodynamics? I normally charge 50 quid an hour for tutoring, but I'll do you a freebie.
Answer the question, who destroyed the WTC?