|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 29 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens. Who would really be upset if Trump picked her other than the neoconservatives who already hate Trump? I think that picking Romney would piss more people off.
Those same people, including many Democrats, would be hell of a lot more unhappy with her than with John Bolton or Mitt Romney.
|
On November 29 2016 02:15 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens. Who would really be upset if Trump picked her other than the neoconservatives who already hate Trump? I think that picking Romney would piss more people off. Those same people, including many Democrats, would be hell of a lot more unhappy with her than with John Bolton or Mitt Romney.
Trump's loyalists are really strongly going to bat against a Romney pick though. It's really hard to give the finger to your loyalists that way and I'm not sure he would go through with it.
|
On November 29 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens. Rumors are rumors, yet it's an escape hatch from the other options that are all in hot water for various reasons. I think some are DOA and others have made too many enemies to be viable. Gabbard is weirdly in line with a lot of what Trump says he wants. Here's an article by the way: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-who-you-think-she-is.html
Eh, that article calls Bannon a white nationalist. I'd be a little cautious believing some of the stuff that's in there about Gabbard.
|
On November 29 2016 02:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:15 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens. Who would really be upset if Trump picked her other than the neoconservatives who already hate Trump? I think that picking Romney would piss more people off. Those same people, including many Democrats, would be hell of a lot more unhappy with her than with John Bolton or Mitt Romney. Trump's loyalists are really strongly going to bat against a Romney pick though. It's really hard to give the finger to your loyalists that way and I'm not sure he would go through with it.
Yeah, it looks like Trump's consideration of Romney is causing real problems in his camp. I can't imagine anyone else whom Trump may consider spurring that kind of response.
|
On November 29 2016 02:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:17 LegalLord wrote:On November 29 2016 02:15 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens. Who would really be upset if Trump picked her other than the neoconservatives who already hate Trump? I think that picking Romney would piss more people off. Those same people, including many Democrats, would be hell of a lot more unhappy with her than with John Bolton or Mitt Romney. Trump's loyalists are really strongly going to bat against a Romney pick though. It's really hard to give the finger to your loyalists that way and I'm not sure he would go through with it. Yeah, it looks like Trump's consideration of Romney is causing real problems in his camp. I can't imagine anyone else whom Trump may consider spurring that kind of response.
One word.... Jeb... though we both know that is a bridge too far
|
Yeah I guess Romney isn't the typical nevertrumper, he really went out of his way to stop trump and would rather have seen hrc in the whitehouse. Let's see how much trump cares for the opinion of his base, I trust his judgement and wouldn't mind a Romney pick. I'm more surprised by Romney's flip flop to want to serve as a SoS than trump's consideration of him for the post. Ultimately I don't think he's going to get it, I predict Tulsi for SoS.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 29 2016 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens. Rumors are rumors, yet it's an escape hatch from the other options that are all in hot water for various reasons. I think some are DOA and others have made too many enemies to be viable. Gabbard is weirdly in line with a lot of what Trump says he wants. Here's an article by the way: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-who-you-think-she-is.html Eh, that article calls Bannon a white nationalist. I'd be a little cautious believing some of the stuff that's in there about Gabbard.
I have a different reason for being skeptical mostly related to the characteristics and understanding of the Middle East and Islam. Whenever is in that article doesn't come across as convincing.
Also this link: relax restrictions on Indian immigration is total garbage. A lot of stuff doesn't check out.
|
On November 29 2016 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On November 29 2016 02:05 TanGeng wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. Is this really on the table? Tulsi Gabbard might be the principled anti-war SoS that Trump needs when focusing inward. It would be weird but interesting tie up of the anti-war left and right. There are going to be a lot of unhappy people if it really happens. Rumors are rumors, yet it's an escape hatch from the other options that are all in hot water for various reasons. I think some are DOA and others have made too many enemies to be viable. Gabbard is weirdly in line with a lot of what Trump says he wants. Here's an article by the way: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-who-you-think-she-is.html Eh, that article calls Bannon a white nationalist. I'd be a little cautious believing some of the stuff that's in there about Gabbard.
I don't fully like it. I saw it a while ago and I wouldn't have linked it if I didn't hear about Gabbard later on. Still, it's an intro worth examining at the very least if you're not familiar with her odd side.
|
On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true.
she's an opportunist. that's pretty much it.
i mean, after the nonsense she pulled in the primaries (who she's not particularly close to ideologically) she knows that the democrats aren't going to take her back. still, she got some nice publicity from it. and now she potentially gets to be a token minority/female democrat in the trump administration.
|
On November 29 2016 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. she's an opportunist. that's pretty much it. i mean, after the nonsense she pulled in the primaries (who she's not particularly close to ideologically) she knows that the DNC isn't going to take her back. still, she got some nice publicity from it. and now she potentially gets to be a token minority/female democrat in the trump administration.
Aren't the democrats all about token minority/female positions though? There was a hrc supporter who shamelessly said "we don't need any more white people in charge of the DNC" on live television and no one said anything. Lol
|
A lot of different reports coming from Ohio Uni, some saying it was a shooter, some a knife attack while others are now saying "a terrorist cell attack".
|
On November 29 2016 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. she's an opportunist. that's pretty much it. i mean, after the nonsense she pulled in the primaries (who she's not particularly close to ideologically) she knows that the democrats aren't going to take her back. still, she got some nice publicity from it. and now she potentially gets to be a token minority/female democrat in the trump administration.
If she really gets an SoS position I wouldn't call that a "token" post though.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 29 2016 02:39 biology]major wrote:
Aren't the democrats all about token minority/female positions though? There was a hrc supporter who shamelessly said "we don't need any more white people in charge of the DNC" on live television and no one said anything. Lol
Supporters say the darnest things. Let's not open that can.
|
Dare I say the entire idea of thoughts and ideas of supporters shouldn't ever even be a topic of discussion. Duke doesn't make Trump the KKK and random SJWs doesn't make democrats as a whole SJWs.
|
On November 29 2016 02:03 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 23:06 farvacola wrote:given that our President-Elect is claiming that millions of votes were tabulated fraudulently, I guess it's time to push for a national recount  What do you think of Greg Palast's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast) allegations that through the crosscheck program many black and latino votes were incorrectly not counted? For people who don't know the crosscheck program is a program to discover voters who illegally voted more than once in different states. So the numbers from his site for Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina are: Show nested quote +Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393 To me this is a high number of people who supossedly comitted electoral fraud - over 1 million people in just three states. Are these numbers comparable to previous elections?
What's up with this, is this legit in any way? Cause there is zero chance electoral fraud comes anywhere near that high
|
I'm not sure that I'd equate the frequency of David Duke-types supporting Trump to the frequency of democrats proclaiming that white males need to be removed from power.
|
On November 29 2016 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 00:47 ChristianS wrote:On November 29 2016 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2016 00:18 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 22:35 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 17:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2016 15:32 ChristianS wrote:On November 28 2016 14:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't really want to know what kind of people believe that 'black lives matter' implies that other lives don't matter, but that's definitely not a problem of the BLM movement. I don't think that's a true reflection of the BLM movement, but the two most common responses to "#blacklivesmatter" are "#alllivesmatter" and "#bluelivesmatter". The first reflects the criticism that BLM doesn't include non-black lives, the second that BLM incites violence against cops. Both should be easily dismissed, and yet both have been very influential. No, that's because people are stubborn, and proudly ignorant. If you didn't know what they wanted it's because you didn't even make the most basic attempt to figure it out . Nothing to do with their messaging. I'm tired of "well-meaning liberals" perpetuating this excuse for ignorance. If people are ignorant it's not BLM's fault, not only are their policy ideas easily accessible to anyone who mounts even a 1st grade level attempt of information gathering, again, the core concepts aren't new. They are the same things that have been expected for generations, only for stubborn white people to assure us if we only explained it better then they would recognize the atrocity they are ignoring. The same could be said about the liberals who aren't disgusted by our governments behavior regarding Standing Rock. So anytime anyone suggests it's reasonable to blame BLM's messaging, I'm going to promptly inform the poster of how rankly ignorant that position is. Hey, you know what i've never had to do? Google the NRA's positions. And yet I know off the top of my head what they want. Sure, if I was writing a research paper on BLM or some shit, I'd Google around for what they want. Then I'd try to figure out who the hell wrote those websites, and whether they're representative of the movement. And I'm sure all of that would be a lot of fun. But again, if I hired a marketing team to raise awareness and positive associations with my company, and after a year most people aren't quite sure what they do, but on average they vaguely dislike us, that's a failure in marketing. And if the marketing team defended itself by saying it's not their fault, people are ignorant and if they wanted to know whst my company does they could have just looked up our website, that's missing the fucking point. Messaging is marketing, and marketing is about meeting the population where they're at, not shitting on them for not being the type of people you'd prefer to market to. But we're talking in circles and you can't seem to argue with someone without asserting your superiority and their rank ignorance, so hey, let's call the whole thing off, eh? You're arguing googling a question is too much work to find out a position someone claims they have any desire to know. (Just let that sink in for a moment) If they don't care to know (but think their opinion worth consideration), that is a character flaw in them. That's fine for them, but let's not pretend it's bad messaging (BLM isn't some random company). That you would compare BLM to the NRA is confounding, unless placed in the context of you not knowing why that comparison is absurd to the point of being insulting. But let's entertain your notion for a moment, you said you "know off the top of my head what they want". What's that? Well we went a post without you insulting my intelligence, but now apparently I've insulted you by drawing an analogy between one political advocacy group and another, so seriously, let's drop it, okay? Clearly you have no desire to acknowledge that BLM messaging is not necessarily accomplishing its goals, and I've no desire to be repeatedly accused of rank ignorance. I think I've made my point clearly enough but you obviously don't think so, why not leave it at that? No, I'll be alright, you aren't dodging knowing what the NRA wants off the top of your head are you? Don't know how to prove I didn't google anything, so I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, although maybe off the top of my head is ignorant enough it'll be apparent I didn't cheat: The NRA wants the right to bear arms not to be infringed, notably with little or no concern for what that has to do with a well-regulated militia. That makes them mostly a group of opposition - opposed to gun waiting periods, opposed to regulating gun shows, opposed to stringent background checks, opposed to limiting high capacity clips. It seems like the natural extreme of their position would be allowing private citizens to purchase RPGs and hellfire missiles and nukes, and I don't know where they draw the line with rhetoric. I assume they say something like "military-grade gear" shouldn't be legal, with the notable exception of ARs. Of course, where they draw the line with what weapons should be illegal doesn't seem to matter much, because they seem to spend most of their time opposing gun control measures rather than supporting measures that expand gun rights. How'd I do? + Show Spoiler [@TanGeng] +
Couldn't figure out how to PM you from my phone, but was that warning directed at me? If you want me to stop engaging with GH or something I'll happily oblige, just want to clarify what you want.
Ok so you know that off the top of your head, you assert, because of their marketing/messaging. You didn't understand why the NRA was a bad comparison, so let me ask some questions that I think may illuminate that. When was the NRA created? When was BLM created? Since people have liked to use the random business example, would you say that comparing the brand recognition of Coca Cola and Jones Soda is a fair comparison on it's face? Or that Jones Soda isn't as well known as Coca Cola because they are doing a poor marketing job?
Okay, now we're talking! If your point is that the NRA is an unfairly high mark for comparison, you're right. The NRA is one of the biggest and most well-known names in political advocacy. If I worked at Jones Soda and thought our marketing team was doing a bad job because we weren't as ubiquitous as Coke I'd be an idiot.
Let's go back to a question you were bringing up. Is a simple Google search too much to ask? That might seem silly to say, but let's talk seriously about it. You appear to claim that a simple Google search is sufficient to understand what BLM is and what it supports. I claim that misconceptions about BLM are all over the place, and are severely hurting their brand. If both claims are right, that means apparently putting the information out there in view of a simple Google search is not sufficient to dispel those misconceptions. You might say if people can't be bothered to type two words into Google and read the first couple search results, those people are stubbornly ignorsnt and their opinions shouldn't matter. And maybe they shouldn't. But they do! That's the voting populace!
To go back to the business analogy, if you launch a new product line, but the only information you put out about it is on your website, nobody will know about it. Unless you pay for some advertising (hey everyone, check out our new product!) or get some free publicity (news report: McRib is back!), putting it on your website will get you nowhere. If it's stocked in stores you get some publicity just from having shelf space. If you depend on online orders, though, you need an advertising campaign.
BLM doesn't really operate through TV spots and the like - to my knowledge they don't have the money - so they get most of their publicity through protests. That publicity often reinforces, rather than dispels, the idea that BLM is an extremist group that incites violence, including against police officers. If those are misconceptions, and I'd like to believe they are, they're not being combatted effectively from what I've seen.
|
On November 29 2016 02:53 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not sure that I'd equate the frequency of David Duke-types supporting Trump to the frequency of democrats proclaiming that white males need to be removed from power.
Frequency is irrelevant since neither represents the intentions of the party. And debating frequency of SJW'ism vs racism is a silly conversation that goes nowhere.
|
On November 29 2016 02:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:03 Banaora wrote:On November 28 2016 23:06 farvacola wrote:given that our President-Elect is claiming that millions of votes were tabulated fraudulently, I guess it's time to push for a national recount What do you think of Greg Palast's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast) allegations that through the crosscheck program many black and latino votes were incorrectly not counted? For people who don't know the crosscheck program is a program to discover voters who illegally voted more than once in different states. So the numbers from his site for Michigan, Arizona and North Carolina are: Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393 To me this is a high number of people who supossedly comitted electoral fraud - over 1 million people in just three states. Are these numbers comparable to previous elections? What's up with this, is this legit in any way? Cause there is zero chance electoral fraud comes anywhere near that high
looked into it a bit, but not enough to tell reliably. so take all I say here with several grains of salt.
looked possible.
It's not actual electoral fraud, which is indeed very rare;
what it may or not involve is voter suppression.
As a practical point, when people move and register to vote somewhere else, their old voting place is supposed to be notified so people can't vote twice. But systems aren't perfect, especially when you cross state lines, so sometimes they aren't. The system is supposed to help spot such issues so they can be corrected. People also move all the time, and don't always inform the gov't in much if any detail.
There are concerns that, in some instances, the purges appear to disproportionately affect certain groups.
This article seems not terrible and on-point:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/do-voter-purges-discriminate-against-poor-minorities-n636586
the tldr of the long article, at least from what I read of it; is that they generally don't discriminate; in a few jurisdiction they do appear discriminatory. and they appear to affect very poor voters (of all races) worse than average (very poor voters tend to be democratic voters iirc).
|
On November 29 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. she's an opportunist. that's pretty much it. i mean, after the nonsense she pulled in the primaries (who she's not particularly close to ideologically) she knows that the democrats aren't going to take her back. still, she got some nice publicity from it. and now she potentially gets to be a token minority/female democrat in the trump administration. If she really gets an SoS position I wouldn't call that a "token" post though.
i wasnt referring to the position as token, rather her inclusion in any capacity is more due to certain characteristics that dont appear on a rather thin resume.
On November 29 2016 02:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2016 02:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 29 2016 01:48 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of appointments, rumor mill has it that Tulsi Gabbard is in the running for SoS and that Romney is in trouble with some important Trump loyalists like Conway. You probably know her as the lady who supported Sanders in the primary and was criticized by the DNC for it. What you may not know is that she also has a strange history of supporting far right positions, and in a previous marriage she was associated with a Hindu cult of some sort. A strange person all in all.
I'd be ok with that option, if the rumors really are true. she's an opportunist. that's pretty much it. i mean, after the nonsense she pulled in the primaries (who she's not particularly close to ideologically) she knows that the DNC isn't going to take her back. still, she got some nice publicity from it. and now she potentially gets to be a token minority/female democrat in the trump administration. Aren't the democrats all about token minority/female positions though? There was a hrc supporter who shamelessly said "we don't need any more white people in charge of the DNC" on live television and no one said anything. Lol
this is the same sort of logic you used to arrive at your conclusion about personal responsibility vs making more rules isnt it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
8011
1903
173
104
EPT
