PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
is it sexist to say she's a fucking idiot with no new ideas?......
"Make America Great Again" is racist ( Clinton)
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
OK. i'm not up on PC labeling. I thought that was 'racist' if not 'rascsim'. I see your very narrow trollish point -but I see it.
How about "she lies with malicious intent to deceive?" that's accurate
Bernie is obviously a misogynist
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
No. That's lying political hackery.
That's what you do, Pimp.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
Bernie is obviously a misogynist
And you are obviously a Trumptard.
I can't find the comments googling it.
cawacko
Well-known member
It was during debate #5
Bernie isn't a mysogonist, but in my opinion his comment about Hillary shouting about gun control was a sexist remark.
cawacko
Well-known member
Slate didn't agree with you on that. He said the same comment to Martin O'Malley and many others.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ie_sanders_as_a_sexist_it_s_an_insult_to.html
hmmmm, I need proof, cawacko.
cawacko
Well-known member
watch the debate
I don't care if Slate agrees, or not, it is my opinion and I feel both Bernie and Trump were being sexist.
Okay, so you won't back up your claim, it's okay. I am just not going to believe you, sorry
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...illary-clintons-claim-about-vermonts-gun-pip/
Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with "trafficking." These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests.
cawacko
Well-known member
Don't. Doesn't hurt my feelings. I watched the debate and told annata what was said.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Well if you told anatta she stabbed a baby and drank its blood during the debate, he'd believe it.
I'd have to see the context. For instance, ya'll are missing the context of the OP right here.
Clinton doesn’t use Sanders’ name when she tells this story. She doesn’t have to: Everyone who saw the debate or heard about it knows she’s talking about him. She’s using the story to bond with women, to paint Sanders as a patronizing old fart, and to portray herself as a victim.
Let’s be clear: This isn’t what happened. During the debate exchange, Sanders answered O’Malley with the same point about “raising our voices.” Sanders has been giving this answer for years. He did it in July, after an O’Malley super PAC ad attacked him (“We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades,” said Sanders). He did it again in August, after a male surrogate for Clinton attacked him (“I can get beyond the noise and all of these arguments and people shouting at each other”). He did it again in October, after the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon (“People on both sides of this issue cannot simply continue shouting at each other”). Sanders gives this answer to everyone.
The charitable explanation of Clinton’s behavior is that she sincerely perceived Sanders’ rebuke during the debate as sexist. But if that were true, you’d expect her to have said so in her first accounts of the exchange. She didn’t. She waited more than a week before embellishing the story. She prepared it as a sound bite for social media, and she unveiled it at a women’s forum. And it worked, so she’s still using it.
Enough. Sanders’ record as a feminist is as good as Clinton’s. No honest reading of his career or his comments about guns can construe him as a sexist. Clinton is trying to connect with women who have felt bullied by men, and to turn them against Sanders, by smearing him. And http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...illary-clintons-claim-about-vermonts-gun-pip/
Let’s be clear: This isn’t what happened. During the debate exchange, Sanders answered O’Malley with the same point about “raising our voices.” Sanders has been giving this answer for years. He did it in July, after an O’Malley super PAC ad attacked him (“We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades,” said Sanders). He did it again in August, after a male surrogate for Clinton attacked him (“I can get beyond the noise and all of these arguments and people shouting at each other”). He did it again in October, after the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon (“People on both sides of this issue cannot simply continue shouting at each other”). Sanders gives this answer to everyone.
The charitable explanation of Clinton’s behavior is that she sincerely perceived Sanders’ rebuke during the debate as sexist. But if that were true, you’d expect her to have said so in her first accounts of the exchange. She didn’t. She waited more than a week before embellishing the story. She prepared it as a sound bite for social media, and she unveiled it at a women’s forum. And it worked, so she’s still using it.
Enough. Sanders’ record as a feminist is as good as Clinton’s. No honest reading of his career or his comments about guns can construe him as a sexist. Clinton is trying to connect with women who have felt bullied by men, and to turn them against Sanders, by smearing him. And http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...illary-clintons-claim-about-vermonts-gun-pip/
it's good old Bill Clinton who did the dirty work.
Mike Briggs, spokesman for Sanders campaign, called Bill Clinton's comments "disappointing," in this statement to CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/politics/bill-clinton-sanders-supporters-attacks/
Bill Clinton rips Sanders backers' 'sexist,' 'profane' attacks
Exactly, context matters