That’s some very aggressive spin. All I get from you is anger towards anyone with a different opinion, you don’t seem open to conversation, you attempt to spin what other people have said, so why should anyone take what you’re saying at face value?
Re the first point, that’s an issue with your system of democracy, (I agree that it’s stupid and outdated) again not an issue with Hilary herself.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with your second point, I think we fundamentally disagree on what democracy is. Electees are there to serve the people who vote them in, if the minority of those people want change then they need to convince the electorate, not the candidates.
For context, I think we probably align quite closely politically, I just feel your expectations are misplaced.
Not at all correct, I’m trying to establish whether you believe Hilary deliberately got trump elected, or whether she screwed up. You seem to be avoiding the answer because it doesn’t fit your narrative, made even clearer by your choice to cut out the key part of my question when paraphrasing. If you aren’t open to a legitimate discussion then there isn’t much point in continuing.
(Paraphrasing, ignoring questions to make your own point etc see the exact traits I see and hate in the right, usually I can have proper honest conversations with fellow lefties so I have to admit I was surprised by your tactics here)
You’ve deliberately avoided answering the question. Promoting one other candidate because you think it’s better for you is a very legitimate strategy, the fact that it backfired is another thing. You seem to be implying that she somehow intentionally screwed everyone over when her intention was clearly to win, other factors had a far greater influence (ie the meddling of other countries)
Candidates are trying to earn the majority vote, not your vote specifically. Democracy is largely about compromise. It’s not about convincing people that you’re right, but about serving the majority. Your issue here is with the majority of voters, not the people seeking their votes.
Do you believe that she actively helped trump over herself, or that she messed up? It’s so much easier with hindsight…in essence you’re making the “the west is responsible for ww2” argument, sure they messed up with the restrictions put on Germany after WW1, but WW2 wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for a bunch of tyrants…
So many people seem to think they have a right to the perfect candidate for them, but democracy is about the best compromise for the masses. (In reply to some of your other comments on this thread)
That’s an absurd take. Fyi I’m from the UK and don’t have any skin in the game, but blaming the opposition instead of the people who are actually causing the issues is just bizarre and kind of self destructive. Yes the DRC made mistakes, but they aren’t responsible for what the GOP have done since.
I agree with this, it was a no win for anyone so the least you could do is stick to the process. All they’ve done is promote an issue and leave a shitload of unanswered questions.
Yea, I thought his comments on it were a bit off tb. He put it on the fact that they have staff with families etc, which is irrelevant because so do Ferrari. It wasn’t a decision he made to save individuals mortgages and any attempt to pass it off as such makes it cringe to me.
So by your logic, Britain has a legitimate claim on the US?
When exactly did Argentina ever control the Falklands though?
Not just less likely to be seen, but now a greater percentage of those views will come from Twitter blue subscribers as well who might not be their intended audience.
Thats my worst nightmare! Their toilet is just a tiny bottle so they’re all gonna be pissing, shitting and puking on each other for days, arguing everytime someone starts hyperventilating. fuck that.
Almost all management contracts have a fraternisation clause. If any of these leaks are true (I don’t see how they are going to prove it at this point and it all seems a bit funky to me) then it would almost definitely be a fireable offence.