seattle.politics

Al wrote:
> In article ,
> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>
>> Al wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Al wrote:
>>>>> In article ,
>>>>> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Al wrote:
>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Al wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>>>> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Al wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>>>>>> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Al wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerman < @ > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < @ >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 5:33 am, dangerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Al wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Among the major findings:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The networks offered nearly twice as much coverage of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats. More than half of all campaign segments (284, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 55%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Democratic contest, compared with just 152 (29%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boy is that dumb. It's because there are twice as many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidates,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Barbie said, math is so subjective!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I meant credible candidates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that pretty much makes your point moot then.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you don't know what moot point means.
>>>>>>>>>>> Your qualifier took it from a mathematical absolute to an issue of
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> opinion, so your original statement is inoperative - you have
>>>>>>>>>>> abandoned
>>>>>>>>>>> your claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But now that we're in the realm of opinion, there are, to my eye,
>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>> credible dem candidates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am looking forward to Rudy asking her in debate "could you list
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> accomplishments in the public and private sector"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pin-drop.
>>>>>>>>>> Gosh, I wish someone would have asked George Bush that question.
>>>>>>>>> Two-term governor meant something, I guess.
>>>>>>>> Did you really not know that Hillary Clinton is a US Senator for NY?
>>>>>>>> What a fucking idiot.
>>>>>>> The part you snipped:
>>>>>> That's irrelevant. You claim that Bush being governor of Texas qualifies
>>>>>> him to be president, but Clinton's experience as Senator doesn't,
>>>>> No, I didn't state that.
>>>> Yes, but it *is* what you meant. If you really mean Clinton has the
>>>> experience to be President, just say so.
>>> I really mean she's pretty much a garden-variety empty suit with strong
>>> socialist and marxist philosophy, so she certainly has the
>>> qualifications to be the dem candidate.
>> What is your argument that demonstrates she has a "strong socialist and
>> marxist (sic) philosophy"?
>
> Almost two decades of familiarity with her philosophy, her statist and
> collectivist approach. Garden-variety stuff, nothing earth-shattering,
> she is a democrat after all.

But none of that demonstrates a "strong socialist and marxist (sic)
philosophy." So you have withdrawn your claim then.

>> Given her election as a US Senator, and given her education and other
>> years of experience in politics, what is your argument that she is an
>> "empty suit"?
>
> Based on her accomplishments, her philosophy, her history. She may be
> just dandy as a NY Senator, and I suspect she'll keep that job as long
> as she wants.

So, again, your claim that she is an "empty suit" is false.