Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 31, 2017

"I was outraged when I read, on Twitter of all places, that the president wanted to ban transgender people from serving in the military. You know, and he knows, transgender people have fought and died for this country from our very beginning. They are serving in uniform with distinction right now, and the suggestion that transgender Americans are unfit to serve is insulting and wrong." -- Hillary Clinton, speech to Human Rights Campaign annual gala

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

From the cited article:

"I was outraged when I read, on Twitter of all places, that the president wanted to ban transgender people from serving in the military. You know, and he knows, transgender people have fought and died for this country from our very beginning," Clinton told the crowd, which included the likes of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. "They are serving in uniform with distinction right now, and the suggestion that transgender Americans are unfit to serve is insulting and wrong."
But some apparently cling to the lie that then-candidate Hillary Clinton "...can't even utter the damned word Transgender".

How's that "classic New York liberal" working out?

#1 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-30 04:30 PM | Reply

She has no room to talk.

www.youtube.com

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-30 04:35 PM | Reply

"She has no room to talk." - #2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-30 04:35 PM

She has plenty of room to talk:

In November, voters will have the opportunity to choose between a vetted and vocally pro-LGBT candidate and an ethically insolvent, chaotic carnival barker.

In our endorsement of President Obama's reelection four years ago, we noted his administration's embrace of LGBT rights: "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's moving and historic speech to an international audience of the United Nations' human rights group in Geneva [in December 2011], observing the anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, made the Obama administration's perspective very clear, that LGBT rights are human rights."

And...
Now Clinton has made LGBT inclusion a pillar of her campaign, from the first video announcing her candidacy. She has produced the most complete and impressive LGBT platform of any presidential candidate ever. In it, she has vowed to champion the Equality Act, the legislation that would enact federal nondiscrimination protections with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity. Clinton's policy platform called for an end to the ban on transgender military service -- now officially gone -- an end to quack "conversion therapy" for minors, an end to discrimination against LGBT families in adoptions, improved school conditions for LGBT students, expanded shelters for homeless LGBT youth, affordable treatment for people with HIV, expanded access to PrEP, expanded data collection and other measures to stem the disproportionate violence against trans people, and improved access to correct identification for trans people, along with many other positions that directly affect the rights, health, and welfare of our communities. She has also pledged to continue the United States' work of improving the condition of LGBT people internationally, a natural extension of that pledge made in Geneva.

Clinton has raised these issues with consistency during the primary season, and they have become a hallmark of her campaign heading into the general election.

#3 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-30 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#5

Isn't there a Nazi somewhere you haven't coddled?

And Laura... a judge just blocked Trumps Ban on trangenders in the military. Now you can jine up!

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-30 05:01 PM | Reply

#4 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-30 04:51 PM

So, you claim I'm a troll, but you're the one incapable of admitting that you lied when you claimed all last year that Hillary Clinton "...can't even utter the damned word Transgender".

I'll just have to consider the source, laura.

#7 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-30 06:59 PM | Reply

Hillary has championed LGBT rights for decades, contrary to claims here from some of her detractors on the left.

It's a shame we don't have her in the White House defending transgender troops and others in the LGBT community who are suffering under Trump and the other bigots he brought to D.C. with him.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 10:43 AM | Reply

Hillary has championed LGBT rights for decades, contrary to claims here from some of her detractors on the left.

It's a shame we don't have her in the White House defending transgender troops and others in the LGBT community who are suffering under Trump and the other bigots he brought to D.C. with him.

Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 10:43 AM | Reply

BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FACTS belie your rhetoric Sir.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-31 11:04 AM | Reply

This link is a fact. Hans offered you more facts.

There was one candidate in the last election who speaks up for transgender people. You didn't vote for her. Trump is kicking thousands of transgender people out of the military for no reason and you helped make that possible.

You can keep posting haterade but it won't make your culpability any less obvious.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This woman's service to the country is extraordinary. It's a shame we didn't choose her to lead over the current train wreck.

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-31 11:38 AM | Reply

Extraordinary is certainly one word for it.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-10-31 11:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Who cares what HRC thinks about transgender troops. She is yesterday's news. She is irrelevant. At this point she is a nobody. It is pathetic that so many Trumpers are still obsessing about her and so many of her supporters are still feeling the pitiable need to defend her. Forget her. She is history.

#14 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 11:43 AM | Reply

Forget her. She is history.
#14 | POSTED BY MODER8

It's Herstory, you misogynist.

#15 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-31 11:49 AM | Reply

Outraged? That's nothin. Boaz is expressing his opposition by moving his women's panties to his head for the month of November.

#16 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-10-31 11:53 AM | Reply

Hillary should have run as a transgender. It was her biggest mistake.

#17 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-31 12:14 PM | Reply

#2 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

And Laura, you were once living as a man.

We are all allowed to change.

I've never understood why people criticize politicians for changing their point of view to match their constituents. It's kinda what they are suppose to do, represent their constituents, not represent themselves. While people vote for a candidate that they are most aligned with, it is the job of the representative to put their own bias aside and represent. It's what good politicians don.

#19 | Posted by memyselfini at 2017-10-31 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So are Hillary's detractors okay with kicking transgendered people out of the military.

It is it more of a salivating reflex and they can't pass up a chance to bite at her cankle, no matter the issue.

I'll start with Laura, do you think transgenders should be rooted out of the military?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-31 12:49 PM | Reply

Snoofy you have not once tricked anyone into adopting one of you'd straw men but you get an A for effort.

One day the dream may come true...

#22 | Posted by Sully at 2017-10-31 12:58 PM | Reply

Snoofy, once again you miss the point. Nobody on the left advocates rooting transgenders out of the military. But we could care less at this point what HRC has to say about the issue, regardless of her position.

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 12:59 PM | Reply

- But we

You have a gerbil in your pocket?

She is one of the most accomplished politicians of the last 25 years and came within a statistical fluke in EC of becoming President... after winning the popular vote.

But hey, most HDS victims think everyone else is like them, too.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-31 01:10 PM | Reply

"But we could care less at this point what HRC has to say about the issue, regardless of her position."

In other words, this isn't about transgenders.
It's that you just can't resist those cankles.
Got it.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-31 01:13 PM | Reply

But we could care less at this point what HRC has to say about the issue, regardless of her position.

I think transgender troops trying to save their military careers need all the help they can get from prominent politicians.

It's amazing that you'd rather her say nothing than be a voice for transgender people. I guess you'd rather she be more like Bernie, then? He's hardly been a leader fighting the ban.

#27 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's that we are no longer interested in what last year's losing presidential candidate has to say about the issue. It's time to move on and focus on the current and future voices.

#28 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 01:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- we

You and the gerbil?

She has plenty of room to talk, and plenty of support in the LGBT community for doing so: see #3

Why do you want to muzzle someone that is an accepted spokesperson within that community?

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-31 01:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"It's that we are no longer interested in what last year's losing presidential candidate has to say about the issue."

CHOMP!

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-31 01:30 PM | Reply

www.slate.com

Hillary Clinton Should Be a Gay Rights Icon -- So Why Isn't She?

Hillary Clinton's LGBTQ supporters desperately want her to be a gay rights icon -- or at least a staunch advocate for the community. But given that Clinton is emphatically not a gay rights icon, or even a particularly steadfast ally, this desire has led to some awkward cognitive dissonance. Her apparent position on gay marriage -- leave it to the states -- is about as progressive as Dick Cheney's circa 2004. (It's also constitutionally incoherent.) Her biggest gay rights achievement to date is a single speech that doesn't mention marriage. In fact, until 2013, Clinton's public views on marriage equality seemed to be about the same as Brendan Eich's.

This mixed record -- further blackened, fairly or not, by her association with the man who signed DOMA -- is theoretically forgivable. But Clinton has done almost nothing to encourage the LGBTQ community to forgive her. Her gay marriage metamorphosis in 2013 -- which the Economist dubbed a "farcically late conversion" -- arrived with no attendant mea culpa for her decades of misjudgment. Nor were any such apologies to follow. And when NPR's Terry Gross gently prodded Clinton for an explanation of her evolution in June, Clinton clumsily dodged and wriggled, turning a softball into a painful PR calamity. (In an extraordinary case of scrambled allegiances, some conservatives actually defended Clinton's evasion.)

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-31 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because at this point she does more harm than good. So many tens of millions of Americans have a really negative impression of HRC that it is really best if she just moves on. The election is over. She lost. Her continued insistence on being in the spotlight hurts the causes she supports more than it helps them. Let Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris or Cory Booker make the liberal argument. The only people who really care about what she says are those people who either were her diehard supporters, or viewers of FoxNews who loathe her.

#32 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 01:36 PM | Reply

#32

Only to HDS victims. Tens of millions more Americans had a good enough impression of her to win the popular vote.

Your whining might have some slight semblance of relevance on other issues where she is a natural GOP punching bag and counter-argument, but on LGBT rights? Puh-leeze, lady.

AND I see Laura still isn't answering questions about her guy Trump's trying to run transgenders out of the military....

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-31 01:42 PM | Reply

It's that we are no longer interested in what last year's losing presidential candidate has to say about the issue. It's time to move on and focus on the current and future voices.

#28 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2017-10-31 01:24 PM | FLAG: |

Like Bernie? =)

#34 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-31 01:45 PM | Reply

It's that we are no longer interested in what last year's losing presidential candidate has to say about the issue.

You're creating a different set of rules for Hillary Clinton because you hate her.

No one said Mitt Romney, John Kerry or Al Gore should shut up on the issues after they lost a presidential election. They still were perceived as people who had something to contribute to the public discourse.

Hillary does too. Maybe at some point you'll accept that instead of holding on to 2016 Democratic primary grudges that will put any success in 2018 or 2020 in peril.

#35 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

BB: Difference is, Bernie is a current US Senator. But actually I agree with your underlying which is that it is time for other Dems to step up and be the faces of the Party. Sanders is a rapidly diminishing figure.

#36 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 01:58 PM | Reply

Rcade: I genuinely believe that the greatest threat to Democratic success in 2018 and 2020 is if people continue to view HRC as the Party flag bearer. She is loathed by such a large cross section of this country that her identity as mouthpiece for the Dems is electoral poison. IMO. (That's not hatred of HRC. That's an honest assessment of HRC's CURRENT effect on tens of millions of American voters.)

#37 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 02:01 PM | Reply

I genuinely believe that the greatest threat to Democratic success in 2018 and 2020 is if people continue to view HRC as the Party flag bearer.

She has no chance. She'll be 73 or 77 with two big defeats behind her in 2008 and 2016.

You call Sanders "rapidly diminishing" but he has far more power on the Democratic side today than anybody else. He practically runs the DNC and his voters will be a bigger chunk of the electorate in 2018 and 2020. He may not be the nominee because of his own age, but he'll be the kingmaker.

#39 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 02:22 PM | Reply

She has no chance. She'll be 73 or 77 with two big defeats behind her in 2008 and 2016.

You call Sanders "rapidly diminishing" but he has far more power on the Democratic side today than anybody else. He practically runs the DNC and his voters will be a bigger chunk of the electorate in 2018 and 2020. He may not be the nominee because of his own age, but he'll be the kingmaker.

Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 02:22 PM | Reply

God I hope not or Mars it is.

#40 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-31 02:24 PM | Reply

How many times does she have to say she won't be running again before their HDS goes into remission for some people?

abcnews.go.com

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-31 02:28 PM | Reply

I disagree. Bernie may be savvy enough to align himself with the individual who eventually gets the nomination. But he will not be a "kingmaker". Also, after his decision not to run as a Democrat again in Vermont, I think he has burned a lot of bridges within the Party. As I said above, Bernie is rapidly diminishing. I think in a few months it will become increasingly obvious.

Suffice to say, it appears you and I have very different perspectives not only of Bernie and HRC, but also on how the intra-Party politics is going to play out over the next couple of years. And even though you attribute it to me having a deep hatred of HRC, the truth is that the reason I do want her to be quiet and far less visible is because I absolutely believe she harms the Democrats chances of retaking either house of Congress in 2018. I don't "hate" nearly as much as you and Corky seem to believe. In fact, I don't even consider myself to be particularly anti-HRC at this point. I just want her to go away.

#42 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 02:29 PM | Reply

- I just want her to go away.

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find....

There are millions of women, children, poor, and minorities.... and LGBT... who don't want to lose one of the best spokespersons they have ever had on their issues, whether that person is running for office or just speaking out as a citizen... just because some supposedly lefty snowflakes get all melty when she does.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-31 02:35 PM | Reply

But he will not be a "kingmaker".

His people run the DNC. Candidates will be seeking his blessing to run. The candidate perceived as the Bernie choice will have a huge head start.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In fact, I don't even consider myself to be particularly anti-HRC at this point. I just want her to go away.

These sentences are contradictory.

No one expects a politician to shut up and disappear unless they have a strong personal animus.

Look at Laura. She won't even accept Hillary's help on a transgender issue that affects thousands of soldiers desperately hoping to continue their careers.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 02:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Isn't Bernie intending to run in 2020? I saw Nina Turner recently talking about "Bernie 2020."

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-31 02:45 PM | Reply

Rcade: Again, you are wrong. I have no animus to a lot of politicians who I wish would just go away. Including Bernie Sanders. (Which probably surprises you.) I really want the Democratic Party to move on beyond the 2016 candidates. I have no animus to Sanders or HRC. For the sake of the Democratic Party and our chances of prevailing in next year's elections, I just want them both to get out of the spotlight.

On a separate note, I'm a little annoyed that you proclaim my sentences are contradictory. They are not. You don't have to have animus towards an individual to recognize that the cause you are fighting for would be best served if that individual were not front and center.

#48 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 02:48 PM | Reply

#47

'S'OK, Laura. Your guy Trump is helping your people now, right?

- I have no animus to a lot of politicians who I wish would just go away.

Like he has no history of posting rwinger-worthy anti-Hillary memes here for years... with as much animus as he could muster.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-31 02:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Either that or Turner is setting herself up to run as Bernie's standard bearer:

Among the Bernie faithful the most frequently named fallback candidate isn't the well-known Warren or labor-liberal warhorse Sherrod Brown. It's Nina Turner, a fairly obscure former Ohio state senator who served as an effective surrogate for Sanders during the primary. Turner is a skilled public speaker, she took tough shots at Clinton during the campaign, and she's a black woman whose prominence in the movement Sanders fans feel ought to rebut allegations that it's a white male bro-fest.

www.vox.com

God, I hope not. She's way too divisive and will be seen as unqualified by many.

#50 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-31 02:53 PM | Reply

#50

Yeah, Bernie hasn't dismissed the possibility of running as Clinton has... which is why some HDS suffers are so upset about her running, lol!

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-31 02:56 PM | Reply

To pretend that Kerry or Romney tried to stay in the spotlight like Hillary has is silly. She wrote a book so that the people who failed to make her president could be properly blamed, FFS.

#52 | Posted by Sully at 2017-10-31 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In fact, I don't even consider myself to be particularly anti-HRC at this point. I just want her to go away.

How can she "go away"? If she went away who would the Trump Administration deflect to? She is their favorite boogeyman.

Talk to the Trumpsters...they are so freaked out by they think think she is actually IN the White House now.

Not only is Faux News still calling for her to be "locked up" (never mind that no crime has been committed) but a former Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, on Faux News Saturday urged the public to focus on "the continued lies of the Clinton administration."

#53 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-31 04:37 PM | Reply

...so freaked out by "her" ...

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-31 04:43 PM | Reply

"You can keep posting haterade but it won't make your culpability any less obvious."

You talk about other people's "culpability", but you never acknowledge much less take responsibility for how the abrasive and condescending behavior of Deranged Hillary Supporters pushed independents away from the Democratic Party and helped get Trump elected, and may end up helping him or Pence get reelected.

#55 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-10-31 05:40 PM | Reply

"but you never acknowledge much less take responsibility for how the abrasive and condescending behavior of Deranged Hillary Supporters pushed independents away from the Democratic Party and helped get Trump elected"

So. How much of that you reckon was done by Russian operatives via Facebook and Twitter?

Their goal was to make Americans even more divided on wedge issues; it sounds like it worked.

#56 | Posted by Snoofy at 2017-10-31 05:50 PM | Reply

56

Which means Americans are retarded to be influenced by crap posted on social media.

Americans are ripe to be fooled....every election....hell, every day.

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-31 05:54 PM | Reply

"Which means Americans are retarded to be influenced by crap posted on social media."

If you're just now figuring out that propaganda is effective, well, you're late to the party, but at least you made it eventually.

Seems like quite a few people are intent on thinking all this "freedom of speech" has no effect.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-31 05:59 PM | Reply

Sentinel: I don't acknowledge it because that's complete BS. The idea that people cast their vote because other voters were "abrasive and condescending" is goofy. There isn't a person in the country whose decision came down to "I would have voted for Hillary but some guy was a jerk on a message board." People vote by their self-interest, ideology and party in various percentages.

Besides, everyone here knows that some Trump and Bernie supporters were such jerks the jerk store ran out of them. Only Hillary haterade could make somebody think Hillary's voters were the only ones.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Which means Americans are retarded to be influenced by crap posted on social media.
Americans are ripe to be fooled....every election....hell, every day.

#57 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2017-10-31 05:54 PM | RE

Advertising and propaganda work.

#60 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-10-31 06:15 PM | Reply

While Hillary is speaking out for transgender troops, Bernie is telling people that other issues are "equally or more important":

twitter.com

Bernie always gives ground on any issue he doesn't personally care about. He always wants to pivot away to his issues.

Maybe that's why Hillary is still needed to speak out on LGBT rights. Democrats can't just fight on their own pet issues and leave other Democrats on their own.

#61 | Posted by rcade at 2017-10-31 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hey RCADE pray tell what flavour is this haterade????

#62 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-31 08:30 PM | Reply

[...] Yes, when people are faced with what they perceive as two extremely crappy choices, obnoxiousness from supporters and surrogates does push them away from one or both candidates. Continuing to attack people who voted third party or none of the above will ensure a repeat/continuation of this ----------- in the near future. Is that what you want to happen?

Snap out of it, dude! You're smarter than this.

#65 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-10-31 10:08 PM | Reply

[...] Rcade's desire to defend HRC seems to blind him from the point many of us are making. Namely it is time for us Democrats and liberals to move on and leave 2016 behind. Forget HRC. Forget Sanders. Time to look for new leaders and voices. The voices of 2016 will only ensure the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress. America has considered what HRC and Sanders have to say and electorally gone in a different direction.

#67 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-31 10:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Forget HRC. Forget Sanders."

If people want to forget them, they need to stop talking about them. If Hillary or Bernie say something, just ignore them. And better yet, start talking about those pols you think are/you want to be the future of the Democratic party.

#68 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-31 10:47 PM | Reply

As the saying goes: Hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is. Sometimes people love to hate. It makes them feel empowered, and anger can be empowering.

#69 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-31 11:18 PM | Reply

"Continuing to attack people who voted third party or none of the above will ensure a repeat/continuation of this ----------- in the near future. Is that what you want to happen?"

It's what you want to happen.

Other people are responsible for how you vote.

Precious.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-01 02:35 AM | Reply

As well she should be. After which she should go home.

#71 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-01 08:36 AM | Reply

If I considered all choices equally bad, I could see myself voting for the candidate whose supporters are less obnoxious. And I'm hardly the most spiteful person voting in American elections. I could also see voting just to spite the existing putrid establishment, which definitely helped Trump.

That's not how I voted because ideologues on all sides are more or less equally annoying and there was a decent human being on the ballot. She just didn't win. Keep trying, Jill!

#72 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-01 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Namely it is time for us Democrats and liberals to move on and leave 2016 behind.

Hillary isn't going to disappear just because her presidential hopes are over. She has something to contribute, just like Al Gore did after 2000, and if you don't like it tough.

By telling her to shut up every time she speaks, instead of judging her by what she said, you're the one who won't leave 2016 behind.

All I did is defend her speaking up for transgender rights.

#73 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-01 10:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, when people are faced with what they perceive as two extremely crappy choices, obnoxiousness from supporters and surrogates does push them away from one or both candidates.

Anyone who voted because another voter was obnoxious is too stupid to vote and should skip Election Day altogether.

I voted because of issues and who I thought would be most effective on them. You?

#74 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-01 10:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I was on active duty for 22 years, seen several homosexual soldiers. As far as it goes, they kept their private lives private, and they had no problem. I once saw a battalion commander in Europe tell some busybody he did not want to know who was gay, and STFU. I heard of an individual who got kicked out for wearing his uniform at a gay pride parade, but a soldier who wears his uniform at ANY protest/demonstration will be subject to that penalty. Up to a couple of years ago transsexuals were considered mentally ill. Considering a 40%+ suicide rate, attempted and successful that may be a valid observation. The thing that should be remembered is the military is not a hothouse for social experiments, they are around to tear stuff up and hurt people. Should the government fund sex change drugs and surgeries? That is an issue. Secondly does it detract from the mission? I don't understand someone's desire to surgically mutilate themselves, but it's their dime. -------- are a very small population, and people who have a host of medical conditions like asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, get separated and those conditions require less medical support than a transsexual. Transsexual transformation is elective. Those conditions are not.

#75 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-01 02:54 PM | Reply

"Yes, when people are faced with what they perceive as two extremely crappy choices, obnoxiousness from supporters and surrogates does push them away from one or both candidates."

Fair enough. Here's a list of thousands of twitter handles linked to Russia:

democrats-intelligence.house.gov

Anyone want to make the claim that interacting with some of them might not have influenced how someone voted?

#76 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-01 03:11 PM | Reply

"Anyone want to make the claim that interacting with some of them might not have influenced how someone voted?"

I'm not. I've always said it had a small effect, but probably not a significant one. I think most people are smart enough to tell the difference between fake social media accounts that pop up suddenly and those by people they've seen in real life or on TV, or even ones here that have a long record of posting beyond political activity.

#77 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-01 08:07 PM | Reply

"Anyone who voted because another voter was obnoxious is too stupid to vote and should skip Election Day altogether."

You realize this also applies to people who took the obnoxiousness of Trump's supporters as a factor in their decisions to vote against him, don't you?

You and others have been tellIng people not to vote since before the election if they weren't committed vote for your candidate. Did you ever think saying this might have turned some people off who would have voted for Clinton if you hadn't insulted them? I bet it probably did.

#78 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-01 08:40 PM | Reply

"I think most people are smart enough to tell the difference between fake social media accounts that pop up suddenly and those by people they've seen in real life or on TV, or even ones here that have a long record of posting beyond political activity."

Maybe:

Trump's notoriously Kremlin-friendly national security adviser amplified Russian messages right when they mattered most -- in the days leading up to Nov. 8, 2016.

Flynn followed the accounts Jenn_Abrams, LauraBaeley, Pamela_Moore13, SouthLoneStar, and Ten_GOP. Baeley, Abrams and Moore falsely claimed they were female American Trump supporters. SouthLoneStar claimed it was an account by a "Proud Texan and American Patriot" who featured "Islam is against Western culture" in its Twitter bio.

Flynn's son, Michael Flynn Jr., was an even more ardent consumer of Russian troll content, retweeting the propaganda accounts 47 times in all, according to data in the Polititweet archive. Ten_GOP, an account he retweeted 37 times, benefited the most, with five retweets defending General Flynn, one purporting to debunk Russian election interference, and another pushing misinformation about a Twin Falls, Idaho assault case that Russia was then using to inflame anti-refugee sentiment in the US. The troll account Pamela_Moore13 got eight retweets, and Jenn_Abrams and rightnpr ("Right and Proud") each enjoyed a single retweet from the junior Flynn, who also favored the Russian account USA_Gunslinger ("Gunslinger Girl" from "Wisconsin") with a personal reply on election day.

www.thedailybeast.com

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

#79 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-01 10:26 PM | Reply

You realize this also applies to people who took the obnoxiousness of Trump's supporters as a factor in their decisions to vote against him, don't you?

My sentence you quoted already answered your question.

You and others have been tellIng people not to vote ...

This is complete --------. I've never told anybody in my life not to vote. I've told young people I know who were voting for Republicans that even though I disagree with their choice they should make sure to vote. The comment I just made was obviously facetious. Next time stick to reality and avoid making a damn fool of yourself.

#80 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-02 12:19 AM | Reply

Rcade... your #35: "No one said Mitt Romney, John Kerry or Al Gore should shut up on the issues after they lost a presidential election"

Real Clear Politics:
Romney Needs to Shut Up and Go Away
www.realclearpolitics.com

How again are these different rules for Hillary?

#81 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-11-02 10:28 AM | Reply

blog.nj.com

Oh shut up, Mitt! You're a bad loser and a worse liar

#82 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-11-02 10:50 AM | Reply

Mitt Romney needs to GO AWAY - YouTube
Video for Mitt romney needs to go away▶ 1:17
www.youtube.com
Nov 19, 2016 - Uploaded by lionel verney
Mitt Romney RNC Speech (COMPLETE): 'When the World Needs Someone ... You Need an American ...
Todd Miller - Mitt Romney needs to go away like the... | Facebook
www.facebook.com
Mitt Romney needs to go away like the Clintons and Bush family. Mitt Romney doesn't have the character integrity and dignity to tell President Trump that...
Mitt Romney Won't Go Away | RealClearPolitics
www.realclearpolitics.com
Jan 18, 2015 - That's the general consensus among America Republicans this week, as 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney continued to ...
Romney Needs to Shut Up and Go Away | RealClearPolitics
www.realclearpolitics.com
Nov 16, 2012 - There is a way to handle defeat gracefully. But Mitt Romney never does anything gracefully. That speech in which he blamed his loss on "gifts" ...
Mitt Romney Needs to Just Go Away Already - The Daily Banter
thedailybanter.com
Jun 19, 2015 - Circa 2012, President Obama, as we all know, defeated a wealthy Republican candidate by the name of Mitt Romney. At approximately 11 p.m. ...
Michael Reagan to Romney: 'Time to Shut Up' - Newsmax.com
www.newsmax.com
May 12, 2016 - Political commentator Michael Reagan told Newsmax TV on Thursday that "the only person who needs to shut up is Mitt Romney" on whether ...
Why would anyone want Mitt Romney's political advice? | New York Post
nypost.com/2016/03/02/why-would-anyone-want-mitt-romneys-political-advice/
Mar 2, 2016 - Mitt Romney is back, offering to share the sage political wisdom that won ... Mitt Romney and Donald Trump Reuters (2) ... Just go away, Mitt.
Mitt Romney is thinking about running for Senate in 2018 – TheBlaze
www.theblaze.com/news/.../mitt-romney-is-thinking-about-running-for-senate-in-201...
Feb 6, 2017 - Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney admitted that he is mulling over a run for the U.S. Senate in 2018. He made the comments to ...
Mitt Romney needs to go away!!!!must watch video | Trap Shooters Forum
www.trapshooters.com › Trap Shooting Forums › Off Topic Threads
Jun 16, 2016 - 4 posts - ‎4 authors
Mitt Romney is a poor loser, Can the GOP just get behind Trump Already. ... I agree with you that he needs to go away and keep his mouth shut.
Mitt Romney blasts 'fraud' Donald Trump -- 4 years after calling ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../mitt-romney-blasts-fraud-donald-trump-4-years-afte/
May 17, 2016 - Mitt Romney in 2012 called the endorsement of Donald Trump a "delight" and an "honor" and praised the businessman's job creation record ...

#83 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2017-11-02 10:51 AM | Reply

"The comment I just made was obviously facetious."

It was not at all obvious, and it's puzzling to me that you think it was.

"Next time stick to reality and avoid making a damn fool of yourself"

One of us is obviously oblivious to how we're coming across to others.

#84 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-02 01:01 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort