I'll try but I make no guarantees.
Brandname said "What was the deal with Hillary's story about knocking down doors with Obama on secret Chinese meetings? What that an embellishment or what?"
You said "Lol..... she had to find a story that tied her to Barack Obama.
Her strategy is to run Obama 2016. Essentially the path of least resistance."
And then "Paul Begala even betrayed this strategy twice on CNN. It's smart but it's unimaginative and shows she really will say or do anything to be president."
Okay.
That's the context of your comments and my initial reply. That's all you said until your response below, so spare the I don't understand you line.
I don't think you understand. You say it yourself in this very post
"is this what we're talking about?"
I think you go out of your way to be argumentative for no reason.
If you don't understand something just ask. If I haven't explained my point enough for you to understand my meaning, then just ask me to elaborate.
Accusing me of bias, outright, is an odd way to get me to respond favorably.
If I did before this post, that's because you didn't articulate your position,
I articulated well enough for everyone else and to my satisfaction. This is
RealCavsFans. Get real man.
and certainly didn't support your claim that she's unimaginative or that she will say or do anything to be president.
Because it wasn't necessary. When people speak and make brief, concise, comments, they don't normally go out of their way to make cases to support claims unless asked.
I learned years ago on this forum not to overstate my case. Just ask some of the old timers around here about my old posting style.. It would go on for pages and no one read it.
Its better to just wait for someone who is interested to ask.
As I said,
just ask.
You misunderstood my post talking about your bias against Clinton, which was very clear to the reader.
I'm the reader, it wasn't clear to me. You didn't say who this bias was toward. I assumed you meant bias towards Obama.
And again, your posts are often too combative, and for no reason.
I haven't cast any aspersions. If people have complained, it is because they take their position being challenged as an attack. If you can give it, then take it.
Give what? Take what? You haven't really made an argument. You've stated that I have bias towards Clinton. This is wrong, and I've explained why.
No. In the context of the conversation, you said that Clinton running as Obama's third term shows she will say anything to get elected.
Yes.
From that context, yes it is ridiculous to say that, because it is a sound political strategy.
This is a non sequitur. Regardless if it is sound political strategy, it still fits the narrative that she would say anything to get elected.
Do you understand what it means to "say anything to get elected," that means you will do whatever and say whatever if it is sound political strategy.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever....
Sure, there are many examples that show Clinton changes her position based on political expediency, but that's not what we were talking about, was it?
That's
exactly what we're talking about.
Obama and Clinton's positions aren't remotely close on a host of issues; they fought, constantly before and during her tenure in the State Department. Yet, she's explaining to the audience that over the course of time she has learned and Obama trusts her judgement.
All of this is false.
Obama appointed her secretary of state as part of a deal to close out the nomination cleanly. Her camp vehemently argued for her to be placed on the ticket, and the Obama camp turned her down as they had absolutely no desire to run with Clinton as VP. So to say "he made me Secretary of State because he values my judgement" is a bald faced lie.
She insulated herself from the rest of the Administration and wanted to largely do her own thing. She dislikes the Obamas and the feeling is mutual. It's absurd that she is claiming now that they worked hand in hand, and the story of he and her "hunting the Chinese" is a joke that elicited laughter and ridicule for good reason.
You bring that up now to support your claim, but that doesn't change the fact that your comment was just a biased barb.
No, you're being absurd and frankly wasting time with this back and forth.
I made a comment, you felt it was biased, I explained to you why I felt that way, and you're frankly upset about me not having said that earlier.
Let it go. I really can't bring myself to care about something so fucking petty man. For Christ's Sake...
I agree with you. I was particularly angered by the dog-whistle racism of the Clinton campaign in the south when Obama started pulling away in 2008.
I was there. So you can understand why I might not think of Clinton in the best light.
I don't think she has said enough at this point about her differences with Obama to make any meaningful statement on whether she is running to his left or right.
Huh? You realize Clinton is and always has been a centrist right? She and her husband both are. They are DLC'ers, you realize what that means, yes?
I don't disagree with much of this, but it is more of a rant against Clinton.
Calling it a rant to discredit my position is silly, this is a message board. Like I said before, it's a waste of time.
But seriously Nate, are you really so naive as to believe that Clinton is to the
left of Obama? Do you really believe she isn't playing politics and changing her positions with the political winds? Do you really believe that she didn't support the Keystone pipeline prior to a few weeks ago?
I mean, seriously?
How does this show that her chosen strategy is unimaginative? What would be an imaginative strategy?
How about running on what you actually believe instead of what will get you elected for starters?