Support NeoGAF

[Dreams-Visions]

Pieces of shit.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

True. I will always view everything she does skeptically.

That's a nice euphemism for "there is literally nothing she can do that I won't bash her for it" you got going.

 

[shawnbuddy]

I was sure this had been necro'd from the election. Shows how desperate the GOP is that they're still attacking Clinton.

 

[Dartastic]

Except in this case it was the GOP doing exactly that. On a national platform.

That's what makes it so amusing. Even though the election is long over, Trump and the GOP leadership just can't let go of "BUT HILLARY!"

They don't know how to govern. They're the epitome of the dog who chases a car but doesn't know what to do when they catch it. They need a boogieman.

 

[Steel]

I was sure this had been necro'd from the election. Shows how desperate the GOP is that they're still attacking Clinton.

It almost seems like they wanted her to win so that they wouldn't lose their go-to boogieman.

 

[ZeoVGM]

I worked for the Obama campaign in 2007/2008 and dealt with Clinton bullshit first hand (especially when it became clear she lost), and later saw people I know lose jobs/positions based on who they supported.

The GOP tweeted at her, literally asking her a question.

She responded.

The hell is wrong with you?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

She must give no fucks anymore knowing that her presidency was stolen by Russians and given to a 71 year old man with the brain and hands of a toddler.

 

[MikeyB]

Arguing about what?

I think this a typical Clinton response and why she lost.

You think "she sure showed them" or whatever.

There isn't really much argument to be had.

There is absolutely no reason to listen to anything you have to say solely based on the formal structure of your points. Replace any of the content with Trump or ice cream or puppies... still nonsense.

The problem is one of formal logic. You seem to hold contradictory positions. You say "p" and "not p". That means you can derive anything from whatever system of reasoning you are employing because it is utter nonsense.

That's too bad because the partisan gap needs to be bridged. But to do that, you at least need rules that allow a conversation or even statements within it hold any meaning.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

I find it utterly bizarre a politician would answer a direct question with a link. Yes. Its like if I am at the bar and someone asks what I do for a living I say "go check my linkedin"

I know this has already been mocked to death, but wow.

“The following tweets will be me explaining my healthcare proposal in detail.”

*7,291 tweets later*

“Wait, it’s 2020 already?? I was going to run again but I tweeted right through the election!”

 

[Darryl M R]

So many L's being taken by one person in this thread. Do better honey. Hillary's response was perfect for the situation.

 

[Grug]

Lol at the Trumpies in this thread still doing the "But Clinton hurrrrrrr durrrrr" shit.

In case you didn't realise, the election is over, your guy won, and he shits the bed every single day.

This is the problem with winning, suddenly your guy is under the microscope, and you are reminded seemingly every single hour how badly you fucked up.

 

[ModBot]

That's nice.