Question For Liberals #9

[NYcarbineer]

Only the Right really gives a shit about Hillary Clinton anymore.

Are you saying you lefties have thrown Hillary's carcass to the side of the road?

The liberal wing of the Democratic party never wanted Clinton in the first place.

And what percent of Democrats constitute "the liberal wing?"

Pretty much the percentage that voted for Bernie in the primaries, for starters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only the Right really gives a shit about Hillary Clinton anymore.

Are you saying you lefties have thrown Hillary's carcass to the side of the road?

I'm saying that you wankers on the Right are still obsessed with Hillary Clinton.

You couldn't even admit you threw her onto the ash heap of history. The butt hurt is still very strong with you.

I told you people 2 years ago that Hillary Clinton was a terrible choice for 2016. You weren't paying attention.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Regressives refuse to look in the mirror and admit what they've done

'Regressives' had nothing to do with it. Trump won WI, MI, and PA on economic issues.

I say it, they jump in and illustrate it.

Constantly.

This place is absolutely uncanny.
.

I comprehensively refuted it and you're too retarded to know that. That's the funniest part.

Name a 'regressive' issue that cost Hillary Clinton a state that Obama won.

Why?
.

You are debating someone who doesn't even know he is a regressive.

And can you define a 'regressive', and then prove I fit the definition?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Regressives refuse to look in the mirror and admit what they've done

'Regressives' had nothing to do with it. Trump won WI, MI, and PA on economic issues.

I say it, they jump in and illustrate it.

Constantly.

This place is absolutely uncanny.
.

I comprehensively refuted it and you're too retarded to know that. That's the funniest part.

Name a 'regressive' issue that cost Hillary Clinton a state that Obama won.

Why?
.

Because you've claimed that about a thousand times and have never offered an ounce of credible evidence to support it.

 

[rightwinger]

The Complete (And Ever Expanding) List Of Hillary's Excuses For Election Loss

Hillary has blamed at least 38 factors besides herself for her loss. Liberals, do you buy this, or should Hillary take responsibility for her loss?

Question For Liberals Series

Question For Liberals #1 More Important: Islamic Nationalism, Etc or American Exceptionalism, Etc?
Question For Liberals #2 Is Hillary Clinton racist?
Question For Liberals #3 More egregious; 20 percent uranium to Russians or a legal meeting?
Question For Liberals #4 More felonies committed by Obama, Hillary, Others or Donald Trump?
Question For Liberals #5 18 minutes of Nixon's tapes an impeachable offense?
Question For Liberals #6 Do you respect Bernie Sanders in light of his cuck status?
Question For Liberals #7 Do you consider yourself smarter than Barrack Obama?
Question For Liberals #8 Do you need safe space to cope with President Trump's ascedency?

Why would you believe only one factor led to her loss?
In such a tight election, any of a number of factors could have tipped the scales

Hillary has repeatedly blamed herself for the loss. But also blamed Comey, Russian interference and a changing electorate

 

[Mac1958]

Regressives refuse to look in the mirror and admit what they've done

'Regressives' had nothing to do with it. Trump won WI, MI, and PA on economic issues.

I say it, they jump in and illustrate it.

Constantly.

This place is absolutely uncanny.
.

I comprehensively refuted it and you're too retarded to know that. That's the funniest part.

Name a 'regressive' issue that cost Hillary Clinton a state that Obama won.

Why?
.

Because you've claimed that about a thousand times and have never offered an ounce of credible evidence to support it.

We both know there is nothing I can say to "prove" or "support" anything to someone like you.

Your perceptions and thought processes are so distorted by your hardcore ideology that you are essentially rendered intellectually incapacitated.

You're also a compulsive liar.

But thanks for your continued intense interest in my posts. I guess.
.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Only the Right really gives a shit about Hillary Clinton anymore.

Are you saying you lefties have thrown Hillary's carcass to the side of the road?

The liberal wing of the Democratic party never wanted Clinton in the first place.

And what percent of Democrats constitute "the liberal wing?"

Pretty much the percentage that voted for Bernie in the primaries, for starters.

And what percent is that?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Only the Right really gives a shit about Hillary Clinton anymore.

Are you saying you lefties have thrown Hillary's carcass to the side of the road?

I'm saying that you wankers on the Right are still obsessed with Hillary Clinton.

You couldn't even admit you threw her onto the ash heap of history. The butt hurt is still very strong with you.

I told you people 2 years ago that Hillary Clinton was a terrible choice for 2016. You weren't paying attention.

I don't think you were sounding that horn very loudly.

 

[Mac1958]

There is not a better individual explanation of Hillary's defeat than this, provided by, of all things, a horrified liberal Brit.

The Regressives will deny it, of course. They're too superior, and their 1,000+ nationwide losses just ain't their doing, in any way. Nope. No way.
.

 

[gipper]

'Regressives' had nothing to do with it. Trump won WI, MI, and PA on economic issues.

I say it, they jump in and illustrate it.

Constantly.

This place is absolutely uncanny.
.

I comprehensively refuted it and you're too retarded to know that. That's the funniest part.

Name a 'regressive' issue that cost Hillary Clinton a state that Obama won.

Why?
.

You are debating someone who doesn't even know he is a regressive.

And can you define a 'regressive', and then prove I fit the definition?

You are a regressive and prove it every day with your regressive posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I say it, they jump in and illustrate it.

Constantly.

This place is absolutely uncanny.
.

I comprehensively refuted it and you're too retarded to know that. That's the funniest part.

Name a 'regressive' issue that cost Hillary Clinton a state that Obama won.

Why?
.

You are debating someone who doesn't even know he is a regressive.

And can you define a 'regressive', and then prove I fit the definition?

You are a regressive and prove it every day with your regressive posts.

Cite ten of them.

Note that he can't even define regressive.

 

[gipper]

There is not a better individual explanation of Hillary's defeat than this, provided by, of all things, a horrified liberal Brit.

The Regressives will deny it, of course. They're too superior, and their 1,000+ nationwide losses just ain't their doing, in any way. Nope. No way.
.

Yes...they are in denial. They TRULY BELIEVE their ideas are superior to all others. Those who oppose them are to be vilified, marginalized, and silenced. In their small minds, there is no acceptable ideology other than theirs. This is what makes them regressives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only the Right really gives a shit about Hillary Clinton anymore.

Are you saying you lefties have thrown Hillary's carcass to the side of the road?

The liberal wing of the Democratic party never wanted Clinton in the first place.

And what percent of Democrats constitute "the liberal wing?"

Pretty much the percentage that voted for Bernie in the primaries, for starters.

And what percent is that?

Look it up.

 

[gipper]

I comprehensively refuted it and you're too retarded to know that. That's the funniest part.

Name a 'regressive' issue that cost Hillary Clinton a state that Obama won.

Why?
.

You are debating someone who doesn't even know he is a regressive.

And can you define a 'regressive', and then prove I fit the definition?

You are a regressive and prove it every day with your regressive posts.

Cite ten of them.

Note that he can't even define regressive.

Look in the mirror and voila!!! There is a regressive.

 

[Mac1958]

There is not a better individual explanation of Hillary's defeat than this, provided by, of all things, a horrified liberal Brit.

The Regressives will deny it, of course. They're too superior, and their 1,000+ nationwide losses just ain't their doing, in any way. Nope. No way.
.

Yes...they are in denial. They TRULY BELIEVE their ideas are superior to all others. Those who oppose them are to be vilified, marginalized, and silenced. In their small minds, there is no acceptable ideology other than theirs. This is what makes them regressives.

The illiberal, authoritarian Left. As described by the many honest liberals I have directly quoted over YEARS here.

But the Regressives are too good and too smart to see that.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is not a better individual explanation of Hillary's defeat than this, provided by, of all things, a horrified liberal Brit.

The Regressives will deny it, of course. They're too superior, and their 1,000+ nationwide losses just ain't their doing, in any way. Nope. No way.
.

Yes...they are in denial. They TRULY BELIEVE their ideas are superior to all others. Those who oppose them are to be vilified, marginalized, and silenced. In their small minds, there is no acceptable ideology other than theirs. This is what makes them regressives.

Liberals are winning on the issues. Conservatives continue to lose on the issues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why?
.

You are debating someone who doesn't even know he is a regressive.

And can you define a 'regressive', and then prove I fit the definition?

You are a regressive and prove it every day with your regressive posts.

Cite ten of them.

Note that he can't even define regressive.

Look in the mirror and voila!!! There is a regressive.

See? You're as retarded as Mac, babbling on about something you don't even know the meaning of.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There is not a better individual explanation of Hillary's defeat than this, provided by, of all things, a horrified liberal Brit.

The Regressives will deny it, of course. They're too superior, and their 1,000+ nationwide losses just ain't their doing, in any way. Nope. No way.
.

Ugh. This guy is such a sanctimonious twat. And he's not saying anything that the average non-liberal USMB poster doesn't say either.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Are you saying you lefties have thrown Hillary's carcass to the side of the road?

The liberal wing of the Democratic party never wanted Clinton in the first place.

And what percent of Democrats constitute "the liberal wing?"

Pretty much the percentage that voted for Bernie in the primaries, for starters.

And what percent is that?

Look it up.

I did. But I don't know that our figures match up. Ballpark it. Forty-five percent?

 

[gipper]

You are debating someone who doesn't even know he is a regressive.

And can you define a 'regressive', and then prove I fit the definition?

You are a regressive and prove it every day with your regressive posts.

Cite ten of them.

Note that he can't even define regressive.

Look in the mirror and voila!!! There is a regressive.

See? You're as retarded as Mac, babbling on about something you don't even know the meaning of.

Right back at you.

Be honest now....if you had the power, you would silence me. This is what makes you a regressive.