James Carville claims Platner has issues, but it is necessary to vote for Platner in spite of them

[JoeB131]

I appreciate the honesty. Most people at least pretend that principles and standards are part of the calculation. Now the entire argument seems to be that the behavior isn't actually acceptable—it just needs to be acceptable enough to help your side win -- especially since it goes against everything your party has been preaching over the last few decades

I usually don't waste my time on idiots who talk in hashtags.

Nothing he's done is criminal, unlike the guy you support, who has been convicted of 34 felonies and was indicted for 60 or so more.

 

[pknopp]

I usually don't waste my time on idiots who talk in hashtags.

Nothing he's done is criminal, unlike the guy you support, who has been convicted of 34 felonies and was indicted for 60 or so more.

Locking a woman in a room could in fact be criminal. (not that he has been convicted).

 

[jotathought]

Um, yeah, okay. I wonder how many good people are staying out of politics because they don't want to undergo the kind of moral colonoscopy that Platner is undergoing right now.

Now, I want you to think about the worst thing you ever did in your life.

Should you be judged solely by that thing?

Platner got a dumb tattoo and became caught up in Reddit shitposting culture.

He also served his country, started his own business, and understands what people in this country are going through.

It's remarkable how every issue magically shrinks once it's your candidate. Apparently a controversy isn't a controversy after enough euphemisms.

 

[jotathought]

I usually don't waste my time on idiots who talk in hashtags.

Nothing he's done is criminal, unlike the guy you support, who has been convicted of 34 felonies and was indicted for 60 or so more.

Wait, I thought your argument was that voters shouldn't judge politicians by their character flaws and past conduct.

Now the standard is criminal convictions?

You seem to be changing standards depending on whose name is being discussed.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Carville, who uses the F word in every interview now, is a clearly man of principle.
Can anybody tell me why this weird-looking creep is always on a show?

/—-/ Freaks always draw a crowd.

 

[JoeB131]

Locking a woman in a room could in fact be criminal. (not that he has been convicted).

Oh, is this today's new story, that he "locked someone in a room"?

Checking into it there's no there there, and even the woman in question has criticized the NYT for twisting the story


Funny, for a guy who spends so much time whining about the "Establishment", you are pretty fast to jump on the establishment's last ditch attempt to ignore a populist candidate who agrees with what you want.

 

[JoeB131]

It's remarkable how every issue magically shrinks once it's your candidate. Apparently a controversy isn't a controversy after enough euphemisms.

He's not my candidate; I don't live in Maine.

I've also made it pretty clear I'm less than thrilled with another Bernie Bro as a candidate.

All that said, you have yet to show me anything that I should be upset about. Naughty texts and an ill-considered tattoo? That's the best you have?

Compared to all the shit Trump has done.

Wait, I thought your argument was that voters shouldn't judge politicians by their character flaws and past conduct.

Now the standard is criminal convictions?

You seem to be changing standards depending on whose name is being discussed.

I judge each case on an individual basis. There are some things about Platner I like and some I don't, but at the end of the day, he's a big improvement over Collins having to wipe that bronzer and fecal matter off her nose.

 

[jotathought]

He's not my candidate; I don't live in Maine.

I've also made it pretty clear I'm less than thrilled with another Bernie Bro as a candidate.

All that said, you have yet to show me anything that I should be upset about. Naughty texts and an ill-considered tattoo? That's the best you have?

Compared to all the shit Trump has done.

Trump isn't your candidate either, and the gaslighting over top focus areas that you and your party have leveraged to discredit various candidates suddenly gets downplayed because "it's not my candidate."

I judge each case on an individual basis. There are some things about Platner I like and some I don't, but at the end of the day, he's a big improvement over Collins having to wipe that bronzer and fecal matter off her nose.

Bullshit -- your narrative in a separate thread across the Zimmerman, Rittman and the current Anthony trial -- completely contradicts the "I judge each case on an individual basis." Make up your mind.

 

[JoeB131]

Trump isn't your candidate either, and the gaslighting over top focus areas that you and your party have leveraged to discredit various candidates suddenly gets downplayed because "it's not my candidate."

Trump is the president. That gives me stake in what he does.

After all the scams, self-dealing, sexual assaults, bankruptcies, and one half-ass coup attempt, you really don't get to complain "but, but, but... he has a tattoo!!!"

Bullshit -- your narrative in a separate thread across the Zimmerman, Rittman and the current Anthony trial -- completely contradicts the "I judge each case on an individual basis." Make up your mind.

Guy, try to stick to the topic of this thread. If you want me to destroy your stupidity on the Anthony case, please post in that thread.

 

[Mashmont]

Wait, I thought your argument was that voters shouldn't judge politicians by their character flaws and past conduct.

Now the standard is criminal convictions?

You seem to be changing standards depending on whose name is being discussed.

These guys will change their 'standards' at the drop of a hat. Recall they loved Clinton. They go on about felonies; Clinton actually committed felonies. They go on about rape. Clinton actually raped a supporter. Scam business deals? The Clintons had Whitewater. Adulterer? Clinton was a serial adulterer even while president.

 

[Mac-7]

If I were a democrat who believed in the goals of the democrat party I would vote for Platner

There are no angels or saints in washington

Only our side and their side

 

[pknopp]

Oh, is this today's new story, that he "locked someone in a room"?

Checking into it there's no there there, and even the woman in question has criticized the NYT for twisting the story


Funny, for a guy who spends so much time whining about the "Establishment", you are pretty fast to jump on the establishment's last ditch attempt to ignore a populist candidate who agrees with what you want.

Keep on running poor candidates.....

 

[JoeB131]

These guys will change their 'standards' at the drop of a hat. Recall they loved Clinton. They go on about felonies; Clinton actually committed felonies.

Not really. No reasonable person would have convicted him for lying about Lewinsky.

They go on about rape. Clinton actually raped a supporter.

Nope. Juanita Brodderick lied. How do we know she lied? Because she signed TWO affadavitts saying she never had sex with Clinotn before she claimed she did.

Scam business deals? The Clintons had Whitewater.

Ken Starr spent 70 million dollars and had to admit no wronging on the part of the Clintons

Adulterer? Clinton was a serial adulterer even while president.

And? No one considers adultery a big deal anymore.

 

[jotathought]

Trump is the president. That gives me stake in what he does.

After all the scams, self-dealing, sexual assaults, bankruptcies, and one half-ass coup attempt, you really don't get to complain "but, but, but... he has a tattoo!!!"

Stating that Trump is worse in your own “but, but, but” scenario doesn’t establish that your minimization of Platner is accurate. Relative severity is not the same as accurate characterization.

Guy, try to stick to the topic of this thread. If you want me to destroy your stupidity on the Anthony case, please post in that thread.

I’ve already responded— and quite the opposite outcome Mr. Take it case by case.

 

[JoeB131]

Stating that Trump is worse in your own “but, but, but” scenario doesn’t establish that your minimization of Platner is accurate. Relative severity is not the same as accurate characterization.

Um, no. Everyone has their flaws. If your best argument against Platner is some 20-year-old shit-posting, then you look kind of silly when Trump shit-posts every day. (Has anyone checked Truth Social yet today?)

 

[Failzero]

The Marxist / Islamist Alliance is teh enemy

 

[g5000]

Trump has destroyed all political taboos. MAGAs threw out every last shred of decency and morals in their unwavering support of Trump.

Trump didn't just expand the Overton Window, he nuked it.

So a creature like Platner was inevitable, morons.

I warned you countless times. You should have been able to see this coming from miles and miles and miles away.

MAGAs have ZERO room to whine about Platner.

 

[pknopp]

Trump has destroyed all political taboos. MAGAs threw out every last shred of decency and morals in their unwavering support of Trump.

Trump didn't just expand the Overton Window, he nuked it.

So a creature like Platner was inevitable, morons.

I warned you countless times. You should have been able to see this coming from miles and miles and miles away.

MAGAs have ZERO room to whine about Platner.

But I do and the Democrats need people like me to win. We may not be many but in close races.......

 

[Mashmont]

Not really. No reasonable person would have convicted him for lying about Lewinsky.

He committed perjury and suborned perjury

Nope. Juanita Brodderick lied. How do we know she lied? Because she signed TWO affadavitts saying she never had sex with Clinotn before she claimed she did.

So a Clinton supporter lied, huh. Not allowed to change her mind, I guess. But since we're on that subject, Stormy Daniels also said she never had sex before she changed her story. So I guess Stormy lied too.

Ken Starr spent 70 million dollars and had to admit no wronging on the part of the Clintons

He found plenty of wrongdoing. Witness tampering, perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power

And? No one considers adultery a big deal anymore.

Leftwingers don't. Christians do. Clinton was doing that stuff while in office. Pretty despicable.

 

[JoeB131]

He committed perjury and suborned perjury

The Senate had acquitted him of both. Heck, I don't even think the Subornation of Perjury Charge even made it out of the House.

So a Clinton supporter lied, huh. Not allowed to change her mind, I guess. But since we're on that subject, Stormy Daniels also said she never had sex before she changed her story. So I guess Stormy lied too.

Actually, Daniels was SPECIFICALLY PAID to lie about her encounter with Trump. That's what made it a crime. (Unlike Lewinsky, who never got a dime and was never told to lie.)

He found plenty of wrongdoing. Witness tampering, perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power

Not related to the Clintons and Whitewater. He "found" those things in a civil case that was ruled as invalid by a judge, as the law they were suing under didn't even apply to Clinton. (As he was not Jones' supervisor nor did she suffer any adverse actions, which is what the federal law requires.)

Leftwingers don't. Christians do. Clinton was doing that stuff while in office. Pretty despicable.

Yet "Christian" Trump supporters like Trump, although he cheated on ALL THREE of his wives.