Comments by "Clint Holmes" (@clintholmes2061) on "" video.

Wylliam If you have trouble understanding why so many have trust issues look no further then Obama. Hope and change was same ole same old. And the lesson we learned is that first and foremost if you want know how credible a politician's rhetoric is follow the money. Politicians represent who got them there (as in who pays for their campaigns). She still loves takes dirty money so, while the rhetoric is nice and a small win, it does not mean that we are going to blindly trust her because she talks a good game. Obama talked a great game. Then he gave us republican health care, and more war, and persecuted journalists, and made the bush tax cuts permentant, and...
19
Sorry but few things are as predictive of future behavior then authenticity and for that reason we will continue to use it. We also criticize her specifically because of her behavior and who she supports. Regarding, "But that is a chance we will have to take." No. It absolutely isn't. Especially when this is an effort to try and give a presidential run a try.
12
While I agree that this is a good thing and should be praised it is not nearly as meaningful as it would have been had her vote been meaningful... which it wasn't. I suspect that had she had the deciding vote and not a meaningless one it would have been different. Sadly we can't know for sure and I concede this is merely speculation.
6
I see now FrozenWolf totally beat me to the point. Well said frozen. I totally agree.
6
Missteps? You mean like her current pattern of supporting corporatists? You mean like her continuing to take dirty money? Look, it is a win. But a small one. And I'm not going to pretend it is more then that.
4
Regarding, "provide me with a link that shows she's taking dirty money." I've been saying this a lot lately. If you want to know who a politician represents follow the money. Politicians represent the people that get them into office and it isn't hard to understand why. Kirsten has gotten 68 percent of her money from big money. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00027658 Regarding, "You voting for her or supporting her is irrelevant when talking about her potential support if she became President." You think I'm alone in my beliefs? Regarding, "I was stating the obvious, if she had more dems in, it would be easier for her to pass a progressive platform." Only if they are democrats who are interested in passing progressive policies and you are being naive if you think corporate dems are interested in that. Regarding, "when you have more than a hunch about the pandering, let me know." The one thing I learned from being fooled by Obama was follow the money to know who someone actually represents and to know if they are pandering or sincere. Regarding, "walking the walk." I guess we have to agree to disagree about her actually doing this.
3
ginsengaddict regarding, "I did check." Look more closely. 68 percent of her money comes from big money so unsurprisingly that is who she represents regardless of some meaningless pandering. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00027658
3
SBlackmare really? You can't take 2 seconds to research it yourself? https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/kirsten-gillibrand-endorsed-andrew-cuomo-over-cynthia-nixon.html https://www.businessinsider.com/kirsten-gillibrand-endorses-cuomo-for-governor-cynthia-nixon-2018-3 http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/379412-gillibrand-endorses-cuomo-for-reelection https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-endorses-andrew-cuomo-for-new-york-governor-over-cynthia-nixon/ thehill.com/homenews/campaign/379412-gillibrand-endorses-cuomo-for-reelection
2
There is nobody whose comments I love more consistently then yours.
2
There is a big difference between meaningless pandering and "becoming more progressive."
2
Blessing regarding, "quite a bit by Russian meddling." I find this funny because you sound like one of David Brock's Correct the Record trolls. That is also why I don't really take the things you say very seriously. Regarding, "he pretty much brutalized Hillary" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I love Bernie and side with him on almost everything (that said he is not perfect nor do I pretend he is) and have spent lots of time addressing him not being harder on Hillary. And those people's opinions I understand. Yours is fucking absurd and revisionist history. Regarding, "Jill Stein further muddied the water by taking away just enough votes to make a difference in the swing states." Total bullshit and absolutely false. You either suck at math, are stupid as fuck, or, most likely in my opinion, are a paid liar. Hillary could have gotten every single Jill Stein vote even thou there is no reason to logically think she should have and Hillary still loses. Regarding, "The country is neither far right nor far-left." Meanwhile, despite your rhetoric, literally every single major issue Bernie Sanders advocates for is popular with the public? Regarding, " The Democratic nominee must be able to attract some moderate Republicans in order to win." And you only have to sacrifice 2 voters that should be your base to do it. This talking point was tried and is proven to be a way to lose. Regarding, "If by some chance Bernie ends up as the Democratic nominee, he will have zero Republican support." Which is fucking bullshit because some republicans recognize that he is genuine and not a sell out. Meanwhile all polling before 2016 showed that Sanders would have fucking crushed Trump and was getting about 10 points more than Hillary. I hope for your sake you are being paid to say this stupid shit and are not really this dumb.
2
Regarding, "She doesn't take pac money" Corporate PAC money is but one example of dirty money. Regarding, "I get the logic. Get more dems in" It isn't about getting dems in. It is about getting the right dems in and keeping the wrong dems out. And the wrong dems to her include AOC and Nixon. Regarding, "Would make it easier for her if she did win the presidency." I will not support her for President. Regarding, "The left has pushed one of the potential bigger names in the 2020 election to move far left on multiple issues." I would be more impressed if I thought this was more than meaningless pandering. But I am convinced it is. Shit, even Trump has talked in the past about universal health care. Ultimately there is a world of difference between pandering and conviction.
2
Blessing it's been a couple years since the last presidential election and still fuckers like you have nothing better to push your corporate shills then better then Trump. That shit wasn't compelling in 2016 and it still isn't compelling today. You need to be able to give the people something to vote for and not just something to vote against.
2
At Home regarding, "you tube comments are being purchased by extreme right wing social media farms." Let's not pretend that the "extreme right" is the only one who engages in this unethical behavior. Let's not forget about Hillary Clinton's superpac Correct the Record that spent MILLIONS during the election to do exactly that and those same people continue doing it to this day. Another reason the "democratic" party is impossible to take seriously when they pretend to have moral high ground. They demonstrate they have none and have no problem doing the same things they "oppose" when it serves their interests.
1
SBlack regarding, "There's no such thing as a meaningless vote." Are you intentionally missing the point or are you stupid?
1
SBlack regarding, "I ask you the same." Only because you are an idiot with comprehension issues. The first thing I said was, "While I agree that this is a good thing..." as in meaningless is not be taken literally but in context. You said you were smarter then Trumptards elsewhere but I fail to see it.
1
Blessing regarding, "None of the Democrats voted for Trump's military budget." Except for all the ones who did. Are you intentionally lying or ignorant? 38 percent of them in the house and 76 percent of them in the senate voted in favor. The overall votes were not even close. The increase in military spending alone would have MORE than covered Bernie's "unaffordable" plan to provide college education... but that would have been for books and students... there's no money for that. We are talking about bombs and death... there is always money for that. That is where both major parties can find common ground.
1
Blessing regarding, "I am not sure her success can be repeated in every part of the country" Yup. But not for the reasons you think. It has more to do with a corrupt corporate party actively working against progressives. AOC had to overcome media blackout and a party who did everything they possibly could to tip the scales against her. As for everything else you said it is just as absurd and misguided. I've already address those stupid as fuck talking points too often to want to do it again with you. The "democratic" party should know what it takes to get my vote. I've told them repeatedly. But they don't care. They care more about preventing progressives from getting into office then they care about preventing people like Trump from getting into office. Team Hillary elevated him for fucks sake so that her corrupt ass might seem palatable to the stupid. And still you want to continue with the fear mongering about Trump. Sorry but Trump sucking balls isn't a good reason to support shitty dems. It is a reason to not support Trump and I don't.
1
Blessing regarding, "What does it take to get your vote?" I'm going to take your question serious even thou you are totally disingenuous and just using it to try and portray my ideas for me because, even thou you suck and your framing is bullshit, it is a good question. Let's start with the process. I first need to think that the candidate got there legitimately. That means that they didn't get there only because they were propped up by a party actively working overtime to tip the scales in their favor. Next I look at policy. Do they represent me and my ideas? Will they fight for the things I believe in? Are their priorities where mine are? Lastly I look at the person. Are they a good person? Do I think they are ethical? Those are things I think about when deciding if someone is going to get my vote. Regarding, "You want the whole enchilada" Yeah. I want the whole enchilada. You don't? But do I require the "whole enchilada?" Nope. I think of it this way... you know the signs they have at carnival parks that read, "you need to be at least this tall to ride."? Well I have similar thinking when it comes to getting my vote. It reads, "you have to be at least a certain amount of decent to get my vote." And that line only looks like perfection to someone like you because your line is the pathetic standard of "better then Trump."
1
Regarding, "When Bernie was asked if he would have defeated Trump he simply froze and said nothing" Yeah... Bernie thinking to himself, "Are you fucking kidding me? We live in this world with all it's problems and that is the type of stupid fucking question you want to ask me and not about war, or education, or the justice system, or the environment, or money in politics, or health care, or... You can't be fucking serious can you?" Is way more compelling then literally every piece of empirical evidence, aka polling, that supports what I'm saying and says you haven't got a clue. Regarding, "No, I am not being paid" You really should be. David Brock pays for people to say the stupid shit you do.
1
If Rand Paul were running for President I would think long and hard about supporting him (that said I can't say for sure) over a corporate dem because I think he is far more genuine then any of your corporate dems and because I love his positions on the military industrial complex and the war on drugs. That said he is a fucking DISASTER when it comes to domestic economic policy. Still I would consider voting for him. That is hardly the mentality of someone who needs it all. But you keep telling yourself I do. I am confident you will regardless of what I have to say.
1
More like gullible. He is an ally. Treat him as such even if he isn't perfect. Neither are you. That said I agree about your point of the endorsements. Just not how you said it. And that is coming from someone who can be a real dick.
1
Regarding, "That was just in the last two months." Um... yeah. Were you under the impression that he was trying to make a comprehensive picture of her entire life? For example he says early that she is getting "more progressive." Which I object to the conclusion of. But what I don't take issue with it about is that it's not like he was trying to act like this has been her her entire career. In fact it goes out of the way to make clear she has changed. Regarding, "He should keep his mouth shut." Opinions are like assholes. Regarding, "Nixon..." This seems random and irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Regarding, "He's using his platform to help evil, withholding KEY facts." Are you kidding? I think his coverage is generally exceptional. That doesn't mean I'm going to throw the baby out with the bath water when I hear something I disagree with.
1
Regarding, "how is he gullible" Probably for the same reasons I was gullible when I voted for Obama. Regarding, "he doesn't do the barest amount of research" Again you are acting like this was meant to be and was portrayed as a comprehensive picture of her. It obviously was not. Regarding, "2016 was 2 years ago, so if she wanted money out of politics, she should have endorsed and campaigned for Bernie." I agree with this. We don't have to all come to the same conclusions and it is asinine to think we will.
1
Regarding, "those are current endorsements" Ok. Fair enough. Now I see where the Nixon reference was coming from. Regarding, "so how has she changed" In her rhetoric. And while I agree with you that it is pandering it is a change. Regarding, "Any NY politician sits up when AOC..." I totally disagree with what I think her motive is. I personally think it has far more to do with her trying to gear up for a presidential run. Does that mean I too am corrupt like David?
1
Regarding, "entire video who's title and purpose is to amplify Kirsten's message." I don't know about you but I personally am completely dismayed by American politics. In general we are getting our asses handed to us and it has been that way for a long time. That "message" is a good thing. That "message" is correct. That is a win even if only a small one. As for the motive and imputes behind it there is room to agree to disagree. We can agree that it is pandering. That doesn't mean everyone needs to. Look at the comments. There are plenty of us making the point that despite the rhetoric she isn't to be trusted and they say why. If nothing else the discussion created is very constructive.
1
Regarding, "let me tell you about pesticides. **Watches ad**... "sounds good but who can tell?"" Wow. This is silly. Is there any room to allow for differing opinions to you? If so where is it?
1
In all fairness that blueprint was around long before Trump.
1
I really need to add that something that is very important to me is where they raise their money. Candidates who get there because of big money and corporate cash represent big money and corporations. Candidates who get there because of the little guy represent the little guy. They go with who got them there and it isn't hard to understand why. Therefore I look closely at how they get into office (aka how they raise the money for their campaign) because it tells you more about how they will govern then their rhetoric.
1