Comments by "Clint Holmes" (@clintholmes2061) on "One Question RussiaGate Pushers Never Ask w/Jesse Ventura pt. 2" video.

  1. Probably because Americans hate people that are perceived to be whining, even when their whining is justified. Do you need Bernie to tell you he was robbed? Because I don't. And the people that don't realize it already aren't all of a sudden going to wake up from their slumber and be like... "you know what, I think Bernie Sanders is on to something. I think he was actually robbed." So he would be giving ammo to be used against him and be would stand to gain nothing other than to stop people like you from making stupid comments.
    14
  2. Don't get me wrong I love Ventura too. That doesn't mean I need to agree with him about everything.
    7
  3. op regarding, "I want Bernie to care that Americans' ability to vote was impaired" Even thou we were all fucked over nobody was fucked over more than him. I think the notion that he doesn't care to be absurd. Regarding, "I want him to speak out about it." I understand the point but trying to put this in context. After getting fucked over he had an impossible choice to make. Get behind the person and party that fucked him over and support them because he thought they were better than Trump or spend all the remaining political capital he had to do what you want and sacrifice literally everything else for it. I think he made the right call. And specifically in hindsight it is really nice that intelligent people are forced to blame Hillary for his lose instead of letting Sanders be effectively scapegoated for her loss. Regarding, "I want him to care more about that than about protecting his chance of being president." I don't think he cares about being president as much as he cares about helping the country. And, go figure, being president is a way of being able to do that like no other. Regarding, "Bernie could do more for America and our government by starting or endorsing a third party than he could EVER do as a President." Some of us don't care about stupid fucking party labels. I'm pretty sure we all want at least one major party that doesn't suck but I personally don't care what their name is. You do. You want to make sure the "democratic" party pays for betraying you. You are right to be mad at them. But you are wrong to cut off your nose to spite your face.
    5
  4. mark regarding, "Bernie did not give his campaign 100%" They guy who entered the race down 50 points, who faced media blackout, who was attacked and smear by the entire establishment and only "lost" because he was fucked over didn't give 100 percent? I think that is insane. Regarding, "Look at Trump" I think you have lost your way when you want to look at Trump for how to do anything unless that thing you want to do is suck or be orange.
    5
  5. Carlos regarding, "perhaps he's just a establishment's tool" I guess that is why the establishment works to smear him 24/7. I can't say for sure if you work for the establishment but I can say for sure that you are a tool.
    5
  6. Yup. He went from being mad that Sanders was going to back the "democratic" candidate (like he needed to to run as a dem) to saying his supporters are why Hillary lost. If that endorsement were as important as he wanted to pretend then Trump wouldn't have won.
    2
  7. Pete regarding, "HE WON." You got me there. He did win and I want to win. But that isn't the only thing I want. How you go about it is just as important otherwise you really haven't won anything and you have just become the evil you want to replace. If all you care about is winning then you very well might start thinking saying things ISIS would say like, "we have to take out their families" is the way to go because winning. Maybe demonizing immigrants, and building walls, and lying, and meaningless pandering is the way to go because of winning. Unfortunately the context of where that guy wrote his shit is gone but it really had nothing to do with your words. I want to win. But winning in and of itself is meaningless unless you win something that is worth something. Your comment also completely ignores the actual reasons why Trump won that are not in any way shape or form appropriate to this conversation. For example Trump got the benefit of his empty podium being covered while Sanders podium was ignored even when he was speaking in front of record crowds. He got BILLIONS in free media. He had Hillary Clinton and company at his back propping him to try and make her seem less terrible. Your words of he won would be just as meaningless if you were trying to use them to characterize Hillary Clinton's "win" over Sanders in the primary. I'm sure you would think that in that instance we need to be like Hillary right because winning? We should be cheating and rigging shit right because winning? Well again I still think that is fucking moronic and pointless. Emulating pieces of shit like Trump and Hillary is hardly the answer. What good is winning when it means I get the same bullshit I'm fighting against. But I guess that is "pompous" "delusional" and I should "wake up." I think it is quite practical. Let's just agree to disagree about it shall we.
    1
  8. Matthew regarding, "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." I guess Sanders is a traitor then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W6paY8RsPI
    1
  9. Matthew regarding, "Sanders distinguished the blame from the DNC and shifted it to DWS." Ug. He says, "the DNC was supporting Hillary Clinton" before DWS is even mentioned. That totally isn't calling out the DNC am I right? And even when DWS is talked about she was THE CHAIR OF THE DNC and not some outsider from the party being used to scapegoat the parties actions. She was their leader at the time. That is totally being "loyal." I'm sure you think he is loyal to them as well when he preaches for a "political revolution." Why exactly would anyone think we need a political revolution if the DNC is getting it done? Regarding, "That is why I commented on Mr. Hammond's comment on why Sen. Sanders did not call out his own party." Ok buddy. Just ignore the clip which is but one example of Sanders calling out the DNC that disproves the original claim. Just ignore the evidence that proves it is wrong. Keep thinking whatever you want. But if you want to be honest at least say things like, "Sanders should have done more to call out the DNC." Then at least you wouldn't be lying.
    1
  10. Matthew regarding, "Your anger is clouding your judgement." My anger comes from all the lies and bullshit that is so prevalent. People get to have their own opinions. They don't get to have their own facts. Regarding, "You can't even take down your own straw man." Would you care to elaborate or just make a vague smear?
    1
  11. Matthew regarding, "i'm sure you would think" I said this to someone other than you to demonstrate why the original "logic" they were using was wrong. If their "logic" were correct then the logical conclusion of their argument would to think.... If it isn't what they think then hopefully it would cause them to rethink their original logic. And if I was terribly misconstruing their logic and reasoning then, by all means they could correct me. Regarding, "You want.." So apparently I can't use a persons words to formulate ideas about they think. I need to only address direct quotes and am completely unable to infer a person's thinking based on context? I would hate to put any words into your mouth so how exactly have I put words and arguments into your mouth that you don't actually think? That isn't something I'm looking to do so, by all means please take this opportunity to correct me. Regarding, "I did not smear you," If you say so. I tend to think addressing my "anger" as opposed to my points without actually addressing the points is a smear. I also think that saying I'm making strawman arguments without bothering to give any strawman argument I've made is also a smear. I also think that saying, "I pointed out how your emotional responses on these comments makes your arguments unappealing regardless of your absence of logic," is also a smear. How about you talk about how what I say doesn't have logic instead of just asserting it and justifying it because of my emotion.
    1
  12. Matthew regarding, ""So apparently I can't use a persons words to formulate (i.e. distort) ideas about what (i assume) they think." Why yes you can, however, by doing so you are using a straw man logical fallacy i.e. arguing against an argument never made" This is funny because what you did is strawman my argument. I'm not ok with distortions. I'm not looking or trying to distort a persons argument. If someone says, "all orange people are awesome" I am not strawmanning them if I say things like, "I'm sure you would think Trump is awesome." or "then I assume you think Trump is awesome." even if they haven't said those exact things. Yes those are assumptions to a certain degree but they are logically consistent with the original argument. It is only a strawman when someone is incorrectly (ie distorting) someones beliefs. Again I ask if you would please specifically direct me to where I was distorting your beliefs rather than just vaguely asserting it. Regarding, "Also stop being rude to people who agree 99% with you" First off I concede to being a bit of dick. I have little to no tolerance for bullshit and often feel as though living a world that has me drowning in it. And even if I agree with someone 99% of the time that doesn't mean I'm going to give them a pass if they are blatantly lying 1% of the time.
    1
  13. So we go from the lie of, "Bernie never mentioned that he was robbed" which is a lie because we live in a world where among other things, Bernie has said, "the DNC was supporting Hillary Clinton" to "Cos he took the money and shut the hell up, returned home to enjoy his pay. He's fraud too" which is rationalized by the responder, in part, because of the lie. But I'm not suppose to be angry about this bullshit? Good luck with that.
    1
  14. Matthew regarding, "If you see a difference in opinion as blatantly lying, you're gonna have a bad time." If you think you get to have an "opinion" about facts you're gonna have a bad time. Like I said we get to have our own opinions. We don't get to have our own facts. Bernie Sanders either mentioned something or he didn't. We don't get to have "an opinion" if he did. On the other hand we get have an opinion if he did something enough, an opinion if what he does is right or wrong, and opinion of his motives among others. But we need to be able to agree on facts otherwise, in all honesty, your opinions quickly become meaningless.
    1
  15. Matthew regarding, "enjoyed spending the fortune he made during the election." Straight up lie. You suck at life.
    1
  16. Cool story. Where exactly does it indicate that any of that money came from the election?
    1
  17. Another cool story. The phrase goes guilty until proven innocent right?
    1
  18. Bravo. I applaud how misleading your statement was. You got me. Clearly you were not trying to leave the impression that he made that money off of the election instead of saying something that wouldn't have been terribly misleading like he made a fortune off his book. I bow to your bullshit. Well done. I really mean that. Technically what you said wasn't false. I stand corrected.
    1
  19. Regarding, "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." That is still funny considering the original post is a lie.
    1