rigorousintuition.ca

Well, you're right about one thing, Jack. Tulsi Gabbard will never be President.

Which makes you wonder what exactly it is that she thinks she's doing now?

J.

.

"Which makes you wonder what exactly it is that she thinks she's doing now?"

Why don't you ask that question of a dozen others who are running but are never going to be president?

You don't care about what it is that Klobuchar is doing, apparently.

This is you motherfuckers:

In the middle of 10,000 stories of the whirlwind happening right now,

your Lady Clinton and still State Department Boss-Emiritus says: There's a traitor! Russians! Get them!

And you drop everything else happening, anything you could be talking about, to convene your jury of sophists and put Gabbard on Internet trial with whatever you can throw at her.

No other concern.

You got your stimulus, you do your response.

I see you.

.

^

.

Harvey » Sun Oct 27, 2019 12:58 pm wrote:^

Yes. Exposed.

At the risk of lending legitimacy to your ridiculous fantasies regarding my intentions, what Clinton said/did, and where the bulk of my attention lies, I will attempt to answer your rhetorical question.

The "dozen others" who are running all seem to me to actually want to become the leader of the Democratic party, and to be that party's standard-bearer as its presidential nominee in the upcoming 2020 election.

Yes, even Klobuchar.

Gabbard, on the other hand, seems like a vanity candidate cum Useful Idiot for those seeking to destabilize and otherwise fuck with the United States. The recent, self-aggrandizing, histrionic fit she threw during her one-sided tussle with, how did you put it, "the State Department Boss-Emeritus" (really, Jack?!) did precious little to disprove Gabbard's status as... a "lightweight".

J.

JackRiddler » 27 Oct 2019 17:12 wrote:.

you motherfuckers

I see you.

.

.

There are few indicators of what you're about, wittingly or not, than the selective standards you apply to Gabbard as opposed to Klobuchar Booker et al., or of course to the Modi-meeting, Kissinger-kissing, Trump-schmoozing, Libya-butchering, Iraq-invasion-enabling super-predator and primary architect of aggressive wars, Hillary Clinton. Only Gabbard is supposed to be suspicious in that? Worm.

JackRiddler » Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:57 pm wrote:.

There are few indicators of what you're about, wittingly or not, than the selective standards you apply to Gabbard as opposed to Klobuchar Booker et al., or of course to the Modi-meeting, Kissinger-kissing, Trump-schmoozing, Libya-butchering, Iraq-invasion-enabling super-predator and primary architect of aggressive wars, Hillary Clinton. Only Gabbard is supposed to be suspicious in that? Worm.

Ahhh, this is so good. PWNAGE straight in the vein.

Let no one fuck with THE UNITED STATES eh.

Jerky » 27 Oct 2019 18:52 wrote:At the risk of lending legitimacy to your ridiculous fantasies regarding my intentions, what Clinton said/did, and where the bulk of my attention lies, I will attempt to answer your rhetorical question.

The "dozen others" who are running all seem to me to actually want to become the leader of the Democratic party, and to be that party's standard-bearer as its presidential nominee in the upcoming 2020 election.

Yes, even Klobuchar.

Gabbard, on the other hand, seems like a vanity candidate cum Useful Idiot for those seeking to destabilize and otherwise fuck with the United States. The recent, self-aggrandizing, histrionic fit she threw during her one-sided tussle with, how did you put it, "the State Department Boss-Emeritus" (really, Jack?!) did precious little to disprove Gabbard's status as... a "lightweight".

J.

JackRiddler » 27 Oct 2019 17:12 wrote:.

you motherfuckers

I see you.

.

LOL. So all the other's intentions are pure, but Gabbard's intentions are uniquely suspicious?

Because why? Because she doesn't support endless wars quite as much? I seriously fail to follow your logic.

stickdog99 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:35 am wrote:

Jerky » 27 Oct 2019 18:52 wrote:At the risk of lending legitimacy to your ridiculous fantasies regarding my intentions, what Clinton said/did, and where the bulk of my attention lies, I will attempt to answer your rhetorical question.

The "dozen others" who are running all seem to me to actually want to become the leader of the Democratic party, and to be that party's standard-bearer as its presidential nominee in the upcoming 2020 election.

Yes, even Klobuchar.

Gabbard, on the other hand, seems like a vanity candidate cum Useful Idiot for those seeking to destabilize and otherwise fuck with the United States. The recent, self-aggrandizing, histrionic fit she threw during her one-sided tussle with, how did you put it, "the State Department Boss-Emeritus" (really, Jack?!) did precious little to disprove Gabbard's status as... a "lightweight".

J.

JackRiddler » 27 Oct 2019 17:12 wrote:.

you motherfuckers

I see you.

.

LOL. So all the other's intentions are pure, but Gabbard's intentions are uniquely suspicious?

Because why? Because she doesn't support endless wars quite as much? I seriously fail to follow your logic.

Exceedingly generous to impute him with logic.