Attack!!1!

[Garrett78]

I keep seeing people complain about "attacks" against their preferred candidate. Those complains, though, seem to ring hollow more often than not. There's typically no substantive explanation. So, it amounts to little more than a tactic (attaktic?) or ploy, a way of dismissing any legitimate criticism. It seems especially common for Clinton supporters to insinuate that all opposition to Clinton is based on phony right wing lies.

Is it an "attack" to point out that Clinton has ties to Beacon Global Strategies, Corrections Corporation of America and other seedy entities? Or to point out her hawkish inclination?

Is it an "attack" to point out that Sanders might be too pro-gun?

This site is so littered with substanceless posts and repeat threads that it's just about unbearable.

[upaloopa]

1. Talk about substanceless posts. Pot calling

kettle black.

[RobertEarl]

2. The OP makes a good point

Yours, on the other hand, is just an attack without merit.

[mak3cats]

3. I agree completely!

And watch to see those who don't...

(And for the record, I support Bernie, but his "pro-gun" stance is one I don't necessarily agree with. However, his positions as a whole are much, much closer to my own than is HRC's. Hence my support of him rather than her.)

[Garrett78]

4. I see nothing has changed since I authored this thread.

Not surprising, of course.