General Discussion

Nixie

(17,984 posts)

157. The context was Gillibrand's comments about Bill Clinton. You keep omitting

Reply to Dem4Life1102 (Reply #155)

Thu Mar 4, 2021, 09:39 AM

Mar 2021

that sentence. The Clintons' never quit supporting Gillibrand.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

184 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

De Blasio's payback: New York mayor unloads on wounded Cuomo [View all] Klaralven Mar 2021 OP

No matter what it's not a good look for DeBlasio Joinfortmill Mar 2021 #1

DeBlasio is almost as unpopular as Cuomo redstateblues Mar 2021 #4

DeBlasio is actually more unpopular than Cuomo JI7 Mar 2021 #6

Definitely. Someone told me they think he's behind this. Arguable, but I wouldn't put it past him. ancianita Mar 2021 #70

Who stands to gain from getting rid of Cuomo. Nixie Mar 2021 #2

and our great old gal Gillibrand is all over it demtenjeep Mar 2021 #3

Gillibrand and Schumer, like many others, have called for an investigation Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #7

The thing about Gillibrand that people are forgetting, Nixie Mar 2021 #10

She couldn't have campaigned with Hillary Clinton Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #12

Look up Gillibrand and Hillary not on speaking terms. Nixie Mar 2021 #13

What help? Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #14

I'm talking about Gillibrand and her comments about Nixie Mar 2021 #15

Hillary campaigned for her in her first house race. nt BlueLucy Mar 2021 #50

True Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #52

They probably meant house. BlueLucy Mar 2021 #54

Thank you for your common sense response. Yes, I do remember Bill and Hillary Nixie Mar 2021 #142

And I'm just pointing out that that Hillary Clinton Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #16

Actually, what you're doing is going off on an unnecessary direction that Nixie Mar 2021 #17

I'm just pointing out facts Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #18

Someone brought up Gillibrand and I responded. It's also a fact what Gillibrand said about Nixie Mar 2021 #19

Sure Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #20

It is a fact that Hillary's husband did. That's what the post was about. Not a tangent Nixie Mar 2021 #21

Hillary had no power to object to Gillibrand Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #22

Another tangent that has nothing to do with Gillibrand's comments about Nixie Mar 2021 #23

And Gillibrand's comments about Clinton Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #24

Except that now you're pretending this isn't about politicians being forced to resign Nixie Mar 2021 #25

Yes someone brought up Gillibrand Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #26

That's not what the poster said, either. Another unnecessary tangent. Nixie Mar 2021 #27

Bringing up Gillibrand was an unnecessary tangent Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #28

More deliberate obtuseness. de Blasio is a New York politician. Gillibrand is a New York Nixie Mar 2021 #29

Gillibrand/Clinton is a tangent Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #31

It's okay to admit that you don't understand the poster's reference to Gillibrand. Nixie Mar 2021 #32

I understood it Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #33

Washington Post: Why Kirsten Gillibrand's bold statement that Bill Clinton should've resigned is a Nixie Mar 2021 #34

No I was pointing out a factual error Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #35

It is factually correct what Gillibrand said about Bill Clinton resigning Nixie Mar 2021 #36

Never disputed what Gillibrand said Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #37

The Clinton donors are the same that Gillibrand used. Gillibrand needed their help Nixie Mar 2021 #38

They do have nothing to do with Cuomo Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #39

Gillibrand needed Hillary's donors to help win Hillary's senate seat. Nixie Mar 2021 #40

This message was self-deleted by its author Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #42

Gillibrand needed Hillary's donors to help win Hillary's senate seat. Nixie Mar 2021 #43

Maybe so Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #45

Gillibrand needed Hillary's donors to help win Hillary's senate seat. Nixie Mar 2021 #46

Again maybe she did Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #47

Gillibrand needed Hillary's donors to help win Hillary's senate seat. Nixie Mar 2021 #48

Again I'm not disputing that Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #51

Nothing you are hung up on means a thing about my point. It's just empty sidebars. Nixie Mar 2021 #56

Your original post said Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #58

Nothing you are saying changes my point. The Clinton's Nixie Mar 2021 #59

Your point is factually inaccurate Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #61

Nothing you are saying changes my point. Nixie Mar 2021 #62

Which still has nothing to do with Cuomo or de Blasio Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #64

Gillibrand needed Hillary's donors to help win Hillary's senate seat. Nixie Mar 2021 #66

Donors, advisers and operatives Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #69

Nothing you are saying changes my point. Nixie Mar 2021 #71

Your point was factually incorrect Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #74

Here is Gillibrand using the Clinton brand to help get herself elected. Your sidebar Nixie Mar 2021 #75

And The NY Times assessment clearly states Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #78

The Clintons' helped Gillibrand get elected. It's not a comment about what bus Nixie Mar 2021 #80

Not a useless sidebar Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #83

I'll stick with the NYTimes "simple facts" which prove that they understand that Nixie Mar 2021 #84

And The NY Times simple facts state Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #85

Nothing you say changes my point. It's a total sidebar. Nixie Mar 2021 #86

And your point is a total sidebar Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #87

Here's the NYTimes understanding the help Gillibrand got from the Clintons' Nixie Mar 2021 #89

And the Times clearly stated Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #92

I'll stick with the NYTimes assessment of how much the Nixie Mar 2021 #96

And the Times assessment stated Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #97

Hillary Clinton helping Gillibrand campaign... Nixie Mar 2021 #49

People with ties to Clinton Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #53

You really have no point since what you're hung up about doesn't change Nixie Mar 2021 #55

No Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #57

Nothing you say changes my point. The Clintons' Nixie Mar 2021 #60

I'm just correcting a false statement Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #63

The Clinton's helped Gillibrand get elected. Your focus on a couple words Nixie Mar 2021 #65

Bill Clinton did one fundraiser Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #67

Here's the Clintons' helping Gillibrand from the NYTimes Nixie Mar 2021 #68

Again they refer to donors, operatives and advisers Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #72

Here's Gillibrand using the Clinton brand to help get herself elected. Nixie Mar 2021 #73

Reposting the same article over and over Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #76

Gillibrand needed Hillary's donors to help win Hillary's senate seat. Nixie Mar 2021 #77

Donors Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #79

The longest and most didactic subthread I've ever seen Dorian Gray Mar 2021 #81

Oh yeah, I've seen this for days. Which proves my point, as well. This really isn't Nixie Mar 2021 #82

😂 lol Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #88

Not what the article says Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #90

lol, I love your backtracking. I'll stick with the NYTimes assessment of Nixie Mar 2021 #91

No backtracking Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #93

That has nothing to do with my point. Nixie Mar 2021 #95

And the article doesn't say that Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #98

Gillibrand needed Hillary's donors to help win Hillary's senate seat. Nixie Mar 2021 #99

Donors, yes Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #101

Day Two: The point was Gillibrand's 2017 comments about Bill Clinton. That was the point, Nixie Mar 2021 #104

You original claim was false Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #107

The original point remains that Gillibrand accepted help from the Clintons Nixie Mar 2021 #109

Sure but Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #111

The original point remains that Gillibrand accepted help from the Clintons Nixie Mar 2021 #113

But this statement is not true Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #115

The original point remains that Gillibrand accepted help from the Clintons Nixie Mar 2021 #116

No I'm hung up on accuracy Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #119

No, you're hung up on a rabbit hole. The entire article shows exactly what Nixie Mar 2021 #120

No my point is that this claim is false Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #122

Your claim is a rather silly rabbit hole. We know Hillary didn't quit her job to Nixie Mar 2021 #124

So you admit that this claim is false Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #126

lol, that sentence changes nothing from the point I made. Of course I read Nixie Mar 2021 #127

This is your original post Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #129

lol, my original comment was to another poster, demtemjeep. That simple comment was understood Nixie Mar 2021 #132

My point is accuracy Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #134

Nothing you post changes what my point was, which you admit to Nixie Mar 2021 #135

Yet your original post says nothing about donors Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #137

My original post was to another poster who understood. You obviously don't. Nixie Mar 2021 #139

Your original post was on a public message board Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #141

you are omitting the context about Gillibrand's comments about Bill Clinton. Nixie Mar 2021 #145

Yes they did for the house seat Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #147

The claim was Gillibrand's comments about Bill Clinton Nixie Mar 2021 #148

Not disputing Gillibrand's comments Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #151

You keep omitting the context, which was Gillibrand's comments about Clinton. Nixie Mar 2021 #154

Doesn't change the fact Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #158

It doesn't change the fact that you are omitting the first sentence, Nixie Mar 2021 #160

Okay Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #165

You keep omitting the first sentence. The context was Gillibrand's comments about Bill Clinton. Nixie Mar 2021 #167

Maybe so Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #170

Definitely so. You are definitely trying to change the context, so you really aren't that Nixie Mar 2021 #176

Again not changing anything Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #178

So now you are forced to admit that the Clintons' did campaign for Gillibrand. Nixie Mar 2021 #152

Never denied that they campaigned for the house seat. Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #155

The context was Gillibrand's comments about Bill Clinton. You keep omitting Nixie Mar 2021 #157

Still doesn't change the fact that Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #162

You keep omitting the first sentence. The context was Gillibrand's comments Nixie Mar 2021 #166

Again Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #171

You keep trying to change the context, which is right there in the first sentence. Nixie Mar 2021 #173

Not changing anything Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #175

the context is in the first sentence. I'm just pointing out that what the context is Nixie Mar 2021 #177

Fine Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #179

Thanks for your concern, but it's not relevant. Nixie Mar 2021 #182

Maybe not to you Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #184

I'll stick with the NYTimes article about how much the Clintons' helped Gillibrand Nixie Mar 2021 #100

So will I and it says Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #102

None of this changes my point about Gillibrand's 2017 comments about Bill Clinton Nixie Mar 2021 #103

You're point is factually inaccurate Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #105

The point is that Gillibrand accepted help from the Clintons' and had no qualms about Nixie Mar 2021 #106

Fine Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #108

The original point remains that Gillibrand accepted help from the Clintons Nixie Mar 2021 #110

Don't rewrite the article Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #112

The original point remains that Gillibrand accepted help from the Clintons Nixie Mar 2021 #114

No the article says people who supported Clinton Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #117

The article talks about how much help Gillibrand got from the Clintons Nixie Mar 2021 #118

No it says how much help Gillibrand got from Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #121

You're rewriting the entire article to fit into one fairly silly rabbit hole. Nixie Mar 2021 #123

No your original claim was Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #125

My original point was that the Clintons' helped Gillibrand and then she turned Nixie Mar 2021 #128

No your original claim was Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #130

It's not false that the Clintons' helped Gillibrand. Your rabbit hole is trying to make Nixie Mar 2021 #131

But the claim Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #133

The claim was that people are forgetting that Gillibrand's comments about Bill Nixie Mar 2021 #136

Not insinuating anything Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #138

You are omitting the part about Gillibrand's comments about Bill Clinton. Nixie Mar 2021 #140

I never said anything about Gillibrand's comments Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #143

You are omitting the context. The context was Gillibrand's comments about Nixie Mar 2021 #146

Not at all confused Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #149

You keep omitting the first sentence. The context was Gillibrand's comments Nixie Mar 2021 #150

Irrelevant to the fact that Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #153

You keep omitting the first sentence, which is the context. The Clintons' Nixie Mar 2021 #156

Does not change the fact Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #159

It doesn't change the fact that Gillibrand accepted help throughout Nixie Mar 2021 #161

Maybe so Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #163

You keep omitting the first sentence. The context was Gillibrand's Nixie Mar 2021 #164

Fine Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #168

You keep omitting the first sentence. The context was Gillibrand's comments about Nixie Mar 2021 #169

Nope included it Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #172

The context is there in the first sentence. You are ignoring the context in Nixie Mar 2021 #174

The context of the first sentence Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #180

Your concern is noted, but it doesn't change the context of my post, Nixie Mar 2021 #181

Never said it did Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #183

Kathy Hochul Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #8

Exactly. Who stands to gain from getting rid of Cuomo. Nixie Mar 2021 #9

This is not a good look for any who want to eat our own. Too much ego and stupidity on display. c-rational Mar 2021 #5

Haven't these two been at each others throats for like, years? Shanti Shanti Shanti Mar 2021 #11

Always good to kick a man ,when he's down. Rustyeye77 Mar 2021 #30

They hate each other's guts. Klaralven Mar 2021 #41

I'm aware of that. Rustyeye77 Mar 2021 #44

I'm not really a BDB fan Dorian Gray Mar 2021 #94

This isn't helpful. Frankly, when both are out office (hopefully with better Dem replacements), I themaguffin Mar 2021 #144