How the Clintons went from "dead broke" to rich (WaPo) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 04:25:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  How the Clintons went from "dead broke" to rich (WaPo) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How the Clintons went from "dead broke" to rich (WaPo)  (Read 1098 times)
Paul Kemp
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,230
United States
« on: June 27, 2014, 01:01:49 PM »

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."
Logged
Paul Kemp
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,230
United States
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2014, 01:38:36 PM »

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

Those comments weren't more than two years before an election. Actually, this much attention given to the comments now will probably make them old news by the time 2016 rolls around. Hillary wins again.

The issue here isn't the coverage of the comments rather as much as the sentiment.
Logged
Paul Kemp
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,230
United States
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2014, 04:08:47 PM »

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

I like how people try to draw a false equivalence between this single out of touch gaffe and the dozens that Mitt Romney had. Nor did the media harp on any of Romney's gaffes for weeks (except 47%, which was obviously an entirely different beast). They even let him get away with not releasing his tax returns.

Your grasp on reality is not great.
Logged
Paul Kemp
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,230
United States
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2014, 04:55:52 PM »

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

I like how people try to draw a false equivalence between this single out of touch gaffe and the dozens that Mitt Romney had. Nor did the media harp on any of Romney's gaffes for weeks (except 47%, which was obviously an entirely different beast). They even let him get away with not releasing his tax returns.

Your grasp on reality is not great.

In other words, you have no rebuttal. Thanks for playing.

The rebuttal is that you're simply wrong.

It being a "single out of touch gaffe" doesn't lessen the fact that it is an out of touch comment. If you should know anything about American politics, it's that singular moments can be defining (not that I necessarily believe this one to be).

Your assertion that the media didn't "harp" on Romney's gaffes is absolutely inaccurate, as is the idea that he "got away" with not releasing his tax returns - which was a story for months. These were all reasons why this guy lost the election and fed into the narrative of his candidacy... not exactly things that were glossed over. What you're saying is literally not how it happened in reality.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 11 queries.