comment: >
  
  Oh hell no.  She leaked recordings of Trump and deigned to criticize the administration.  Fails the loyalty test.
context: They are criminals? >
  
  That, but more that they're just investments for those who are funding and fueling this nonsense, just like the trump. Even if you get rid of these, there will be more in the future. The only way to deal with this is to follow the money and find those who are actually investing in the candidates who push this nonsense. I'd imagine they can find any number of people who are willing to say/do the right political things for a paycheck, unfortunately. >
  
  Cui Bono >
  
  Easy there, Henry Zebrowski 😆 >
  
  Took one for the team:
  They're all women, and they all support the Big Lie. >
  
  Thanks friend!
  Imagine trying to court Women's votes after banning abortion and getting destroyed in the mid terms because of it. 
  Mar A Lago must still use lead pipes. >
  
  Fun fact bout lead, it doesn't leave your system. Most of those in charge were exposed to leaded exhaust fumes, lead paint chips, lead pipes. They all need to be forced out (primaried) cause you can tell even the sane ones are not all there. >
  
  Haven't read the article, but I bet the thing they have in common is they're fucking terrible.  Did I get it right? >
  
  Meaningless.
  Trump will never set foot in DC again. >
  
  How many of us were absolutely sure he would be suffering one of the most crushing Presidential defeats ever in 2016? >
  
  Russia meddled in that election. Without Russia he would've never won. >
  
  I don't think this is true, and making the argument at all makes us look like a bunch of whiners refusing to accept Hillary got beat.  
  Russia did everything they could to put their finger on the scale for him, but at the end of the day they didn't cast the votes.  That was regular, stupid Americans. >
  
  When the actual election is that close (she won, after all) that means there’s a lot of things that you can blame for losing the election. Maybe if Russia hadn’t interfered, she would have won. Maybe if she had gone to states she took for granted she could have won. Maybe if young people voted, she could have won. Maybe if Bernie had accepted her more, she could have won. And on and on and on. 
  Nonetheless, Hillary lost because Trump colluded with the Russian government to enhance illegally seized her private correspondence. That’s true. Trump won by cheating. He cheats as a rule. In 2016, it worked for him. In 2020, it didn’t. >
  
  
  (she won, after all)
  
  Generally agree with what you posted except this.  Winning the polular vote isn't how you win the presidency in this country even if it ought to be.  So no, she didnt. >
  
  Ehh, that’s a debate over semantics. She won the popular vote. In the contest for who America most wanted, she won. >
  
  It’s not semantics. There are clear standards for who wins that she didn’t meet. >
  
  Again, not really. No one is arguing that she actually won the electoral college. But in the contest of who Americans most wanted to be President, she won. >
  
  They sold out the US? >
  
  Don't be surprised when he dumps all of them for a man when things start to get serious. >
  
  
  Jackman added that Gabbard’s background would resonate with a lot of younger and more independent voters who were looking for someone “who is of the 9/11 generation, served in the military and would be very hesitant to offer advice to a commander-in-chief to go invade or overthrow another country.”
  
  That's what this country wants. More Tulsi.
  I just can't imagine why Republicans continue to lose federal elections with this kind of galaxy brain analysis. >
  
  I know at least one very influential republican donor that would be more then happy to get Tulsi in the White House. But he lives in Moscow.
  Tulsi is featured almost as much as Tucker on Russian State media. >
  
  Well that explains MTG’s sudden seriousness and backing away from her normal bullshit. >
  
  
  “But if it meant her at the top of the ticket with another Republican—yeah, you know, my experience is people who are Tulsi Gabbard supporters are very past partisan politics, they don’t like partisanship, they don’t like to be pinned down by a label.”
  
  So join the ticket alongside one of the most partisan assholes ever to run, makes sense. >
  
  It's absolutely amazing that they think any pick at all would appeal to "moderate voters". >
  
  What? No Omarosa?