Flawed: Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good If Youre A Female Presidential Candidate

[synergie]

31. Wow, you "know" a lot of things that you can't support, don't you?

You "love" making such unsupported declarations because it would seem that you resent that your comments were addressed in a totally straightforward way. I cannot believe that you would declare that taking your comments as written is somehow twisted, they were, but they were delivered that way.

The fact is that she didn't lose votes, she didn't lose voters, and you cannot pretend that "she's so unpopular" and "she's so flawed" can stand when SHE WON ACTUAL VOTES. All this nonsense about "if you don't count CA, then she lost" is literally what Trump is saying, and it's stupid. I'm sure you would have been happier had she won those 70,000 votes in several states where votes were not counted, however, it's dishonest to pretend that screeching "she lost" over and over again, and attacking her makes any sense given all the facts you literally have to blind yourself to, in order to support your attacks. i get, it you don't like her, you make so secret of the fact, and despite your denials the content of your posts makes that rather plain, no "twisting" necessary, you do present that rather straightforwardly.

Once again, you keep reiterating points, while literally ignoring mine, there was no tone deafness. Quite literally. Ther ewas no perception of anything, since there has literally in the history of the US, ever been a problem with giving speeches. Literally. Also, there was no perception, no proof, not literal ANYTHING unethical or opaque or hidden about the Clinton Foundation. Nothing. Literally.

Sorry, but you're proving once again that your confirmation bias that everything is in the flawed reasoning that a person should have perfect 20/20, and realize that everything she did and did not do would be twisted against her, and it's her fault. It's not. There will always be something to be used against her, as you keep proving.

You did miss the point. It's not about disagreement, you literally don't get it. I can see that you like to see many things that are clearly not in evidence, while ignoring all that is. No one actually was held to the standard that she was, you listed standards that no one was ever held to, but apparently are so busy pretending that I am imagining things you created, to bother paying attention to what you're saying.

Open your eyes, stop day dreaming about what you think I'm saying and listen what I'm actually saying, and read for comprehension.

You're doing just what that article stated, you think if she did NOT walk on water, than she was flawed, and it's the not walking on water that did her in, rather than the doubles standards YOU keep blindly applying, while snarkilly projecting your own unreasonable bias.

You missed the point, and keep making mine. When you're blind to the double standards you apply and dismiss anyone pointing them out of your own magical thinking, you're literally unable to figure out why your stance is the only thing flawed here.