When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Bet you nearly pulled your cock off fantasising about what Hillary would have to do to get your vote.

That post sums you up.

I can get Republicans not liking Hillary C. I'm for her, but I'm not at my most enthusiastic, except as against Rpubs and the presidency.

I don't like the pages of dicing and slicing hate-balls going on, on a2k. People learning to swear freely online.

Can we talk about why Republicans don't like her? I assumed this is varied.
Perhaps all Republicans don't despise her.

And why do us who agree with her sometimes, stand up for her?

He actually asked a valuable question: at what point would one quit supporting a candidate.

You've represented yourself very well here Frank. I think you have better solidified your stance and it's appreciated. It's for the Democratic party, not necessarily Clinton that has your support and that's fair.

There are some Republicans that would lose my vote to Sanders, but never for Clinton.

"If that is your position then I will talk only to white people" - Hillary Clinton



I'm looking forward to hearing Clinton defenders explain how this comment actually makes sense in context, and in what context this kind of comment makes sense.

Why would she talk only to white people just because one black guy said something she disagreed with?

All wrapped up in a sick fantasy. He wasn't really interested in questions, valuable or otherwise, just inflicting his sick **** of the rest of us. No wonder he gets on so well with Hawkeye.

For the record, I didn't go to those sordid depths where McGentrix went, and that Lash so eagerly and greatly appreciated. I was NOT asking at what point Frank would withdraw his vote. I WAS asking at what point would it at least make him think a little harder about it. That's all I was requiring of Frank - just that he not leave totally aside all examination of Hillary's actions. I've said over and over that I too will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Frank and I have no disagreement there, or on the fact that we have to keep a republican out of the white house by all means.
Let's just not get it twisted. I was just interested in provoking more critical thinking. I was not and am not in favor of the low brow smearing that Lash, Mcg et AL find so sporting.

It is weird and yes - borderline comical - to me that you guys can crap all over people you disagree with with, but become shocked and indignant when other people with other opinions do the exact same thing to your preferred candidates.

Political satire has been going on forever. Why is it so shocking to you that other people have different opinions about who is deserving of satire? You're supposed to be the local intelligentsia.

My guy is sitting in front of the hammer and sickle... Sordid? It makes you seem humourless and immature.

Btw - There's an article focusing on why white people are reading Coates like crazy. He doesn't seem to understand. I was happy to tell him. Nice phenomenon.

Are you seriously saying that all the mudslinging you do is just satire? And I didn't have anything to do with any hammer and sickle, so I don't know why you mention it. I have respect for Bernie. If you disagree with what I say, do me the courtesy of at least keeping to what I actually say.

McGentrix's sick fantasy was not satire, it was sick fantasy.

He's a nitwit, but that question is the one a lot of Hillary supporters need to answer (without the other crap tied to it).

I hardly think Hillary is dumb as that statement makes her seem, so surely she meant it as a rhetorical question. An example could be something like (I am not too good at this) "hey, you used up all the hot water." and then the spouse goes, "fine then I will only use cold water next time." It is possible, isn't it? I mean it would just be too politically stupid if she meant it as it reads and I don't think she is stupid. Then again, last election Bill Clinton suggested at one time Obama could only get a job as carrying his bags. So, perhaps she spoke without thinking.

I don't think she meant it, its the attitude toward others that made her say it that worries me. She's a bit of a martinet. That worries me. Her temper has to at least be on McCain's level.

I've read a few articles which has suggested as much. I hate this years election.

I know. I'm not that wild about it myself.

posting something from Democratic Underground
yeah
that's one way to push people away from the Democrats - not just Ms. Clinton - for sure

let's look at the context from back in August

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-debates-black-lives-matter-i-will-talk-only-to-white-people/article/2570392





___

personally, I'm good with most of it - BLM would benefit (IMNSHO) from a clearly articulated position with policy recommendations - but would have suggested dropping 'white' from the conversation. but ... I wasn't there and don't know what things were like inside that meeting. Maybe I would have been pissed off enough to say it that way. Who knows? I sure don't.

ehBeth, its a pattern. I have legitimate concerns about arrogance and a tendency to slight countering opinions out of hand. I think hubris has a play here.

Here's another, BTW democratic underground is extremely pro Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton Is SMEARING Bernie Sanders As A Sexist


"..It’s ridiculous. Bernie’s record as a feminist is as good as Hillary’s..".

"..Hillary Clinton has found a new wedge issue against Sen. Bernie Sanders. The topic is gun control, but the angle is gender. Clinton is framing Sanders as a sexist who accuses women of shouting when they try to speak up. It’s a lie. She’s manipulating women and abusing feminist anger for her own advantage..."




~snip~

That’s what Clinton is doing. She’s misrepresenting an exchange that took place at the Oct. 13 Democratic presidential debate. During the exchange, Clinton accused Sanders of voting with the gun lobby. Sanders replied: “All the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence.” Sanders argued that people on both sides of the gun debate should agree to “strengthen and expand instant background checks, do away with this gun show loophole,” “deal with the straw-man purchasing issue,” and “address the issue of mental health.” The man standing to Clinton’s left during this exchange, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, joined in the attack on Sanders. To this, the Vermont senator answered with the same message: “Here is the point, governor. We can raise our voices. But I come from a rural state, and the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states, whether we like it or not. Our job is to bring people together around strong, common-sense gun legislation.”


Two days after the debate, Clinton brought up the exchange during a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in San Antonio. She promised to stand up to the gun lobby and, dropping her G’s, added: “I’ve been told by some to quit talkin’ about this, to quit shoutin’ about this. Well, I’ll tell you right now, I will not be silenced, and we will not be silenced.” The crowd loved it. The next day in New Hampshire, Clinton tried the same line in a Yankee-friendly accent: “Some people say that we shouldn’t talk about it. Some say we shouldn’t shout about it, that I shouldn’t shout about it. Well, I think we have to keep talking. But more importantly, we have to act.” A week went by. Clinton prepared for her Oct. 22 testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. When she returned to the campaign trail on Oct. 23, in a speech to the Democratic National Committee Women’s Leadership Forum, her account of the exchange with Sanders was no longer just about guns. It was about sexism. “You know,” she began—clearing her throat to signal the sound bite ahead—“I’ve been told to stop, and I quote, ‘shouting’ about gun violence. Well, first of all, I’m not shouting. It’s just when women talk, some people think we’re shouting.” The audience hooted, screamed, and cheered. Clinton grinned. “I will not be silenced, because we will not be silenced,” she declared.


On social media, Clinton’s campaign made the new line—“When women talk, some people think we’re shouting”— her message of the day. Her team posted it on her Twitter feed at 8:30 Friday morning, two hours before her speech to the DNC forum, as a rebuke to “those who tell her to ‘stop shouting’ on issues that matter.” The quote also went up on her Facebook page and her campaign website, under the headline, “Hillary Clinton Just Said Something Women Have Been Thinking for Years.” The next day, at a Democratic dinner in Iowa, Clinton repeated the applause line: “I’ve been told to stop shouting about ending gun violence. Well, I haven’t been shouting. But sometimes, when a woman speaks out, some people think it’s shouting. But I won’t be silenced, and I hope you won’t be either.” Clinton doesn’t use Sanders’ name when she tells this story. She doesn’t have to: Everyone who saw the debate or heard about it knows she’s talking about him. She’s using the story to bond with women, to paint Sanders as a patronizing old fart, and to portray herself as a victim.


Let’s be clear: This isn’t what happened. During the debate exchange, Sanders answered O’Malley with the same point about “raising our voices.” Sanders has been giving this answer for years. He did it in July, after an O’Malley super PAC ad attacked him (“We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades,” said Sanders). He did it again in August, after a male surrogate for Clinton attacked him (“I can get beyond the noise and all of these arguments and people shouting at each other”). He did it again in October, after the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon (“People on both sides of this issue cannot simply continue shouting at each other”). Sanders gives this answer to everyone. The charitable explanation of Clinton’s behavior is that she sincerely perceived Sanders’ rebuke during the debate as sexist. But if that were true, you’d expect her to have said so in her first accounts of the exchange. She didn’t. She waited more than a week before embellishing the story. She prepared it as a sound bite for social media, and she unveiled it at a women’s forum. And it worked, so she’s still using it.

cont'

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/hillary_clinton_is_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_it_s_an_insult_to.html

CNN’s Stelter: Fox Wouldn’t Have Cut Away from Benghazi Hearing If Hillary Was ‘Struggling’ (HRC)

CNN’s Brian Steler thinks Fox News had a perfectly fair reason for cutting away from the Benghazi hearing, but at the same time doubts they would have cut away if Hillary Clinton was “struggling.”

Mediaite reported last week that as CNN and MSNBC continued to run the hearing live, Fox News cut away at 5 pm EST for analysis and other news, cutting back with the occasional new soundbite throughout the night.

This raised plenty of eyebrows, seeing as how Fox News not only emphasized Benghazi as an important issue for years but called out the rest of the media for ignoring it.

Stelter noted all this on today’s Reliable Sources and said that while Fox generally sticks with its regularly scheduled programming starting at 5, “if Clinton had been on the ropes, if she had been struggling, Fox probably would have continued to show the hearing.”...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-stelter-fox-wouldnt-have-cut-away-from-benghazi-hearing-if-hillary-was-struggling/ via Mediaite