When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Made me laugh. Not sure it's a compliment, but glad (I think) that you consider me believable.

You were a very sweet, endearing man - and I wish I could've spent more time. I was in a richness of souls that I'll never be in again. Sounds stupid, but can't say it better.

A richness of souls.

You're believable. You're also a flaming liberal. I too am not sure that's a compliment.

Roger: :0

It's not meant to be amusing, when someone makes such an extreme change it is hard to take them seriously. Rabel has a valid point, and I sympathise with anyone distrustful of new converts.

Either they are a plant or they never really understood what was going on in the first place.

In view of what you've said, and the nonsensical nature of a lot of her posts I'm opting for the latter, but that's not a good thing to be.

Only because you are stupid. Voting split tickets and deciding by ones own rules and not the ones told to us by power used to be the norm. It should be again.

You are way too ignorant to be talking as much as you do. What are you reading right now? Have you thought about doing more thinking and less talking? Might be a good idea based upon your dreadful performance of late.

Bit of a hissy fit there. Your insults mean nothing because you are stupid, so very stupid.

Your performance of late involves slinking away when you can't answer the question, and not understanding anything.

You've shown complete ignorance of the dynamics in the Middle East. When I asked you questions about your understanding you ran scared. You think Trump is anti elite and have described Reagan as a shrewd political operator. That's why this was a regular feature on Spitting Image, because he was so shrewd.

And now you're claiming to have read a book! You're having a laugh.

Wow...the George Washington of A2K is a woman.

What a bunch of BS...from a self-serving promoter.

In any case, whether you are a "plant" or not...you are doing as much to damage the progressive brand here as anyone I read. It is certain that Hillary Clinton MAY end up the Democratic Party candidate for president...and the Democratic Party candidate will be better for the progressive agenda than any of the Republican wanna-be's...no matter what.

You, Lash, have done as much to damage her candidacy, should she be the candidate, than the most rabid conservative in this forum.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself...but you apparently do not have that in you.

You may have been able to fool people you've met at meets...but what I am saying about you here still holds.

When I came to A2K, I was relieved to have a place where I could say exactly what I thought and not worry about the sensibilities of friends and family, so the political and social opinions I've shared here have always been based on my opinion. I've never lied here.

I don't understand why anyone would. For what purpose? I see people with alters and wonder what brand of mental illness they must have to need to create personas to run through the pages thumbing them up and agreeing with them. Truly sad. I can imagine what their lives at home must be like. Delusional behavior.

I'm glad I've damaged HRC's campaign if I have. If uncovering facts about a presidential candidate reveals who they are - and who they are is so disgusting to the electorate that they decide not to vote for her, I feel like I'm done my country a service.

She revealed how low of a human being she is during the debate. She hid behind 3000 911 murdered corpses as an excuse for taking millions in bribe money from big banks. Policies of her and her lying, greed-propelled husband caused the baking crisis of 2007 - and how they got away with it is testament to the media force field that shields the Clintons from responsibility for ALL their egregious crimes against this country.

I'm PROUD to shoot holes through their dirty thieving facade.

You are guilty for promoting her. Be ashamed.

You're sadly misinformed, as well a boorish, overbearing nincompoop. You certainly try to over stretch a highly incomplete personally opinionated thoroughly fiction seeded high school education.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-ticket_voting

"Straight-ticket voting or straight-party voting is the practice of voting for every candidate that a political party has on a general election ballot. For example, if a member of the Democratic Party in the United States votes for every candidate for president, Senator, Representative, Governor, state legislators, and those running for local government who are Democratic, this is considered straight-ticket voting. In general, straight-ticket voting was a very common occurrence up until around the 1960s and 1970s. Since that time, straight-ticket voting has declined in the United States among the general voting population; however, strong partisans (that is strong party identifiers) have remained straight-ticket voters.[1]

In the early days of the parties, it was nearly impossible not to vote on a straight-party line vote. Voters would receive a colored ballot with that party's nominees on it. A split-ticket vote would require two different colored ballots, which confused the voter. Often, the voter would choose a specific party, and vote for everyone from that party. Some states have had an option (sometimes known as a master lever)[2] to select "vote straight-ticket Democrat" and "vote straight-ticket Republican" that voters can check instead of voting for each race; states that do so include Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah. West Virginia used to have this practice. [3]"

Hillary Clinton Goes Bush League
By William Rivers Pitt

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33686-hillary-clinton-goes-bush-league

Just a shade over 24 hours after 129 people were slaughtered in Paris by terrorists, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took the debate stage in Iowa and utterly disgraced herself in a way that would have been shocking were it not so utterly mundane a phenomenon in modern US politics. One of her opponents, Bernie Sanders, tagged her with the millions of dollars in campaign contributions she has received from the very Wall Street financial firms that burned down the US economy some years ago. Sanders essentially said those firms expect a return on their investment, and he was exactly right.

Secretary Clinton bristled. "Wait a minute," she replied, "he has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity. Let's be frank here." Rather than be frank, however, Clinton went completely sideways and claimed that she takes barrels of corrupt Wall Street cash because 9/11 happened, or something. I've been watching political debates of all kinds since God wore short pants, and this ranked right up there with the most vile, disingenuous, sneaky, low-road slippery debate statements I have ever heard.

To wit:

You know, not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, I am very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent. So I - I represented New York. And I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy. And it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.




So, let me get this straight. Because Clinton has a lot of women who donate to her campaign, and because two airliners obliterated the World Trade Center in an attack that had people jumping to their deaths out of 100-story windows on live television, her acceptance of millions in dirty money has something to do with being good for the economy, and because it is a "rebuke" to the terrorists.

Gotcha.

On a peaceful sunny day, invoking 9/11 as a means of misdirecting a legitimate critique of the company she keeps, and of the expectations those friends have for the checks they write, would be grossly inappropriate. When she dropped that line, Parisians were still hosing blood off the sidewalks, sweeping up the broken glass and trying to identify the dead. The people in the US she seeks to represent - most specifically New Yorkers, who were shaken by the Paris attack and whom she invoked so passionately - were used by her to score some debate points. Her invocation of 9/11 was not some verbal oops; it was a deliberate waving of the bloody shirt at a time when the nation and the world were still reeling from the events of the day before.

A number of commentators have compared Secretary Clinton's 9/11 debate comment to the 2008 campaign tactics of Rudy Giuliani, who 9/11 couldn't go 9/11 to the men's room 9/11 without 9/11 invoking 9/11 9/11 like a verbal hiccup 9/11. That tactic worked about as well as the wax wings Icarus used when he flew too close to the sun. It was grotesque then, and is grotesque now, but doing so on the doorstep of a massacre puts Clinton into a whole other category.

In baseball, when a player pulls some punk move - headhunting with a fastball, cleat-spiking during a slide, failing to run out a pop fly - the game has a universal retort: "That's bush league." Bush league is precisely where candidate Clinton has parked herself ... and that's "Bush" with a capital "B."

This is What It All Means:

Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and the rest of that noxious cabal used the false intelligence provided by Chalabi to intimidate and terrify the nation into war, fulfilling a conquest dream they had been cuddling since Nixon was chased from office. They, by way of a useful fool named George W. Bush and with the full compliance of the media, deliberately employed the September 11 attacks against the US people as a means of getting their war, and the financial/political payday it came to be. It was a crime, as-yet unpunished, and Hillary Clinton voted for it.

That she would pivot a question about her questionable campaign financing into a self-serving harangue about 9/11, one day after the Paris catastrophe, is an act of verbal violence beyond moral repair. Know this: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest created ISIS, which I shall henceforth refer to as Daesh, by way of that war. They got their war by using 9/11 against their own people at a time when those people were feeling most vulnerable. People are feeling vulnerable again after Paris, and Hillary Clinton used 9/11 one scant day after the bloodletting to get Bernie Sanders off her back, and to lay a brick to the topic, because she does not like talking about her friends in low places.

People who will say anything to win office are truly frightening, and truly dangerous. Welcome to the Bush league, candidate Clinton. You just graduated.

On the matter of a bunch of us meeting Lash, I told that to Rabel the first time he accused her of being a lying plant (or whatever words) and he didn't respond, that I ever saw. Others who read this thread or whatever related thread the first accusation was in may remember that I backed her up several months before now.

The people who met her are not, or were not in the case of Dys, inconsequential fools, whatever our foibles. Three of us were way left of Frank.

Thank you Izzy for your take, hearing me at least to the extent that she is not a liar. Roger is included in the non-fools at meeting list.

I don't know the increments of change Lash went through, but I think her online experiences with some of us before and after that get together had an effect. She has said as much, twice. After all, she did come to New Mexico to meet up with us. All in all, it's not really our business, except to say we know she is not a liar.

In fair measure, Lash and I disagree on Hillary. I started my own thread wondering what other likely democrats were out there because I could hardly stand her, finally pinning down my then reasons somewhere mid thread. I did say that I would vote for her if she is the nominee, and I still will, moderately enthusiastically because I don't want one of today's Republicans in, for the reason that individually and together as a group they scare me for the nation.
Also, the Supreme Court matters.

Skipalong with her views as she is, she still bothers me, but I get her present changes of heart may have some reality base mixed with the politics basis. She may well end up being a good president. Who of us never changes? Never changing may not be something to be proud of.

Meantime, keep on, Bernie.

With her criticisms of the annointed Queen Hillary and her enthusiasm for Bernie Sander's dusted off 20th century socialism, Lash appears to have seriously outraged many in the Democrat camp. I believe that reaction is very illustrative of the narrow-minded intolerance that lies just below the surface of most contemporary self-styled "progressives". Frank Apisa certainly gave us all an excellent example of his almost medieval (or should I say Islamic?) intolerance of dissent from the authorized text.

I don't agree that Sanders' professed economic views and policies will have the beneficial effects that he claims, even though his professed intentions and social/economic goals may be good and desirable. Human beings are complex things and human nature has proven itself able to outwit and defy the schemes of authoritarian reformers innumerable times throughout history.

That said, I accept that Lash is attracted by the social/economic goals and aims that Sanders has rather eloquently professed and at the same time repulsed by the self-serving lies and hypocrisy of the Clinton camp and their "success and riches through governing" establishment. It seems to me that is a fairly reasonable position to take, and I find the intensity of the general reactions to it here, coming as they do from such a broad array of individual perspectives , to be both revealing and instructive.

It appears the basic Cinton argument is "Don't disturb me (or the electorate) about details, criminal acts, lies or real policy issues. The issue before us is governing and holding on to our political power" Lash has refused to accept that proposition and, in doing so, has infuriated Frank and others. Good for her.

Intolerance, whatever the perspective from which it emerges, is more or less the same tiresome thing. The irony here is breathtaking.

Our exchanges on Nazi propaganda posters told me all I need to know. It was like talking to a really dim fourteen year old who has no concept of what propaganda is. That, and her asking me about what I was doing to improve the lot of Black Americans despite knowing I didn't even live in America. Her inability to distinguish between the British electorate and those eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election, and her calling me a ******* Liberal all played their part in me coming to the conclusion that she has no idea what goes on outside the US.

Life's too short to deal with that bollocks.

You are one sick human being, Lash. You need professional help...and you should not delay. Things will only get worse if you procrastinate.

So that I do not leave you thinking I have nothing good to say about you...that bit about never telling a lie here was great shtick...and if you used it to stimulate laughter...it worked. I'd describe what it did for me as a guffaw.

Glad to see you siding with her, George.

It sorta illustrates what I have been saying!

Thanks.

Poor Frank. His mind is so closed he doesn't see the irony.

I wonder if Frank considers the possibility that he too "is a sick human being".

Once again...thank you for your comments about Lash...and illustrating what I have been talking about, George.

Izzy fabricated my portion of the conversation, and intentionally misrepresents it because he gets off on it. Whatever floats your weird little boat. It is very doubtful that I called him a ******* liberal since Bernie and I are actual liberals and I refuse to let that sniveling limp dick in my wonderful club.

I appreciate the support of one man of character - no matter what religion or political inclination than I would be to find myself in the favor of a legion of people who I have no respect for. :grin:

Please never let the ilk of Frank Apisa and izzy approve me. That day would signal time to change.

I'm good.😉

How is it possible to fabricate a conversation? You said what you said because you're ******* stupid.