When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@gapf,

Count me in!

0 Replies

@gapf,

Classy

0 Replies

@gapf,

Quote gapf:

Quote:

Trump does not drink.

That's two teetotalers in a row the Republicans will be running. No wonder they don't win.

0 Replies

@snood,

Snood, I come on a thread like this to discuss our thoughts and you continually slip in the personal digs. It's not necessary. We don't need to whip the messenger's ass just because we don't like his message.

1 Reply

@blatham,

That's my view and I am sticking with it. Smile

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Snood, I come on a thread like this to discuss our thoughts and you continually slip in the personal digs. It's not necessary. We don't need to whip the messenger's ass just because we don't like his message.

Oh please spare me, edgar. I said you're being whiny and unreasonable about this political contest between Hillary and Bernie and you want to generalize it so that I'm a cheap shot artist. I find you in most cases in most things to be a grounded, sensible and good humored joe. But in this thing with Bernie you've taken an irrational and yes, whiney stance. If you want to say that's me being personal, I guess I'll just have to live with it.

1 Reply

@snood,

Have it your way. You can have the last word.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote ehBeth:

Quote:

I wish people wouldn't encourage people in conflating the two Clintons.

The Vice President runs on the former president's record when it's his/her turn to run. Similarly, politically active spouses run on the former president's record as well.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

The 4,000 word downloaded treatise you attempted to answer my post with does not allow me to take all 15 points in order, so I'll deal with just one. Are you seriously mad about the US taking care of the breakup of Yugoslavia?

Ethnic cleansing was going on, slaughter by paramilitaries was going on in the streets. Into this mess came Clinton and NATO, who stopped the blood flowing and got everyone to sign on the Dayton Accords. Sounds good to me. As far as Russia being butthurt about it, boo hoo. We were not about to invade Eastern Europe during the Cold War, but once Russia let those countries go, there was no reason for them NOT to join the wealthy EU if that's what the country wished. If they stuck in Russia's crummy "economic union", the Eastern Europeans would be broke forever. Places like the Czech Republic have not only gained huge GDP in the years they broke loose from Russia, the life expectancy of the Czech male increased from 68 years to 75. That's what being rid of USSR/Russian occupation does for a people.

And some people have the nerve to complain about it?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Re: blatham (Post 6096238)
That's my view and I am sticking with it. Smile

Absolutely. Though I trust you won't mind if I or others try to nudge you in the direction of some other perspectives.

There's a very interesting piece up at the Guardian today that speaks to the human tendency to make errors in the way we perceive and think. For example, our tendencies to seek out confirming opinions or data ("confirmation bias"). http://bit.ly/1JCd6rT The writer (and the research he references ) also use a term I've not run into before - "intentionality bias" - where we ascribe some intentionality behind events when it isn't actually there. For example, a teacher at recess walks across the snowy school grounds, some snow from a tree falls and hits the back of his head, he turns around to a group of students and yells, "OK, who threw that snowball?!"

I trust or at least hope that many writing here have read Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (if you haven't, do so immediately or I'll hit you with a snowball http://bit.ly/HxVYJZ ). Every time I re-read this essay, I'm reminded that I too have certain cognitive tendencies about which I have to remain alert - "Calm down, Bernie. The CIA isn't really watching you with drones and satellites". It's not that bad but it can go in that direction.

I hope you can find time to read that material. And as regards my earlier argument re what anyone arriving in the WH actually faces, in the 20's or 30's John Dewey wrote "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business". That dynamic seems to be a key element in your present political thinking and you'll get no argument from me on the existence of that dynamic nor on the negatives that attend. But it simply won't help if we fail to grasp that no individual arriving in the WH will be carrying some silver bullet to "fix" this.

That's the argument for incremental change. And now I'll leave it at that.

1 Reply

Before I read your last, let me make the statement that nobody makes more misnakes than I. And where I am wrong, I expect to be at least nudged for it. Egregious errors are my lifestyle. But, my overall thrust is, in my opinion, right on.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

There's a danger is being your own judge.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Re: blatham (Post 6096238)
That's my view and I am sticking with it. Smile

Absolutely. Though I trust you won't mind if I or others try to nudge you in the direction of some other perspectives.

There's a very interesting piece up at the Guardian today that speaks to the human tendency to make errors in the way we perceive and think. For example, our tendencies to seek out confirming opinions or data ("confirmation bias"). http://bit.ly/1JCd6rT The writer (and the research he references ) also use a term I've not run into before - "intentionality bias" - where we ascribe some intentionality behind events when it isn't actually there. For example, a teacher at recess walks across the snowy school grounds, some snow from a tree falls and hits the back of his head, he turns around to a group of students and yells, "OK, who threw that snowball?!"

I trust or at least hope that many writing here have read Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (if you haven't, do so immediately or I'll hit you with a snowball http://bit.ly/HxVYJZ ). Every time I re-read this essay, I'm reminded that I too have certain cognitive tendencies about which I have to remain alert - "Calm down, Bernie. The CIA isn't really watching you with drones and satellites". It's not that bad but it can go in that direction.

I hope you can find time to read that material. And as regards my earlier argument re what anyone arriving in the WH actually faces, in the 20's or 30's John Dewey wrote "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business". That dynamic seems to be a key element in your present political thinking and you'll get no argument from me on the existence of that dynamic nor on the negatives that attend. But it simply won't help if we fail to grasp that no individual arriving in the WH will be carrying some silver bullet to "fix" this.

That's the argument for incremental change. And now I'll leave it at that.

I have long been aware of that basic premise and I believe more of us are like that than care to examine or admit, including myself. My biggest failing when searching links for a site like this is, I read over too fast and where false or misleading statements get incorporated, I fail to recognize it. I try to avoid the more notorious sites for information, but many wear good disguises.

I have no disagreement with incremental change, when positive change actually happens. I just believe that the 24 years of Clinton, Bush and Obama have finished incrementally to the negative, over all. I believe most liberals these days fail to recognize how real the military/corporate takeover is and what it means for the poor and middle classes. I don't see how a politician can sustain a lifeline through their donations and then incrementally change very much. For me, it is not enough to have a halfway health insurance system that insurance companies are working to manipulate. Perpetuating the student loan debacle is criminal. Driving down wages and helping kill off unions is corporate policy. Unions seem to be incrementally dying. I don't have time to present a complete was list.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

There's a danger is being your own judge.

If you can't believe in what you are doing, it's time to quit doing at all. To let others judgement of you skew your judgement, when you know they have a political agenda is silly, too.

0 Replies

For some people there is no way to drive home the fact that incremental change is the only way to get anything done...and that two steps forward and one back (sometimes one step forward and two back) is actually the way to make progress.

Abetting the regressive Republican Party in their quest to control the House, the Senate, a vast majority of state houses/governorships...AND THE PRESIDENCY...

...is political insanity.

If that cannot penetrate...then nothing will, because it means those minds are purposefully closed off to argument.

I can only hope this kind of thinking is not as popular among the people in the swing states as it is in this forum...because if it is, the next four or five decades are going to be very, very hard for America and the rest of the world.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

That might make sense if the president was the smart/strong one in the pairing. I've long held that Hillary was/is the brains in the Clinton duo, and she should have been the first /only Clinton president. I still don't think she's the optimal candidate for the Democrats at this time, but the party fell down on developing younger candidates.

1 Reply

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-taking-their-fight-with-200738611.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

Tag team crooks, DWS and HRC, trying to stonewall the investigation Hillary agreed to during debate. Hmm.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-taking-their-fight-with-200738611.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

Tag team crooks, DWS and HRC, trying to stonewall the investigation Hillary agreed to during debate. Hmm.

Just so everyone's clear about what the Sanders advisers are intimating (not even alleging, just throwing **** to see if it sticks); they are suggesting that the main guy on their team that got caught pilfering Clinton's data was a "plant" by Hillary, or the DNC, or someone - and not just a person who really wanted to work for Bernie and got on his team through connections in the DNC.

Oh yeah - They've also fired three other staffers, but I don't think they've started trying to say they were 'plants' as well - yet.

All this so that what appears clear and undisputed -Bernie's staff tried to use data illegitimately- has some doubts mixed with it, and the Hillary camp gets a smear of shadiness in the bargain.

Who's really being underhanded and seamy here?Bernie's staff want's you to not think about it much - just assume Clinton's up to no good, and don't look too closely.

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know