When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

See? Cicerone Imposter wasn't the only one who showed the post could have been read two ways. Very Happy

(Actually, blatham was satirically mimicing the argument Republicans would be using, not endorsing it).

0 Replies

@snood,

When you hate someone as much as Lash hates Hillary, any lie that brings her down is justified in LASHES eyes. Besides everyone knows in politics truth is the first casualty.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Then why am I the only one, then, interested in finding the truth? You people are furious that I'm even talking about discovering the truth.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Then why am I the only one, then, interested in finding the truth? You people are furious that I'm even talking about discovering the truth.

Opinion doesent = fact Lash. You obviously hate Hillary so much you cant be objective and most if not all on this site know it.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Fair enough.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

Gee, you were involved with Bill and Hillary?

The post that follows yours has it right. Sorry. Should have put it in quotation marks.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

why am I the only one, then, interested in finding the truth?

It really doesn't come across that way at all, old friend. It's rather like you are profoundly hoping for validation to an agreeable narrative. That's an outcome that doesn't appear very likely given the multi-millions of dollars already spent on investigations, the Starr Commission, the hundreds of operatives from Arkansas up through DC looking for what you hope might be there.

1 Reply

@beva,

Quote:

Maybe he can use that talent as president to do something that actually benefits this country.

If he uses his talents like he runs his many businesses, he will run this country into further bankruptcies, calling it reorganization like it is a good thing he had to do in the first place instead of having to do it because his businesses were failing.

Fact-checking claims about Donald Trump's four bankruptcies

I guess Trump's business were too big to fail, the banks would have lost as well if all his business just went belly up instead changing into more competent hands.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

It's obvious YOU are incapable of objectivity. Like your buddy Frank, you just repeat your mantra ad nauseum.

You can't actually address issues around Clinton, you just pull your tired string.

Why not wade into the meat of an issue instead of relying 100% on personal insult?

1 Reply

@blatham,

Truthfully, if he was innocent of Broderick, Jones, Willey, et al - I do want to know. I just don't believe, if the converse were true, people here would want to know.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Guilty of affairs? Who gives a f*ck. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc etc etc. Have you sought out or demanded the intimate details of those many affairs? Or that of sitting GOP politicos who we now know involved themselves in extra-marital affairs or even of sexual dalliances with minors of whatever gender?

And what possible relevance could that have to their wives' moral character?

2 Replies

@blatham,

Not guilty of affairs. Who gives a ****?

Guilty of rapes and assault. As accused. By a tidy sum.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Guilty of rapes and assault. As accused. By a tidy sum.

You find such allegations credible even after what i've noted above. Going to have to let you retain your notions regarding events and why the rest of us don't buy the story. I've known you for a long time and I like you, so no big thing. But I would recommend you cease beating this horse you alone here deem still alive.

3 Replies

@Lash,

You act as though all of this is newly discovered information, when in fact, all of it has been rehashed to death over twenty years ago, if there was something to any of it, believe it, the Star report and all the many investigations and hearings would have found something. In the end all they ended up after countless hearings and money down the drain was contempt of court and impeached for having a consensual affair and lying about it.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I suspect the objection is - at least in some quarters - stimulated by a perception of hypocrisy given that Candidate Hillary has put so much energy touting the supposed "War on Women" that her political opponents are accused of waging. By the standards advocated by some feminists, including those influencing contemporary policies in Universities, husband Bill was indeed guilty of rape, or at least a (gasp!) "micro aggression" leading to rape in the contemporary vernacular.

I agree that there's not much to be gained by resurrecting or reinvestigating the allegations made by several apparently trustworthy women who, decades ago, accused Bill Clinton of various forms of sexual assault or exploitation. However the justaposition of all that and Hillary's rather contrived, but persistent accusations of an organized right wing conspiracy and war on women does indeed suggest there may be just a trace of self-serving hypocrisy and demagoguery in her political rhetoric, and also something lacking in her relentless pursuit of the truth.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I didn't try to revive the horse. This "conversation" began with me following up someone's remark about the Hillary vs Trump Who's the Biggest Sexist news cycle.

As usual, anyone here who doesn't immediately support Clinton is accused of crimes. I think there was a dab of intentional misreading... If you read back, you'll note I am questioning and commenting more than cheerleading.

However. Your recommendation to stop talking about it seems authoritarian./ purses lips

1 Reply

@blatham,

I didn't see any items by you that could make women's allegations against Clinton incredible.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Advice is hardly authoritarian.

But I can recommend to folks here this column from Dave Weigel that just came to my attention...

Quote:

"As Trump attacks, conservatives hope to turn women against Clinton

...In these slow, intra-holiday news doldrums, Trump's attacks have largely been covered as his way to drag Bill Clinton himself into the race. But that's not how conservatives see it. To Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser who left his camp this year but cheers the candidate on from the bleachers, Trump has embraced the narrative that Hillary Clinton herself is an enabler of abuse. That's the thesis of "The Clintons' War on Women," Stone's new book, in which he claims to have identified 24 women exploited by Bill Clinton as the former first lady covered for him. In 2008, he named an anti-Clinton group Citizens United Not Timid just to get its otherwise unprintable acronym into print. In 2015, Stone had become a defender of women.

http://wapo.st/1TqzVnK

It was beyond obvious that we'd see this stuff come up. Not to mention that operatives like Stone would be key agents.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

Re: blatham (Post 6098827)
I didn't see any items by you that could make women's allegations against Clinton incredible.

True. You have not. Nor have you seen me provide any defense against the theory that jet condensation trails are jam-packed with poisonous gluten.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I really like those ponderous and pretentious analytical affectations like... "embraced the narrative that..... "

Anyway I think Trump has a streetwise gift for penetrating the vagueries in the political posturings of his opponents and making them pay a price for their sometimes self-serving rhetoric. It has worked so far for him far better than I had expected when he entered the political race. How long that success might continue is something I won't venture to guess. But it appears to me that a growing segment of the public sees real meaning behind his sometimes almost comic, always surprising and direct responses.

3 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know