When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

However, I would not call either her progress so far or her status as "triumphant" as you have.

that was a Forbes quote - not revelette commenting

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Email "scandal" is viewed by everyone who isn't a die hard Hillary hating Republican as a lot of hot air. It will have no effect on who gets the Democratic nomination at all, as you try to assert. I agree that it is not impossible for Sanders to get the nomination, and for that matter I like what I hear from O'Malley as well. The first primary or even "caucus" hasn't even been held yet, so nobody knows for sure.

What we do know for sure is that there is no belligerent authoritarian calling for candidates who are presently behind to withdraw from the race like Republicans are doing. Democrats believe, unlike Republicans, that every candidate should have their fair shot.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

The first primary or even "caucus" hasn't even been held yet, so nobody knows for sure.

I think Christie's simple comment, to this ^ effect, was part of what made me take another look/listen at him. He was much more chill than I'd expected him to be based on the transcript.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

No that was your analysis, not mine.

George H W Bush is a very old man fast approaching his death. He wasn't an authoritarian while he was in office, and, as far as I can tell, hasn't turned authoritarian yet.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Email "scandal" is viewed by everyone who isn't a die hard Hillary hating Republican as a lot of hot air. It will have no effect on who gets the Democratic nomination at all, as you try to assert.

You don't read very well either. I wrote that Hillary will likely win the noimination, though there is a possibility that the continuing erosion of her support could endanger that. I noted that her performance as Secretary of State will make her extremely vulnerable in the final election .

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

As ehbeth said, it wasn't my quote, but from Forbes. In any event, I doubt I would use the term "triumphant" for Hillary or anyone else, not my type of word.

As far as Sander's expectant rise, I think it comes from independents and what Lash calls "millennials" rather than solid democrats. It could change on a dime and Sanders might very well carry off his double wins (predicted) in Iowa and New Hampshire to other states, but he has still a lot of persuading to do and I (speaking only for myself)am not convinced his policies and the he plans on funding with (taxes for most part, different ones) them is good for the country. On the other hand if he wins, I would still vote for him over anyone else on the republican side.

As Benghazi as your secretary of state I am sure refers to, please.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However not all tyrants are bullies in that sense.

Correct. I thought of getting into that aspect but wanted to speak to a simple element that's quite visible. But bullying, regardless of how obvious or hidden it is behind structure and rhetoric, is the thing. That is, the urge to dominate others. The very beneficial institutions we enjoy in the west (democractic elections, courts, etc) evolved to mitigate the realization of such urges.

That Sanders would implement policies towards maximal voter engagement and participation is a key hint to you, or ought to be. Those who wish to, and set out to, inhibit voter participation are the people you should be looking at more closely.

Quote:

evil (to use an apparently favorite term of yours)

I gather that was teasing as I've used it once.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

I noted that her performance as Secretary of State will make her extremely vulnerable in the final election .

And since you have posted at length previously on the Email business, I think I have the right to assume that's a big part of what you mean by her performance as Secretary of State. All that Email stuff is of interest to Hillary hating Republican die hards, not anyone else.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

George H W Bush is a very old man fast approaching his death. He wasn't an authoritarian while he was in office

And I made clear he was no authoritarian. However, you asserted that Bernie Sanders' background in Civil Rights would dispose him to authoritarianism which had you worried if Sanders every moves into the White House. I merely pointed out that Bush Sr's background of hanging around with the crazed radicals of the John Birch Society in the early sixties would far more indicate an authoritarian background than Sanders' Civil Rights work. If Bush didn't turn authoritarian, and he didn't, Sanders surely won't.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

And I gave you several counterexamples of people in the grip of decidedly authoritarian ideas or programs that would require authoritarianism along the way for their implementation, who became tyrants while in power.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

So?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

And since you have posted at length previously on the Email business, I think I have the right to assume that's a big part of what you mean by her performance as Secretary of State. All that Email stuff is of interest to Hillary hating Republican die hards, not anyone else.

Do you really know that to be true or are you just whistling in the dark??

The latest releases from the State department have included compartmented SI intelligence - stuff that potentially reveals sources and methods and which could get people killed. People have been imprisioned for less. "Republican die hards" are certainly interested in this as you say, but it is not a trivisal or irrelevsant matter, and it masy well prove to have been interesting to many others.

1 Reply

Oh for the love of all that is holy (and, by the way, a recent survey was done of the furniture of the universe and three things were located that matched a description of "holy" but each was found to be ambiguous).

The right is doing its standard thing with Hillary, Benghazi, emails, her stint as Secretary. It matters not in the least how many investigations are completed nor what their findings were/are. Guilt and incompetence will be, inevitably and predictably, the conclusion of right wing media and politicos. The certainty here is 100% while this candidacy is in progress. Debating the quality of right wing claims/arguments is futile before you even get started.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Is it a 'standard right wing thing' ? Please recall the intensity of the Democrat campaign against Richard Nixon and his "dirty tricks" program which involved a buglarly of a DNC office in an attempt to get some evidence on Richard Ellsworth and others as well as some unsavory campaign practices right out of the Chicago/Cook county IL book.

Here you and Blickers simply deny or implicitly write off fast accumulating evidence of what as a minimum involves careless self-serving incompetence and likely an intent to keep her official correspondence away from the domain of laws calling for official review and in some cases public disclosure -- actions which directly exposed highly secret information to exploitation by foreign governments (and the possible deaths of sources) -- as merely the outrage of her political opponents in a contest to select our next President. Significantly you do so without even a nod to the accumulating evidence itself and its obvious implications.

It is certainly true that Republicans are doing all they can to hang this stuff on Hillary - just as did Democrats with Nixon. However, these facts didn't dilute the underlying issue with Nixon and they don't with Hillary either.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Yes. Of course the Nixon administration and Hillary's tenure are exactly the same.
- Hillary had a plumber unit that burglarized a psychiatrist's office to gain information to be used to smear the character of a whistleblower
- Hillary had another burglary done in the following year of RNC headquarters
- Hillary had an AG who secretly funded and directed widespread intel gathering and sabotage of Republicans
- Her aides have been convicted of crimes
Etc etc ******* etc

A Democratic campaign against Nixon. Yeah, that's what it was.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Do you even know what compartment SIGINT intelligence is???? You are flinging around terms you don't understand and you are starting to sound like a parrot. It kills me to hear folks trying to ramp up the imaginary scandal when they are completely out of the depths on an issue. Just don't freaking vote for Hillary mr. intel expert, just admit you don't like her, nobody said you have to like her just don't make crap up and try to tart up the conversation as if you know what C/SI is, you sound foolish. Sources and methods??? Don't make me laugh.

I don't recall any outrage for you folks when Valerie Plame's cover was blown. Don't think for a minute her contacts weren't burned or worse. Jesus Jumping Christ.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Thanks for reminding us about Valerie Plume. That should put an end to who is more dangerous to our country.

1 Reply

On the topic of the authoritarian personality, Cheney's lieutenant, David Addington is a dilly of an example. If you never read Jane Mayer's reporting on him in the New Yorker, now's your chance http://bit.ly/1NtKOAg

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It should, but it won't. These clowns don't have a clue how the info is gathered or handled. There was absolutely no outrage over Valerie Plame, and I guarantee you that a chill ran down the spine of every federal employee employed by the intelligence agencies.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Yes. Of course the Nixon administration and Hillary's tenure are exactly the same.
- Hillary had a plumber unit that burglarized a psychiatrist's office to gain information to be used to smear the character of a whistleblower
- Hillary had another burglary done in the following year of RNC headquarters
- Hillary had an AG who secretly funded and directed widespread intel gathering and sabotage of Republicans
- Her aides have been convicted of crimes
Etc etc ******* etc

A Democratic campaign against Nixon. Yeah, that's what it was.

Oh, I see; nothing in the ongoing revelations about security gaps in our embassies and in the Secretary's handling of government secrets; or influence peddling on behalf of speaking fees and the foundation even approaches the items you cited above. By the way the criminal convictions didn't occur untill long after Nixon left office, and for all we know similar things may follow here. I wuouldn't hold up the AGs of the Omama administration as models for dispassionate jurisprudence either. Two buglaries..... my, my.

Your indignation is eloquent testimony to your narrow and apparently closed mind on such issues. Not very impressive for one avowedly dedicated to intellectual analysis. Indeed a bit partisan in my view.

3 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know