80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
blatham
 
  3  
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 02:58 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
That's not a particularly scholarly (or friendly) argument - 'Agree with me or you have proved yourself to be effectively insane.'

You and I like each other. It's a genuine affinity. On many or even most things we might talk about, we'd be in accord or close. But on this matter, I want to tie you upside down to a bidet and torture you fancy-style.

- Nearly half of Trump supporters believe that Obama was not born in the US
- Likewise, nearly half of Republicans (43%) believe Obama is a Muslim
- And then there's the Rubio statements of belief (noted earlier) that Obama knows exactly what he's doing and that is to...
Quote:
Asked by CNN's Chris Cuomo if the senator believes Obama is "intentionally trying to destroy the country," Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said, "Absolutely."
http://cnn.it/20Wb5Ay
Now, that's a LOT of insanity.

The thing is, this stuff is repeated every single day on right wing radio and said or intimated every single day on Fox. These people get their ideas from somewhere and that's where.

And the GOP has not, in any significant way, fought back against this fomenting of insanity. They have utilized it and fostered it for electoral gains and for ideological convenience.

Your party has gone stark raving nuts, george.


blatham
 
  2  
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 03:00 pm
@woiyo,
Quote:
Actually, no.

I stand corrected. So where do you turn for your news input?
maporsche
 
  5  
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 03:33 pm
@woiyo,
It's not "Everyone else did it".... it's "It was ALLOWED by the state department".

Who do you think set up her private server at her house? You think Bill was down in the basement plugging in wires, changing internet settings, building email servers?

The state department would have done the work to set it up, and they'd have done it because it WAS ALLOWED to be done that way.

There is ZERO proof that anything classified was at risk.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 05:16 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:


- Nearly half of Trump supporters believe that Obama was not born in the US
- Likewise, nearly half of Republicans (43%) believe Obama is a Muslim
- And then there's the Rubio statements of belief (noted earlier) that Obama knows exactly what he's doing and that is to...
Quote:
Asked by CNN's Chris Cuomo if the senator believes Obama is "intentionally trying to destroy the country," Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said, "Absolutely."
http://cnn.it/20Wb5Ay
Now, that's a LOT of insanity.

The thing is, this stuff is repeated every single day on right wing radio and said or intimated every single day on Fox. These people get their ideas from somewhere and that's where.

And the GOP has not, in any significant way, fought back against this fomenting of insanity. They have utilized it and fostered it for electoral gains and for ideological convenience.

Your party has gone stark raving nuts, george.


I don't know the source or the quality of your statistics for "Trump supporters". Certainly there are uncertainties associated both with the survey questions themselves and the identification of Trump supporters. We have all seen film clips of people asked rather simple questions based on what we suppose is common knowledge, only to be amazed at the ignorance of basic facts that prevails among many people..

It's also true that Obama was raised during his years in Indonesia as a Muslim, and, by his own account, that experience has left strong impressions with him. He has certainly demonstrated a high degree of sensitivity and perhaps sympathy with Islam - even to the point of (rather absurdly I think) refusing to acknowledge the existence of something others call Islamist terrorism (something which even the Saudis have criticized). That, and his odd treatment of the nascent but aborted green revolution in Iran and the still unfolding disintegration of Arab states in the Middle East has given many serious, well informed people serious concern.

I'll grant you that there is a lot of gross oversimplification of issues and even prejudgments out there on political matters. However, these things are not the exclusive province of "the right" as you repratedly suggest.

I suppose I could tout the "insanity" of Bernie Sanders supporters for believing his pie in the sky promises with hardly a word about how he would pay for them, or how our economy might perfiorm under the tax & regulatory burdens he infers (but never quite reaches the point of describing in detail). Indeed I could cite the rather critical financial problems currently facing Italy, Spain and Greece (all polite modern social democracies), or the chaos affecting Venezuela, or that from which Argentian is emerging .... all to tout the "insanity" of his proposals.

In a similar vein the left wing media are certinly just as persistent and widespread as are their counterparts on the right. Fox has managed to capture a larger audience than MSNBC, but I doubt you would claim that they are any less spokesmen for a particular pollitical point of view than Fox. Same goes for "The New Yorker" and any number of newspaper/magizine publications. I believe the left & right wing media behave in more or less equivalent ways , though that of the left adopts more pretentions of pseudo intellectualism.

I know from our previous conversations that you don't like these equivalence arguments from me. However, I believe them to be true, and I believe that history supports my view.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 08:11 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
You think Bill was down in the basement plugging in wires, changing internet settings, building email servers?


best visual of the day

thank you

(you do have to pay for screen cleaner. I spewed tea)
snood
 
  4  
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 11:38 pm
georgeob wrote:
Quote:
I suppose I could tout the "insanity" of Bernie Sanders supporters for believing his pie in the sky promises with hardly a word about how he would pay for them, or how our economy might perfiorm under the tax & regulatory burdens he infers (but never quite reaches the point of describing in detail). Indeed I could cite the rather critical financial problems currently facing Italy, Spain and Greece (all polite modern social democracies), or the chaos affecting Venezuela, or that from which Argentian is emerging .... all to tout the "insanity" of his proposals.

In a similar vein the left wing media are certinly just as persistent and widespread as are their counterparts on the right. Fox has managed to capture a larger audience than MSNBC, but I doubt you would claim that they are any less spokesmen for a particular pollitical point of view than Fox. Same goes for "The New Yorker" and any number of newspaper/magizine publications. I believe the left & right wing media behave in more or less equivalent ways , though that of the left adopts more pretentions of pseudo intellectualism.

I know from our previous conversations that you don't like these equivalence arguments from me. However, I believe them to be true, and I believe that history supports my view.


There is nothing on the left to compare to the insanity that has taken control of the Republican Party. I was prepared to go into some detail with quotes and examples to make the case that your two front runners are living proof that your party has abandoned all semblance of decency and civility, leave alone any hope of statesmanship or foresighted governance. I had started to compile a list of all the public pronouncements Trump has made to date that would cause any rational constituency to reject the man as a volatile and thin-skinned racist that would be a ludicrous choice to give the reins of power. I was going to list some of the people who know Cruz as a self-centered loon who will do anything for power; I was going to include some of the words of those in Congress who have worked with him and despise him and know him as a proven loose screw who is rotten with ambition.

But I spared myself the trouble because it would be totally wasted. You will NEVER admit to the justifiable terror and panic that sentient people in your party are whispering under their breath, because they see what their years of Fox News driven intolerance and hatred and fear and greed have produced. I could respect even the smallest hint of acknowledgement from you of the repulsive elephant in the Republican's living room. But I don't see any reason to believe you're capable of that. All I see coming is another pitiful attempt to rationalize with false equivalencies the indefensible blight that is leading your party down the toilet right now.

So, never mind.

snood
 
  3  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 01:02 am
I see this as a very circumspect and sober summing up of why to vote for Hillary. It is not a decision to take lightly for anyone who cares about the direction of the party, and the country.

Michelle Goldberg is someone who has written scathing takedowns of Hillary. But after agonizing over it, has come to the decision that Hillary makes more sense than Bernie as our candidate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/02/why_one_feminist_woman_is_voting_for_hillary_clinton_over_bernie_sanders.html
Lash
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 01:29 am
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/09/hillary_clintons_progressive_problem_the_real_policy_differences_between_her_and_bernie_sanders_can_actually_be_quantified/

Will the real, quantifiable progressive stand up...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 01:40 am
Why progressives must try. Moyers.
http://billmoyers.com/story/why-we-must-try/#.Vrwq3TRyJpw.twitter
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 01:41 am
@snood,
It's interesting, but I sometimes wonder about all this attention paid to "trusting" elected officials. These people spend two years during a campaign telling people what they plan to try to do, and Democrats and Republicans generally have very different plans.

For instance, in the last debate Marco Rubio lashed out at Obama for Obamacare, accusing him of giving universal healthcare "like any other country". I thought that was a unique take on things, up until now I thought the issue was how can America be the only advanced country that does not provide universal health care. Rubio made it seem like that was an evil thing to do.

Given huge differences like this, what difference does "trust" mean. I want to know which direction the candidate is going to at least try to take the country. For instance, I do trust most Republicans to make an attempt to do away with both Social Security and Medicare as we know them. That's why I'm not voting for any of them. I have no idea if the Democrat I vote for will be successful in defending Social Security and Medicare as we know them, but at least I know some attempt will be made to do so. The Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to outdo each other in devising plans to get rid of them.

It's not a case of trust, it's a case of one party wants to take the country in one direction on most things, and the other party wants to go the other direction. I care more about direction, not about some obscure notion of "trust".
blatham
 
  3  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 07:09 am
@georgeob1,
Your consistent stance - both parties in the present period are equivalent to each other and any claim to significant difference are axiomatically founded only upon bias - permits you to avoid or reject any data which leads to a different conclusion. It's why you avoid specifics. It's why you find it proper to discount polling results or the sort of statement made by Rubio and his staff. It's why your posts/arguments float about in the ether and almost never touch the ground.

National Review's Fred Barnes today
Quote:
The message to Republican leaders from New Hampshire is this: you'd better start figuring out how to help Donald Trump win the general election because he's probably going to be your presidential nominee.
http://tws.io/1Q9bYOz
Trump. The probable GOP presidential candidate for 2016. Now let's figure out how to help him.

This. Is. Insane. It's where your party has come to. Sarah Palin is where your party has come to. 'Muslim Obama's true goal is to destroy America' is where your party has come to.






blatham
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 07:20 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
It's interesting, but I sometimes wonder about all this attention paid to "trusting" elected officials.

I deem trust a valid concern. But the context here is Hillary, obviously. So we need to appreciate why these attacks or criticisms have been pushed forward so vigorously. But I have to take off now so I'll get to that later.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 07:44 am
@snood,
Very good article, I think I'll save it. I really don't consider myself a feminist, how can I being a housewife my whole adult life? Other than that, I can really relate to that article.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 08:24 am
@snood,
snood wrote:
the indefensible blight that is leading your party down the toilet right now.

Actually Mr. Trump is leading the Republicans to a period of extended political dominance.

There are things that I don't agree with Mr. Trump about, but all this melodrama from the Left is silly. At the very least it will be a relief to have a president who doesn't strive to violate the Second Amendment.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 09:54 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Your consistent stance - both parties in the present period are equivalent to each other and any claim to significant difference are axiomatically founded only upon bias - permits you to avoid or reject any data which leads to a different conclusion. It's why you avoid specifics. It's why you find it proper to discount polling results or the sort of statement made by Rubio and his staff. It's why your posts/arguments float about in the ether and almost never touch the ground.
I don't think they are equivalent to each other at all. There are rather obvious differences in their desired programs and priorities. The human natures of the people who populate the contending parties do indeed have many common features. That I believe is a rather obvious truth,

I don't avoid specifics, unless of course you regard specifics as the commentaries of self appointed savants on the contemporaty trends and fashions in the contending parties - speculations that can usually be neither confirmed or denied, and which, in my view don't count for much. I prefer to think for myself.

blatham wrote:

National Review's Fred Barnes today
Quote:
The message to Republican leaders from New Hampshire is this: you'd better start figuring out how to help Donald Trump win the general election because he's probably going to be your presidential nominee
That indeed was Barnes' expressed opinion. I regard it as an unfortunate outcome. The primary campaign is not yet over and we shall see. There is much I don't like in Trump: there is far more in Sanders and Hillary.

blatham wrote:
This. Is. Insane. It's where your party has come to. Sarah Palin is where your party has come to. 'Muslim Obama's true goal is to destroy America' is where your party has come to.

Do you believe the ascent of a lifelong Socialist among Democrats is any less insane? Now, after the lamentable record of authoritarian socialism in the 20th century; the ccontinuing sclerosis of the social democrat economies of Europe (Italy, Spain and Greece are today's prominent examples); the tragicomedy of the chaotic collapse of Venezuela's economy?? I think you are here focusing excessively on convenient targets and generalizing away without bothering to address real issues - of which there are many.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 07:15 pm
Quote:
Heidi Cruz said Wednesday that her husband, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), was showing America "the face of the God that we serve" through his faith-based Republican presidential campaign.
http://bit.ly/1KeO1Jn
Uh, that's insane. By which I mean to say, it's nuts. Fruitcakeville. Theocractic banana split bonkers.
blatham
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 07:22 pm
@snood,
Thank you for the Goldberg link. Great piece.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 07:26 pm
@blatham,
"The face of god?" What a nut case.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 07:30 pm
@blatham,
The people that have worked with Cruz longest and watched him closest despise him the most.

"I’ve watched him stand on the floor of the Senate and call the majority leader a liar. ... If I’d have been in the Senate, I would have tried to have him removed from the floor of the Senate for inappropriate conduct. You just don’t do that. Are we not still gentlemen, and respectful of each other?"
-Trent Lott, Former Senator R-MS

"Cruz said he would deliver the votes and he didn’t deliver any Democratic votes. He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away."
-Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform

"Cruz isn’t a good guy, and he’d be impossible as president. People don’t trust him."
-Peter King, Congressman (R-NY)

"Everybody who knows him in the Senate hates him. And I think hate is not an exaggeration."
-Charles Krauthammer, Syndicated columnist

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/31430/everyone-who-has-ever-worked-with-ted-cruz-despises-him
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/20/bob-dole-ted-cruz-donald-trump/79079408/
https://newrepublic.com/article/128808/everybody-hates-ted
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Thu 11 Feb, 2016 07:34 pm
@blatham,
Right wing radio. Lush Limbaugh?
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.27 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 11:28:49