When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

The only holes I've seen is attacking the source and the age of articles posted. Like last years was eons ago.

No holes, only desperate attempts to blindly follow a corrupt politician. I'd say it amazes me that anyone be so blinded by a politician, but Hillary is a master at manipulating the weak minded and easily fooled.

it's been interesting to watch this happen (not specifically with you)

a number of posters who have indicated they would prefer to vote for Mr. Sanders have ended up posting clarifications and corrections of items posted by a couple of Sanders' supporters to the point that they've been told that they are Clinton supporters

__

it's been happening on the Republican side as well

__

it's probably an area of research for somebody - def a good case study happening at this site

That's because Sanders supporters seem to fall into two categories: Type 1 are those that don't like Hillary's ties to Wall Street and the established order. Type 2 are those who actually like Wall Street and the established order but who are pretending to like Sanders so that they can drum up as much general hate Hillary sentiment as possible.

Type 1's don't like Hillary much but will probably vote for her when they view over to the abyss of the Republican candidate and platform. Type 2's are the abyss.

"The territory of Kazakhstan has historically been inhabited by nomadic tribes. This changed in the 13th century, when Genghis Khan occupied the country as part of the Mongolian Empire. Following internal struggles among the conquerors, power eventually reverted to the nomads. By the 16th century, the Kazakh emerged as a distinct group, divided into three jüz (ancestor branches occupying specific territories). The Russians began advancing into the Kazakh steppe in the 18th century, and by the mid-19th century, they nominally ruled all of Kazakhstan as part of the Russian Empire. Following the 1917 Russian Revolution and subsequent civil war, the territory of Kazakhstan was reorganized several times. In 1936 it was made the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, considered an integral part of the Soviet Union.

Kazakhstan was the last of the Soviet republics to declare independence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991"

Could be. It's not my take on it, but I haven't done a full-on study of the phenomenon.

Actually Parodose (not sure I spelled his username right) did point out facts to call into question the connections the author of the book made. Clinton had no veto power to decide the deal nor was she the only one to have the authority to approve it. Go back and read it. The reason I take it with a grain of salt is because the author assumes because two sets of facts are true there must be a connection and the connection is nefarious. I am not up on debate tactics, but I bet there is a name for that one.

You're going about it the wrong way. You're making me want to NOT vote for him (I wouldn't do that because I can separate my emotions from what's best for the country..i.e. NOT a republican).

That's it in a nutshell. There's too much internecine fighting going on, on both sides. Some Sanders supporters in particular seem so full of loathing for Clinton that they'd rather hand the button to Trump than see another moderate in the Whitehouse.

There have been some dirty tricks from the Clinton camp as well, the attempts to airbrush Sanders from the civil rights campaigns of the 60s are particularly egregious, but the real vitriol comes from the Sanders supporters.

And you're right, they're damaging the candidate they claim to support more than anything or anyone else.

Should people be confused? Or, are we making this in-fighting to important.

If it puts a Republican in office it's pretty important. We didn't have any of this. I never voted for Corbyn I voted for Burnham, there was electioneering but nothing so nasty as what's going on in the Democrat party.

The Tories could well win the next election which I'll have to take on the chin if they have the best argument, but if it's because of a split party and briefing it could spell disaster for the next ten years. That's what I'm worried might happen here too. Once the result is declared you need to unite around the candidate, (so do we for that matter.)

Agree.

I don't represent Bernie. Vote however you please. I know I will.

I know Lash, and I like you, but the way you're going about supporting your chosen candidate is really turning me off of Bernie.

I'll vote for either Sanders or Clinton (whomever wins), your posts won't stop that, but DAMN reading the constant vitriol is testing my limits.

A lot of folks arguing with Lash (particularly) here. I'm not sure why. Some hope that she'll change her thinking upon receipt of a coherent contradicting argument or if she's shown some evidence which negates some claim she's made?

I've known Lash since A2K started up and I'm fond of her. But after about one week in since I began reading and posting here again, I found it necessary to put her on ignore. Partly, that was for fixed ideas clearly not amenable to alteration and partly for a discourse style that was defensive and lacking in attention to detail (not very scholarly).

Frankly, on this Sanders/Clinton thing, I don't trust her. She's always been a right wing voice as I recall it and a sudden shift into support for Sanders, of all people, is tough to swallow.

On the other hand, there is a rich history of trolling using the device of pretending the writer is strongly supporting X whereas the reality is that the writer is really trying to do damage to Y (who X opposes). As I've mentioned earlier, much/most of the political activity involving PUMA or Clintons4McCain eight years ago was actually a GOP rat-******* operation designed to encourage women (mainly) to refuse transferring their support to Obama (Clintons4McCain domain was registered by the GOP, as a Wired reporter discovered).

I don't know what's in Lash's mind and whether she's sincere or just playing a troll game. But either way, for me, it doesn't matter. She's on a mission from God to smear Clinton.

I think it's bizarre that a large group of Democrats don't question her behavior - her open lies and subterfuges over her stances on TPP, gay marriage, the prison for profit system, her statement about "bringing [young black boys] to heel," her $350K "speeches," her invocation of 911 as a shield against criticism for her incest with Wall Street...

She's the worst politics has to offer.

You should all be ashamed.

You see, if you left it after "she's the worst politics has to offer" it would have been fine. It is the sanctimonious self righteous idea you have that your views are the correct ones and if people do not see it your way or not as vehement as you do then somehow we're all corrupt and part of the problem. You came on with that attitude and have amped it up as times goes by. It is not as though if you didn't have that attitude people still wouldn't argue with you, but this attitude you have taken on adds another level of frustration and frankly disgust.

It is your judging that is just sickening to the point where it is impossible to take and I find it sad. I have been just trying to ignore it and hope it goes away after the election.

Had he not accused me of being a liar, I likely wouldn't have felt like adding that last line.

It's one thing to argue a point - argue the merits of both candidates and the packages that come with each of them, positives and negatives - and it's quite another to say I'm lying about my views.

Imagine that happening to you and tell me honestly it wouldn't change the tenor of your posts.

It seems like another dodge to avoid facing reality. "That's not a good website," "she evolved," "Bill Clinton did that, not Hillary" (thought Hillary runs on Bill's presidency), "they were classified after she sent them"... "Lash is a Republican trying to get us to vote for Bernie, who can't win."

Anything but looking at the history of Hillary Clinton.

What about Hillary?

Anyway. I was planning a break from reading about/writing about Hillary for a week. I'd like to get started.

Yeah I admit, I thought that too, it would have been a smart tacit for a conservative to take. However, I have come to believe you really have taken on a belief about corruption in government and that is really all that matters to you even if Bernie doesn't win. I also believe you are only focused on one person in your belief about corrupt politicians. I understand she is the running for president. Personally I don't think Hillary is corrupt and I think a lot of evidence is manipulated evidence and I don't need to be ashamed or feel like I am blind for thinking it. For the most part I am just going to agree to disagree about Hillary and hope you don't disappear forever. Not that I won't argue various points, I am just going quit getting personal about it.

Thank you. Me too.

Really Lash. Do bother to read the articles you post?



Let's ignore that there is no evidence to support the allegation and there is evidence that Clinton was not responsible for signing off on the deal because of the fact that the State Department was one of several departments that all approved it and it was an Under Secretary that attended the meetings and voted to approve it and not Clinton herself. Before you attack others for blindly believing things, maybe you should look beyond allegations to the actual facts. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything other than your inability to think for yourself.