When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Director Oliver Stone details why Hillary is a dangerous choice for America.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/why-im-for-bernie-sanders_b_9576984.html

That wasn't your point or the point I was disputing.

So what was the point you were disputing, then?

Which is completely debunked by the employment figures which list industries and how many they employ.

Well, your facade of not being a conservative pretending to support Bernie because you figure he's the weaker candidate has finally fully collapsed.
Here is a quote from one of your recent posts:

You're quoting NEWSMAX?? That's the website for octogenarians and older which runs articles about when to know when you are having a heart attack and also "warns" you about the global warming "hoax". In this case, the article is about an interview with the disgraced TomDeLay, former House whip who had to step down, which was on the Steve Malzberg Show. Steve Malzberg is the radio host who calls Ellen DeGeneres "Ellen Degenerate" because she revealed she was a lesbian.

You are perfectly entitled to wallow in the right-wingnut muck all you want, just don't expect any of us to believe you when you try to pass yourself off as a newly fresh and showered progressive.

I can sit here and post quotes of the conversation thread if you prefer, but basically it boils down to this.

You: said that members of A2K's "Clinton Camp" have shown lots of contempt to the Sanders camp

Me: I disagreed...I don't see much of that at all. I conceded that if there was any contempt shown that it was probably more due to frustration in response to the tidal wave of vehemently anti-Clinton rhetoric. I used a 100-1 metric as number of anti-Clinton candidacy versus anti-Bernie candidacy posts.

You: Claimed that I was wrong and that the anti-Clinton and anti-Bernie posts are pretty even.

Me: I said that you were wearing blinders and that there are FAR MORE anti-Clinton candidacy posts.

You: said it's not fair, there's not as much enthusiasm for Clinton



You seem to think that Clinton supporters are being unfair to Bernie supporters. Well I just had one of them tell me to '!@#$ off' basically.

I mean, you can feel the contempt in this post right?? And it's not the first time. (http://able2know.org/topic/275175-261#post-6154680)

It's the #bernieorbust camp showing contempt, not the Clinton camp. This is true all over the internet, not just here on a2k.

And this is self-evident. Anyone who can't see that is not looking.

It's both. I guess I tend to be more sensitive to contempt towards Bernie because I support Bernie. You are more sensitive to contempt towards Hillary because you support her.

I still think it is inaccurate to see this as a tit-for-tat, symetrical situation. Hillary is the leader of the pack, while Sanders is the challenger. By virtue of their different positions in the race, he needs to be aggressive while she needs to be consensual. She also represents the status quo while he clamors for radical change, so the tone of their discourse is also bound to be different: his more angry, her more leniant. And the same apply to their supporters.

So you are basically giving a pass to Bernie supporters to be nasty, but hold Hillary supporters to a higher standard. The effect of this is to have the worst Hillary accusations become accepted fact in the social media, which is a step toward them becoming accepted fact in the larger world outside cyber-space.

Whatever you want to think is your prerogative I guess. I think you're extremely wrong when you suggest that the contempt level is equal (in fact, your last paragraph supports the fact that #bernieorbust is more aggressive, so I'm not sure why you're pretending to sit on the fence). It's not even close to equal.

As long as your vote for Hillary in November, you'll make me happy.

I am not talking about standards. That's for A2K moderators to look into, not me.

When I stress the fundamental asymetry between B and H, I am talking political tactics. Bernie's only chance and only value-added reside in his radical, hence aggressive discourse. Hillary's own posture is that of the status quo, which calls for more soothing lannguage. She's got a strong chance of being the dem candidate, and hence she needs to appear federative, consensual for the left. She will need a significant proportion of Bernie supporters to vote for her in November -- and Bernie will probably not need anything like that, sadly.

The consequence of this asymetry is that, while he needs to be aggressive to her during the current primaries to keep a fighting chance, she needs to be relatively nicer to him in order to protect her chances during the general election. She needs to court Bernie supporters, or at least not antagonise them too much. He doesn't need to reciprocate.

As the lead, she can also afford to be merciful towards the outsider. The only thing worse than a sore looser is a sore winner...

A little bit of that applies to B and H supporters here, IMO. While I understand the bitterness of the B camp based on his small chances of winning, I think the impatience and aggressivity of some H supporters come across as a show of nervosity rather than as a display of strength. This of course is not to justify any foul language or nasty lies spread about Hillary -- the standards are the same. It's just that tactically speaking, bitterness from the Hillary camp is less justified, more of a childish tit-for-tat than in the case of Bernie, and more dangerous come November.

Hillary cannot afford much bitterness towards Bernie at this point in time. It is the cost of her success.

Do you think Clinton herself (not her supporters) is doing anything to antagonize Sanders supporters?

Every interview I've seen shows her being "nicer and more merciful" to Sanders supporters.

I make a distinction between Bernie supporters and the Susan Sarandon extremist type. You're not making it very well; in fact you generally keep them conveniantly and ambiguously mixed.

You are also not listening to what people tell you, prefering to talk to your own sockpuppets of them, and that's annoying. For the second time: I don't get to vote in US elections. But I will support Hillary here, if and when she wins the primaries.

I've been purposely using the #bernieorbust label to key into the exact subset of Bernie supporters that I'm talking about.

I'm not talking to my own sockpuppets either. I saw you make that reference earlier and for the life of me I can't figure out where that came from.

I agree that she understands this need to "play nice" with Bernie better than some of her supporters here.

Who specifically Olivier?

Why are you beating around the bush?

The discussion was about a comparison between the Bernie camp (at large) and the Hillary camp (at large), not between some funky hashtag.

You want names? Why? If the shoe fits...

Argh....you claim that I'm not separating the two camps. I point out exactly how I'm separating them. You then criticize me for separating them. I don't understand you, at all.

At large the Bernie camp is more aggressive than the the Clinton camp. I don't know how you can dispute this as anything less than the truth.

This is due in large part to the #bernieorbust supporters who have FLOODED the internet with anti-Clinton propaganda. It's literally everywhere. It's all over Twitter. It's all over Facebook. It's all over A2K. It's on every political and even non-political message board.

Like you said, Bernie is the underdog, he has the excitement, the fervor. I get it. I like Bernie too.

I know that the #bernieorbust types are only a small subset (~10-20%), but they are the loudest people (BY FAR!) supporting any political candidate on the internet right now.

..... sigh .... Try a little listening.