When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@Lash,

Quote Lash:

Quote:

Right now, because Tom DeLay is speaking out about his friends in the FBI who have told him inside info on the Clinton email imbroglio, everybody is quoting Tom DeLay.

No, they're not. And if any actual progressive was going to quote Tom DeLay about anything, (and they wouldn't), it sure as hell wouldn't be next to a link from frikkin' Newsmax!!

I'd ask what a nice progressive pro-Bernie girl like you was doing in a place like Newsmax, but everybody knows you're not really a nice progressive girl.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I think when you try to rest your entire argument on the name of the paper cited, your argument is obviously lame.

As I stated previously - and you ignored on purpose - several other papers cited the same quote. HuffPost, the WaPo, etc... You stepped over that fact because you can't rip them all....and that negates your criticism.

2 Replies

@Lash,

How about a REAL lie? I have a LEGITIMATE argument against your candidate.
She LIED about getting her money from fossil fuel companies. And BTW, she gets money from the NRA.

https://youtu.be/dC4Pvm6Oj4A

0 Replies

@Lash,

No, I rest part of my argument that you are not really a progressive for Bernie, but rather a conservative using a pro-Bernie disguise to attack what she thinks is the stronger candidate, on the fact that you originally cited Newsmax!!, which means that you had to be reading it in the first place.

No progressive reads Newsmax!!. Yet there you were.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Goofball. I google "Bernie," "Hillary," polls, and as i just did, "Bernie in the Bronx."

My interest takes me to several different magazines. I don't "read" Newsmax.

It's such a lame dodge to need me to be a conservative. I'm a liberal.

1 Reply

today's Gallup poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190397/clinton-preferred-experience-sanders-care.aspx

Quote:

Bottom Line

Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters offer fairly different reasons why they prefer their candidate to be the Democratic nominee, mostly focusing on the candidates' relative strengths.

Clinton's supporters commonly prefer her for what she has accomplished, in terms of her résumé and job experience. Sanders' supporters more commonly mention his care for Americans' needs and his platform positions.

details at the link

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

now this result seems weird to me but my reaction is probably (definitely) biased by what I see on social media

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190343/trump-clinton-supporters-lead-enthusiasm.aspx

Quote:

Trump and Clinton Supporters Lead in Enthusiasm

Quote:

PRINCETON, N.J. -- As the 2016 primaries continue, with neither party's nominee yet decided, Gallup finds sharp differences in the enthusiasm expressed by supporters of the various candidates.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, voters who support Donald Trump are the most enthusiastic by far, with a combined 65% describing themselves as extremely or very enthusiastic. This is nearly twice the level of fervor expressed by Republicans backing Gov. John Kasich (33%), and well eclipses the enthusiasm from those backing Sen. Ted Cruz (39%).

Quote:

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's supporters are more enthusiastic than Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters, 54% vs. 44%.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote Lash:

Quote:

My interest takes me to several different magazines. I don't "read" Newsmax.

A likely story. Well, I suppose you had to make up something to try to explain away why you were linking Newsmax while supposedly progressive.

Even a bad excuse is better than no excuse at all.

0 Replies

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/31/breaking-hillary-clinton-likely-to-be-interviewed-by-fbi-within-days/
High noon.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

That is really weird, so weird that I just can't believe it. In Hawaii last week and all the signs and people on the street were cheering Sanders on. All the college kids I talk to are 100% Sanders. I haven't seen anyone anywhere waving signs for Clinton, just a few bumper stickers and one or two yard signs. My sample could be biased but it is biased by a lot.

0 Replies

This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest
Jill Abramson

Quote:

I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

2 Replies

@parados,

Very interesting article.

Quote:

As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).

1 Reply

@snood,

Ai, chihuahua..

0 Replies

@parados,

Yes, I had read that, and agree to some extent. Her mind changing at times bothers me some, I too don't trust what I consider machination, if not an outright lie, but I change my own mind from time to time, so she get to as well.
While she and Bernie may have voted quite similarly, I'm troubled more by her glee for and then getting Gaddafi in a very ugly way, and more generally, a hawkish bent than I am comfortable with. One of my changes over time is that I've gotten more against assassination as a solution to anything, no matter the difficulties, complexities, of a trial.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I think the reason people think she is untruthful is because she has changed her mind several issues, the trade issue comes to mind and what was that gas line thing?

Frankly I give her pass on Iraq since a lot of the intelligence was twisted in such a way as to make it ambiguous on the question of WMD until much later when the truth started to come out. (I was against it from the start because I didn't see the connection between 9/11 and Iraq.) Moreover, when congress voted for Iraq, it gave Bush permission to take it to UN. The administration was the one who rushed to war before the UN inspectors were through with their inspections. I suspect they did it before the whole world would know there wasn't any WMD and they were determined to invade Iraq come what may. The Iraq question was not the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 and it won't be a factor now in 2016. I liked Obama and liked the way he thought things out and thought he was rational for a change, it was that simple. Her evolving on the gay marriage issue won't be a factor either, a lot of people evolved on that issue. The issue which gives me the gravest concern is her stance on Israel. I don't see her giving the Palestinians the same equal consideration. It is this issue which leaves me saying she is a war hawk and in line with other republicans, but she not alone, a lot of democrats feel the same. I like Bernie's take on the issue, he is a lot more balanced on the issue. But I don't think he will be an effective President any more than he is an effective senator.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

On Iraq's WMDs, most people knew it didn't exist. I even wrote to Diane Feinstein about not approving the war, but she wrote back and told me with the information they had, she had to approve it.
The UN Weapons Inspectors were there in Iraq looking, and couldn't find anything. The US chased them out to start the war.
It's too late now.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You never really read anything all the way through, do you? Hindsight is twenty/twenty. Just read my post again and get back to me. I nuances are beyond you.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Correct. The inspections, by UN Security Council Resolution # 687, had to be unfettered. When Saddam finally relented and let Hans Blix and the inspectors in the first time, he assigned "guides", (actually, secret police), to go along and intimidate witnesses. Blix noted this in his report, and Blix also noted that some progress had been made and if they can have another round of inspections, unfettered by "guides" and such, they can wrap the whole thing up. At that point, Bush said Saddam had his chance and blown it, and proceeded to ready for invasion. The UN went along with the second round of inspections anyway, which were not interfered with, and the inspectors were going over all the sites and information that the US had given them, and so far they found the weapons had been destroyed and disposed of according to the agreement Saddam signed years previous.

While the inspectors were in the middle of this process, Bush gave the inspectors three days to get out because the tanks were coming in. And that was that.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

PS: Years later, after his capture, Saddam admitted that he didn't have the WMDs, (the chemical weapons expire after a few years and are no longer effective anyway), but he kept up the pretense that he did because he was afraid that Iran would just march right into the country and take over, and he didn't think he could stop them. So he pretended to have chemical WMDs and be developing a nuclear bomb.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Did Bernie Sanders Just Burn AIPAC?
AJ+
Published on Mar 21, 2016·Thousands are in Washington, DC, for the annual pro-Israel AIPAC conference, where most U.S. presidential candidates will be speaking. But America's only Jewish candidate, Bernie Sanders, is notably absent.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know