80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Mon 18 Jul, 2016 02:20 pm
@snood,
All the "FACTS" she posts are opinion. She is disingenuous.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  4  
Mon 18 Jul, 2016 02:24 pm
@snood,
Right you are. I was referring to Lash. But Palin will do.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 05:31 am
The FBI wants to make sure voters know what Clinton did regarding FOIA laws and national security.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/opinions/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-opinion-cox/?iid=ob_mobile_article_footer_expansion

Her senior staff should not get security clearance, nor should she.
maporsche
 
  4  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 06:48 am
@Lash,
So you're reposting an article that is 2 weeks old. No new information is to be gained in that article. I suppose you simply plan to keep up the constant thread of negative posts about Hillary, even when the media doesn't cooperate by finding new scandals. You'll just keep on repeating stuff to keep it from aging.

Good little republican.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 07:01 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:
I wish John Kerry were on her list!


Really?

Blickers
 
  2  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 07:08 am
@izzythepush,
If this was done in America, a doorman would have opened the door for him from the inside as soon as he hit the top step. We don't make foreign dignitaries fumble with locks like burglars. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 07:23 am
Quick napkin calculation of the number of responses to Lash over the last decade which have produced no change in her thinking or in her personal posting style.

67, 823

But I'm sure one or two more attempts will bear fruit.
Lash
 
  -1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 07:35 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

The FBI wants to make sure voters know what Clinton did regarding FOIA laws and national security.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/opinions/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-opinion-cox/?iid=ob_mobile_article_footer_expansion

Her senior staff should not get security clearance, nor should she.


And what is so egregious about the posting style of this post?
You are trying to vilify a person with a different opinion. Hope you're not a moderator as you are unable to countenance opposing views.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 07:46 am
Quote:
The vast majority of the approximately three dozen veterans of Mr. Bush’s administration contacted for this article indicated that they would not cast a ballot for Mr. Trump.

http://nyti.ms/29R5I29
maporsche
 
  2  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 07:49 am
@blatham,
In the last decade Lash has done a full 180 on her most deeply held beliefs.

Well, deep for her. She's sort of like a kiddie pool at a 3 year olds birthday party. Lots of splash but little depth.
snood
 
  4  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 07:52 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

In the last decade Lash has done a full 180 on her most deeply held beliefs.

Well, deep for her. She's sort of like a kiddie pool at a 3 year olds birthday party. Lots of splash but little depth.


Yeah, passionate yet shallow. What a combo.
Lash
 
  -1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 08:01 am
@snood,
I'll take the kiddie pool over the cool hot tub action, double-teaming a 14 year old with Bill Clinton.

The Dems have completely lost any high moral ground we ever thought they had.

I'm definitely unpracticed at covering up corruption.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 08:14 am
@blatham,
From the NY Times:
Quote:
After Mr. Fleischer announced his support on Twitter for Mr. Trump in May, one of his former colleagues, Tony Fratto, responded: “Then we don’t have anything to say to each other.”

In an interview, Mr. Fratto, who served in the Bush Treasury Department and White House, was still angry. “You were the White House spokesperson when Trump said the president lied the country into the death and maiming of people unnecessarily,” he said of Mr. Fleischer. “How can Ari be O.K. with that?”

Such a betrayal, Mr. Fratto said, was “unforgivable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/bush-family-rnc.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=ts-item%203_of_4&module=span-ab-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Hard to judge who's the good guy in the abandonment of Bush. On the one hand, people who were Bush's buddy are turning around and slamming him even though they were part of what Bush was doing. On the other hand, the Trumpists who are attacking Bush are largely taken from miitia forest hideouts and the local Klavern. Tough choice.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 08:45 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quick napkin calculation of the number of responses to Lash over the last decade which have produced no change in her thinking or in her personal posting style.

67, 823

But I'm sure one or two more attempts will bear fruit.

This got me thinking about the usual responses of the posters in this anti Lash dialogue over the last few pages to comments about their views on these and related matters. I can find no instances of altered views, perception, or writing style - no change at all. Lash appears to me to be no more fixed in her positions than are her chief critics here, including Blatham, Snood, Blickers and many others (and myself as well).

It is clear that her apostasy from the Church of Hillary has earned Lash general approbation from the crowd of believers, and her stubborn resistance to ceaseless criticism has infuriated her accusers more than is usual even on these political threads. Why is that so??

I don't agree with Sen. Sanders political views at all. However, I recognize that he has demonstrated truly unexpected, and continuing appeal among a wide swath of Democrat voters. That counts for something, and it merits serious consideration.This phenomenon may also have some elements in common with the disaffection of Republican voters for their establishment candidates, and the ascent of Donald Trump. A suprisingly large segment of voters appear to be disaffected from their traditional leaders. Moreover there is suggestive evidence in the differences between poll results and actual election results in several states indicating that many are expressing views in elections they don't in other venues : more surprises might be ahead for us all.

Stridency is the norm in politics, but I do regret the prevailing intolerance we see around us today and here on this thread. One doesn't have to agree with or approve of the views and even behaviors of others, but it isn't necessary to attack their characters or motives because of that disagreement. Indeed if you stop and think about it for a moment, it's a bit wierd. Lash hasn't injured anyone here, and she is far from alone in her expressed political beliefs.

revelette2
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 08:54 am
@georgeob1,
So, George what did you think about your party's convention last night? Notice anything odd about it?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 09:04 am
@revelette2,
I returned late yesterday from a very pleasant extended weekend trip, and missed the event. Clearly you have something in mind here. Please fill me in.
revelette2
 
  3  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 09:15 am
@georgeob1,
Trump campaign dismisses criticism of Melania Trump speech

Quote:
The passages in question came near the beginning of Mrs. Trump's roughly 10-minute speech. Her address was otherwise distinct from the address that Mrs. Obama gave when then-Sen. Barack Obama was being nominated for president.

In Mrs. Trump's speech in Cleveland, she said: "From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life."

In Mrs. Obama's 2008 speech in Denver, she said: "And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: like, you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond, that you do what you say you're going to do, that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them and even if you don't agree with them."
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 09:34 am
@revelette2,
Is your point the similarity of the points made in the two speeches? OK. So what? The permissable breadth of the speeches of the spouses of candidates isn't very broad, and it would be interesting to see a larger sample of such works to detect the prevailing norms for such things.

Is this important to you?


engineer
 
  5  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 09:43 am
@georgeob1,
Clinton's detractors point to supposed dishonesty. This is yet another example of the Trump's camp dishonesty. Of course, there are very many "pants on fire" examples from the campaign trail so this is just one more. I saw more reports today on Trump's wife's biography being padded, saying she graduated college when in fact she dropped out freshman year. At this point, it is just a twig on the bonfire, but when Clinton's critics go ape accusing her of things that are easily proven factually wrong while ignoring Trump's repeated whoppers, it's a bit frustrating.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Tue 19 Jul, 2016 09:46 am
part of commentary from Jim Wright

Quote:
This morning, predictably -- oh so VERY predictably -- the Party of Responsibility is laying responsibility for Melania Trump's duplicity on everybody but the woman who delivered the speech and claimed it as her own.


Conservatives are at this very moment cranking the rationalization machine into overdrive. The responses range from outright denial to word salads of justification and dismissal to outright conspiracy theories blaming variously Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for "sabotaging" the speech (which, you know, would tend to hilariously show how clever they are and how damned stupid the Trumps are, but I digress).


Now, you expect that, the bullshit rationalization, from the various spokesmen and the politicians and the flacks. You do. They can NEVER ever be wrong, they are pathologically incapable of it. It they could admit error and take responsibility for it, they wouldn't be in the business in the first place. No, that's to be expected and I'd be shocked by anything else.


But see, here's the thing: Neither Trump himself, the man who would be President, nor his porn princess of a wife are able to admit error either.
This morning the Trumps are going to try and bull it out, blame others, redirect, play the persecuted martyrs.


And that, well, you know that's just goddamned pathetic.


It's terribly terribly sad how vain and shallow these people are. The Trumps, all their wealth, all their fame, all their looks and jewels and private jets and limos and all their billionaire friends, and they are so utterly insecure in themselves that they simply can NOT admit error in any way even when caught in a lie, a provable and obvious and DUMB lie, in front of the entire world.


If these people were the people they claim to be, that they want to be, they'd take responsibility. They'd own that speech and give the critics nowhere to go.
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 08:11:55