When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

We have to be fair to Trump and his legions. Such a speech would only be truly entertaining if the plane occupants were all Mexicans and Muslims.

Blatham,

Spend a little of your time researching the political contributions of George Soros as well as those of the Koch brothers; consider also the "public education" spending of labor unions, particularly including that of the public employees unions; add to that the equivalent spending of various advocacy groups associated with liberal/progressive causes, and I might find your evident obsession with an imagined conservative conspiracy a little less laughable.

We are a democracy and our citizens are free to speak, organize and attempt to persuade others of their political views, whatever they may be. That includes both those you or I might favor and those we don't. You have omitted entirely from your endless arguments about this supposed conspiracy the equivalent actions of various individuals and organizations on the left side of the political spectrum, thereby (likely deliberately) leaving the false impression that such actions are unique to the supposed right wing forces you are describing. You have offered nothing to indicate anything either unique or even illegal about the activities of your imagined right wing conspiracy (though there is likely some of that on both sides). You have also been deceptively selective in your reporting of political misdeeds (recalling Nixon's Watergate & Tampa in 2000 but omitting the Mafia/Daley machine theft of the Presidential election in 1960 as well as subsequent and continuing Democrat corruption there and in other locations like Louisiana). That is truly dishonest in the fullest sense of the word.

There's a lot more to the understanding of human society and history - as well as contemporary poloitical events - than merely haunting the blogs and writings of contemporary commentators, particularly those of similar perspectives. I commend you for your knowledge of it, but don't have either the time or the interest in doing so myself. It is important to balance an up close (and unfortunately selective) perspective, such as yours, with a more detached view of human history to achieve a right understanding of even contemporary events. There's insight to be found in Thucydidies' description of the disintegration of civil society in Corcyra (Corfu) in the 4 th century BC that is more useful reading today than most political blogs.

Finally, there are many more rewarding, and enlightening things out there than the details of the gotcha games of contemporary political reporters - across the political spectrum. I'm going to get back to some of it late tommorow - if I can escape the clutches of dull care at work.

Of all the speeches aimed at defining Hillary....I think Hillary herself summed it up best by saying she's the biggest crack in the glass ceiling.

Quote revellette:

The Republican was Steve Schmidt, who to be fair is often amazingly critical of conservatives as well. I was astonished at Rachel's take, especially since she usually seems to be so upbeat. I'm a big fan of hers, but not her comment this time.

Anyway, I came in early in the speech, and it definitely went a long way toward blowing away the cloak of unhumanity the conservatives have been laboring to throw over Hillary. That's the conservatives' big problem-while they vilify Hillary, Hillary has a husband Bill. And most sane voters love the guy.

Hey look I'm not the only one who thinks that his speech was pretty boring... The other problem I have is believing him... and his sincerity. They may have had a wonderful marriage on day 1 but I doubt seriously it's even close to that now.

Today he does, strongly pro Hillary. His take on Bill's speech (quite pro) was helpful for me, who didn't actually hear it. Still pro Obama, and he still is his version of "conservative". He had been pro Bush before.

He has a history of changing his mind on some matters (see that wiki page, re the Iraq war is just one example), and when he does, easily admits he was wrong, dead wrong. He's a sparky writer who I find very observant a lot of the time, while, as I said before, I often disagree.

I agree (didn't really bother to know his name) Steve Schmidt usually is pretty even handed. Perhaps he just has a grudge against Clinton. That irrational hatred seems to get the better of some conservatives.

Irrational hated vs rational hated? What the right feels vs what the left feels?

I like some of what I've heard of hi, and it was always interesting when he would go on Bill Maher's show.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irrational%20hatred

I think your definition is defective. Most examples of "irrational hatred" do indeed involve the possibility or likelihood that they are seen as rational by the person holding such views. The problem arises in some combination of (1) different opinions of what is rational; (2) different assumptions about unstated but related facts on which the opinion is based ; (3) Unstated arguments or reasons by the one holding such views.

In some cases, to be sure, the expressed opinions are indeed irrational in terms of generally accepted facts or assumptions and standards of reason, but even there most are believed (rightly or wrongly) to be rational by the one expressing them.

The dialogues on A2K provide numerous examples of all of the above.

I thought revellete's example was quite clear. The person who thinks Clay Aiken sucks but can't tell you why he thinks so is an example of a person with an irrational dislike or hatred, and we've all known people like that.

Why you have to complicate this is a mystery.

He'd complicate a two car funeral.

The person in her example may seem to have an irrational dislike or hated of Clay Aiken, but it could just as easily be a case that he is unable to articulate his reasons beyond "Just look at him!"

Obviously there is something about Aiken's "look" that makes this person dislike him so much. Maybe it's his red hair and pale skin which the individual associates with a certain type of person. Maybe it's the simpering smile he so often wears. Maybe it has nothing to do what-so-ever about how he looks but the person is too verbally limited to simply say "Because his voice and the songs he sings suck!" Or maybe it's because Aiken is gay, this person knows it, dislikes him for it, but won't admit it.

You seem to have missed that george referred to revelette's definition as defective



However, I think you have addressed the argument that I would have been made, that the example was defective.

I feel quite confident that this person actually comprehends why he dislikes Akin. The inability to express his reason doesn't necessarily mean there is none. And if I am right and he comprehends why he dislikes Aiken then by revelette's own definition it is not a case of irrational hatred.

Think about it. How many cases are you aware of where someone actually doesn't comprehend why they dislike something? You may think their reason is ridiculous, stupid or even evil, but that is not the definition of the term (although one might think otherwise by observing its usage in this forum)

The definition provided is only defective in the sense that it assures that the term can almost never be properly used, and that's not truly a defect simply proof that the term is overused and most often improperly.

I believe part of george's argument is that because the observer can't comprehend why the person wouldn't like something or someone doesn't mean they can't, and if they can, by definition, it's not irrational.

Quite often in this forum opinions are categorized as irrational because the person categorizing thinks the reason the other person has given for it is ridiculous, stupid or even evil, and not even because they are incapable of articulating what they comprehend their reason to be.

He'd complicate a one car funeral.

Quote Finn:

If they ever start a Nobel prize for Bloviation, you're a sure winner.

Are you going to vote for Donald Trump?

I got the whole thing from the site "urban dictionary" to show there is thought to be a such as thing "irrational hatred" accepted in society in general. Neither the definition or the most specially the example was mine, I wouldn't use that language and I doubt I could come with that on my own. However, I accept the definition, if others don't. who really cares? I don't.

Moving on

Why the D.N.C. E-Mails Aren’t Scandalous

Thanks for the article. I don't really get why the emails are a big deal either. So a few staffers at the DNC sent a few (literally just a few) emails out of 20,000 that said some things that may be offensive to Sanders.

Even the worst one, the one about maybe bringing up his religion, resulted in NOTHING being brought up about his religion. Someone in the office, who personally appears to have supported Clinton, brought up something and someone else said something along the lines of "we have to be objective and we're not going to do that." Nothing happened besides someone asking a question and being shot down.

Making a mountain out of a mole hill comes to mind.