When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@Blickers,

Well, we've had a discussion of the definition of "irrational hatred;" and your response here suggests we probably should have one on the definition of "intellectually dense" Very Happy

0 Replies

The relevence here is that some of the so called "irrational hatred" out there is in the eye of the beholder, and not necessarily a fact. That is simply true and it is also readily observable both in the current political debates both between and within the respective political parties and also here on A2K.

Are all the diehard Bernie supporters indulging in irraational hatred? I think the answer depends a lot on the personal perspectives of those you ask.

Thank you all for your irrational responses to a fairly obvious truth.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

There's one very simple reason that they are "scandalous" and that's because throughout the primaries the DNC and the Clinton campaign insisted that the process was fair and the DNC was impartial.

These e-mail prove both parties were lying.

Not surprised, given their candidate for POTUS, that Democrats don't find blatant lying and deceit to be a big deal.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There's one very simple reason that they are "scandalous" and that's because throughout the primaries the DNC and the Clinton campaign insisted that the process was fair and the DNC was impartial.

These e-mail prove both parties were lying.

Not surprised, given their candidate for POTUS, that Democrats don't find blatant lying and deceit to be a big deal.

It proves nothing.

The DNC can be impartial as a group, even if individuals within that group have biases or preferences.

In fact, that's exactly how the world works.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

From my POV, Hillary is a much better choice than Donald can ever be. Hillary has devoted her life to helping people. Donald worked all his life to help himself.
It's a wonder people are having difficulty making a choice between the two.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The only person Hillary has helped is Hillary. She doesn't give two shits about you are me. Can you name just 1 law she wrote while in the Senate that helped people?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

The only person Hillary has helped is Hillary. She doesn't give two shits about you are me. Can you name just 1 law she wrote while in the Senate that helped people?

Her job wasn't just to write laws...she also cosponsored them, voted on them, etc.

https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041?resultIndex=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hillary+clinton%22%5D%2C%22sponsorship%22%3A%22cosponsored%22%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D

0 Replies

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/13882197_1400137689997205_1836894729854649296_n.jpg?oh=e9e538978135f8b2259ab77317cb19b2&oe=581E3FF2

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Your allegiance to Clinton is breathtaking.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Your allegiance to Clinton is breathtaking.

How so?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

It proves nothing.

The DNC can be impartial as a group, even if individuals within that group have biases or preferences.

I agree with your second sentence. However when responsible individuals within the group act according to their own baiases, and contrary to their responsibilities towards the role of the Group itself, then impartiality as a fact is lost.

So your first comment about proving nothing is demonstrably false.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Your allegiance to Clinton is breathtaking.

It's an example of irrational affection.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

It proves nothing.

The DNC can be impartial as a group, even if individuals within that group have biases or preferences.

I agree with your second sentence. However when responsible individuals within the group act according to their own baiases, and contrary to their responsibilities towards the role of the Group itself, then impartiality as a fact is lost.

So your first comment about proving nothing is demonstrably false.

Hold on...you said when the "group acts". Acts being the key here.

How did the DNC ACT on the stuff found in these emails?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

You have zero skepticism for what she, her campaign and the DNC have to say. You believe it all.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I'll barge in here and provide Hillary's accomplishments.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Hold on...you said when the "group acts". Acts being the key here.

How did the DNC ACT on the stuff found in these emails?

Read what I wrote. .... "when responsible individuals within the group act....."

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You have zero skepticism for what she, her campaign and the DNC have to say. You believe it all.

That's what you see?

I see fact-less, unproven accusations being charge over the course of a 30 year political life repeatedly and repeatedly proven to be untrue and/or baseless and I choose to look at what can be proven rather than assume she's the devil on earth.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

How did they act?

They, at the order of the Clinton campaign, canned DWS.

Now if they didn't think that the DNC, under her leadership, had been operating impartially, why would they do this? Are they really so feckless as to unfairly blame her for the little mistakes of a few underlings?

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know