When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@revelette2,

Aside from an itchy case of pathological lying, yes. Donnie has more and deeper itches. This is by far the most fucked up **** in my lifetime. Condolences all around- and you fuckers should have voted for Bernie.

3 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Aside from an itchy case of pathological lying, yes. Donnie has more and deeper itches. This is by far the most fucked up **** in my lifetime. Condolences all around- and you fuckers should have voted for Bernie.

I'm going to say this. I think a whole lot of people would say it, but just don't want to get in the damn wallow with you and risk suspension, but it really needs to be said.

Seems the only one acting like a sniveling petulant child who can't pick up her ******* marbles, stop acting like the national election is some kind of personal vendetta, and deal with reality - is you. So you are apparently determined to try to mire every single political discussion in your ******* miserable headachy months-long whine.

Bernie lost, and is now marshaling his energies to merge with what's still moving forward. Ninety percent of his followers are, as well.

Christ sake, get the **** on with it Lash. Stop trying to drag every politics discussion into your pathetic coulda shoulda gutter. Everyone is over it.

0 Replies

@Lash,

I personally have my doubts Bernie would have won over Trump once all the established republicans would have looked to him as a serious candidate, it wouldn't have happened. Moreover, he didn't win over the Hispanics nor the blacks, Clinton did and still has them. I didn't vote for Bernie simply because I liked Hillary better than Bernie and thought (and still think) Hillary will make a better more effective president. So I don't regret my vote.

0 Replies

Just out of curiosity and my laziness to find a better thread, do you guys have any issues with either of these items?

I am just curious how far the bias runs here...

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

Don't say anything bad about Clinton or the DNC. Whataya wanna be called a lunatic?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The NATO troops in the Baltics aren't American though. This is what Trump actually wants to see: other NATO partners stepping up to shoulder more of the burden.

No, Trump wants to see other NATO nations pay up or he will not take part in NATO, which will destroy the situation which won the Cold War. Even by broadcasting this, Trump is destroying the extraordinary solidarity between NATO allies that has been responsible for Russia respecting NATO's borders for over 50 years. Trump has already been destructive to NATO and he hasn't even gotten to the White House yet. God help us if he gets elected and runs things for four years.

I don't see any difference between "wanting them to pay their fair share" and "wanting them to shoulder more of the burden". It seems like different ways of saying the same thing.

Blickers wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It's not what I prefer, but a reduced American role in the world isn't unreasonable. Lot's of people like the idea.

A reduced role in parts of the world is one thing, pulling out of NATO and letting Russia reclaim her former Eastern European Empire is quite another. The only people who like that idea are located in Moscow, or their fanboys.

Trump's goal is not to destroy NATO. His goal is a reduced American role in the world, with other nations taking up more of the burden. His threat to pull out of NATO is designed to pressure other countries to start contributing more.

By the way, Hillary just got busted spouting a bunch more falsehoods about her email server. The Washington Post awarded her with Four Pinocchios:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/31/clintons-claim-that-the-fbi-director-said-her-email-answers-were-truthful/

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix:
So now you're posting fashion items about Hillary's and Melania Trump's outfits at their respective conventions? It might be time to get your glands checked.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

The NATO troops in the Baltics aren't American though. This is what Trump actually wants to see: other NATO partners stepping up to shoulder more of the burden

So? America is not the only NATO country, other members have always participated. As it turns out, NATO is sending four additional battalions to Eastern Europe and the US is leading one. Not to mention the missile defense we installed in Romania and are installing in Poland, as well the aircraft being sent to Romania. Nothing has changed about NATO under Obama-the US is one very important member of the team, but not the only member. That's a good thing.

Quote:

Quote:

I don't see any difference between "wanting them to pay their fair share" and "wanting them to shoulder more of the burden". It seems like different ways of saying the same thing.

Trump says pay up or we're out of NATO and you can defend yourselves. That's not asking to shoulder more of the burden, that's an exit line. And once again, if the US has issues with the other members, they should be discussed during NATO's many periodic conferences, and in private. NATO has provided a united front to Russia and others for over 60 years, and it has worked wonderfully for over 60 years. Trump is not even in the White House and he's already done his best to sow division in NATO. Couple that with his buddy buddy attitude toward Putin and it constitutes an open invitation to Putin to sneakily start pushing into the Eastern European countries who were once subjugated by Russia and whom Russia intends to subjugate again.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Trump's goal is not to destroy NATO. His goal is a reduced American role in the world, with other nations taking up more of the burden. His threat to pull out of NATO is designed to pressure other countries to start contributing more.

Trump's stated goal is to save money by withdrawing from NATO and then getting together with Putin and making deals based on "shared interests". NATO's goal is to prevent further Russian expansion by going the "one for all and all for one" route among all NATO members. Trump's stated vision and NATO's traditional functioning are clearly not compatible, and Trump has admitted so publicly several times.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

So, now.

http://time.com/4402823/glaude-hillary-clinton/

Why Donnie Darko may nuke us all to hell as Prez.
Cause Hillary and Dems have pissed off too many people for too long.

Anti Hillary, ALL the time.

You stand for nothing...you just are against HER

0 Replies

@Lash,

You fuckers shouldn't have voted for Bush

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Trump says pay up or we're out of NATO and you can defend yourselves. That's not asking to shoulder more of the burden, that's an exit line.

It sounds to me like asking them to shoulder more of the burden.

Blickers wrote:

And once again, if the US has issues with the other members, they should be discussed during NATO's many periodic conferences, and in private.

If he is elected, I expect that he will do just that.

Blickers wrote:

Trump's stated goal is to save money by withdrawing from NATO and then getting together with Putin and making deals based on "shared interests".

No. Trump only wants the US to play a smaller role, with other countries shouldering more of the burden. Within that paradigm he is fine with continuing NATO.

Trump does seem to think that he can talk directly with Putin and get him to agree to behave. I agree that this is naive, and I expect that he will find that Putin has no intention of ever behaving.

But.... I recall that just a couple years ago Obama and Hillary had that exact same naivety. Remember the reset button? Obama and Hillary were stiffing our east European NATO allies in order to suck up to Putin back then. They are different now because they learned from their folly.

I can't fault Trump for having the same naive ideas that Obama and Hillary once entertained themselves. Trump will learn just as quickly as they did.

0 Replies

Truly, I do not get why folks engage others where it is know the engagement will inevitably be just more piss sprayed about. What Lash writes or what I write isn't going to influence any electoral outcome. But we can enrich ourselves through learning, that is an option.

0 Replies

I visit the NRO every day as part of my reading regimen. Today, I bumped into something I've never seen before. There are about 15 or 20 separate pieces up which you can click on and then read. But one, this morning, is absolutely unique.

It caught my attention because this is not a subject that gets addressed by these folks.

Quote:

The Conservative Echo Chamber Is Making the Right Intellectually Deaf

So I clicked on it, of course. And that's when I get the thing I've never seen before. This message on an otherwise mainly blank page...

Quote:

"We're Sorry
This url is correct but you are not authorized to access the content on this page. If you feel you should be able to fully access this page with your NR credentials, be sure that you are logged in here"

I goggled the title and got to the piece http://bit.ly/2aKMfkY (which you'll definitely want to read).

But the thing of it is, by blocking access to readers, the NRO is simply verifying the thesis in the piece. So ******* stupid.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

On the fashion statement, you are correct there is a media bias. On the pain of the mother of Sean Smith, you are not.

One is about a man who lost Muslim son in Iraq fighting in the US military, serving our country (even though it was illegal war) as his obligation and duty required responding to Donald Trump ridiculous comment about banning any Muslims. He asked if Donald Trump had read the constitution for a very good reason. Donald Trump as a man seeking to be the US president should know you can 't discriminate on the basis of religion.

Benghazi on the other hand has been investigated to death and exploited to death and at the end of the day it finally came down to Hillary and the Obama administration doing all they could to respond the terrible crises which caused the death of those who died on the Benghazi compound. More should have spent on security at Benghazi, however, there is enough to blame to go around on that front. If the Benghazi hearings were more about what went wrong and how we can improve our mode operations so future tragedies do not happen, then those investigations would have had some point and some good to them. But from the very moment the tragedy began to unfold, the right wing nuts were on a mission to find fault simply because they disagree with the Obama's administration way of so called "leading from behind." And the mother of the fallen diplomat was more of the same.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

You are factually incorrect on at least 2 counts.

1) Trump never said he would ban ALL Muslims. Again, you like to twist the facts.
2) The blame for the Benghazi killings are directly tied to Clinton and Obama not paying attention to details. Clinton LIED directly to the Benghazi families saying the cause of the riot was the video. SHe TO THIS DAY calls the family members of the dead in Benghazi LIARS for that. Yet, Trump NEVER criticized Cahn and you clowns are all over him, but let Clinton off the hook.

You are being hypocritical, which is consistent for Clinton supporters

2 Replies

@woiyo,

He didn't say all, he said any.

As for Benghazi, I am not going there, I read the final reports and what I said was the gist of it.

1 Reply

@blatham,

This is likely an administrative error someone made managing the website content. Somehow the article's permissions are set to private (which require a logon) instead of public.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

On the pain of the mother of Sean Smith, you are not.

Wow. So it is OK for Hillary to lie to the mother of the fallen diplomat, and then publicly falsely accuse the mother of lying. But it is an outrage if Trump wonders if the mother of the dead soldier was forcibly silenced (as happens in quite a few Muslim families)?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Although it is typical of the lengths that liberals will go to in order to excuse any amount of wrongdoing by other liberals.

revelette2 wrote:

and duty required responding to Donald Trump ridiculous comment about banning any Muslims. He asked if Donald Trump had read the constitution for a very good reason. Donald Trump as a man seeking to be the US president should know you can 't discriminate on the basis of religion.

There is nothing unconstitutional about a temporary emergency halt to immigration from countries that produce Islamic terrorists until the government can get a handle on things.

The loudmouth Muslim had no reason for his embittered ranting. He is just a kooky wacko. He should do his ranting on a street corner.

revelette2 wrote:

Benghazi on the other hand has been investigated to death and exploited to death and at the end of the day it finally came down to Hillary and the Obama administration doing all they could to respond the terrible crises which caused the death of those who died on the Benghazi compound.

Does that make it OK for Hillary to lie to the mother, and then to publicly falsely accuse the mother of lying?

I know liberals like Hillary will endlessly lie and slander in order to cover their wrongdoing. Hillary just dropped a fresh pack of lies about her emails (got Four Pinocchios from the Washington Post for it). But really, is there no decency to liberalism at all?

revelette2 wrote:

If the Benghazi hearings were more about what went wrong and how we can improve our mode operations so future tragedies do not happen, then those investigations would have had some point and some good to them. But from the very moment the tragedy began to unfold, the right wing nuts were on a mission to find fault simply because they disagree with the Obama's administration way of so called "leading from behind."

Wrong. The Republicans were trying to find improvements to avoid future tragedies. Your characterization of them as nuts just shows how wrong liberalism is. The hearings were politicized by the Democrats, who once again put "covering up Hillary's wrongdoing" over "the good of the people who serve America".

revelette2 wrote:

And the mother of the fallen diplomat was more of the same.

Your justification of Hillary's abuse of the mother is infinitely more appalling than anything that Mr. Trump said about that kooky Muslim family.

0 Replies

@woiyo,

woiyo wrote:

You are being hypocritical, which is consistent for Clinton supporters

Yup.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

As for Benghazi, I am not going there, I read the final reports and what I said was the gist of it.

As noted above, rather breathtaking hypocrisy to not address Hillary's atrocious statements while harping about Trump's pretty harmless statements.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know