When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@revelette2,

Quote:

All that aside, when you think about it, it does seem like a very slick political move on Bill Clinton's part.

I read the article and did not see any hidden motives therein, but then again, I really wasn't looking for one. It's difficult to assess aspects of one's state of mind from one article. If Trump professed an interest in the race, I cannot very well expect Clinton to try and discourage him and the former president's response appeared more benign than calculated.

0 Replies

Frank,
I will support Hillary as I supported her husband. I have always had my doubts about their motives and moral compass. I've always felt they weren't so much servants of the people as servants of their own egos and ambitions. And the game they talk has always made me wish there was someone who I felt more sure would walk the walk. Obama was sort of a fulfillment of that for me.

Lash,
I say defensive because you are attacking Hillary and defending Sanders - clearly. I blandly call into question the sort of journalism that cites a private conversation as a source of information, and you jump to the defense, proclaiming "You wouldn't doubt it if it was about Bush!" .

I'm not against Bernie Sanders, and I'm not all atwitter about Hillary either.
Sometimes I just think you need to take a beat or two.

3 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Frank,
I will support Hillary as I supported her husband. I have always had my doubts about their motives and moral compass. I've always felt they weren't so much servants of the people as servants of their own egos and ambitions. And the game they talk has always made me wish there was someone who I felt more sure would walk the walk. Obama was sort of a fulfillment of that for me.

Perhaps this is because I am more jaded than you, Snood, but I think every politician alive is more interested in their own egos and ambitions...than to the interests of the people they supposedly serve.

I think this mostly because I see almost ALL humans acting that way...mainly serving their self-interests.

Some are marginal. A Mother Teresa; an Albert Schweitzer; a Mahatma Gandhi...are marginal, but even they are massaging their personal needs to be of service to humanity.

I would be very, very, very hard pressed to choose five politicians in Washington right now that I think have the interests of the people so in mind...that they would compromise their personal and family interests for in order to accommodate. And to find only one rather than five...I would eliminate only one of the "very's" I used.

I don't actually see the Clintons as being especially egregious in this area.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Different strokes

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

every politician alive is more interested in their own egos and ambitions...than to the interests of the people they supposedly serve.

I agree with your statement. It takes a certain amount of personal ambition and "ego" to be a successful politician and a desire to excel and fulfill that ambition...one would have to be skilled in manipulating other politicians, speaking the right words as only a politician can. Some politicians' rhetoric seem to cater to our ideology, but in reality they remain politicians. Now, admittedly, Obama will want to leave a legacy, that being the uplifting of Americans, a striving to make life better, like the Affordable Care Act. Obama really sends the signal to many he wants to do a real presidential job, and not just in it to enrich himself. Ultimately, after he's out of office, speaking engagements alone will make him a millionaire many times over. In summary, Obama's reign at the helm of the most powerful position in the world will be noticed and he will have left his legacy.

The Clintons are politicians, although, I must admit their outward need for power is unmistakeable, especially so with Hillary. But the Clintons combine their lust for power with helping the American people. I believe Hillary will fight hard for the American people, as only a Clinton can do, and far more than any of her Republican Rivals. And unless Hillary stumbles, it's doubful Biden or Sanders will be able to grasp the nomination from her.

2 Replies

@korkamann,

That might be true that national politicians are not interested in the best interests of the people....given that they seem to spend most of their time raising money and trying to settle inside the beltway scores it probably is right, but you have to remember that we have largely inferior people in office now. It was not always thus, and it does not need to be this way.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

but you have to remember that we have largely inferior people in office now.

"Inferior people"?!! Yes, the Tea Party darlings are beneath contempt, abominable as*holes and they have turned the Republican Party into human garbage.

0 Replies

@korkamann,

korkamann wrote:

The Clintons are politicians, although, I must admit their outward need for power is unmistakeable, especially so with Hillary. But the Clintons combine their lust for power with helping the American people. I believe Hillary will fight hard for the American people, as only a Clinton can do, and far more than any of her Republican Rivals. And unless Hillary stumbles, it's doubful Biden or Sanders will be able to grasp the nomination from her.

History is full of tyrants (and worse) whose supporters rationalized the obvious "lust for power" with a suppoised desire to help the people. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler come quickly to mind,, though there are many others. I'm not comparing Hillary to them, but rather pointing out the vacuous quality of your argument for her.

Please explain what is unique ("... as only a Clinton can do..") about what Hillary can do for us all.

I do agree with your last statement. Hillary likely has the Democrat nomination, provided she doesn't stumble. It also appears her campaign managers are doing all they can to prevent that by limiting her appearances and structuring those that do occur as much as possible. Unfortunately that too has adverse side effects - it magnifies some of her least liked traits and flies in the face of the populist oimage she is trying to put forward. It may also leave her unprepared or unready when she faces the Republican candidate in the national election.

1 Reply

@snood,

I guess I have a different definition of defensive. I strongly dislike Hillary Clinton, so I criticize her and share negative articles - well, a small sampling of what's out there..... Smile

I admire the hell out of Bernie Sanders, so I share positive things ab0ut him.

I'm pretty sure everyone who talks here does the same thing. I don't think that makes us all defensive. To single me out for that descriptor seems unfair. Are we all defensive?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

History is full of tyrants (and worse) whose supporters rationalized the obvious "lust for power" with a supposed desire to help the people. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler come quickly to mind,, though there are many others. I'm not comparing Hillary to them, but rather pointing out the vacuous quality of your argument for her.

Please explain what is unique ("... as only a Clinton can do..") about what Hillary can do for us all.

I do agree with your last statement. Hillary likely has the Democrat nomination, provided she doesn't stumble. It also appears her campaign managers are doing all they can to prevent that by limiting her appearances and structuring those that do occur as much as possible. Unfortunately that too has adverse side effects - it magnifies some of her least liked traits and flies in the face of the populist image she is trying to put forward. It may also leave her unprepared or unready when she faces the Republican candidate in the national election.

________
I agree, down through the centuries, history has been replete with ruthless, power-hungry individuals capable of energizing the masses to believe in their ideals.

Thank you for not comparing Hillary to these individuals. I’m under no illusion as the type of person Hillary Clinton is, and am not blind to her thirst for power, heck, most people who attain the level of success she has could not have gotten there if they were not motivated and determined. Hillary Clinton is the type of person I feel the Democratic Party needs to fight the growing Tea Party which has consumed the Republican Party....She, I believe, will give as good as she gets!

I would not refer to Hillary Clinton as “unique," but a resolute opponent of the Republican Party. I find her to be dynamic, with an inner strength which will not allow her to be a pushover. I believe she will fight with all her energetic skill for what she believes in and this includes fighting for the American people from the Democratic base. In my opinion, Clinton has the best chance to defeat the Republicans. Now perhaps there are others out there who will fight just as hard for the Democratic platform, but the polls suggest Clinton is far ahead of all of them, including Biden and Sanders.

My heart’s desire would be for a Joe Biden candidacy, and following that, Elizabeth Warren. Alas, Hillary has practically secured those big endorsements a long time ago, with women heading this list. She most likely will get the nomination unless something happens, like a criminal aspect which incriminates her with proof. Right now, all this propaganda indicating she cannot be trusted merely cause me to be more suspicious of everything negative I read about her. The GOP has been going after her big time since they knew she was going to run. First they started with Benghazi, now the server! Personally, if I were Hillary, I'd give up, but that's just what the Republicans want.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I guess I have a different definition of defensive. I strongly dislike Hillary Clinton, so I criticize her and share negative articles - well, a small sampling of what's out there.....

I admire the hell out of Bernie Sanders, so I share positive things ab0ut him.

I'm pretty sure everyone who talks here does the same thing. I don't think that makes us all defensive. To single me out for that descriptor seems unfair. Are we all defensive?

Disingenuous. Ray Charles could see that you have made the most strident (or if you prefer, ardent) testimonials for Sanders here, and the most pointed and negative refutations of Clinton. You jumped up in front of the Sanders bandwagon and you made yourself chief Hillary sniper, and now you are all "Shucks, we're all just folks"? C'mon, Lash. You want to be sensitive about Sanders, react sensitively, then deny it when your strong reaction is noticed? Disingenuous.

2 Replies

@snood,

It looks like you decided what you wanted to read, and then found it.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

It looks like you decided what you wanted to read, and then found it.

What?

1 Reply

@snood,

I didn't know I was so unclear. I meant to say you see what you want to say. If that also needs explanation, I'm sorry for the lack of communication.

1 Reply

@snood,

If you can explain how I am any different than you and everyone else has always been, I'll be glad to admit it.

Otherwise, I am just like everyone else who critisizes who they dislike and supports who they like.

0 Replies

@roger,

This would suggest that Lash does the same thing? As to Hillery and Bernie.

0 Replies

Bernie Sanders Clearly In Pocket Of High-Rolling Teacher Who Donated $300 To His Campaign

http://www.theonion.com/article/bernie-sanders-clearly-pocket-high-rolling-teacher-50990

BURLINGTON, VT—After accepting a check sent to his campaign office by a local elementary school teacher, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was roundly criticized Monday as being firmly in the pocket of the high-rolling educator who had donated $300.

“He might have the reputation of being the people’s candidate, but when your candidacy is effectively bankrolled by the multi-hundred-dollar donation of a fourth-grade teacher, it’s clear who’s really pulling the strings,” said political analyst Peter Mathews, who noted that when a check arrives with a handwritten note that says “Behind you 100 percent, Bernie!” it comes with certain expectations.

“He’s already spouting off talking points about supporting unions and increasing funding for education. Where do you think he got those ideas? He might think he’s not influenced by that money, but when someone has deep enough pockets to drop $300, you pick up the phone when they call.”

Mathews went on to say he wouldn’t be surprised if Sanders’ strong support for a living wage could be directly traced to the fat $20 contribution he got from a fast-food worker.

0 Replies

Private Prison Lobbyists Are Top Fundraisers for Hillary Clinton

jun AOYAMA / CC BY 2.0

Lobbyists for two major prison companies—Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group—are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The implication is that laws governing crime and incarceration will deliver more inmates and profits to private prison companies if Clinton is elected.

Lee Fang reports at The Intercept:

Last week, Clinton and other candidates revealed a number of lobbyists who are serving as “bundlers” for their campaigns. Bundlers collect contributions on behalf of a campaign, and are often rewarded with special favors, such as access to the candidate.

Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit.

As we reported yesterday, fully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

Hillary Clinton has a complicated history with incarceration. As first lady, she championed efforts to get tough on crime. “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” Clinton said in 1994. “The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets,” she added.

In recent months, Clinton has tacked left in some ways, and now calls for alternatives to incarceration and for greater police accountability. And while Clinton has backed a path to citizenship for undocumented people in America, she recently signaled a willingness to crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities,” a move that could lead to more immigrant detentions.

Read more here.

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.

0 Replies

@snood,

So, Frank and Rabel are defensive, right? And when you make an issue of my criticisms of Clinton, you're defensive, right? Is this what you're talking about?

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know