When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

But coming from a GOP candidate for the presidency while lying through his teeth as to what his opponent would do if she won the election - that is a degradation of political culture that I never expected to actually see.

Mr. Trump is telling the truth. Hillary really does hate the Constitution and mean to violate our civil rights.

blatham wrote:

I've been trying to get my head around Trump's invitation to sedition today.

That's easy. He made a truthful point: Hillary means to appoint justices who will abolish the Constitution. Then he added something to get the left all hyper and outraged, which will guarantee that everyone will end up discussing his truthful point over the next few days.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

He added a hint for gun nuts such as yourself to do Hillary in before she takes your guns away. Ridiculous charge on his part concerning Hillary taking away guns and disqualifying assassination threat for anyone else except for Trump's crazy supporters. It is a pattern which everyone has caught on to. First he makes an outrageous statement which in normal times would disqualify him, then the headlines start, then Trumpets start their denials. It is a vicious cycle we all held hostage to and I am sick of it and him and his supporters.

1 Reply

@blatham,

This is not a trial, and you are not a judge. I have answered your questioins far better than you have even begun to address mine. In the case at hand the answer to your question was quite obvious and clearly stated by me in my response. You have conveniuently ignored it, but that evasion is for you to explain, not me.

That the United States has long "lagged behind" Canada and the EU states, which you hold up as models for us, and which the current administration and the progressives you so admire are trying to move us toward, is amply confirmed both bu observable facts and your own endless narritives here. I'm disappointed to see you indulging in such self-serving deception in this area..

I was very clear about the scleroisis I believe attends the progressive social democratic government programs you so admire, and provided a very compact, but illustrative biological metaphor describe the process. The proposition that our significantly higher economic performance than that that of your model countries is in majot part associated with our relatively leaner government programs in those areas is easily demonstrated by many facts. It is also evident that, over the past two decades we have moved closer to the European model, and have seen some of the associated accumulating econoimic sclerosis that attends it in Europe. I would like to reverse that.

I never claimed the United States is or ever was a model libertarian government, and in fact don't wish us to become one in the stricct sense to which you refer. I would instead like to see us move farther away from the sappy political and social ideas of the contemporary progressive religion, and note there is a lot of space between where we are and the usual libertarian models. As I rather clearly indicated, I believe that doing that would contribute materially to the vigor and econonomic health of our society - while enabling better solutions with fewer adverse side effects than thise promised by our self-appointed "progressive" savants. who claim (without evidence) to know what's really good for the rest of us. I attribute our relative superiority in these areas when compared to the other countries I listed precisely to what you regard as our regrettable deficiencies in those "progressive" programs which you endlessly recount in these threads.

Unlike you I don't spend much time reading or theorizing about models of anything in this area. I'm very conversant with history, political, economic and military, but don't put much store in the abstract models so loved by pseudo Platonists. (Even Plato couldn't offer a solution to the problem of finding his philosopher kings in the flesh or protecting them from the untoward impulses of human nature once they achieved power.)

Have you ever been to Hong Kong? Shanghai? They're both very nice places and a (fairly) good case can be made for their coming eclipse of Europe.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Each and every Republican or conservative who fail to publicly reject Trump are contributing to the degradation of civility and sanity in American political life. This is not forgivable.

Not forgivable by what standard? by whom? Canadians? A little hyperbole and hypocrisy there don't you think?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Obviously you didn't bother to read the article that you are responding to.
Voting is a RIGHT guaranteed under the Constitution. None of the other items you are mentioning have anything to do with Constitutional RIGHTS.

You don't believe there are any consdtitutional rights involved in travelling, banking, or purchasing goods? That's interesting.

It may be that when you are deeply engaged in searching for favorable nits you can't see anything very well. It's a big world and there's lots to see in it, but you have to first get your head out of your ass to do it.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Have you ever been to Hong Kong? Shanghai?

I have not been to either of these two bastions of citizen liberty but it is clear that were I to live in either place, I would enjoy levels of personal and civic freedom that I can only imagine here in Canada.

Paragraph 2 - read it four times. Can't make sense of it.
Paragraph 3 - Yes. You claim sclerosis in progressive style nations regularly. You use the term "believe" and that's the right word choice. Your analogy is exactly as useful as if I were to say that insufficiently monitored and regulated capitalism is analogous to a parasite munching on your brain stem.

Paragraph 4 - Here's where we might be able to work together - your acknowledgement that some range of interim systems are the way to go. But because of what you believe, clawing back progressive legislation is all that will satisfy you. Fine, that's a conservative mainstay. But what we can see in this election cycle suggests your side's turn at the wheel is coming to a close.

Paragraph 5 - Pendantry. Sad!

And I find you guilty. Baliff. Whack his peepee.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

[ continued support of trump by republicans ] Not forgivable by what standard? by whom? Canadians? A little hyperbole and hypocrisy there don't you think?

It now would be hard to count up the number of American Republicans who have worked in prior GOP administrations who have said something what I wrote there. Perhaps Jeb Bush and Bill Kristol and Michael Gerson etc etc are all secret Canadians.

You are angry these days, george. That's not going to improve come November.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I have been to both Hong Kong and Shanghai a couple of times. They are both bastions of commerce. I remember walking the street in Shanghai where there are hundreds of stores. There used to be a craft warehouse where the artists sold their works, and I bought a scroll that now hangs in our bedroom.
I also bought a pair of eyeglasses in Hong Kong at Twai Kwong Optical Company on Mody Road in Kowloon, because the price was so reasonable.

I recently watched the movie "The World of Suzie Wong" with William Holden for about the third time.

I took my son on a trip to China that started in Beijing and ended in Hong Kong. That was many years ago.

0 Replies

Not sure if you folks caught the Politico piece yesterday where these two fine gentleman spoke honestly about their true notions.

Quote:

Stephen Moore: "I’m not even a big believer in democracy."
Peter Thiel: "I no longer believe that freedom & democracy are compatible"

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

He added a hint for gun nuts such as yourself to do Hillary in before she takes your guns away.

Actually the hint was to do in the judges, not to do in Hillary.

And I covered that in the second part of my post, where I said that he added something extra that would get the Left in a tizzy and keep everyone talking about his main point for a few days.

revelette2 wrote:

Ridiculous charge on his part concerning Hillary taking away guns

Not at all. The accusation is entirely truthful. Good for Mr. Trump for helping the American voter to realize just how Hillary intends to destroy the Constitution.

revelette2 wrote:

It is a pattern which everyone has caught on to. First he makes an outrageous statement which in normal times would disqualify him, then the headlines start, then Trumpets start their denials. It is a vicious cycle we all held hostage to and I am sick of it and him and his supporters.

If the Left would not constantly blow Mr. Trump's comments out of proportion, they would not have to go through being corrected about what he said over and over again.

This latest gun thing was clearly designed to manipulate the Left into hysteria given their already-demonstrated tendency to flip out over Mr. Trump's comments, but many of Mr. Trump's previous "outrages" were clearly the Left taking things way out of context.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You just bring that confidence about your candidate and all his brilliant strategy here on November 9th so you can... celebrate.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote parados:

Quote:

Obviously you didn't bother to read the article that you are responding to.
Voting is a RIGHT guaranteed under the Constitution. None of the other items you are mentioning have anything to do with Constitutional RIGHTS.

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:

You don't believe there are any constitutional rights involved in travelling, banking, or purchasing goods? That's interesting.

You don't have a constitutional right to bank. Any bank can reject you as a member if you don't meet sufficient requirements, (such as maintaining a certain balance), and is free to have a policy of serving members only.

Similarly, you have the right to travel but you don't have the right to drive a car, that is a privilege conditional upon several things. As you well know.

Quote georgeob1 to parados:

Quote:

It's a big world and there's lots to see in it, but you have to first get your head out of your ass to do it.

Physician, heal thyself.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Trump isn't interested in inspiring anyone, he prefers to incite. He is a dangerous man without a moral compass.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Have you ever been to Hong Kong? Shanghai?

I have not been to either of these two bastions of citizen liberty but it is clear that were I to live in either place, I would enjoy levels of personal and civic freedom that I can only imagine here in Canada.

I think you would find that they were about equivalent to Canada in terms of daily life - governance is another matter. I believe the Chinese see themselves as restoring the old Mandarin system of a carefully cultivated (and accountable) meritocracy, something they see as superior to our too populist democracy. We had a speaker this summer from the CCP who articulated this view, interestingly basing it in part on some writings of Machiavelli (Discorses on Livy).

It all sounds good until one considers the problem of the corruptability of himan nature and how to replace a mandarin/emperor who has become too fond of his power. Same problem as faced Plato, but I see you regard that as mere pedantry. How is it you see the writings of the fairly large tribe of contemporary commentators whom you cite so assiduously as anything other than name-dropping and pedantry as well?

blatham wrote:

Paragraph 2 - read it four times. Can't make sense of it.

Try again. My sugestion is that a relative (to European standards) deficit of social welfare programs and arbitrary restrictions on labor and other markets ( the very goals our progressives seek) is a major contributor to our relatively better economic performance (and to individual linberty as well). You certainly haven't addressed the remarkable differences in economic performance I noted and the continuing decline we see in Europe.

blatham wrote:

Paragraph 3 - Yes. You claim sclerosis in progressive style nations regularly. You use the term "believe" and that's the right word choice. Your analogy is exactly as useful as if I were to say that insufficiently monitored and regulated capitalism is analogous to a parasite munching on your brain stem.

Hormesis is a well-known principle in science which has applicability in plant & animal biology; mechanics; geology; econoimics and several other fields. It merely expresses that too much of a necessary or good thing can become positively harmful. Reliable examples abound in nature and human affairs. Your "equivalent" is merely nonsense. That "insufficiently monitored capitalism" is bad is merely a tautology: the question is of course what is sufficient.

blatham wrote:

Paragraph 4 - Here's where we might be able to work together - your acknowledgement that some range of interim systems are the way to go. But because of what you believe, clawing back progressive legislation is all that will satisfy you. Fine, that's a conservative mainstay. But what we can see in this election cycle suggests your side's turn at the wheel is coming to a close.

That, of course is a forecast: not an arguent. We appear to differ on the question of how much government intervention is enough, and at what point it becomes counter productive. How big a deal is that?

Are you surprised that I react to repeated phrases like "conservative mainstay" references to an evil conspiracy of "movement conservatism" probably in much the same way you react to my references to "Progressives"?

1 Reply

Wisconsin checking in

http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/08/poll-clinton-trump-wisconsin-226875

Quote:

Poll: Clinton's lead over Trump triples in Wisconsin

By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL 08/10/16 01:31 PM EDT Updated 08/10/16 03:05 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump has tripled in Wisconsin since July, with the Democratic nominee now holding a double-digit advantage, according to a Marquette University Law School poll of likely voters released Wednesday.

Clinton leads Trump by 15 percentage points, with 52 percent support to Trump’s 37 percent support. Seven percent said they would vote for neither candidate, while 3 percent said they were undecided.

Clinton led Trump by just 4 percentage points in July before both parties convened their nominating conventions last month.

In a four-way contest including Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, Clinton leads with 47 percent, followed by Trump at 34 percent, Johnson at 9 percent and Stein at 3 percent with 4 percent undecided and 2 percent choosing neither candidate.

Clinton’s unfavorability rating nearly equals her favorability, a relative plus for a candidate who, like Trump, has historically high negatives nationally. Her net favorability is -1 percent, (48 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable), while Trump’s is -37 percent (28 percent favorable, 65 percent unfavorable).

Clinton is also the candidate respondents said cares about people like them (50 percent, yes; 48 percent, no) — much more so than Trump (31 percent, yes; 66 percent, no) — and has the qualifications to be president (61 percent, yes; 38 percent, no). While voters largely share the same views on whether Clinton and Trump are honest, nearly 7-in-10 said Trump is unqualified for the White House.

In the Senate race, former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold has expanded his five-point lead over Republican incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson from July. Feingold now leads with 53 percent support to Johnson’s 42 percent support.

The Marquette University Law School survey of 683 likely voters was conducted via landline and cellphone and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

other updated news at

http://www.politico.com/news/hillary-clinton-2016

0 Replies

more interesting swing state news

http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/08/clinton-trump-battleground-polls-226826

Quote:

hMore swing state polling blues for Trump

By STEVEN SHEPARD 08/09/16 05:00 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump in three key battleground states, according to new polls released Tuesday — including a commanding advantage in vote-rich Pennsylvania.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls, conducted last Wednesday through Sunday, show Clinton leading Trump by 4 points in Iowa (41 percent to 37 percent), 5 points in Ohio (43 percent to 38 percent) and 11 points in Pennsylvania (48 percent to 37 percent).

All three surveys show movement towards Clinton over the past month. In early July, Clinton led by 3 points in Iowa and 9 points in Pennsylvania; Clinton and Trump were tied in Ohio last month.

(as is usual - the headline is about Mr. Trump)

<snip>

Quote:

Clinton is also benefiting from greater party unity in all three states.

She’s winning more Democrats in each state — 88 percent in Iowa, 87 percent in Ohio and 91 percent in Pennsylvania — than Trump is winning Republicans (83 percent in both Iowa and Ohio, and just 77 percent in Pennsylvania).

One bright spot for Republicans: Incumbent GOP senators in Iowa and Ohio lead their GOP challengers. In Iowa, six-term Sen. Chuck Grassley has a 10-point lead over Democrat Patty Judge, 52 percent to 42 percent. In Ohio, first-term Sen. Rob Portman’s lead over former Gov. Ted Strickland stands at 5 points, 48 percent to 43 percent.

But in Pennsylvania, Democrat Katie McGinty has a slight edge over GOP Sen. Pat Toomey, 48 percent to 44 percent.

And, just like in the presidential race, a potential turnout disparity is threatening Republicans. In each state, Democrats are running stronger among those voters who say they will definitely turn out in November than among the broader pool of registered voters. In Iowa, Grassley’s lead disappears among definite voters: He’s left with just a 1-point advantage over Judge, 48 percent to 47 percent.

In Ohio, Portman’s edge over Strickland contracts from 5 points to 3 points. And in Pennsylvania, McGinty’s lead grows from 4 points to 7 points among definite voters.

turnout matters

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

You don't believe there are any consdtitutional rights involved in travelling, banking, or purchasing goods? That's interesting.

Which constitutional rights do you think are involved in those things?

There is NO Constitutional right to fly on a plane.
There is NO Constitutional right to do business at a bank.
There certainly is NO Constitutional right to be able to purchase goods from a business.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Have you ever been to Hong Kong? Shanghai?

I have not been to either of these two bastions of citizen liberty but it is clear that were I to live in either place, I would enjoy levels of personal and civic freedom that I can only imagine here in Canada.

kind of funny when you think of how Canada is being swamped with Chinese from Hong Kong and Shanghai still trying to find safe places for their money and children

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Please. If you are going to make claims re liberty, comparing Hong Kong and Canada is truly ridiculous. Unless, of course, your definition of liberty has free speech and freedom to congregate and organize as frivolous. And as ehBeth points out below, the flood of citizens looking for better circumstances is from HK to Canada, not the reverse.

Re pedantry, I was joking. You toss it about at others. It was your turn.

re the para 2 notes, economics is not my area. But in truth, I don't think you can come to any other conclusions than what you forward because you hold certain economic/political theories as axiomatically true.

Quote:

It merely expresses that too much of a necessary or good thing can become positively harmful

A revelation.

Quote:

Are you surprised that I react to repeated phrases like "conservative mainstay" references to an evil conspiracy of "movement conservatism" probably in much the same way you react to my references to "Progressives"?

No. But as I've pointed out before, you actually know so little about movement conservatism (such as that the term itself has been used by extremist conservatives of the Goldwater sort for decades as self-description) that I'm not much bothered in this.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Thanks for all that data, bethie. And yes, turnout matters. Quite aside from whatever the GOP might or might not be doing, the Koch operation now has a very sophisticated, organized and well-funded GOTV machine in place (to try and hold onto as many congressional seats as possible). But my sense of things is that Clinton and her team are no dummies in this.

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know