When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

You are so naive to actually write that? She votes that way KNOWING it will never pass since her, the democrats and republicans do NOT want it to change. Clinton is OWNED by the special interests and foreign countries who bankroll her foundation.

Ope up your eyes!!!

Not naïve enough to vote for Drumpf, or mistake a statement for a question.

As to this thumbing up and down crapolla... I see no usefulness for it or why it was even included as part of the site other than to fuel the junior high mentality that seems to permeate the majority of leftists on the site.
I guess it's a better use for their thumb then the position is usually occupies... up a particular sphincter.

No, what gave you that idea?

I merely pointed out that shortly after I posted the comment, regardless of it's credibility, it received three thumbs up. I predicted it would drop very shortly. It did. It's now at -3.

I suppose it has never dawned on you that conservative members and one or two liberal apostates, no matter what they post (It can be as innocuous as "I agree") are very quickly thumbed down.

It's just part of the way things are done here.

I made a sarcastic crack about it .

I didn't get irritated until someone felt the need to make a snarky comment about a joke that wasn't directed at anyone (unless, I suppose that person is among the few jerks).

Having said this, almost everyone has gotten irritated about the feature at one time or another, and more than one person has started topics about it.



I'd rather stand with Lash (despite her transformation to a bolshevik) than the vast majority of posters here.

The comment was that you should consider that perhaps you are getting too emotionally involved in A2K's rating system. Since that remark, you've made several comments about how you are not, really really not, emotionally involved in A2K's rating system. Honest.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Perhaps, methinks not.

Quote woiyo:

So if Clinton voted against it, you'd be posting her in caps screaming that this proves she is against it. If she votes for it, you scream that it proves how untrustworthy and deceptive she is, since she voted for it even though she really is against it.

Stay right there, the nice men in the white coats will be coming any minute now.

Well that is just a silly argument since she would NEVER vote against it. Many bills are sent to a vote KNOWING they will never be passed so as to just satisfy public opinion. You did not know that?

Haha, DaFuq you talking about, Woiyo? The last major campaign finance reform bill passed was in 2002 - McCain-Feingold. Clinton voted Aye on it. It wasn't just for show.

What more do you want from her?

Cycloptichorn

Charles Rangel pulled this with his military draft legislation back in 2003. He then proceeded to use it as a club against the GOP but when it came time to actually vote on the bill, he voted against it. It was pure BS politics and the Dems loved it. Talk about wasting time and money...

The post just before yours pointed out that the last time a major campaign reform bill came before the Senate, Hillary voted FOR campaign reform. So you and woiyo's conspiracy theory that she only would vote for campaign reform when she knows the bill is going to lose was rebutted-before you even posted.

Then you wonder why people have trouble with your posts.

I never commented on what Hillary did, I'm simply posting that it isn't against Dem tactics to put forth a bill they know what pass in order to badger the GOP. I proved what I meant when I mentioned Charles Rangel and his military draft bill. Hillary wasn't mentioned by me.

Woiyo posted that Hillary only voted for a campaign reform bill that she figured would not pass. You posted that Charles Rangel did the same thing in respect to another bill, those dirty Democrats. Hillary was not mentioned by you, but your example of Rangel was in support of Woiyo's statement that Hillary does not support campaign reform, she only voted for a campaign reform bill that she knew wouldn't pass. So you put yourself on board with Woiyo's Hillary conspiracy theory right there.

Meanwhile, Cycloptichorn put an end to the whole nonsense by pointing out that Hillary did indeed vote for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill of 2002 and it did pass. So that means the whole theory of Hillary being owned by special interests and would never vote for a campaign reform bill that had a chance to pass is just wrong.

Keep trying Blickers, I was only pointing out that Dems will put forth bills they know won't pass and they vote against their own proposals. Can you honestly say they don't do this?

Dunno. But you made that statement in support of Woiyo's statement that Hillary did this with a campaign finance bill, because according to Woiyo, Hillary is bought and paid for by special interests, so therefore she would never vote for a campaign finance bill that had a chance to pass. And Cyclops put the Kibosh on the whole thing by pointing out that she did vote for a successful campaign finance bill in 2002, the McCain-Feingold bill.

That's the trouble with conservatives. They back-compute history instead of finding out what actually happened. Conservatives are pushing the idea that Hillary is owned by Wall Street, so they make up a story about her voting for some campaign finance bill that failed as evidence of her supposedly evil, devious ways. Except it never happened. She voted for the only campaign finance bill that crossed her path and it passed. Now the issue with you conservatives is not that you invented a piece of history because you used your own prejudices as a guide, but that those Democrats use dirty tactics such as the one you accuse Hillary of using, but she didn't. But to present day conservatives, truth doesn't matter, only conservative principles do.

Since when did principles=lies.

If you can't prove it, you really shouldn't make such definitive statements. The thing to do is first research the point you want to make, then make a claim with something to back it up. If you just spout off stuff you think happens, you leave yourself open to someone proving you wrong. Just saying.

This is sooooo true. Truer words have never been stated.

I was just stating your position in that quote. So now you quote it to make it seem like I was stating my own position?

And you're the poster who accuses others of being dense. Oh my Gawd.

What else would you expect from a queen bee loyalist? Empathy?