When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Quote Baldimo:

Woiyo said that Hillary only voted for campaign reform when she knew the bill was going to fail-since Woiyo is claiming that Hillary is really opposed to campaign reform, he said she would never vote for a bill that had a chance to pass. You chimed in in support of Woiyo's position, saying that the deceptive Democrats do that all the time, vote for something only because they know it can't pass. You brought up the example of Charles Rangel introducing a draft bill that he eventually voted against-which, by the way, is NOT an example of someone voting FOR a bill only because they know it won't pass. But that's not the major point.

Cyclptichorn chimed in and pointed out that when Hillary was US Senator from New York, only one campaign reform bill was up for a vote, the McCain-Feingold bill, and it passed. And Hillary voted FOR it. Which blows away Woiyo's false contention that Hillary would never vote for a campaign reform bill that had a chance to pass. And since you brought up Rangel's voting against a draft bill he himself introduced as yet ANOTHER example of the sneaky, deceptive Democrats voting for a bill that they knew would not pass just to say they supported it, you didn't prove you were right. To be correct in saying that Rangel's vote is ANOTHER example of the Democrats doing something sneaky, the first action that Hillary did had to sneaky too. But Hillary's vote was NOT sneaky-she voted for a campaign reform bill and it passed-it was the only campaign reform bill up for a vote during her time in the Senate. Therefore what Rangel did was not ANOTHER example of a deceptive practice, (if indeed what Rangel was even deceptive, I'm just taking your word for what happened), so you didn't prove squat.

I could dwell further on the fact that Rangel's voting AGAINST his own bill is hardly an example of someone voting for a bill that they know is not going to pass, but football season is here and that would constitute "piling on".

The simple fact is that any post can be thumbed up or down at any time. If I point to a post and say it is at a given number, it is only a snap shot in time that is easily changed before anyone else tries to confirm that number is correct which allows them to argue that I was wrong. It's a fool's errand.

In a second post did post instances where some people had positive thumbs that dispute the argument that everyone that dislikes Hillary is always thumbed down. Whether those posts stay positive is another story.

That's not a rule you apply to yourself.

Bullshit

I mean, theoretically one could take and upload screenshots.. going to that length on such a subject would be somewhat insane, though.

Yup

This is not for those of you who bury your head in the sand or for those of you who are unable to bear less than 5 minutes of people like Jill stein.

Typical left-wing revisionist tactics

Where did you git this? It looks like someone has photoshoped this. Way too much movement and strange blips as it plays.

Sorry for the interruption but when Jane Mayer writes something, you ought to read it because you'll come away smarter than when you came in.

"ROGER AILES, THE CLINTONS, AND THE SCANDALS OF THE SCANDALMONGERS
By Jane Mayer , AUGUST 24, 2016" http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roger-ailes-the-clintons-and-the-scandals-of-the-scandalmongers

Read it. So Ailes was paying off a chick to sleep with him at Fox all the time he was ripping into Clinton for Monicagate. And more sex stories to follow, no doubt.

Fox is caught with its pants down.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roger-ailes-the-clintons-and-the-scandals-of-the-scandalmongers

Yes, but not just Ailes. Three consecutive GOP House leaders during that period of high dudgeon and impeachment of Clinton were themselves involved in extra-marital affairs.

Funny how we like to forget that the Monica-gate and Clinton's impeachment was not about sex but about a sitting US president lying under oath in a court case.

Funny how you like to forget that the illegal war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaida or UN resolutions and was all about increased profits for Cheney's pals in Halliburton.

Even funnier is how you forget that the Congressional impeachment lawyers couldn't make a case that would hold up in court. They couldn't even get a conviction in a political trial.

President Clinton impeached

The trial was held in the Senate -

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/senatevotes.html

They couldn't get a conviction even after their trumped up impeachment. They couldn't even get a majority vote on the 2 articles because the charges were so flimsy. It was all politics and most of the country saw it that way.

Saddam Hussein is dead... Osama Bin Laden is dead... Most of the major players of Al-Qaeda are dead... If Halliburton made a profit I could give a rat's ass. And I don't recall George Bush being impeached.

And just because OJ Simpson was acquitted doesn't mean he didn't commit the murder. Are you going to sit there and tell me that Clinton didn't lie under oath? Of course not because you can't... Otherwise you'd be a liar.

The people who creamed off the profits, like Cheney, are still alive. Amazing how you be so blazé about the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and Western military personnel yet are apoplectic about a spunky dress.