80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 04:21 pm
@glitterbag,
And it will probably be her undoing
revelette2
 
  4  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 05:20 pm
@giujohn,
Doubt it. Consider who her audience was at the time, a gay community. There is hardly a group Trump hasn't insulted and half his supporters have cheered. They were never going to vote for Hillary anyway and the rest of us empathize with those groups Hillary listed. I think Hillary took a gamble of marginalizing those who are anti everybody as opposed to people who are inclusive towards all groups.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 05:34 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Doubt it. Consider who her audience was at the time, a gay community. There is hardly a group Trump hasn't insulted and half his supporters have cheered. They were never going to vote for Hillary anyway and the rest of us empathize with those groups Hillary listed. I think Hillary took a gamble of marginalizing those who are anti everybody as opposed to people who are inclusive towards all groups.


I wonder if you aware of the stark contradictions in your remarks. and your evident, self-serving hypocrisy.

Was Hillary being "inclusive towards all groups" . The answer is clearly NO.

The persistent undercurrent of what you wrote (and what Hillary said) is that Trump supporters aren't included in "everybody" or "all groups". That is the essence of prejudice and intolerance.
Real Music
 
  3  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 06:11 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
I guess you're not familiar with the term legislating from the bench because you don't seem to have a grasp on its meaning

I know only too well what legislating from the bench means.
Quote:
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional. Section 4 contained the legislative formula to determine which jurisdictions must get “preclearance” from the federal government to change their voting laws—a procedure mandated by Section 5 of the Act. The formula had not been updated by Congress since 1975. The Court held that the decline in racially discriminatory practices in the last decades—which occurred in large part because of the Voting Rights Act—rendered the formula too outdated to pass constitutional muster


The very existence of Section 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as stated by the conservative Justices, prevented racially discriminatory voting practices in the last decades. The actual reason the conservative Justices claim that Section 4 and 5 was outdated was because of the decline of racially discriminatory practices in the last decades. That argument makes absolutely no sense. To say that a law is outdated because the law has successfully been doing what it was intended to do makes absolutely no sense. The conservative Justices are actually stating that the reason this law is outdated is because the law is working. Let me reiterate this another way. The conservative Justices would have left Section 4 and 5 in place as the law of the land if it were not for the Decline of racially discriminatory voting practices. To eliminate Section 4 and 5 for the very reason the conservative Justices gave, would revert back to these states participating in discriminatory practices which was clearly demonstrated in various states across the country immediately after Section 4 and 5 were struck down. When or if Section 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were to ever become outdated, it should have been the job of Congress to make that determination through legislation. Since Congress has not come to that conclusion, the law should have remained in place. This is clearly legislating from the bench. This is clearly Judicial Activism.
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 07:00 pm
@Real Music,
No...you don't because by repeating this case you prove you don't
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 07:35 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:

The very existence of Section 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as stated by the conservative Justices, prevented racially discriminatory voting practices in the last decades. The actual reason the conservative Justices claim that Section 4 and 5 was outdated was because of the decline of racially discriminatory practices in the last decades. That argument makes absolutely no sense. To say that a law is outdated because the law has successfully been doing what it was intended to do makes absolutely no sense. The conservative Justices are actually stating that the reason this law is outdated is because the law is working. Let me reiterate this another way. The conservative Justices would have left Section 4 and 5 in place as the law of the land if it were not for the Decline of racially discriminatory voting practices. To eliminate Section 4 and 5 for the very reason the conservative Justices gave, would revert back to these states participating in discriminatory practices which was clearly demonstrated in various states across the country immediately after Section 4 and 5 were struck down. When or if Section 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were to ever become outdated, it should have been the job of Congress to make that determination through legislation. Since Congress has not come to that conclusion, the law should have remained in place. This is clearly legislating from the bench. This is clearly Judicial Activism.


You are making a deceptive and self serving argument here. The law in question established special provisions permitting Federal oversight of matters of local government in selected Southern States precisely to ensure the elimination of long-established practices used in these states to preserve segregation and inhibit voting and the acquisition of political power among Blacks and to replace them with the more equitable conditions that prevailed in other states. That mission has been accomplished and the differences in those areas between the States in question and the others has largely vanished. The special provisions applicable to only specified states designed to overcome specified practices that limited voting and political representation by Black citizens in them are no longer required, precisely because the conditions that justified this abnormal limitation on the Constitutional rights of the states in question have vanished.

That was the judgment of the Court.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 07:39 pm
@georgeob1,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/only-voter-suppression-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html

Only voter suppression can stop Bernie Sanders.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  6  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 07:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Well, I would think that you (if you're a Trump man) and the other Trump hopefuls would find Hillary's non-politically correct comments refreshing.

A more sensitive or partisan observer might find your unbridled joy sharing every ugly rumor about the Clinton's, yet mysteriouly oblivious to the never-before seen in this country shameful Trump cult of personality recruitment of the disgruntled and unmotivated as hypocrisy. I won't, but only because I suspect you are deeply committed to the fantasy of 'only conservatives love this great country of our's'. I'm surprised you refer to Revelette as a hypocrite. I won't insult you by detailing all the reasons it was over reaching, we both know why you did so.

Regarding Hillary's comments about a portion of the Trump fan club, honestly I don't see what the big deal is. She did dial it back to say she shouldn't have said 'half'. But if she didn't dial it back, I still wouldn't consider it a big deal. It's foolish for people to think Hillary should be bound by rules of etiquette that Donald Trump uses to wipe his ample butt. It's not even sporting to expect her to sit quietly while the most unqualified man in the entire world accuses her of murders, espionage, crooked (I forgot why) graft, bribery, corruption to entertain and arouse his fledging Bunists.

Let me paraphrase something I've heard since Trump threw his ball cap in the ring. "Hillary says out loud what everybody else is thinking".
(Of course, I'm not including Trumps mob)


glitterbag
 
  3  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 07:42 pm
@georgeob1,
Also, George is there ever a time that hypocrisy isn't self serving? Just trying to get a clarification.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 07:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The law in question established special provisions permitting Federal oversight of matters of local government in selected Southern States precisely to ensure the elimination of long-established practices used in these states to preserve segregation and inhibit voting and the acquisition of political power among Blacks and to replace them with the more equitable conditions that prevailed in other states. That mission has been accomplished and the differences in those areas between the States in question and the others has largely vanished. The special provisions applicable to only specified states designed to overcome specified practices that limited voting and political representation by Black citizens in them are no longer required, precisely because the conditions that justified this abnormal limitation on the Constitutional rights of the states in question have vanished.

cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 07:58 pm
@Real Music,
Just wanted to confirm that this voter suppression law was struck down very recently in North Carolina.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html?_r=0
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 08:02 pm
This ruling and this video occurred in 2013 demonstrating the meaning of legislating from the bench and judicial activism
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 09:20 pm
@glitterbag,
I'm no fan of political correctitude from any source. We live in an age which has discarded religion and all the episodic intolerance that went with it, and replaced it with a sappy secular doctrine that is even more demanding and intolerantly enforced than what we discarded, and with very few of its virtues.

I expressed no joy, bridled or not, about Hillary's remarks - instead only bemused irony over the hypocrisy of it all, together with a prediction that the reaction from the growing segment of the country that readily sees through that ****, and has become a bit fed up with it, will cause her to roll it back. I accurately noted Revelette's hypocrisy just as I accurately noted Clinton's. I believe that judgment was reasonable and justified.

You simply don't know my views on Trump (and shouldn't assume you do). Moreover his behavior was not the subject of the discussion. I believe there's plenty to fault there , but at the same time I am saddened by the very odd combination of obliviousness to and rationalizations of Clinton's crimes and abuse of power among her supporters coupled, as it is, with extreme sensitivity to Trump's frequent, sometimes overstated, populist appeals on policy matters. (By the way Hillary does the same in her appeals to her "base" - you and the press just don't note it.).

The behaviour of contemporary Democrats reminds me of the truth in the phrase about the slaves learning to love their chains. That a shopworn socialist like Bernie Sanders could create the excitement he did from a generation that had forgotten (or never learned ) the hard-earned lessons of the 20th century, is evidence of some remaining ,dim awareness of all that.

I suspect the chief element of Trump's appeal is the contrast he presents to the prevailing group-think, and the direct challenges he makes to the condescending, self congratulating crowd of contemporary progressives who claim to have exclusive knowledge of what's good for the rest of us, while ignoring their own, abuse of power, ineptitude in action and the dismal results they have been delivering for the past seven years.



reasoning logic
 
  -1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 09:23 pm
@Real Music,
Quote:
This ruling and this video occurred in 2013 demonstrating the meaning of legislating from the bench and judicial activism


Are you stupid? Don't you know that reality is not allowed on this site?
reasoning logic
 
  -2  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 09:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It doesn't matter what people think. We live under the auspices of the electoral college to give equal weight to smaller states.


What would you call our process if between 60% and 70% of our country was against Hitalry in a general election but the electoral college gave it to her?
Real Music
 
  2  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 09:39 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Don't you know that reality is not allowed on this site?
That's a good one. Sometimes it sure seems that way.
reasoning logic
 
  -1  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 09:46 pm
@Real Music,
Quote:
Sometimes it sure seems that way


I know it's a challenge but what ever you do, don't give up on reality even though we get it wrong most of the time.

0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  5  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 10:16 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote georgeob1:
Quote:
I suspect the chief element of Trump's appeal is the contrast he presents to the prevailing group-think, and the direct challenges he makes to the condescending, self congratulating crowd of contemporary progressives who claim to have exclusive knowledge of what's good for the rest of us, while ignoring their own, abuse of power, ineptitude in action and the dismal results they have been delivering for the past seven years.

When Obama took office, the country had LOST 6 Million Full Time jobs the previous year under a Republican Administration. Now the country has GAINED over 5 Million Full Time jobs in the previous two years. Murder rates, despite Trump lying about them, are on the way down. People are living longer. If that's your idea of "dismal results", you should have been here to see how things were under the Republican who came BEFORE Obama. Really shitty. It's way better now.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 10:25 pm
@reasoning logic,
just retribution for 2000.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  5  
Sat 10 Sep, 2016 10:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Nice try t rewriting history, george. I and my felllow liberals have been called scurrilous and vile names for five decades now by zealots on the right, and for you to huff and puff when one center left candidate returns service is the height of hypocrisy. Your side is the self-righteous self-satisfied blowhards, not us. Joe McCarthy, Joseph Welch, White Citizen's Cpouncils, David Duke, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Fox News, the drumbeat of hate is incessant. And Hillary's comment was in fact accurate about far too many of Trump suppoerters. Just actually listen to them.

And of course as usual youjr side only reported half of what she said. Nice way to slant things.
Quote:
vote for Trump."

Addressing the issue of Trump's popularity, Clinton said: "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables.' Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.

"And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up … he tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric."



She continued: "Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but they are not America but the other basket … are people who feel that government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures. They are just desperate for change … they don't buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different.

"There are only 60 days left to make our case and don't get complacent. Don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think 'well, he's done this time,'" she said.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/17/2021 at 11:54:55