When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@georgeob1,

What Clinton action is a crime? The closest plain English translation I can muster for "Rises to the level of criminality" means she has done something criminal. What is that? Can you name a crime she has committed? Besides the troublesome fact that there aren't any, there should be no reason someone as astute as you couldn't name just one. They've done exhaustive investigations that have stretched out over more than a year. Just one. They've droned innuendo and tabloid fodder for over a year, and spent millions of taxpayer dollars. Name one crime.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If Hilary was intent on enriching herself, she wouldn't be running for a job that only pays $400,000. She could simply go on a speaking tour and earn that every couple of months.

I suspect the real answer here is that after all the money collected for the foundation and in Bills's "speech" earnings , both in part through misuse of her position in government, they don't need any more. The Clinton fortunes have certainly improved materially since their "dead broke" departure from the white house over a decade ago. Chelsea has a permanent richly paid sinecure with the foundation which also appears to pay the salaries of the cotire of Clinton hangers on and assistants who attend their court.

I believe the human appetite for power and position is at least the equal of greed. I don't fault Hillary's motives here, or believe they are unique to her, but somehow I don't associate unselfish self sacrifice with anything Clintonian.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

check to see who Reggie Love is working for after the election. Bet you a buck its one of the 1%.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

But like Lash you wont vote Democratic if Hillery is the one? Right, because you hate her because she is a forceful woman?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

[The expressed belief that a candidate is not suitable IS NOT NECESSARILY an assault on them - but in the case of American conservatives and their fifth column pseudo-liberals attacking Hillary Clinton...it is.

Do you really believe that the Democrats who are running from Hillary and urging the selection of other candidates, whether Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden or others, are stooges of American Conservatives???? Do you have any evidence of that, or you just mouthing off?

I see a mixture of folks like Lash who are truly excited about Sanders and his ideas, and others who appear to believe that Hillary is fatally flawed (or damaged) and has failed to deliver the political savvy to deal effectively with the issues (most of her own creation) before her, and want an alternative candidate to her.

My comment on conservative America holds, George...even if some damaged people like Lash join them. There have always been people on both sides of the aisle willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Of course there are people who want an alternative to Hillary. Is there a candidate out there that people see as so great...no alternative for anyone exists?

C'mon, George.

Anyway...do all the attacking you want. She can handle it...and I think she will prevail.

And if she doesn't...the person who is chosen by the Dems will almost certainly be much, much better an alternative to whomever the GOP chooses to continue its assault on the common person.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

But like Lash you wont vote Democratic if Hillery is the one? Right, because you hate her because she is a forceful woman?

First of all, you can not speak for Lash, nor can you speak for me. I will not ever for other than democrat, period.(Unless Sanders ends up being on the democrat ticket.) In my particular state, it really doesn't matter if I leave that part blank (I think such can be done, haven't ever done so will have to find out)if it comes down to it, but I haven't made up my mind. I suspect in the end, I will vote for her if she is the one on the ticket. Second, it is not because she is a forceful woman. Elizabeth Warren is a forceful woman. It is because there is just something I don't quite like, she seems arrogant and dismissive with a short fuse. Third, I will not stand being judged over my own opinions of which I am entitled to have the same as others are. Forth it is "Hillary" not "Hillery."

2 Replies

@revelette2,

My position is that she should stand for election in the primaries and if she is not the choice of her party, then she should step aside. I don't think there is any reason to step aside before a vote is cast or a debate held. All will become clear when the voting happens. Everything before that is just noise and smoke.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Fair enough, I'll drop that particular position which in any case no one seems to be calling for nor does she show signs of doing it and because she really would have no reason to being still ahead in all the polls on both sides last I looked.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

My position is that she should stand for election in the primaries and if she is not the choice of her party, then she should step aside. I don't think there is any reason to step aside before a vote is cast or a debate held. All will become clear when the voting happens. Everything before that is just noise and smoke.

Bingo!

In fact, if she is not the choice of her party...no need to step aside. She will have been shunted aside.

That is the way these things work.

And if she IS selected to be the candidate of the Not-Republican Party...I hope everyone who has an interest in protecting safety net programs puts aside any personal animosity toward her...hold their nose if necessary...and vote to keep those other guys out.

0 Replies

@Lash,

You didn't bother to read my post before you decided to prove me correct, did you?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

And your post shows us yet again the dearth of evidence of any criminality. ehBeth is correct, there is no there there and you have decided to double down on there being no there.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Because you agree with me that she isn't doing it for the money doesn't mean I have assigned some unselfish reason for Hillary's running.

1 Reply

@parados,

I think that to run for President, it is almost a requirement that you have some selfish reason for running. The pay isn't that great compared to what the typical candidate can get elsewhere, the work hours are terrible, the stress is high, there is a significant impact to your family and there is a reasonable danger to your life. It's just not a job that attracts the altruistic.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

[My comment on conservative America holds, George...even if some damaged people like Lash join them. There have always been people on both sides of the aisle willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Why do you find it necessary to characterize people who hold different views from your own as "damaged"? Perhaps you believe that I am also " damaged". Yours is an absurd and ridiculous view. While I don't agree with her on the merits of the policies the superannuated socialist from Vermont advocates so strenuously (and effectively lately), I note that Lash has been very clear about the reasons for her support for Sanders and why she prefers him to Hillary. She is far from alone in this view among Democrats, and I don't see anything there but rational choice based on her expressed values.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyway...do all the attacking you want. She can handle it...and I think she will prevail.

I haven't "attacked" Hilary at all. Instead I have noted some fairly obvious patterns of deceptive and self-serving behavior that convince me she would be a very poor choice for the leadership of our government. Significantly most of the evidence out there now indicates her position in the public mind is still declining, and the gathering attention around Biden clearly indicates that many in the Democrat establishment see that too, and see that she is not "handling it" very well at all.

Denial is a common but dangerous reaction. You appear to be full of it.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Deceptive and self serving behavior isn't a crime which is what you have accused Hillary of.

I know of no politician that isn't guilty of deceptive and self serving behavior. If you use those standards you would need to oppose anyone running for office. Certainly the GOP candidates have been more guilty of deceptive and self serving behavior in their campaigns then Hillary has. The list of facts they deny is rather long.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The list of facts they deny is rather long.

Did one of them put national security at risk for their political aspirations? I don't think so. Killary is living by her own rules. It is bullshit. And defending her is a sure sign that you are just as dirty as she is.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

And your post shows us yet again the dearth of evidence of any criminality. ehBeth is correct, there is no there there and you have decided to double down on there being no there.

That is simply a stupid and smug denial of obvious fact. There is no question that during her tenure as Secretary of State we had an Ambassador and aides murdered as a direct result of her department's failure to respond to repeated requests for added security, and that after the event, which occurred on the anniversary of 9/11, just weeks before a national election, she loudly and repeatedly touted a subsequently discredited but self-serving story about the cause, and then equally loudly rejected any personal accountability to a Congressional oversight Committe saying "At this point what difference does it make". There is also no doubt that she knowingly failed herself to comply with a directive she issued to all State Department employees regarding security and the use of official e-mail systems. Her subsequent blanket denials of wrongdoing and bland assurances of complete disclosure are being confounded by a still continuing series of very specific, verifiable findings that directly contradict her assurances now coming from the State Department and even the FBI.

Criminality is something for our judicial process to decide. On the face of it her actions appear to at least be comparable to those of General Petraeus who was indeed convicted of a crime (though, unlike Hillary, when caught, he admitted it and took responsibility for his own actions). Regardless, the issue before the public now is not criminality: it is instead her suitability for public office. I believe the mounting evidence suggests she certainly is not. Poll dats suggests that this is indeed a near majority view among Americans.

You and others here appear to be arguing that if she isn't convicted of a crime she should become our next President. I don't believe most voters accept that as the relevant qualification standard for the office. Indeed it appears this is merely a cheap rhetorical trick used to evade the question.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

[My comment on conservative America holds, George...even if some damaged people like Lash join them. There have always been people on both sides of the aisle willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Why do you find it necessary to characterize people who hold different views from your own as "damaged"? Perhaps you believe that I am also " damaged". Yours is an absurd and ridiculous view. While I don't agree with her on the merits of the policies the superannuated socialist from Vermont advocates so strenuously (and effectively lately), I note that Lash has been very clear about the reasons for her support for Sanders and why she prefers him to Hillary. She is far from alone in this view among Democrats, and I don't see anything there but rational choice based on her expressed values.

You asked...I answered, George.

I see almost nothing rational in the rants Lash has been making...but I am uncomfortable discussing this with you. If Lash has something to say...she is not timid...that is for sure.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyway...do all the attacking you want. She can handle it...and I think she will prevail.
I haven't "attacked" Hilary at all. Instead I have noted some fairly obvious patterns of deceptive and self-serving behavior that convince me she would be a very poor choice for the leadership of our government.

Gimme a break, George!

"Deceptive and self-serving behavior"...as a disqualifier for high office!!!!! As a disqualifier for the presidency????

Okay...so you apparently want to show scorn for me...and are pretending I am an idiot who actually thinks you think that.

Fine.

I get it.

Jesus!

Quote:

Significantly most of the evidence out there now indicates her position in the public mind is still declining, and the gathering attention around Biden clearly indicates that many in the Democrat establishment see that too, and see that she is not "handling it" very well at all.

Okay...then she will surely lose. She will not get the Democratic nod.

No problem.

We'll see!

Quote:

Denial is a common but dangerous reaction. You appear to be full of it.

No denial on my part. None at all.

We are both making assessments.

We'll see how that works out.

(Remember to mark this one for future reference. Put it in the November 2016 file.)

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

I see you have decided to only add to the list of unfounded allegations while denying facts. If you have specific facts, feel free to give them to us. Vague nonsense seems to be all you can produce.

Keep on not thinking, Pinkie. It's what you are good at.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

unfounded allegations

They are not unfounded, everyone agrees her e-mail server was in danger of being hacked and there was classified material in them. She is a crook,that simple Shill.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know