When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Perhaps you should heal thyself

You appear to be both slippery and a bit dense.

My comments on Blatham's post were clearly and openly dismissive of Blatham's expressed "over-arching" value on such diversity values. I was very clear on my preference for individual values and my contempt for the nonsensical preminence of such group values over individual ones in the cant of contemporary political correctitude. Nothing slippery there at all.

Indeed I found your response yo my paraphrase of a wll-known MLK statement a bit odd for that very reason. It's OK with me if you don't agree, but please don't try to twist my words.

It is quite impossible to either win elections or govern effectively without recognizing and dealing with social and economic groups. Those groups are of course composed of individuals, but individuals in a group share priorities with other members of the group.

No need - You do quite well twisting your own. You go to great length writing smart-sounding nonsense, in my opinion. No matter. I respect the opinions of some others here who seem to think you knowledgeable. So I'll leave you to each other.

That, of course, was the essence of the late, unlamented Jim Crow system of segregation in the South (and it's rather less formal equivalent in the North) five decades ago. Why would a rational person want it back??

In any event I don't accept your proposition. Group organizationse certainly do exist and are a political force in the country, but, in my view, such values should not guide our actions. Instead we need to get past that stuff.

Actually, recognizing that one or more groups were collectively being treated unfairly is the reason for the Civil Rights legislation that got rid of the Jim Crow system. In fact, to this day conservatives object to the legislation that prevents a restaurant owner being forbidden by law from putting up signs saying No Blacks Allowed.

So, as usual, you have things entirely backwards. And to be elected and to govern effectively, anyone has to recognize that society is largely composed of individuals in groups.

I've had the blickers person ignored since early on. But for posts such as this I would not know what the person is spewing. I just erased most of my post because it would get me banned for attacking others. Nobody can explain why lash cannot change, but the same people claim over and over that Clinton has "evolved." Yet lash actually shows change but not Clinton. Somebody once wrote about a generation of vipers. Yeparooty.

Boy, talk about apples and oranges.

Is there anything that Lash and Clinton share, other than gender?

Lash repeatedly expresses the same views she's held for years, which is why I don't believe she's changed at all. How does that mean that Clinton is incapable of change?

Lash has hated hated hated Hillary Clinton as long as she's posted at A2k.

There has been no change.

She supports whoever is opposing Hillary Clinton.

There hasn't been one iota of change there. None.

^this^

I can't say more about lash here, because I don't want to put my words in her mouth. I don't believe she voted Republican or Democrat this time. Since I have learned enough to dislike the Clintons myself, I hardly can view that as a litmus test.

Most of us agree that people can and do change. It is my opinion that you happened to pick a very poor example.

I don't believe in talking behind a person's back, I will assume at some point she will read this, so...

Anyway, the change in Lash was just too convenient to her hatred of the Clintons' she has. Being a Bernie supporter whether it was legitimate or not gave her a reason to bash Hillary Clinton without being tarred with a partisan brush. It simply is not too believable and it does not seem that sincere, it's more hate of Clinton than a love of Bernie. She seemed honestly excited by Bernie but excited because she thought he had a chance to win against her more than for Bernie himself. Those are merely my impressions and opinions of her this election cycle.

As for Clinton's (H)views, some of them seem legit, some of them don't. Honestly, her stance of the trade deal never really seemed sincere but her views on gays rights does. She is not alone in evolving on gays rights. I also think she has evolved on minorities and the justice system and thinking of alternatives to poor people who have been left behind in the coal states and manufacturing losses. I believe she will give it her all should she win to try to improve lives for everyone.

I'm not banking just on the goodness in her heart. I'm thinking (and hoping) that all those fervent Bernieites, and those firebrands like Warren and Sanders himself, will be the constant thorn in her side reminding her of who brung her to the dance.

I think you and many others sell her short, but, we all have our opinions.

From April 2015 (when george0b first commented on Mrs. Clinton's imminent disappearance from the US political scene) til now ... when will Mrs. Clinton give up? the answer seems to be never

__

she's still yonks too old for my liking and further to the right than I like but she's hanging in

if she's the president in 2017 I hope she really really listens to America's young people and helps develop the Democrat party downballot. Neither major party has done good succession planning.

As far as relying on the Clintons to move the progressive agenda forward, I say trust - but verify.

The primary difference in Hillary Clinton and I is that I shoot straight about what I think; she lies.

When I supported some conservative views, I said so.

When I supported Bernie Sanders, I said so.

I've been pro-civil rights and individual rights since I was old enough to talk. Other opinions changed over time.

My opinion of the Clintons didn't change. My opinion of the general corruption in Washington didn't change.

I've outlined my views several times, but I'm certain that hardline establishment democrats here know I've been honest--but wouldn't say so because they can't stand to hear an actual progressive criticize their sacred cow without the trained lame ass response that the attacker is a Republican with an ulterior motive.

But no. Your sacred cow is a horribly corrupt neoliberal, and I voted Green.

We could have swept in a clean progressive who has stood on a picket line and protested with the natives in Dakota and minorities all over the country and championed veterans.

Because of you, we'll have a TPP-pushing, Wall Street-big pharma crony who thinks it's ok to hide her real ideas from the public.

The great mystery isn't whether or not I'm being truthful, it's how in the hell can anyone calling himself a liberal vote for her?

We'll have proof soon, and have no worries--I'll be sure to keep you updated.

Another great mystery is why in the hell you can't differ with anyone politically without it being a whole hissy fit all the time. Why does it have to be all 'everything will suck now because of you Hillary lickers'? That's the approach you have taken all along to the people who differ with you about the amount of disdain Hillary deserves. Can't you imagine that anyone supporting Hillary is a decent, thinking person with values and thoughts just as deserving of respect as someone who was Bernie or bust, or who is for Stein? I know we've had our whole history of personal shots, and maybe you are right sometimes, but it seems like you can't tolerate it if someone doesn't share your hatred of Hillary, or your opinions about the way forward.