• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Eric Dyson's response to this latest nontroversy, from last night episode of Real Time:
Dyson said:
I think that Hillary Clinton is not only the smartest person, the most prepared person, but the person who has given the most credible empirical analysis of race in the last 20 years by a major American politician. I’ll stand by that.
Click to expand...
 
It's sad that people attacking Clinton are going back twenty years to find things to try and embarrass her today. The incident involving the BLM protester was unfortunate, Clinton could have handled it better and next time she probably will. I agree with Wendy Davis.
Wendy Davis said:
Hillary Clinton is going to win the democratic nomination ... Hillary Clinton is the only person in this election who has demonstrated that she is presidential.
Click to expand...

I'm no big fan of Clinton's but I voted for her to be my senator in New York and I thought she did a very solid job. I'm sure she would be a very adequate President. The only Republican candidate who seems Presidential to me is Rubio.
 
16.5, I gave you the chance to double check. At this point all I can say is you're a flat out liar.

16.5 said:
Say, you got through that whole post without telling us that you deplore that blacklivesmatter activist.
Click to expand...

And here's what I actually posted:
varwoche said:
I deplore the tactics of Black Lives Matter activists.
Click to expand...


Not to imply this is anything special. You've proven yourself to be relentlessly dishonest across the board.
 
varwoche said:
16.5, I gave you the chance to double check. At this point all I can say is you're a flat out liar.

And here's what I actually posted:

Not to imply this is anything special. You've proven yourself to be relentlessly dishonest across the board.
Click to expand...

Oh dear....

:jaw-dropp
 
newyorkguy said:
It's sad that people attacking Clinton are going back twenty years to find things to try and embarrass her today. The incident involving the BLM protester was unfortunate, Clinton could have handled it better and next time she probably will. I agree with Wendy Davis.


I'm no big fan of Clinton's but I voted for her to be my senator in New York and I thought she did a very solid job. I'm sure she would be a very adequate President. The only Republican candidate who seems Presidential to me is Rubio.
Click to expand...

Demonstrated that she is Presidential? She flat out refuses to talk to the press, which reveals a profound flaw in her personality. Take a look at her brittle reaction to the activist, and then she responds by issuing a written press statement to a useful dupe in the press.

She does not talk to the press because she is bad at it, her body language changes, she becomes terribly defensive, and her answers, if you can call them that, are scripted nonsense.

Racist, lying, defensive is no way to go through a presidential campaign. She is as phony as a three dollar bill.
 
PhantomWolf said:
How is it racist to say that violent gang members without a conscience, or empathy need to be brought to heel? Feel free to explain
Click to expand...

Treating any human being as an animal to be trained to obey commands ("brought to heel"), is intolerable and unconscionable. That this is being said about a subgroup of any particular race different from your own is racist in that it implies that the only way to deal with humans we don't like is to treat them like animals and discipline them until they learn to behave in ways that are demanded.
 
Bernie made some nice points about the money Hillary pocketed from Wall Street and her continual stonewalling.

Let's go to the timer shall we?

http://whenevereverybodyelsedoes.com/

Hillary does not just think her supporters are gullible, she is counting on it!

#showthetranscipts!
 
To try to bring things back from straw-clutching 20 year old statements about gang-members, going by polling from fivethirtyeight and RCP, I'm predicting that Clinton will be up by close to 200 delegates after Super Tues. This is not including superdelegates, which would increase her delegate count to over 1000 out of the 2383 needed, while Sanders will have <500. This is pretty good for someone who is done!
 
wareyin said:
To try to bring things back from straw-clutching 20 year old statements about gang-members, going by polling from fivethirtyeight and RCP, I'm predicting that Clinton will be up by close to 200 delegates after Super Tues. This is not including superdelegates, which would increase her delegate count to over 1000 out of the 2383 needed, while Sanders will have <500. This is pretty good for someone who is done!
Click to expand...

Unless their ambition is to win the general election. Regardless of what happens from here on, Sanders will take this to the convention. Many, if not most, of the strong supporters he has with him going into the convention, will never strongly support HRC, and I doubt that more than half will even vote in the general election unless Sanders' name is on the national ballot. How does this help the Democratic party in November, and more importantly, beyond November?
 
Trakar said:
Unless their ambition is to win the general election. Regardless of what happens from here on, Sanders will take this to the convention. Many, if not most, of the strong supporters he has with him going into the convention, will never strongly support HRC, and I doubt that more than half will even vote in the general election unless Sanders' name is on the national ballot. How does this help the Democratic party in November, and more importantly, beyond November?
Click to expand...
I doubt that there are as many stay-at-home or 3rd party votes as you envision, especially if Trump is the other candidate.
 
wareyin said:
I doubt that there are as many stay-at-home or 3rd party votes as you envision, especially if Trump is the other candidate.
Click to expand...

And upon that doubt, you and other HRC supporters risk not just the White House but the Supreme Court, the Senate and an eventual retaking of the House before the 2020 census.
For what, to put a person nearly 70% of the nation doesn't trust or like in place as the democratic nominee?
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Unless their ambition is to win the general election. Regardless of what happens from here on, Sanders will take this to the convention. Many, if not most, of the strong supporters he has with him going into the convention, will never strongly support HRC, and I doubt that more than half will even vote in the general election unless Sanders' name is on the national ballot. How does this help the Democratic party in November, and more importantly, beyond November?
Click to expand...

If we are even slightly below a first ballot win for Hillary, you will see ZERO defections from the Sanders delegates. The convention could last two weeks and they would not care. We will prevail.
 
wareyin said:
I doubt that there are as many stay-at-home or 3rd party votes as you envision, especially if Trump is the other candidate.
Click to expand...

You'd be wrong. Many of these people had the default position that both parties were evil already, and saw no reason to vote before Sanders mounted his attempt to subvert control of the Democratic Party. If they do not get Sanders, they will stay home, vote Green, vote Libertarian, or simply undervote for President.

They have no loyalty to the system.

They have no stake in the system.

They have no trust for the system.

And they do not believe that their vote will matter.

For every Yellow Dog Democrat like myself, there are four that would fit into one of the above categories.

We will get President Trump.

We will get a 2/3 majority Republican House and Senate. And then we will regret ever having heard of Hillary Clinton. She will be remembered (until WW3 makes memories obsolete) as another Ralph Nader or Walter Mondale.
 
16.5 said:
don't, she is a racist. I have linked several articles supporting my opinion. Christ, she ran the most racist campaign in the last 50 years against Obama.
Click to expand...

How is the campaign "racist"? Is it because it affects black people in greater proportion? Is that all that's required? So far it seems that nothing indicates whether she thinks that black people are inferior or bad as a rule.

Read the thread. By the way, what is this "I will consider" crap?
Click to expand...

Simple: if you are unwilling to answer the question and rely on others to do so, then I can assume that you have no answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom