Hillary For President

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Well, that plus insulting and ridiculing people with other views.

yeah your right

but I don't like people who like Trump

do you?

besides if you don't like me anymore it is probably time for me to leave PC anyway.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by icenine

yeah your right

but I don't like people who like Trump

do you?

I don't dislike them. I don't let them have that much power. And it seems you don't like Sanders' supporters any better.

besides if you don't like me anymore it is probably time for me to leave PC anyway.

Don't leave on my account, Robbin. And I don't dislike you. I just wish you'd tone down the rhetoric.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by icenine

yeah your right

but I don't like people who like Trump

do you?

besides if you don't like me anymore it is probably time for me to leave PC anyway.

The LA Times endorses Hillary.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endor...426-story.html

Stick around Robbin.

[icenine]

OK guys.

I know there is a lot of economic frustration out there, especially back East in the Rust Belt. Since I am not suffering I probably am not as empathetic as I should be.

You see I was too young for George Wallace so this the first time something like this is happened in my adult life.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Stick around Robbin.

Yeah Dudes, stick around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjfvx-k1Ms

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Yeah Dudes, stick around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjfvx-k1Ms

Sorry about that last post I quoted of yours Tom....

everyone knows butterscotch pudding is on Thursdays....

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Yeah Dudes, stick around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjfvx-k1Ms

I think I'm going to enjoy your apoplectic rantings as Hillary Rodham Clinton kicks your fallback candidate's pasty white ass in November Tom.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

The LA Times endorses Hillary.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endor...426-story.html

Stick around Robbin.

So let's see. According to the LA Times, Clinton:

- has a penchant for secrecy (to put it as mildly as possible)
- has a self-defeating resistance to disclosure
- has a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood
- doesn't appear to be open to compromise and willing to consider new facts
- has a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable (meaning that they're still bummed about the Iraq War)
- pressed for military action in Libya - a no no to the LA Times
- is running a campaign that might seem unexciting
- has an on-going FBI investigation that is, at least, "embarrassing"
- seems inauthentic (don't look behind the curtain).

In the article, the editorial chides Sander's "Medicare for all" plan as not realistic and a reason to support Hillary. Yet Hillary has now moved towards Sanders on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us...tion.html?_r=0

The article faults Sanders for a financial reform proposal that would "...exact a punishment on companies at the heart of the last recession..." Yet Hillary has campaigned on "punishing" companies that won't repatriate foreign profits.

...yet the LA Times still sees fit to call this an "endorsement".

I think the LA Times has just lowered the bar on what constitutes an endorsement.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

So let's see. According to the LA Times, Clinton:

- has a penchant for secrecy (to put it as mildly as possible)
- has a self-defeating resistance to disclosure
- has a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood
- doesn't appear to be open to compromise and willing to consider new facts
- has a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable (meaning that they're still bummed about the Iraq War)
- pressed for military action in Libya - a no no to the LA Times
- is running a campaign that might seem unexciting
- has an on-going FBI investigation that is, at least, "embarrassing"
- seems inauthentic (don't look behind the curtain).

In the article, the editorial chides Sander's "Medicare for all" plan as not realistic and a reason to support Hillary. Yet Hillary has now moved towards Sanders on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us...tion.html?_r=0

The article faults Sanders for a financial reform proposal that would "...exact a punishment on companies at the heart of the last recession..." Yet Hillary has campaigned on "punishing" companies that won't repatriate foreign profits.

...yet the LA Times still sees fit to call this an "endorsement".

I think the LA Times has just lowered the bar on what constitutes an endorsement.

Mike, are you sitting down? I agree 100% with the above. This is a perfect example of "damning with faint praise. One could be forgiven for suspecting that the LA Times editorial board was told whom to endorse.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

So let's see. According to the LA Times, Clinton:

- has a penchant for secrecy (to put it as mildly as possible)
- has a self-defeating resistance to disclosure
- has a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood
- doesn't appear to be open to compromise and willing to consider new facts
- has a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable (meaning that they're still bummed about the Iraq War)
- pressed for military action in Libya - a no no to the LA Times
- is running a campaign that might seem unexciting
- has an on-going FBI investigation that is, at least, "embarrassing"
- seems inauthentic (don't look behind the curtain).

In the article, the editorial chides Sander's "Medicare for all" plan as not realistic and a reason to support Hillary. Yet Hillary has now moved towards Sanders on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us...tion.html?_r=0

The article faults Sanders for a financial reform proposal that would "...exact a punishment on companies at the heart of the last recession..." Yet Hillary has campaigned on "punishing" companies that won't repatriate foreign profits.

...yet the LA Times still sees fit to call this an "endorsement".

I think the LA Times has just lowered the bar on what constitutes an endorsement.

Heh, I see you're all in with der T'Rumpolini, Mike.
At least you'll have something to gripe about for the next eight years.