is it acceptable to you to have Hillary Clinton follow her predecessor, Condi Rice, in having diplomats spy?

You're using a blog with a well known dislike of Hillary and Obama as the basis of your post.

Here, for example, they used a purposely dishonest headline. LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5563871

But, keep avoiding the issue; it's funny to watch.

The documents it releases are real or they are not. If they are not, the most likely explanation is that Wikileaks forged them, which would be a massive undertaking, easily exposed. To the best of my knowledge, no one has accused Wikileaks of fraud.

but this is done by every state department in every administration in every country. Pinning it on HRC is silly

I have noticed that in a new group that was formed. Thanks for pointing it out.

HUGE support for Hillary (I can guarantee this by the way), is he guilty of your allegation here?

Is he just following authority?

I'll vote for Hillary now.

I'll support Castro now.

That one had to hurt-Well played!

Many people do not recognize the straw man argument when they see, or use it themselves. It consists of portraying your adversaries as saying or doing something that you can easily refute or disprove.

That's a real photo of the DU "progressives," then. I would not have guessed.

It was sent to a jury and an sop alert.

Btw there are many here who get pissed with any criticism of Sanders.

So many of our members are on time outs they need to pick on someone else.

and you should know better.


And that is why you are not allowed to post here.

but I recall seeing a thread (in a certain group) casting O'Malley as a fake candidate.

Just - ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!

BTW I support Hillary and Bernie (I'm talking about his supporters).

If he wins the nomination he will get plenty of it.

ANYBODY we put up will get criticism.

She's used to it, and probably by now she has a skin so thick you can't even cut it with a chain saw. She's had enemies for years who've thrown everything at her that they could think of, and nothing stuck, and nothing proved out, and nothing worked.

There's one other element in play here, too, in her favor. The shock value of "nailing her" on some imaginary blown-up phony scandal or other has worn off. I suspect that a whole lot of potential voters have "investigation fatigue" with the Clintons by now. Simply BECAUSE of the fact that they've been investigated up the ying-yang by ken starr and darrell issa and this goudy guy and everybody else and all their monkeys uncles, and NOTHING turned up. NOTHING substantial EVER turned up. Not EVER. Hillary has even pointed out that she and Bill were the "most-investigated and MOST EXONERATED political couple" ever. All they were ever able to hope to nail her husband on, finally, after - what? 60 or 70 MILLION dollars spent on investigations and bribing and dirt-digging and "Arkansas Project-ing", was a stained blue dress. That's ALL they had, after years and multiple millions of dollars and tons of wasted taxpayer time and money and press ink and talk show time. That's ALL they had. Which, in the final analysis, was pretty doggone pathetic. Just frickin' EMBARRASSING. That's ALL they had!!! The whole "she murdered Vince Foster" thing didn't hold up even for three seconds. Monica Lewinsky and the stained blue dress - were the best they could come up with, after all that. PATHETIC. And of course they didn't get him impeached-and-removed. On the other hand, they made themselves look like prissy puritanical laughing-stocks obsessed with sex almost to the point of irrationality.

I think that left a little bit of a hangover in America. They'll try and scream and yell and stomp their little feet like tantrum-throwing three-year-olds yet again as Hillary proceeds (and hopefully prevails), and there'll just be an under-taste of "aw shit, THAT again?" And "THAT again" didn't gain them anything and never did get rid of him anyway, so "THAT again" is a strategy that failed MISERABLY. They'll haul that strategy out AGAIN, too, because it's all they've got, and it's boring, and it didn't work the last time, and it didn't draw any blood and it didn't get them what they wanted then, so it won't get them any farther this time. Of course, there WILL be voters who resonate with it and validate it, but they already weren't gonna vote for her anyway (so fuck 'em). I suspect a lot of other voters will just tune that out, because it's old and boring and stupid and it tends to bring out voters who themselves are perceived as old and boring and stupid - so it thereby becomes completely irrelevant and utterly dismissible. Even a turn-off to whatever it is they're trying desperately to sell to America by wooden-headed sex-obsessed operatives from that other side of the aisle.

So I'd almost say - "GO AHEAD! Knock yerselves out! Please proceed, governors."

what they say.

Sure wish they'd stop. I sense a rather desperate and willful effort to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

I think they would rather see her lose a general.

I noticed that as well, justin.

It says so in the title.

Our sop.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1107

And remember Shirley Sherrod and the edited tapes? ACORN and the edited tapes? Cutting out Obama's words?

The Iraq War cheerleading squad? That fired Donohue and Olbermann? Giving airtime to Ollie North, Bundy, Nugent, the Birthers and Cheney, Rummy, etc.?

THAT legitimate media now needs answers? WHY? They'd just edit or turn off the mic or make up their own answers...

Are people so blind they can't see a con game for what is and expect everyone to bow to the Emperor with no clothes on?



Not you, anyone who expects her to kneel before those billionaire class's paid shills.

On Sun Jul 5, 2015, 10:45 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

But will you vote for her?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=11092

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This person is posting in a protected group. The same poster has been warned several time to please post elsewhere but refuses. It is inappropriate to post in a protected group once you have read the terms and this person is in violation of those terms.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 5, 2015, 11:06 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I support Hillary Clinton as well, but I see no need to get thin skinned. Pass on the hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's up to the group hosts whether or not to block the member, but this doesn't offend me (community standards) or violate the TOS.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You have got to be kidding. Some idiot wanted this hidden?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I suspect that this one was alerted on by a BS supporter who saw it as "demanding a loyalty oath."

...is a united Democratic Party that came about by a constructive dialog between all it's facets, including Hillary and Bernie. What could destroy the Democratic Party in November 2016 is acrimony.

Be nice to everybody that's a Democrat, let Rand Paul start the feces storm in the GOP and sit back and relax...

We have great candidates. The republicans know that their own candidates are sorely lacking. Their only hope is to stir up animosity among the Democrats. Let's keep the focus on their circus.

which I hope is a slam on the dirty pettiness of the off issue driven pettifoggery of some partisans of allof the candidates. Including some of Hillary Clinton's.

I mean this only looks like some sort ad hominem on all "DU progressives", right?

I would appreciate if you would remember that.

to those paying attention on DU.

Criticism of HRC or her supporters is not allowed.

even though I'm not exactly a "supporter", at this point?

We have people who don't support her who come in to say nice things about her.

You are very welcome here.

So this group doesn't ascribe to the prevailing, "if you question 'A', you must support 'B'" thought?

How liberal of you!

Don't let the petty behavior drive you away again. Even if I do not reply to everything you say, I support your right to be here.

because I do not understand the controversy. Is it just about posting in the wrong group or about how far to go in criticizing Hillary Clinton? Maybe I just need more information, but it seems to me DU progressives could support Dem candidates without these (sometimes) childish fights.

Is this connected somehow to people who would like Hillary to speak to the commoners?

Seems like a good sign to me. I am all for her avoiding corporate media. She should ask another candidate about that. He seems to be having a modicum of success.

They don't see their own hypocrisy.

Polls are a similar issue. People post poll after poll celebrating Sanders' increased numbers as proof positive that he will win.

If someone posts a poll showing HRC's numbers we're told it's way too early to pay attention to such things.

that and HRC is responsible for the mass incarceration of the poor and PoC because she lobbied for the Omnibus Crime Bill that her husband signed; but, Bernie's votes for the Omnibus Crime bill and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 were just "bit role(s) in the over all matter".

Simply amazing, the level of intellectual dishonesty on DU these days.

Also a lack of maturity despite the posters' ages. I agree with those who say that BS would be ashamed to see how he is being represented on this site.

Will I be paid for this?

Because dogmatic Hillary supporters feel compelled to publish gibberish such as this. Hillary is OK. However, many of her supporters are whining, attention seeking crybabies who lack even basic critical thinking skills.

You will not be posting in here again.

Considering you've been here since 2001... you'd think you knew that.

Where? Not in any polls.

IThose 60-point leads must be making some of them desperate.

"Don't make the story about yourself" is one axiom the American campaign press just about never follows.

gotten exponentially worse!

Why would anyone except freaking republicons want anything to do with them.

President Obama has been finding lots of creative ways to go around them, through them, and ignoring them completely. As an aside chucky todd predicted his presidency was OVER 54 four weeks ago. How do you like him now, chucky?

Hillary has had decades to learn to same thing.. the USA corporate media is run by the gop.. no ifs ands or buts! They bowed down to bush2 and are hostile to Dems.

Enough hypocrisy about USA MEDIAWHORE INC.

They attack Hillary for fundraising and how much she raises.

Yet, they turn around and post celebratory "Sanders raised X million dollars!!!" threads.

And then some act as though Hillary is singularly responsible for the explosion of money in politics. They attack her as though our candidates are supposed to deliberately cripple themselves against the Republican money machine.

Sorry I missed this before.. very funny!!

....supporters of other candidates, who have been clamoring for this, are now whining that "she won't tell the truth", she'll "obfuscate", she'll "do this", "do that", not even waiting to actually SEE what she says!

Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.