Hillary Clinton

[chefist]

A Silver Alert is a public notification system in the United States to broadcast information about missing persons â€" especially senior citizens with Alzheimer's disease, dementia or other mental disabilities â€" in order to aid in their being found.

lolz

[Lunger]

Why are people still even talking about Hillary Clinton?

[ItsOver]

A Silver Alert is a public notification system in the United States to broadcast information about missing persons â€" especially senior citizens with Alzheimer's disease, dementia or other mental disabilities â€" in order to aid in their being found.

Do we really want to find it?  I'm not into digging up corpses.

[chefist]

Do we really want to find it?  I'm not into digging up corpses.

Where are they buried?

[Yorkshire pud]

Why are people still even talking about Hillary Clinton?

Because it lessens the pain that an old man with the intellect of a block of wood, the attention span of a guppy, the temperament of a bawling toddler and the social graces of a chimp is the next president.

[Dr. MD MD]

Because it lessens the pain that an old man with the intellect of a block of wood, the attention span of a guppy, the temperament of a bawling toddler and the social graces of a chimp is the next president.

Still better when compared to Hillary. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Still better when compared to Hillary. 

We'll never know if he is better than her; I think they're crap for different reasons, but he's definitely bad news. And he isn't even in yet. But, give him a chance, if he's worse than bad, you're only stuck with him and his hyper rich buddies (swamp) for four years. No harm done. 

[Dr. MD MD]

We'll never know if he is better than her; I think they're crap for different reasons, but he's definitely bad news. And he isn't even in yet. But, give him a chance, if he's worse than bad, you're only stuck with him and his hyper rich buddies (swamp) for four years. No harm done. 

I'm not sweating it but I'll let you continue to get all misty over Hillary and think about what could've been. 

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm not sweating it but I'll let you continue to get all misty over Hillary and think about what could've been. 

I know its trite of you, but I have said many times she wasn't suitable.

[Dr. MD MD]

I know its trite of you, but I have said many times she wasn't suitable.

Which is why we voted for Trump. 

[albrecht]

I'm not sweating it but I'll let you continue to get all misty over Hillary and think about what could've been. 

I can see Hillary being like Evelyn in "Play Misty For Me." Unhinged and obsessed. The older she gets and if she continues to swill booze at the current rate she will really be mental by the next time an election occurs. I can't imagine the Democrats would take her seriously as a candidate after such an epic failure and as her mental and physical condition declines.

[Yorkshire pud]

Which is why we voted for Trump. 

Well, I know its pedantic, but most of you didn't. Your archaic medieval ways took care of that. Me? I think someone such as Kim Kardashian could have had a bat at it. Can't be any worse.

[Dr. MD MD]

Well, I know its pedantic, but most of you didn't. Your archaic medieval ways took care of that. Me? I think someone such as Kim Kardashian could have had a bat at it. Can't be any worse.

It's pretty clear that you secretly love her and long for her kind of iron fist to rule the world. Too bad for you and your ilk that queenie's plans didn't work out. 

[Yorkshire pud]

It's pretty clear that you secretly love her and long for her kind of iron fist to rule the world. Too bad for you and your ilk that queenie's plans didn't work out. 

Love Kim? Which red blooded man wouldn't? Its the air between her ears that makes her mind so open.

[ItsOver]

Where are they buried?

Only Slick knows for sure.   Not that anyone's counting.

[PB the Deplorable]

Love Kim? Which red blooded man wouldn't? Its the air between her ears that makes her mind so open.

Not everyone likes vapid fat-ass hosebags

[Lunger]

Because it lessens the pain that an old man with the intellect of a block of wood, the attention span of a guppy, the temperament of a bawling toddler and the social graces of a chimp is the next president.

Yeah... Feel the Bern.  He didn't win though.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UQKYbGEjBA

[Kidnostad3]

Well, I know its pedantic, but most of you didn't. Your archaic medieval ways took care of that. Me? I think someone such as Kim Kardashian could have had a bat at it. Can't be any worse.

I'm a little late to the party on this (been busy in the real world) but I can't let it pass without comment.

You as a "subject of the queen" would be well placed to recognize what is medieval and archaic.  I can think of no other government in the western world (with the possible exception of the Vatican) that so exalts and tenaciously clings to concepts, practices and processes that literally date from the Middle Ages, i..e. royal sovereignty, the peerage, the House of Lords, etc.  One could argue whether this is simply a matter of honoring tradition or being stuck in a world of anachronisms that no longer serve the needs of the people in the year 2016.  However, I would suggest that before you call the kettle black you might take a look at your own honored institutions.

Happy holidays.

[Jackstar]

I would suggest that before you call the kettle black you might take a look at your own honored institutions.

I don't think he's British--or even human--but he's certainly incapable of self-examination. Just ignore him. it.

[Jackstar]

"You also have the mysterious downturn in Hillary's health..."

Not everyone likes vapid fat-ass hosebags

5,000,000 Tortelvis fans can't be wrong.

[SredniVashtar]

I'm a little late to the party on this (been busy in the real world) but I can't let it pass without comment.

You as a "subject of the queen" would be well placed to recognize what is medieval and archaic.  I can think of no other government in the western world (with the possible exception of the Vatican) that so exalts and tenaciously clings to concepts, practices and processes that literally date from the Middle Ages, i..e. royal sovereignty, the peerage, the House of Lords, etc.  One could argue whether this is simply a matter of honoring tradition or being stuck in a world of anachronisms that no longer serve the needs of the people in the year 2016.  However, I would suggest that before you call the kettle black you might take a look at your own honored institutions.

Happy holidays.

Brits don't take the archaisms seriously - they are there for the tourists, that's about all. The Queen has no more than an advisory role; she can't overstep her bounds unless she wants to start a constitutional crisis that will overthrow the monarchy. If you canvassed most people, they'd rather have the monarchy than not, but only because it offers an element of continuity and we don't want elections every five minutes to elect a head of state.

On the other hand, you lot think you rule the roost, but the facts don't bear out that high opinion of yourselves. For all this 'land of the free' nonsense, these days the US is more like an unweeded garden. It seems you will elect anyone who will pander to your insecurities, whereas the British system prevents tin-pot demagogues from getting a toehold. Farage, for instance, couldn't even get himself elected as an MP, while you elect a con man as your president.

We are subjects in name only. We see through all that stuff. The US still believes in it, and is going through a prolonged adolescence to try and work out who they are. You never see Brits fawning over their leaders the way Americans do over their latest god-emperor. It was Obama last time, this time it's Trump. I'd look to your own house before you start criticising the soft furnishings of other people

[Jackstar]

We see through all that stuff.

So, what's the story on the 7/7 bombing then? Tell us, Seymour.

[PB the Deplorable]

... you elect a con man as your president...

He'll be gone in a matter of days now.  Thankfully the office has term limits

[Kidnostad3]

Brits don't take the archaisms seriously - they are there for the tourists, that's about all. The Queen has no more than an advisory role; she can't overstep her bounds unless she wants to start a constitutional crisis that will overthrow the monarchy. If you canvassed most people, they'd rather have the monarchy than not, but only because it offers an element of continuity and we don't want elections every five minutes to elect a head of state.

On the other hand, you lot think you rule the roost, but the facts don't bear out that high opinion of yourselves. For all this 'land of the free' nonsense, these days the US is more like an unweeded garden. It seems you will elect anyone who will pander to your insecurities, whereas the British system prevents tin-pot demagogues from getting a toehold. Farage, for instance, couldn't even get himself elected as an MP, while you elect a con man as your president.

We are subjects in name only. We see through all that stuff. The US still believes in it, and is going through a prolonged adolescence to try and work out who they are. You never see Brits fawning over their leaders the way Americans do over their latest god-emperor. It was Obama last time, this time it's Trump. I'd look to your own house before you start criticising the soft furnishings of other people

Your failure  to understand what actually happened in the recent U.S. election and your own country's vote to withdraw from the EU is unfortunate but understandable.  Living in a socialist state will dull ones perception and judgement.  What I cannot abide is a pretentious British asshole with a superior attitude lecturing me about my country. 

As has happened so many times in the past your urbane and erudite left wing politicians are leading your country down the road to disaster as is the case in the United States.  Fortunately in both our countries there are still those that can see through the bullshit and have guts enough to risk a departure from spoon-fed  conventional wisdom and packaged candidates in order to get the nation back on track.  Others like you are advocates and apologists for the entrenched political powers that have become your security blanket and defense against the bogeyman of innovative thought. 

Regardless of what you think of the USA or it's President, when the U.K. finds itself with its ass in a crack again as it surely will, your wise men will again appear on our doorstep with their hats in their hands just as they have done in the past.  Maybe if some of your more enlightened countrymen gain the majority in parliament that won't be necessary yet again.






















But what about that clown college you call the House of Lords

[PB the Deplorable]

... For all this 'land of the free' nonsense, these days the US is more like an unweeded garden. It seems you will elect anyone who will pander to your insecurities, whereas the British system prevents tin-pot demagogues from getting a toehold. Farage, for instance, couldn't even get himself elected as an MP, while you elect a con man as your president...

Yes, in a parliamentary system the party putting together the government chooses the prime minister (and those same people point to our Electoral College as 'undemocratic' when they don't like the outcome here). 

Our primary system is somewhat recent - not so long ago the party insiders would gather in the so-called ''smoke-filled back rooms'' at the national conventions and choose the candidate (each state party would send their insiders as delegates to the national convention).  Only then would the voters choose between the two candidates offered by the parties.

Florida held the first state primary in 1901, to measure the popular opinion of the candidates, vs the opinion of the Florida party bosses.  Over the next decade or so, other states began selecting delegates to the convention by popular vote, others at least tallied the voter's preferences.  By 1920, 20 states held primaries, but some went back.  In 1968 12 states held popular primaries.  Due to the chaos of the '68 Democrat convention, it was decided new rules were called for to enable wider voter participation.  By 1992, 40 states had primaries.

There is no perfect system, no perfect leader.  There are going to be clunkers.  I'll take our primary system where the people choose, over the insider ''smoke filled back room'' system we used to have - and the parliamentary system still has.  I'll take our system of divided government - with separation of powers - one that requires broad consensus to make changes, until something better comes along.

[Dr. MD MD]

The Queen has no more than an advisory role; she can't overstep her bounds unless she wants to start a constitutional crisis that will overthrow the monarchy. If you canvassed most people, they'd rather have the monarchy than not, but only because it offers an element of continuity and we don't want elections every five minutes to elect a head of state.

We are subjects in name only. We see through all that stuff. The US still believes in it, and is going through a prolonged adolescence to try and work out who they are. You never see Brits fawning over their leaders the way Americans do over their latest god-emperor. It was Obama last time, this time it's Trump. I'd look to your own house before you start criticising the soft furnishings of other people

An apologist of monarchy. Well, fiction can be fun but the non-fiction section is much more educational. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=641Oyk3d5HM

[Kidnostad3]

Brits don't take the archaisms seriously - they are there for the tourists, that's about all. The Queen has no more than an advisory role; she can't overstep her bounds unless she wants to start a constitutional crisis that will overthrow the monarchy. If you canvassed most people, they'd rather have the monarchy than not, but only because it offers an element of continuity and we don't want elections every five minutes to elect a head of state.

On the other hand, you lot think you rule the roost, but the facts don't bear out that high opinion of yourselves. For all this 'land of the free' nonsense, these days the US is more like an unweeded garden. It seems you will elect anyone who will pander to your insecurities, whereas the British system prevents tin-pot demagogues from getting a toehold. Farage, for instance, couldn't even get himself elected as an MP, while you elect a con man as your president.

We are subjects in name only. We see through all that stuff. The US still believes in it, and is going through a prolonged adolescence to try and work out who they are. You never see Brits fawning over their leaders the way Americans do over their latest god-emperor. It was Obama last time, this time it's Trump. I'd look to your own house before you start criticising the soft furnishings of other people

The following was inadvertently ommitted  from my previous response to your post:


I wouldn't argue with you about the irrelevance of your monarchy and it's being little more than a tourist attraction.    However, I'm sure you're aware that a growing number of Brits are persuaded that the expense of maintaining the royal household doesn't even comes close to being offset by the tourist dollars it attracts. Some think dispensing with the Royals and turning their extensive holdings into walk-through tourist attractions would be a net plus.  But that's for you lot to sort out. 

You failed to share with us your thoughts on the the clown college that you call the House of Lords.  Of course to an American the idea of noble birth is as abhorrent as warm beer and Marmite and we say as much in our constitution.  I'd just like to know how you politically sophisticated Brits rationalize that farsical institution.  I won't even go into the lunatic behavior I've witnessed during CSPAN broadcasts of the proceedings of your House of Commons.   How that gaggle of neurotic blowhards can be called a deliberative body is beyond comprehension. 

With the U.S. no longer ruling the roost as you put it, maybe it's time for you and your EU brethren to step up.  I'm sure we'd gladly relinquish the honor of providing a grossly disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining the NATO alliance that we've been burdened with for past 70 years.   If that were to happen we might be able to safely reduce our defense budget and use the savings to pay off our national debt.  Please let us know when you are going to start pulling your own weight.  It'll make headlines over here.  Maybe you'll be able to do it when your economy climbs out of the porcelain receptacle. 
 

[SredniVashtar]

Your failure  to understand what actually happened in the recent U.S. election and your own country's vote to withdraw from the EU is unfortunate but understandable.  Living in a socialist state will dull ones perception and judgement.  What I cannot abide is a pretentious British asshole with a superior attitude lecturing me about my country. 

This country hasn't even been close to being socialist since the early eighties, but I wouldn't expect an American to have any understanding of history, let alone what goes on outside the borders of their own country. If you think the current neo-liberal administration we have here is socialist...well, I shan't tell you what I think of you, as it's Xmas - but it rhymes with 'cupid stunt'.

As has happened so many times in the past your urbane and erudite left wing politicians are leading your country down the road to disaster as is the case in the United States.  Fortunately in both our countries there are still those that can see through the bullshit and have guts enough to risk a departure from spoon-fed  conventional wisdom and packaged candidates in order to get the nation back on track.  Others like you are advocates and apologists for the entrenched political powers that have become your security blanket and defense against the bogeyman of innovative thought. 

You do go on, don't you? You've chosen to run the country as if it's a sports team, where people want to hire a distinguished former player to be the manager because, well, it can't fail, can it? It usually does, of course. It would take too long to hack through all your talk-radio platitudes, but if you want to see yourself as heroically standing up to those nasty socialists, carry on, dear boy. You'll still be whinnying about left-wingers all the while Trump and his buddies are plundering your trousers for whatever small change you have left.

Regardless of what you think of the USA or it's President, when the U.K. finds itself with its ass in a crack again as it surely will, your wise men will again appear on our doorstep with their hats in their hands just as they have done in the past.  Maybe if some of your more enlightened countrymen gain the majority in parliament that won't be necessary yet again.

Your country is in its twilight, unfortunately, but it comes to us all. You had a good run, though. I wouldn't go so far as to say that some of my best friends are American, but some of them are fairly tolerable, and I wouldn't like to see the world being run by the Chinese. But you've lost your nerve, as shown by the way that you are trying to scurry after manufacturing jobs that belong in the third world instead of leading the way through innovation. Instead of making American great again, the best that Trump can do for you is negotiate a graceful decline, but most of you can't see it.

[SredniVashtar]

I wouldn't argue with you about the irrelevance of your monarchy and it's being little more than a tourist attraction.    However, I'm sure you're aware that a growing number of Brits are persuaded that the expense of maintaining the royal household doesn't even comes close to being offset by the tourist dollars it attracts. Some think dispensing with the Royals and turning their extensive holdings into walk-through tourist attractions would be a net plus.  But that's for you lot to sort out. 

It's not there just for the tourists. Brits are a very theatrical people and all that stuff answers a deep-seated need. Also, we don't take it seriously enough to want to change it. You're just jealous because we have a rich history, while your country looks like it's been put together by IKEA.

You failed to share with us your thoughts on the the clown college that you call the House of Lords.  Of course to an American the idea of noble birth is as abhorrent as warm beer and Marmite and we say as much in our constitution.  I'd just like to know how you politically sophisticated Brits rationalize that farsical institution.  I won't even go into the lunatic behavior I've witnessed during CSPAN broadcasts of the proceedings of your House of Commons.   How that gaggle of neurotic blowhards can be called a deliberative body is beyond comprehension. 

As with the Queen, if it was considered that important, it would have been changed by now. I don't see the system you have - where someone can come in and appoint whoever they like to their cabinet - as really all that different. You might have confirmation hearings, but nobody will have elected Sexy Rexy or Steve The Munchkin. Likewise the Supreme Court. The Lords gives an element of continuity rather than chopping and changing every few years. You Americans have trouble seeing the difference between theory and practice. The British system looks a mess in theory but it works in practice - it's the other way round in the US. You plume yourself on how sleek and lovely it is, but a guy like Trump is going to be like a chimp with a machine gun, with no respect for your traditions, and a servile party in the Congress and Senate unable to provide those checks and balances you hold so dear.

You have your own nobility: the presidency was run like a family business not too long ago. The highest office in the land is open to anyone over there, so long as you're white, rich and male. You managed to elect a coffee-coloured guy recently, of course, and lots of you haven't stopped squeaking about it since, but that's the exception that proves the rule. Stuffy old Britain is on its second female  PM while you haven't even managed one yet.

With the U.S. no longer ruling the roost as you put it, maybe it's time for you and your EU brethren to step up.  I'm sure we'd gladly relinquish the honor of providing a grossly disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining the NATO alliance that we've been burdened with for past 70 years.   If that were to happen we might be able to safely reduce our defense budget and use the savings to pay off our national debt.  Please let us know when you are going to start pulling your own weight.  It'll make headlines over here.  Maybe you'll be able to do it when your economy climbs out of the porcelain receptacle. 

We've spent the previous few centuries trying to teach you lot the rudiments of civilisation. Do we have to do everything for you? By all means turn inwards and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist - it's what you do so well - but in the nuclear age it isn't so easy to live inside your own borders any more.