Still bitter cause she said "Fuck the EU" (thiught you hated the EU) or cause we didnt get the WWIII over Ukraine we were promised? Diminished expectations, my friend.

And of that wise counsel, which of his ideas did she implement as S of S?  

And off course Sanders can't address racism in Cuba because that would destroy his nonsense about solving economic inequality as the solution to the "problem" of race.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2015/07/one_on_one_with_afro_cub...

Rmrd writes: "Bill Clinton was not the largest incarcerated in history. The incarceration rate increased at the state level. Federal incarceration so account for 13% of all arrests."

From the LA Times in February 2001:

The federal and state prison populations rose more under former President Bill Clinton than under any other president, according to a report from a criminal justice institute to be released today.

In fact, the analysis of U.S. Justice Department statistics by the left-leaning Justice Policy Institute, a project of a San Francisco-based justice center, found that more federal inmates were added to prisons under Clinton than under presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan combined.

So we see that rmrd's theory that Bill Clinton is not responsible for incarcerating more people than any other President is disproven by the facts.  Let's see if he's willing to change his theory.

Regarding rmrd's contention that Sanders voted against $4 billion for the auto industry, it was Sanders' adamant belief that taxpayers should not bail out the big banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars while the auto industry got a paltry $4 billion.  It seems rmrd is insisting on an extraordinary degree of ideological purity.  If any money at all is set aside for one industry that we agree is worth saving, you must agree to set aside 60X more to protect crooked financiers.

Ocean-kat's comment here is yet another example of a Clinton supporter's cognitive dissonance. Ocean-kat has chosen to reject the overwhelming - and stress-inducing - evidence that Hillary is an inferior candidate.  So what's the next step - lash out at the person who created the anxiety. 

Note how kat calls my attacks "crazy".  In fact, nearly everything I write here is very clearly supported by citations. What little isn't is generally common knowledge or very easily documented through a google search.  I also acknowledge freely my preferred candidate's weakness.  I never rely on boilerplate arguments like my candidate's "the most experienced person to ever run for president" or she's better than Bernie because "she's walked the walk" or "she's part of the family" or job-destroying trade bills really create jobs.  I have never denied obvious facts like those who claim Clinton didn't break any rules when she used a private email server. 

Crazy means delusional.  My support for Sanders and criticism of Clinton is clear-eyed and sane.

"Do not cling to theories where facts do not support them."  Hercule Poirot The Murder on the Links.

Ramona you have said here you couldn't be persuaded Bernie was the better candidate even though you have also written you agree with him more than you do Clinton.  Doesn't that suggest you might be clinging to a belief that the facts do not support?  If so, I have provided a possible explanation.

No.  An example of an ad hominem argument would be that an overweight person can't have good ideas about losing weight.  But I am not arguing that Clinton's online defenders have cognitive dissonance and therefore they should not be believed.  I am explaining the reason some rational people hold/express unbelievable views is because of a cognitive dissonance.

The way to attack my conclusion is to disprove the assumptions underlying it.  The assumptions are: 1) Hillary's supporters are launching bogus attacks on Bernie in response to 2) legitimate criticism of her and her record.   Another way you could challenge my assertion is to accept my "facts" but to offer an alternative explanation.  Clinton is paying her online supporters.  They know they're lying but do so for personal gain.  That is not how you would undermine an argument based on the ad hominem fallacy. 

A few ways you could undermine my example of an ad hominem argument include pointing out 1) there's no logical reason an overweight person couldn't have good ideas about losing weight, 2) the overweight person might have been even heavier until he started following his ideas on weight loss, or 3) the individual is overweight due to a glandular condition and therefore his ideas about losing weight don't work in his specific case but do for most people.

No shame at all. 

When caught lying about landing in Sarajevo under sniper fire:

"I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.

When she finally admitted error in voting for Iraq invasion:

"I've been very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple and I have written about it in my book, talked about it in the past."  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-made-182928831.html

Regarding the 1994 Crime bill:

"There were some aspects of it that worked well, the Violence Against Women provisions have worked well, for example," Clinton told CNN's Don Lemon during the [March 2016] debate, according to ThinkProgress. "But other aspects of it were a mistake and I agree."

Regarding her improper use of a private email server while Sec'y of State:

“That was a mistake.  I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”  http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/08/hillary-clinton-apologize...

If she showed shame, she would acknowledge the damage the mistaken policies and decisions she supported caused. 

To be fair, most politicians aren't real good at taking responsibility for their screw ups.  Much as I prefer Bernie, he hasn't been forthright in admitting he was wrong to vote against the Brady Bill and to immunize gun manufacturers from lawsuits.

Most people try, sometimes struggle, to say something nice about the dead, especially on the day of their funeral. This is not something you are likely to understand as your response in this type of situation would likely be, "I'm glad the bitch is dead."

Hillary's work in the gay community on AIDS and other issues is well known and she's been repeatedly honored for it. So no, this trivial gaff doesn't bother me.

Did a quick search to find a link for you.

Elton John honored Hillary Rodham Clinton for her work to help those affected by HIV and AIDS at an annual event for his foundation.

John added that he was touched by Clinton's speech in Geneva, when she declared that "gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights."

John told The Associated Press before the event that he hopes Clinton runs for president in 2016.

"She's a great human rights campaigner for people of color, for people of sexual orientation," he said. "She's made our fight easier by being such a staunch supporter of AIDS and for people's human rights."

I find it hilarious that you keep trying to pull some sense of shame from me because I'm supporting Hillary.  I told you, I'm a pragmatist. I look at Hillary and I see a toughness not evident in any other candidate, and damn if she isn't a girl!  Icing on the cake!

I'm not ashamed, I'm energized.  So leave me out of it.  You're wasting your breath.

Of course, she's been losing 24x7 for 9 months now, everyone on her team should quit it's such a lost cause. I mean, she lost Michigan by 1 1/2% - enough's enough, we can't be fooled.