categorization for HRC.

That was not doubt i mentioned to him in a previous diary and thread, but not understanding the definition.

If I now read your definition of a pathological liar, I feel horrible, because, well, I think I spend some 25 years with one. But then, covered up under not understanding cultural differences, I would say, almost all of that person's tribal folks, could be counted under that category. Many people do make those judgments, especially those from other cultures and in the "political arena".

That then ends up as having made quite some racist generalizing statement. So, I still have difficulties to make judgments of that sort. Though I recognize the symptoms and features very clearly and they are very correct.

And especially because the extreme vindictive response of a pathological liar to being humiliated by someone pointing out the truth, it makes it even more difficult to point it out. So many innocent and non-related people can get hurt as a consequence of such revelations to the public. Sometimes that even causes conflicts over generations. You won't believe it if you haven't seen it.

One can't belittle it. It can be quite horrible and folks who suffered under those vindictive responses (which don't have to come in rage or abusive verbal or even physical ways), are damaged for life and it's very hard to "forget and/or forgive" it.

...but Clinton's primary goal is to protect billionaires like Saban. To which end she will pander, and pander, and then pander some more, no matter how blatant, obsequious and nauseating the pandering may get.

Given the context, a nuclear first strike by Iran against Israel, a promise of obliteration in response doesn't seem all that radical to me. I expect most US politicians would say as much and probably the leaders of the other major nuclear powers as well. The use of nuclear weapons by small nuclear states needs to be deterred or else there will be a global nuclear arms race and nuclear brush wars every where.

I think it's reaching a bit to try to base a case against control with this. There is plenty of rock solid facts to use: use them.

Saban believes there "three ways to be influential in American politics"
1. donate to parties
2. establish think tanks
3. control media outlets

Some of Saban's donations have been: $5 million to the Clinton Presidential Library
The same amount to the Clinton Foundation
$7million to the DNC Building fund

The whole world is aware Israel is the favored pet of too many nations. I'm curious what Hillary will do when Israel nukes Iran.

A woman's suit cac be skirted or panted, hence the clarification. Men's suits are always panted making the clarifying descriptor unnecessary and superfluous. This is why the term pant suit is commonly understood to be female and not sexist. So you must be snarking is.

... who would have thought. /s

and the "win" it for the sake of winning kind of attitudes. It's everywhere, competition, there is nothing that doesn't get turned into a competition and therefore as a consequence every kind of status achievements are based on meritocracy. How much social injustice does it cause, when so many people on purpose are not even given the chance to compete fairly. The whole system is very inhumane. Even cooking has become a war-fare like competition on TV.

Rudyard Kipling's wonderful story of insatiable curtiosity...and How the Elephant Got a Trunk. All because of the simple question of" What does the Crocodile eat for dinner?" All told about the goings on along the "great, grey-green, greasy, Limpopo River. What a bedtime story!!

Root, root, root for the Home Team!
Politics as sport.

Why they call it "the race" for the WH. or even more blatantly, the "horse race".

Even when both horses are just old, decrepit, and over the hill nags.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Fb4K8pNmg]