Something we can agree on: your girl Hillary

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

imfrankie

Anesthesiologist
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,010
Reaction score
99
If this woman ever becomes President of the United States--though I can't imagine with her foreign governments' supported Foundation, a history of Brian Williams-style exposure to enemy fire, and husband that expects four seasons room service in the White House--I will become an FMG somewhere else.

Members don't see this ad.
 
If this woman ever becomes President of the United States--though I can't imagine with her foreign governments' supported Foundation, a history of Brian Williams-style exposure to enemy fire, and husband that expects four seasons room service in the White House--I will become an FMG somewhere else.
If so, then I'd recommend Australia. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
What about Hilldog but with a GOP house and senate? How bad could she make things then.
A president can appoint a couple of Supreme Court Justices and an awful lot of federal judges with minimal or no friction from the Senate.

Left-leaning people have been living with Scalia and Thomas for decades and right-leaning people will be living with Kagan and Sotomayor for decades to come. Presidents matter even if Congress is hostile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
A president can appoint a couple of Supreme Court Justices and an awful lot of federal judges with minimal or no friction from the Senate.

Left-leaning people have been living with Scalia and Thomas for decades and right-leaning people will be living with Kagan and Sotomayor for decades to come. Presidents matter even if Congress is hostile.

well until you said this I was going to say I like the idea of a congress that opposes the white house. I like washington crippled by partisanship, it makes it harder for them to pass bull**** laws. I get nervous when washington starts "accomplishing" things. But you bring up a good point about the judges...maybe I'd prefer rep in white house with a dem congress.
 
She's about as centrist as you're gonna get. If you truly think she and a centrist republican like Jeb Bush are all that different, you haven't been paying attention.
If you're saying you don't want anyone but a farther right leaning republican, then you'd better start filling out your moving papers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If so, then I'd recommend Australia. :)

Costa Rica is at the top of my list. I met an older US trained anesthesiologist down there who was working part time and making great money at a nice private hospital in San Jose. He said practice down there is great: less regulation, minimal malpractice insurance, great surfing. He had nothing but good things to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just something to keep in mind -- Jeb Bush was a huge advocate for AAs in Florida, so hopefully, future legislative victories for AAs (and thereby anesthesiologists) would be more likely with him as President...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
She's about as centrist as you're gonna get. If you truly think she and a centrist republican like Jeb Bush are all that different, you haven't been paying attention.

As much as I dread the thought of one more president from either dynasty, the Bushes simply have no equivalent of the influence-peddling that the Clinton Foundation does.
 
She's about as centrist as you're gonna get. If you truly think she and a centrist republican like Jeb Bush are all that different, you haven't been paying attention.
If you're saying you don't want anyone but a farther right leaning republican, then you'd better start filling out your moving papers.

I'm saying I don't want her.
 
Fair enough. I don't want her either. She's a pure politician and an opportunist. But if a democrat gets elected, she would be the one I would think any true conservative would want. Who else? Bernie Sanders? Dennis Kucinich?
 
Meh.

Lemme just say this: I haven't been a big fan of any incumbent president in my lifetime, and I doubt that is going to change in 2016.
 
Last edited:
Hillary will NEVER be elected president.
 
Will Jeb Bush get all the Hispanic votes because his wife is Hispanic?
 
Do you think Jeb has a high likelihood of getting elected? (serious question -- just curious to hear your opinion)
He could be.

Right now all the country knows about him is that he's a Bush, and that hurts him a lot. But, he's not GWB, and he could look a lot different when campaigning starts. He's probably a bit more credible with Hispanic voters than Romney was, but honestly that bloc is going to break hard for the Democrat candidate regardless. Florida has been trouble for republicans the last few elections, and it will be this time too.

Whoever the republicans put up is going to win every red state and lose every blue state. Candidates who have a leg up on states like Florida, Virginia, etc are what both party needs. If JB can carry Florida he's probably more electable than anyone else in the running.

But hey, we're 20 months out. This time last cycle we hadn't even started the circus parade of "this is the guy FOR SURE" repub wannabes ... no point in getting excited or worried about JB yet. Remember the Herman Cain train?
 
I'm voting libertarian if Rand Paul isn't put up. I could be tempted to vote for Carson, walker, or even kucinich. No way in hell am I voting for a Clinton or bush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
He could be.

Right now all the country knows about him is that he's a Bush, and that hurts him a lot. But, he's not GWB, and he could look a lot different when campaigning starts. He's probably a bit more credible with Hispanic voters than Romney was, but honestly that bloc is going to break hard for the Democrat candidate regardless. Florida has been trouble for republicans the last few elections, and it will be this time too.

Whoever the republicans put up is going to win every red state and lose every blue state. Candidates who have a leg up on states like Florida, Virginia, etc are what both party needs. If JB can carry Florida he's probably more electable than anyone else in the running.

But hey, we're 20 months out. This time last cycle we hadn't even started the circus parade of "this is the guy FOR SURE" repub wannabes ... no point in getting excited or worried about JB yet. Remember the Herman Cain train?

I do remember the Cain train... and I remember his "ho train" that came barreling down the tracks as election day neared, too. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hillary will NEVER be elected president.
She has a VERY good chance of winning. I REALLY wish Elizabeth Warren would run and have a shot, but it really looks like either a Clinton or a Bush at this point. Both got where they are because of who they're related to and how much money they have to spend.
To me the system just looks embarrassing at this point, but no one has the balls to try to change the influence of money and favoritism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
She has a VERY good chance of winning. I REALLY wish Elizabeth Warren would run and have a shot, but it really looks like either a Clinton or a Bush at this point. Both got where they are because of who they're related to and how much money they have to spend.
To me the system just looks embarrassing at this point, but no one has the balls to try to change the influence of money and favoritism.

I completely disagree and time will prove me right.
 
I'll vote against Bush or Clinton or both if they are the candidates.
Warren should be the dem candidate since she's the real representative of dem ideals unlike clinton who sold out before the race even started.
 
She used her personal email account for all electronic correspondence while at State? C'mon people.
 
I like Rand Paul or Walker from Wisconsin. Rand Paul will have trouble winning the primary but I believe he would win the general election. Scott Walker is my other choice to win it all.
 
I like Rand Paul or Walker from Wisconsin. Rand Paul will have trouble winning the primary but I believe he would win the general election. Scott Walker is my other choice to win it all.

That he doesn't have a college degree may eliminate Walker from contention.
 
Remember that time Lincoln and Truman got college degrees?
Remember those times when presidents owned slaves, or when Kennedy nailed a bunch of chicks in the Oval Office and the media was politely silent and no one cared?

Or when a history of actual military service was common in presidents? The first President George we had was a wartime general; the last President George gundecked some national guard time and staged a propaganda event in a borrowed flight suit.

We look for different qualifications and conduct from presidents now.

Though I'll grant you, today's Republican party has an anti-intellectual anti-science streak a mile wide, so maybe a degree-less Repub candidate won't suffer as much doubt from the base as a Democrat would.

We're going to lose again. The party doesn't seem to have learned or changed anything since the 2008 and 2012 elections.
 
Remember those times when presidents owned slaves, or when Kennedy nailed a bunch of chicks in the Oval Office and the media was politely silent and no one cared?

Or when a history of actual military service was common in presidents? The first President George we had was a wartime general; the last President George gundecked some national guard time and staged a propaganda event in a borrowed flight suit.

We look for different qualifications and conduct from presidents now.

Though I'll grant you, today's Republican party has an anti-intellectual anti-science streak a mile wide, so maybe a degree-less Repub candidate won't suffer as much doubt from the base as a Democrat would.

We're going to lose again. The party doesn't seem to have learned or changed anything since the 2008 and 2012 elections.

The guy has done an excellent job with Wisconsin. The "Constitutional
Scholar" with the prestigious law degree has been an utter failure.

I'm not a Republican but I have a lot in common with many. How are they anti-intellectual and anti-science? Or are you just thinking of Republican politicians and extrapolating that to a larger population? I'm pretty sure the Pauls and Carson know a little science.

Comparing the lack of college degree with slavery... Kind of a stretch there. 1944 (Truman) wasn't that long ago.
 
Republican presidential candidates have to pander to the hard-right base to get through the primary. This means that they need to espouse genuine belief, or give convincing lip service to, the religious right's pet topics including but not limited to religious influence on education, creationism in schools, climate change denial, stem cell research, the anti-vaxxer movement (in fairness, many liberal hippies there too, but they don't vote), science research budget proposals, preference for business over environmental protection dating back to the 1970s, resistance to public health initiatives to reduce STDs and unplanned pregnancies, on to the outright supervillain-worthy perversion of science to push religious agendas (such as my own state legislature's nearly-successful efforts to impose mandatory pre-abortion transvaginal ultrasounds on women).

Perhaps it would be fairer to say that it's strongly religious people who tend to be anti-science, and the Republican party embraces and depends on that voting bloc. This is particularly true during primaries, when it's the strongly motivated party base that gets out and chooses candidates.

Meanwhile, American scientists self-identify as Democrats over Republicans 55-6. If you're going to argue that the Republican party as a whole isn't hostile to science, you need to explain that with more than the usual Republican "universities are cesspools of liberalism" reply.


1944 (Truman) wasn't that long ago.

C'mon, in 1944 college degrees were rare and in the post-WWII golden years of American growth and prosperity, most everyone could get started on a prosperous and secure career without a degree. The world is different now. For better or worse, just about every high school grad is pushed to go to college and has the opportunity to go to college. Let's see the world for what it is, and not pretend that a presidential candidate's lack of a degree in 2016 is not a liability in a general election because 70 years ago it wasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I REALLY wish Elizabeth Warren would run and have a shot...

What!??!! "Fauxcahontas"? Give me a break. You have not been paying attention. I prefer the country I live in better than her ultimately vision of socialized... well... everything! And talk about someone who is willing to "stretch" the truth.

Wake up, people. We need a Scott Walker or Rand Paul in the White House. Period. We do not need four more years of Obamanomics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wow. If the fact that her Cherokee ancestry may be remote is a concern for you, your priorities are jacked. (Not to mention, that's the best a right wing rag like "the college fix" could do?!)

As we all know, we will always have a hybrid political structure in this country. In some people's opinion even a small step towards equality equals "socialism". On the far end there may be crazy people who argue for pure, Marxist socialism. Most of us recognize that there are NO viable HIGH POSITION candidates that are in favor of pure socialism. People that think Obama, Wareen, or any other high ranking political official are "socialist" are not being honest with themselves. I guess this is just my opinion, but I know I'm right.
 
Wow. If the fact that her Cherokee ancestry may be remote is a concern for you, your priorities are jacked.

It's not a fact. It is a BOLD-FACED LIE!

Lying about your ancestry and using false "minority status" to get an appointment that would otherwise be above your capacity and ability? Is that the regular M.O. of Liberals? Is this how "affirmative action" is supposed to work? Hmmm.

Bigger question: When are we finally going to be done with all the liberal fabulists?

Oh, and it wasn't just 'college fix' who had a problem with this (but did address it the mostly humorously, sarcastic, and entertainingly snarky way)...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-named-elizabeth-warren-first-woman-of-color/

http://nypost.com/2012/09/28/fauxcahontas-latest-lame-excuse/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-over-native-american-controversy-in-new-book

http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

(Want me to go all "BladeMDA" on you and post about 20-30 more links? :lol:)

So, she lies about her heritage, that lie gets published, and she then tries to use that published lie as proof of her heritage? :wow: Tautology much?

Elizabeth Warren is a blowhard, overreaching, overachieving idiot that shouldn't be in charge of anything, not the least of which is this country.
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous.
Not that anyone cares, but she was born and raised in Oklahoma, where anyone going back more than a couple generations is going to have some Native American ancestry. Of course that's very difficult to prove because records were bad in Indian territories and many people hid their Indian ancestry. Your claim that it's a BOLD-FACED LIE assumes you put far to much faith in a VERY imperfect system.

She and her brother say their family talked about their Native American ancestry frequently. I doubt that's a lie. No one has made any claims throughout her tenure of ANY dishonesty other than this one subject.

She is one of the most cited lawyers IN THE WORLD in bankruptcy law and was the most important person in establishing the oversite commission for banks/loan scammers. She calls out scammers when she sees them. She and her type of politician are EXACTLY what this country needs before the middle class disappears due to corporate/elite favoritism. In my opinion It's unfortunate and DANGEROUS TO OUR FUTURE that more people don't see that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Republican presidential candidates have to pander to the hard-right base to get through the primary. This means that they need to espouse genuine belief, or give convincing lip service to, the religious right's pet topics including but not limited to religious influence on education, creationism in schools, climate change denial, stem cell research, the anti-vaxxer movement (in fairness, many liberal hippies there too, but they don't vote), science research budget proposals, preference for business over environmental protection dating back to the 1970s, resistance to public health initiatives to reduce STDs and unplanned pregnancies, on to the outright supervillain-worthy perversion of science to push religious agendas (such as my own state legislature's nearly-successful efforts to impose mandatory pre-abortion transvaginal ultrasounds on women).

Perhaps it would be fairer to say that it's strongly religious people who tend to be anti-science, and the Republican party embraces and depends on that voting bloc. This is particularly true during primaries, when it's the strongly motivated party base that gets out and chooses candidates.

Meanwhile, American scientists self-identify as Democrats over Republicans 55-6. If you're going to argue that the Republican party as a whole isn't hostile to science, you need to explain that with more than the usual Republican "universities are cesspools of liberalism" reply.

This is the most spot-on post in this thread.

Republicans will lose in 2016 because whatever candidate they pick, assuming he's not an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights Bible thumper, will still have spent the previous year leading up to the election trying to pander to the religious far-right that WANTS him to be an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights Bible thumper in order to secure the nomination. Then, he'll either have to back-pedal during the entire campaign or end up looking like some out-of-touch right wing nut job.

If Republicans want to win, they're going to have to drop the far-right social agenda, which they won't do. We'll have more of the same in 2016: a "return to family values" etc. etc. while the Dems take the White House, yet again.
 
I respectfully disagree. I submit that if Hillary gets the democratic nomination, the "far-right" and many others will vote for most anyone the republicans put forth. My suspicion is that many in the democratic party know this and will begin breaking ranks from the anointed one. I'm betting the only way democrats win in 2016 is if their nominee is NOT Hillary Clinton.
 
I respectfully disagree. I submit that if Hillary gets the democratic nomination, the "far-right" and many others will vote for most anyone the republicans put forth. My suspicion is that many in the democratic party know this and will begin breaking ranks from the anointed one. I'm betting the only way democrats win in 2016 is if their nominee is NOT Hillary Clinton.
I thought the same thing when Obama was up for re-election. This post could've been written by me 4 years ago:
pgg in a parallel universe said:
I submit that if Obama runs for a second term, the "far-right" and many others will vote for most anyone the republicans put forth.
I'm not sure there are any Republicans more motivated to vote against Hillary 2016 than they were to vote against Obama 2012.

There weren't enough anti-D voters in 2012 and there won't be enough in 2016. I think if the Republican Party is going to win, and I think they can, they need to nominate someone who can win Florida, Virginia, and 1 or 2 more swing states.

Thu can't sit back and hope Hillaryhate wins the election for them with any chump they put forth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Warren's heritage was thoroughly debunked by Cherokee researchers. She isn't Cherokee.
http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/2012/05/letter-to-elizaeth-warren.html

But, ya know, we conservatives are so "anti-science" that we can't understand whether someone actually is from a given group or not...
Nope. The New England genealogical society corrected their initial statement on her, saying there was no primary source stating whether her stated Cherokee ancestor(s) was or was not Cherokee, and if you look at the research of the person you linked, it doesn't even go back far enough to check.
She has a VERY long academic and now political record. If this Cherokee **** is the only thing people can attack her for in terms of integrity, than she's better than about 95% of political candidates. If you hate her policies, that's a different story, although I think you're wrong.

On another subject, it's early, but I really respect that Bush didn't pander to the audience or Hannity at the CPAC. I don't in general agree with republican policies (and the republican led legislature is an embarrassment), but I'm not a fan of Hillary and if Bush does have some good things to say policy wise, he might get some middle of the road votes, including mine. We'll see.
 
Top