Something we can agree on: your girl Hillary

[pgg]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I could be tempted to vote for Carson

Ben "prison makes straight people gay so being gay must be a choice" Carson?

Another Republican who either really believes gays are icky, or has to pretend to in order to secure the far right primary vote.

"Every time I'm gaining momentum, the liberal press says, let's talk about gay rights, and I'm just not going to fall for that anymore."

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Ben "prison makes straight people gay so being gay must be a choice" Carson?

Another Republican who either really believes gays are icky, or has to pretend to in order to secure the far right primary vote.

"Every time I'm gaining momentum, the liberal press says, let's talk about gay rights, and I'm just not going to fall for that anymore."

I can respect a man who admits mistakes instead of blaming republicans or Fox News. If you read more than catch quotes, you'd know he fully supports states' rights and has no problem with civil unions.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

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'll write in Gary Johnson if I have to.

 

[pgg]

I'll write in Gary Johnson if I have to.

Now there's a candidate I wish was running.

 

[deleted50478]

😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴

 

[imfrankie]

"I'm not sure there are any Republicans more motivated to vote against Hillary 2016 than they were to vote against Obama 2012."

I think there are more motivated to ensure she is not President; and I believe many democrats will desert her. I predict there will be A LOT more people motivated to vote against Hillary and her family's history than were motivated to vote against Obama. She will be on the ropes for as long as she is in the race; and I think her "right wing conspiracy" excuse is too worn to hold her up any longer. Her husband disgraced the Office; and she is increasingly being portrayed a co-equal, exaggerating, inveterate liar. If the democrats nominate another--as I believe they will feel compelled to do--all bets are off in my mind. But for my money, I say a Clinton nomination means democrat defeat in the Presidential election.

 

[deleted50478]

"I'm not sure there are any Republicans more motivated to vote against Hillary 2016 than they were to vote against Obama 2012."

I think there are more motivated to ensure she is not President; and I believe many democrats will desert her. I predict there will be A LOT more people motivated to vote against Hillary and her family's history than were motivated to vote against Obama. She will be on the ropes for as long as she is in the race; and I think her "right wing conspiracy" excuse is too worn to hold her up any longer. Her husband disgraced the Office; and she is increasingly being portrayed a co-equal, exaggerating, inveterate liar. If the democrats nominate another--as I believe they will feel compelled to do--all bets are off in my mind. But for my money, I say a Clinton nomination means democrat defeat in the Presidential election.

If Obama's election taught us anything it's that having no record or particular qualifications is better than having a long controversial career. People imagined Obama was whatever they hoped he would be. Hillary has more of a record, some people support it, some don't but vague platitudes won't work for HRC the way they did for Obama. With HRC, there's a lot to vote against, but the Republicans with probably nominate some nut-job or a Bush and make it a lesser of two evils decision.

 

[imfrankie]

Great piece by Noonan in today's WSJ. Results may vary:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/stuck-in-scandal-land-1425598263

 

[norwood]

Great piece by Noonan in today's WSJ. Results may vary:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/stuck-in-scandal-land-1425598263

Yep. On top of all the scandals and flagrant corruption, I think a lot of Dems know Hillary is their version of Romney; people won't necessarily cross party lines to vote against her, but she's just way too much of a business-as-usual Washington insider to get the young idealists excited. And the scandals are there, too: accepting huge "gifts" from foreign governments while in a position of national power is just banana-republic stuff, and if a Republican had done it, it would have been front-page, above the fold, until he either resigned or was forced from office. Hardcore Democrat loyalists will still stand behind her, because she's their nominee, but the first time voters, the successors to the college students who got all excited about how Obama Is Going to Change Everything, are not going to rise up en masse to do free labor for the Clinton political machine.

But who else would the Democrats run? Warren is unapologetically hard-left, has character issues of her own (i.e., not bothering to get a Massachusetts law license before practicing law in Mass - the Mass bar says it was no big deal and all is forgiven, but how would we feel about a doc who didn't bother to get a license?), and has no meaningful foreign policy experience amidst the world kinda melting down around us. Biden is the Democrat family's crazy uncle. Nobody else is even realistically on the radar.

 

[deleted171991]

I am digging out this thread because I don't want to start a new one about her.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

 

[GA8314]

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.

She may be centrist, but she's corrupt AF.

 

[psychMDhopefully]

She may be centrist, but she's corrupt AF.

Yeah and Trump is an angel, the dude is the most unintelligent, unqualified president we've ever had. He is a complete embarrassment to America. Luckily he is too stupid to get any legislation passed, hopefully his term will pass with minimal damage

 

[GA8314]

Yeah and Trump is an angel, the dude is the most unintelligent, unqualified president we've ever had. He is a complete embarrassment to America. Luckily he is too stupid to get any legislation passed, hopefully his term will pass with minimal damage

I said nothing of Trump. I said Hillary is corrupt AF. If you also think Trump is then that's fine. Are we going to get into an argument on who's MORE corrupt? Is that the standard now?

With existing evidence, is the Dem's argument going to be "Hillary should be in power. While she's corrupt AF, in my opinion, she's less corrupt Af then the other guy. So, she would make a fine President"?? Is that what this is coming down to?

 

[deleted162650]

Are we going to get into an argument on who's MORE corrupt? Is that the standard now?

Yup, pretty much.

 

[psychMDhopefully]

I said nothing of Trump. I said Hillary is corrupt AF. If you also think Trump is then that's fine. Are we going to get into an argument on who's MORE corrupt? Is that the standard now?

With existing evidence, is the Dem's argument going to be "Hillary should be in power. While she's corrupt AF, in my opinion, she's less corrupt Af then the other guy. So, she would make a fine President"?? Is that what this is coming down to?

The argument that Hillary is more corrupt than Trump is how most republicans justified putting Trump in the white house, I guess believing that eased their conscience. If we can make it the next few years without getting into a nuclear conflict thats the most we can hope for with Trump. Its crazy how people are willing to risk the safety of the entire country to get " their guy" in the white house. Its like " yeah he will destroy the country, but at least our team won" humans are idiotic.

 

[facted]

This Hillary DNC thing reminds me how all the media could talk about was her email. Meanwhile,v just this week Trump's campaign manager was indicted, his foreign policy adviser pleaded guilty to trying to set up meetings with the Russians and Trump himself has basically non stop called for the DOJ and FBI (INDEPENDENT parts of the govt) to prosecute his political opponents. Meanwhile, what are we focusing on? The behavior of NOT THE PRESIDENT Clinton. Who gives a s--t anymore. Focus on what's going on now. Our institutions are being raped and no one even cares.

 

[Twiggidy]

This Hillary DNC thing reminds me how all the media could talk about was her email. Meanwhile,v just this week Trump's campaign manager was indicted, his foreign policy adviser pleaded guilty to trying to set up meetings with the Russians and Trump himself has basically non stop called for the DOJ and FBI (INDEPENDENT parts of the govt) to prosecute his political opponents. Meanwhile, what are we focusing on? The behavior of NOT THE PRESIDENT Clinton. Who gives a s--t anymore. Focus on what's going on now. Our institutions are being raped and no one even cares.

 

[pgg]

I love reading the stuff I wrote years ago ... 2 1/2 years ago:

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.

😳

Whelp, that's not quite right any more.

I should probably adopt the same "nobody knows nothing" stance on politics that I have for the stock market.

 

[deleted50478]

I think I nailed it with this one
"With HRC, there's a lot to vote against, but the Republicans will probably nominate some nut-job or a Bush and make it a lesser of two evils decision."

I love reading the stuff I wrote years ago ... 2 1/2 years ago:



😳

Whelp, that's not quite right any more.

I should probably adopt the same "nobody knows nothing" stance on politics that I have for the stock market.

 

[Chip N Sawbones]

I think I nailed it with this one
"With HRC, there's a lot to vote against, but the Republicans will probably nominate some nut-job or a Bush and make it a lesser of two evils decision."

Good prediction. I thought it was pretty funny how the Republicans nominated the only person who could possibly lose to a total hypocrite like Hillary, and the Democrats nominated the only person who could possibly lose to a total doofus like Trump.

 

[urge]

Good prediction. I thought it was pretty funny how the Republicans nominated the only person who could possibly lose to a total hypocrite like Hillary, and the Democrats nominated the only person who could possibly lose to a total doofus like Trump.

True, except for the dem nomination didn't happen.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

"A Shocking Truth": Donna Brazile Accuses Clinton Campaign Of "Rigging" Primary

Elizabeth Warren: "Yes" The Democratic Primary Was Rigged For Clinton

 

[Aether2000]

The travesty in American politics is that we are limited to two choices only for president due to the 48 states having changed from proportional electors to winner-takes-all. The state legislatures have encoded this into law in order to permanently maintain an exclusively two party system, making it statistically impossible for a third party to ever win. We are presented only with choices for president that reflect those that pander to their own political party, excluding centrists or moderates that are fiscally conservative but socially liberal or vice versa. Hillary lost two presidential campaigns for exactly the same reason. Trump, well, a bizarre choice that demonstrates conclusively that electing a contrarian "drain the swamp" is not in the best interest of America, and continues with the same oppositional party victory pattern in presidential elections that has existed beginning 25 years ago.

 

[facted]

True, except for the dem nomination didn't happen.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

"A Shocking Truth": Donna Brazile Accuses Clinton Campaign Of "Rigging" Primary

Elizabeth Warren: "Yes" The Democratic Primary Was Rigged For Clinton

Except like most news stories, it's the follow up that tells the real story and is ignored. The details of the actual deal were that she would have control of the DNC for the general election of she won the nomination, not for the primary. So in other words, total standard operating procedure. But those pesky details always get in the way of a great story and book deal!

Memo reveals details of Hillary Clinton-DNC deal

 

[pgg]

I am digging out this thread because I don't want to start a new one about her.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

True, except for the dem nomination didn't happen.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

"A Shocking Truth": Donna Brazile Accuses Clinton Campaign Of "Rigging" Primary

Elizabeth Warren: "Yes" The Democratic Primary Was Rigged For Clinton

I was no fan of Hillary Clinton, but even if all of this is true, I don't see much of a problem here. Parties choose their candidates by means they determine themselves. The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about it. If they choose to do it in a crony-ish back room way, and they pick a bad candidate, that's on them.

The very existence of superdelegates is the clearest and most open proof possible that the party has its thumb heavily on the nomination scale.

I find it a little amusing that of all the foolish and shady things she did over the years that helped sink her campaign, it's this particular display of political competence that has Democrats up in arms today.

Of course, someone's got a book to sell, and nothing sells like recycled outrage. Go Donna!

 

[Reveler]

The two-party system inherently complicates the matter and leaves many things vulnerable to corruption. That level of power consolidation is too fragile as we saw during this previous cycle. It's unfortunate that these separate caucuses don't separate and form new parties as political groups in other countries do when their ideologies evolve or change from their previous platforms. We know we have separate factions within both the republican and democratic parties, and ultimately, their own infighting contributes to their losses (or other's successes, depending on how you look at it). We have the Bannonites, moderate republicans, Freedom Caucus, etc. on one side and Bernie/Warren and more center-left folks on the other side (obvious this is all a massive oversimplification for the sake of brevity).

If we are going to argue that Hillary did some shady dealings prior to securing the nomination, then that'd be an easy argument to engage. Sure, it wasn't ethical, but whether it deserves full on FBI or DOJ involvement is merely smoke and mirrors in the face of mounting evidence that DJT's campaign was doing more than trading borscht recipes with their ushanka-clad friends.

 

[Stank811]

Open your eyes and ears ladies and gents....this is all being slowly released on purpose for likely many reasons. This will not end well for many on both the democratic and republican side. One of the cleanest people at the end of this story is going to be President Trump.