For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

50% to win the presidency? That can't be right. Maybe you read it as -140?

 

[Willie Neslon]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

Wouldnt adjusting for the vig compute to less of a real chance than the what odds are?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look she changed her mind. She's apologized for that vote. How many Republicans have? How many conservatives in this forum are willing to admit they were wrong about Iraq?

And when I listen to the GOP candidates right now, all of them with the exception of Rand Paul seem gung ho for a new war against Iran.

Did she ever concede this point until this winter in Hard Choices, her book? - Voting for the war for political expediency and then admitting the mistake in voting for the war for political expediency is basically coming from the same place.

so what? Hey Saints, if the GOP candidate wants war with Iran, and she doesn't, who will you vote for?

So she is once again FOS. - Typically loaded question from you, but I don't even think war as a deterrent for even a hawk is even possible now. - What we do know about Hillary though is that if an Intel Estimate or CIA or NSA hands her a billfold saying x, y, z and if it's politically profitable she will go for it. - In her other major military misadventure she failed to heed warnings of forthcoming attack. - Either way she might have as much proclivity as any "hawk" for getting us into war, if not more, based on her record.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

Wouldnt adjusting for the vig compute to less of a real chance than the what odds are?

No, if you add up all the implied percentages based on the odds being offered, the sum will be greater than 100%.

Basically, if someone has a true 50% chance of winning, the payout if she wins will be as if she had around a 60% chance, which is how the book makes its money.

In this case, +140 odds implies about a 58% chance of winning, which includes a vigorish. The true chance would be less than that.

 

[Willie Neslon]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

Wouldnt adjusting for the vig compute to less of a real chance than the what odds are?

No, if you add up all the implied percentages based on the odds being offered, the sum will be greater than 100%.

Basically, is someone has a true 50% chance of winning, the payout if she wins will be as if she had around a 60% chance, which is how the book makes its money.

In this case, +140 odds implies about a 58% chance of winning, which includes a vigorish. The true chance would be less than that.

+140 is less than 50%. It's 7/5

 

[humpback]

I am registered Democrat and probably paying a lot more attention to the primary than you were. And the anti-Hillary sentiment was mostly due to her vote for the Iraqi war, which is no longer an issue (as proven by the polls among democrats, if you are paying attention).

Did she change her vote for the war? Why wouldn't it still be an issue?

All has been pretty much forgiven. I think most democrats felt that the vote was a political calculation, like Obama opposing gay marriage, rather than what she really believed. If Saddam was found to actually have had WMDs and she voted against taking action, it would probably have been the end of her political career IMO.

Why couldn't their initial opinions/votes have been what they really believed, and their "evolution" have been the political calculation? Obviously I don't expect you to admit that it's a possibility, but it is.

In any event, I thought you guys on the left were more "principled" than that? Now that she doesn't have any real competition, all is forgiven?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

Wouldnt adjusting for the vig compute to less of a real chance than the what odds are?

No, if you add up all the implied percentages based on the odds being offered, the sum will be greater than 100%.

Basically, is someone has a true 50% chance of winning, the payout if she wins will be as if she had around a 60% chance, which is how the book makes its money.

In this case, +140 odds implies about a 58% chance of winning, which includes a vigorish. The true chance would be less than that.

+140 is less than 50%. It's 7/5

You're right, I was thinking -140.

So the implied chance is about 42% ignoring the vig, and something less than that when taking the vig into account. In any case, the point is that she's not a heavy favorite.

 

[General Malaise]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

Wouldnt adjusting for the vig compute to less of a real chance than the what odds are?

No, if you add up all the implied percentages based on the odds being offered, the sum will be greater than 100%.

Basically, is someone has a true 50% chance of winning, the payout if she wins will be as if she had around a 60% chance, which is how the book makes its money.

In this case, +140 odds implies about a 58% chance of winning, which includes a vigorish. The true chance would be less than that.

+140 is less than 50%. It's 7/5

You're right, I was thinking -140.

So the implied chance is about 42% ignoring the vig, and something less than that when taking the vig into account. In any case, the point is that she's not a heavy favorite.

She is if the next person in line is +650....

Let's make believe this is a horse race. Clinton is the morning line favorite of 7/5 meaning a $2 wager would return $4.80 if she wins. The next closest horse in terms of odds is Jeb Bush at 13/2 meaning a $2 wager would return $15. In horse racing parlance, she is the very definition of a heavy favorite. Everybody else is a long shot on the morning line.

Obviously, a lot will change between now and then, but just using Vegas as a guide, Clinton IS a heavy favorite to win this thing if we compare her to all the other candidates.

 

[RCon]

Holy ####, some terrible fishing going on in here We're still 18 months out. Pace yourselves boys.

My fishing here actually has a point, which is this: bringing up the Iraq war is a non-starter for the GOP, which means it's a non-issue for Dems whose overriding interest is not letting the party responsible for fiascoes like the Iraq war return to the White House.

I think if Rand Paul were to become the GOP nominee, he could use the argument. I agree that the rest of them are too hawkish to mention anything.

Is that before or after he has a hissy fit?

Obviously during.

 

[RCon]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

For a bet that's 18 months out, they don't really need much vig. The fact that both the winners and losers of the bet are giving them an interest free loan for 18 months allows them to knock the vig lower.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

Wouldnt adjusting for the vig compute to less of a real chance than the what odds are?

No, if you add up all the implied percentages based on the odds being offered, the sum will be greater than 100%.

Basically, is someone has a true 50% chance of winning, the payout if she wins will be as if she had around a 60% chance, which is how the book makes its money.

In this case, +140 odds implies about a 58% chance of winning, which includes a vigorish. The true chance would be less than that.

+140 is less than 50%. It's 7/5

You're right, I was thinking -140.

So the implied chance is about 42% ignoring the vig, and something less than that when taking the vig into account. In any case, the point is that she's not a heavy favorite.

She is if the next person in line is +650....

Let's make believe this is a horse race. Clinton is the morning line favorite of 7/5 meaning a $2 wager would return $4.80 if she wins. The next closest horse in terms of odds is Jeb Bush at 13/2 meaning a $2 wager would return $15. In horse racing parlance, she is the very definition of a heavy favorite. Everybody else is a long shot on the morning line.

Obviously, a lot will change between now and then, but just using Vegas as a guide, Clinton IS a heavy favorite to win this thing if we compare her to all the other candidates.

She's a heavy favorite over any other particular candidate, but not over the field.

 

[dhockster]

Regarding tipgate, all I know is Kerry ordered Swiss cheese on his cheesesteak when he was campaigning in '04. Not only should he not have won the election because of that, he should of been kicked out of the country.

 

[tonydead]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

Wouldnt adjusting for the vig compute to less of a real chance than the what odds are?

No, if you add up all the implied percentages based on the odds being offered, the sum will be greater than 100%.

Basically, is someone has a true 50% chance of winning, the payout if she wins will be as if she had around a 60% chance, which is how the book makes its money.

In this case, +140 odds implies about a 58% chance of winning, which includes a vigorish. The true chance would be less than that.

+140 is less than 50%. It's 7/5

You're right, I was thinking -140.

So the implied chance is about 42% ignoring the vig, and something less than that when taking the vig into account. In any case, the point is that she's not a heavy favorite.

She is if the next person in line is +650....

Let's make believe this is a horse race. Clinton is the morning line favorite of 7/5 meaning a $2 wager would return $4.80 if she wins. The next closest horse in terms of odds is Jeb Bush at 13/2 meaning a $2 wager would return $15. In horse racing parlance, she is the very definition of a heavy favorite. Everybody else is a long shot on the morning line.

Obviously, a lot will change between now and then, but just using Vegas as a guide, Clinton IS a heavy favorite to win this thing if we compare her to all the other candidates.

She's a heavy favorite over any other particular candidate, but not over the field.

This differs from horse racing with the fact that when horses drop out, or don't meet the quarter mile mark, those bets get transferred to someone else who's still in the race. If she's neck and neck with the field right now, it's likely she's going to be a heavy favorite towards the end unless she pulls up lame.

 

[rockaction]

Regarding tipgate, all I know is Kerry ordered Swiss cheese on his cheesesteak when he was campaigning in '04. Not only should he not have won the election because of that, he should of been kicked out of the country.

I know people make fun of the "news" quality of these photo-ops and articles, but there are few things better in politics than watching them go horribly awry. This one was especially priceless. What a maroon!

http://www.philly.com/philly/food/restaurants/Photo_oop_Kerry_eats_a_cheesesteak_hoagie__with_Swiss.html

Pic: latest

 

[Chadstroma]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

 

[timschochet]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

Can you expand on this? I hear it all the time- from conservatives and independents alike (not necessarily liberals)- but when I ask why, the answers are vague. What specific differences in policy or effectiveness will she bring that will, for you, be an improvement on Obama?

 

[shadrap]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

Can you expand on this? I hear it all the time- from conservatives and independents alike (not necessarily liberals)- but when I ask why, the answers are vague. What specific differences in policy or effectiveness will she bring that will, for you, be an improvement on Obama?

For me, nothing. I put the community organizer & Hillary in the same category. Power & party comes 1st, America is an afterthought.

 

[Sand]

Clinton is +140 to win the presidency. Next up is Jeb Bush at +650. These are the Vegas Lines, which is akin to truth serum. You can keep telling yourself that people don't want to vote for her all you want, but right now, she is the heavy chalk to win this thing. Sorry.

There's a bunch of vigorish built into those odds. Adjusting for that, I think Clinton is around 50%.

50% to win the presidency? That can't be right. Maybe you read it as -140?

She's not polling spectacularly in the 15 competitive states. Obviously all this is ridiculously early.

 

[rct]

Regarding tipgate, all I know is Kerry ordered Swiss cheese on his cheesesteak when he was campaigning in '04. Not only should he not have won the election because of that, he should of been kicked out of the country.

I know people make fun of the "news" quality of these photo-ops and articles, but there are few things better in politics than watching them go horribly awry. This one was especially priceless. What a maroon!

http://www.philly.com/philly/food/restaurants/Photo_oop_Kerry_eats_a_cheesesteak_hoagie__with_Swiss.html

Pic: latest

It could have been worse, he might have done something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19ZxJVnM5Gs

 

[Rove!]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

She's been entrusted in powerful roles before and has been spectacularly unsuccessful...I don't think the Presidency would be a good place to audition for a breakthrough....

 

[MaxThreshold]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

She's been entrusted in powerful roles before and has been spectacularly unsuccessful...I don't think the Presidency would be a good place to audition for a breakthrough....

Yeah. Her track record is gloriously bad. I hope she get's the nomination because I don't think the election is going to go the way liberals think it is.

 

[timschochet]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

She's been entrusted in powerful roles before and has been spectacularly unsuccessful...I don't think the Presidency would be a good place to audition for a breakthrough....

I just completely disagree with this analysis. I think she was probably the best first lady we've had since Eleanor Roosevelt, a very good Senator, and a superb Secretary of State.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

She's been entrusted in powerful roles before and has been spectacularly unsuccessful...I don't think the Presidency would be a good place to audition for a breakthrough....

I just completely disagree with this analysis. I think she was probably the best first lady we've had since Eleanor Roosevelt, a very good Senator, and a superb Secretary of State.

I would ask if you're joking but i know you are really, really a true believer of Hillary.

She wasn't good in ANY of those roles, especially Secretary of State (reset button w/Russia? Benghazi? Hello!).

 

[shadrap]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

She's been entrusted in powerful roles before and has been spectacularly unsuccessful...I don't think the Presidency would be a good place to audition for a breakthrough....

I just completely disagree with this analysis. I think she was probably the best first lady we've had since Eleanor Roosevelt, a very good Senator, and a superb Secretary of State.

At least you don't mince words & have taken a stance.

 

[McGarnicle]

So there's a Hillary hate thread and a Hillary love thread, and Tim has exactly 93 posts in each.

 

[rct]

So there's a Hillary hate thread and a Hillary love thread, and Tim has exactly 93 posts in each.

Actually seems more like two Hillary hate threads if you count the political leanings of the posters. So funny because we always hear how overwhelming liberal this forum is.

 

[timschochet]

So there's a Hillary hate thread and a Hillary love thread, and Tim has exactly 93 posts in each.

93 was a good year.

 

[timschochet]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

She's been entrusted in powerful roles before and has been spectacularly unsuccessful...I don't think the Presidency would be a good place to audition for a breakthrough....

I just completely disagree with this analysis. I think she was probably the best first lady we've had since Eleanor Roosevelt, a very good Senator, and a superb Secretary of State.

I would ask if you're joking but i know you are really, really a true believer of Hillary.

She wasn't good in ANY of those roles, especially Secretary of State (reset button w/Russia? Benghazi? Hello!).

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

She's been entrusted in powerful roles before and has been spectacularly unsuccessful...I don't think the Presidency would be a good place to audition for a breakthrough....

I just completely disagree with this analysis. I think she was probably the best first lady we've had since Eleanor Roosevelt, a very good Senator, and a superb Secretary of State.

I would ask if you're joking but i know you are really, really a true believer of Hillary.

She wasn't good in ANY of those roles, especially Secretary of State (reset button w/Russia? Benghazi? Hello!).

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

What? That's silly. You don't have to have an answer to know a disaster when you see it. She's pretty much been awful at every job she's every been given to her.

the only reason she get's so much fawning adoration is because she was married to Bill - and THAT is who the people on the left really want. Not Hillary.

 

[timschochet]

Well, I would like Bill. I thought he was an excellent President. But I doubt those on the left would want him. He represents everything they don't like.

 

[Rove!]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

I am not worried at all. I think she would be an upgrade over Obama. She may not be my first choice (that will depend on who will make it out of the GOP cage deathmatch royal rumble) but I think she would be much better.

She's been entrusted in powerful roles before and has been spectacularly unsuccessful...I don't think the Presidency would be a good place to audition for a breakthrough....

I just completely disagree with this analysis. I think she was probably the best first lady we've had since Eleanor Roosevelt, a very good Senator, and a superb Secretary of State.

I would ask if you're joking but i know you are really, really a true believer of Hillary.

She wasn't good in ANY of those roles, especially Secretary of State (reset button w/Russia? Benghazi? Hello!).

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

Stevens was begging for more security and they kept reducing security..and then in perhaps the most high-profile embassy in her portfolio,she comes up with the "I didn't read the cables" story. Wow...then the little youtube fib about it fell apart much quicker than any of Bill's lies

She was handed an Arab spring and now it's ISISville....

 

[MaxThreshold]

Well, I would like Bill. I thought he was an excellent President. But I doubt those on the left would want him. He represents everything they don't like.

That's a bunch of bull. Everytime Bill pops his head out the door you guys on the left cream your pants. You can play this "Hillary is qualified for President" nonsense, but the reality is that you just want Bill back in the WH. It's always been about Bill. You think you can recapture the glory.

I got some bad news for you - Hillary is NOT going to get you that glory.

 

[tommyboy]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

 

[rct]

Stevens was begging for more security and they kept reducing security

Not true. Don't repeat lies like this found on the right wing blogosphere. It makes you look silly.

 

[tommyboy]

Bill Clinton Legacy: 1st guy to get caught poking a cigar in an intern in the oval office

1st guy to execute his wife with a samauri sword in the oval office on accident

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

News? More like some innuendo that doesn't match the facts.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

News? More like some innuendo that doesn't match the facts.

Oh..you mean like saying it was a youtube video that caused the riots and subsequent deaths of 4 Americans? THAT kind of innuendo?

 

[timschochet]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

Yes I do.

 

[rct]

Well, I would like Bill. I thought he was an excellent President. But I doubt those on the left would want him. He represents everything they don't like.

You can play this "Hillary is qualified for President" nonsense, but the reality is that you just want Bill back in the WH.

No, actually, we just want a democrat in the WH.

 

[McGarnicle]

So there's a Hillary hate thread and a Hillary love thread, and Tim has exactly 93 posts in each.

Actually seems more like two Hillary hate threads if you count the political leanings of the posters. So funny because we always hear how overwhelming liberal this forum is.

You don't have to be a right winger to question her integrity IMO.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Well, I would like Bill. I thought he was an excellent President. But I doubt those on the left would want him. He represents everything they don't like.

You can play this "Hillary is qualified for President" nonsense, but the reality is that you just want Bill back in the WH.

No, actually, we just want a democrat in the WH.

Then Hillary is your man as you really don't have a choice in the matter! Good luck with that.

 

[Sand]

She was handed an Arab spring

That's actually the biggest one. She wasn't anticipating this, wasn't prepared, and the whole administration (led by the State Department) reacted incredibly poorly. Complete fiasco - taking out Gaddafi was a huge mistake, as was allowing Mubarek to get driven out.

 

[tommyboy]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

Yes I do.

i don't have time tonight but i'll post it tomorrow. I have to find it anyhow, something i read a few weeks back.

later gator

 

[tommyboy]

Well, I would like Bill. I thought he was an excellent President. But I doubt those on the left would want him. He represents everything they don't like.

You can play this "Hillary is qualified for President" nonsense, but the reality is that you just want Bill back in the WH.

No, actually, we just want a democrat in the WH.

myself, i just want the right guy this time and this time its this guy;

http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/president-camacho-idiocracy.jpg

 

[timschochet]

I don't want a Democrat in the White House, not especially. I want a centrist. All of the Republicans are too far to the right. Hillary, like Obama before her, occupies the center. Right now she's parroting some of that Warren nonsense and that would concern me except I know she can't do anything about it even if she wanted to.

But what bothers me the most about this upcoming election, so much that it's starting to outweigh everything else, is that more and more I'm starting to fear that the Republicans are going to push us into a war with Iran. Hillary, who helped construct Obama's policy with Iran, will continue us on our current approach. For me, that's decisive.

 

[timschochet]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

Yes I do.

i don't have time tonight but i'll post it tomorrow. I have to find it anyhow, something i read a few weeks back.

later gator

I'll read anything you want to post. If it's compelling, I might even change my mind.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I don't want a Democrat in the White House, not especially. I want a centrist. All of the Republicans are too far to the right. Hillary, like Obama before her, occupies the center. Right now she's parroting some of that Warren nonsense and that would concern me except I know she can't do anything about it even if she wanted to.

But what bothers me the most about this upcoming election, so much that it's starting to outweigh everything else, is that more and more I'm starting to fear that the Republicans are going to push us into a war with Iran. Hillary, who helped construct Obama's policy with Iran, will continue us on our current approach. For me, that's decisive.

Is that what you call that disaster?

The problem with you Tim is you think anyone remotely right of center is "too far to the right". And when you talk about wanting a centrist what you really mean is you want: first a Democrat and second a Democrat left of center.

 

[tommyboy]

Hello indeed. Benghazi was a great tragedy, but Hillary had nothing to do with it, and her decisions with regard to Libya as a whole have been the correct ones. Same for Russia; it's very difficult to deal with Vladimir Putin, but if you have specific criticisms against Hillary you'd better also be very specific about what you would do as an alternative.

do you really believe the 1st sentence? because i have some news for you that will blow your mind

Yes I do.

i don't have time tonight but i'll post it tomorrow. I have to find it anyhow, something i read a few weeks back.

later gator

I'll read anything you want to post. If it's compelling, I might even change my mind.

from memory, it came from Blumenthals hacked emails that Guccifer uploaded. was an exhcnage between him and her i'll find it

 

[timschochet]

I don't want a Democrat in the White House, not especially. I want a centrist. All of the Republicans are too far to the right. Hillary, like Obama before her, occupies the center. Right now she's parroting some of that Warren nonsense and that would concern me except I know she can't do anything about it even if she wanted to.

But what bothers me the most about this upcoming election, so much that it's starting to outweigh everything else, is that more and more I'm starting to fear that the Republicans are going to push us into a war with Iran. Hillary, who helped construct Obama's policy with Iran, will continue us on our current approach. For me, that's decisive.

Is that what you call that disaster?

The problem with you Tim is you think anyone remotely right of center is "too far to the right". And when you talk about wanting a centrist what you really mean is you want: first a Democrat and second a Democrat left of center.

And the problem with you is that you make a lot of assumptions without knowing much. I voted for Romney last time around. If you nominate Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, I'll consider them (depending on what they say about Iran). But nobody else.