That might work out well for her. The last guy that got elected and behaved liked that has pretty much been deified by the Right.Smack Tripper said:The most qualified person to ever run for President, apart from the easily confused thing
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320900/Newly-released-email-shows-aide-Huma-Abedin-warned-colleagues-Hillary-confused-needed-hand-holding-calls-foreign-leaders.html
I helped delay it 8 years by voting Obama in the '08 primaries,So what took us so long?
I don't care that she is a woman. I care that as a human being she is an awful, awful person that would eat your child if she thought it meant the presidency.Let's put aside the dislike for Hillary, and the like for Hillary, and take a moment to reflect on the fact that for the first time in our nation's history a woman is going to be nominated for President by one of the two major parties.
It didn't have to be the Democrats. Republicans would have gladly put up a Margaret Thatcher years ago had she been American. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, even Pakistan, a Muslim nation, had a woman in charge before we did. So what took us so long?
I think it's pretty simple....male chauvinism. Not all that complicated is it?Let's put aside the dislike for Hillary, and the like for Hillary, and take a moment to reflect on the fact that for the first time in our nation's history a woman is going to be nominated for President by one of the two major parties.
It didn't have to be the Democrats. Republicans would have gladly put up a Margaret Thatcher years ago had she been American. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, even Pakistan, a Muslim nation, had a woman in charge before we did. So what took us so long?
I would rather elect Miss Chastaine from Romper Room, because she wouldn't kill me if I disagreed with her or stood in her way of being president.Let's put aside the dislike for Hillary, and the like for Hillary, and take a moment to reflect on the fact that for the first time in our nation's history a woman is going to be nominated for President by one of the two major parties.
It didn't have to be the Democrats. Republicans would have gladly put up a Margaret Thatcher years ago had she been American. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, even Pakistan, a Muslim nation, had a woman in charge before we did. So what took us so long?
That doesn't mean two ####s, Tim. She is a horrible person. Let's elect a horrible person too the White House because she is a woman?Let's put aside the dislike for Hillary, and the like for Hillary, and take a moment to reflect on the fact that for the first time in our nation's history a woman is going to be nominated for President by one of the two major parties.
It didn't have to be the Democrats. Republicans would have gladly put up a Margaret Thatcher years ago had she been American. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, even Pakistan, a Muslim nation, had a woman in charge before we did. So what took us so long?
yep.. same reason Sarah Palin would never have been accepted.. Hillary is a shady, secretive, corrupt person.. tons of better women out there..That doesn't mean two ####s, Tim. She is a horrible person. Let's elect a horrible person too the White House because she is a woman?
That's what her whole campaign is, can't run on her record because it's abysmal so it's all about making history.That doesn't mean two ####s, Tim. She is a horrible person. Let's elect a horrible person too the White House because she is a woman?
Not going to happen, at least this yearLet's put aside the dislike for Hillary, and the like for Hillary, and take a moment to reflect on the fact that for the first time in our nation's history a woman is going to be nominated for President by one of the two major parties.
It didn't have to be the Democrats. Republicans would have gladly put up a Margaret Thatcher years ago had she been American. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, even Pakistan, a Muslim nation, had a woman in charge before we did. So what took us so long?
Reminds me of Frank UnderwoodI don't care that she is a woman. I care that as a human being she is an awful, awful person that would eat your child if she thought it meant the presidency.
Hillary makes Frank Underwood look like Mother Theresa.Reminds me of Frank UnderwoodI don't care that she is a woman. I care that as a human being she is an awful, awful person that would eat your child if she thought it meant the presidency.
Bueno, I think you missed my point. Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of Hillary. But even if I did not, my point was about the historical moment, and not the character of the person.That doesn't mean two ####s, Tim. She is a horrible person. Let's elect a horrible person too the White House because she is a woman?
Bueno, I think you missed my point. Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of Hillary. But even if I did not, my point was about the historical moment, and not the character of the person.
Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder who sold his slaves south in order to pay for his expensive tastes, knowing all the while he was selling them into brutality. That was an evil act, and he did it so often it is hard not to see him as an evil man. Yet he is also the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Should we tear up our monuments to him? If Hillary is elected President, she will always be regarded as the first woman President, and that is an achievement to be honored, whatever you might think of her.
It is a huge accomplishment for women. I said the same thing to my wife earlier. Her reply was, "if she was a dude, there's no chance she'd be on that stage."Let's put aside the dislike for Hillary, and the like for Hillary, and take a moment to reflect on the fact that for the first time in our nation's history a woman is going to be nominated for President by one of the two major parties.
It didn't have to be the Democrats. Republicans would have gladly put up a Margaret Thatcher years ago had she been American. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, even Pakistan, a Muslim nation, had a woman in charge before we did. So what took us so long?
Only scratching the surface, but a very good illustration of the DNC money laundering scheme to support Hillary.Rolling Stone tackles the Hillary Victory Fund here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814
Piss poor analogy - slavery was not considered evil then. You of all people ought to have an appreciation for how morals change with history.Bueno, I think you missed my point. Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of Hillary. But even if I did not, my point was about the historical moment, and not the character of the person.
Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder who sold his slaves south in order to pay for his expensive tastes, knowing all the while he was selling them into brutality. That was an evil act, and he did it so often it is hard not to see him as an evil man. Yet he is also the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Should we tear down our monuments to him? If Hillary is elected President, she will always be regarded as the first woman President, and that is an achievement to be honored, whatever you might think of her.
Isn't Rolling Stone part of the VRWC?Only scratching the surface, but a very good illustration of the DNC money laundering scheme to support Hillary.
1972 Democratic Convention. The convention itself was a shambles, and then a few days later it was revealed that McGovern's VP (Thomas Eagleton) had previously been hospitalized 3 times for mental breakdowns. Eagleton promptly withdrew from the ticket, but it was too late. McGovern's poll numbers had plummeted.Has there ever been a negative bounce from a national convention?
You Cannot Be Serious. [/McEnroe]Piss poor analogy - slavery was not considered evil then.
Please read it again. No slavery was not considered evil by all (though certainly by some, including Thomas Jefferson) but selling slaves south, if you were a slaveowner in Virginia, WAS considered a moral wrong.Piss poor analogy - slavery was not considered evil then. You of all people ought to have an appreciation for how morals change with history.
I think this is through the roof at the moment. Both candidates are unlikable. But I see Trump getting a bigger boost here.Interesting stuff. I would have added a 4th: Trump's ability to attract people who normally don't vote to go to the polls.
Glad you added "at the moment", because we never know if these people will actually vote in November. Keep in mind that Trump, despite his assertions to the contrary, has yet to attract new voters. The people who voted for him the primaries were almost all Republicans who had voted for Romney 4 years earlier.I think this is through the roof at the moment. Both candidates are unlikable. But I see Trump getting a bigger boost here.
Im spending the week at a family reunion in Maryland this week. A historically D state and there are plenty of newly registered R who will vote Trump in Nov. This state might not turn, but its a sign...Glad you added "at the moment", because we never know if these people will actually vote in November. Keep in mind that Trump, despite his assertions to the contrary, has yet to attract new voters. The people who voted for him the primaries were almost all Republicans who had voted for Romney 4 years earlier.
What are we going to win? Do we get a trophy and hats and t-shirts like the Super Bowl winners?Republican Convention: Talk about uniting as Americans and start winning again.
Democratic Convention: Pander to every identity group possible, and blame all the world's problems on whites and cops.
Among the Trump supporters I know, it is a transfer of hatred from Obama to Hillary. I suspect the common theme is hate.I hate that Hill is going to win. Dumpster fire is the worst person the R ticket could have asked for.
edit![]()
That's some delusional #### right there. Winning again? Blame the world's problems on whites and cops? Sorry you're so angry. Trump won't help you there.Republican Convention: Talk about uniting as Americans and start winning again.
Democratic Convention: Pander to every identity group possible, and blame all the world's problems on whites and cops.
These are legit but I would add something else...what will be going on the week prior to the election...right now this election is like a movie with twists and turns...what is going on the the week before will have a big impact...examples...another email dump hurting either candidate...a terrorist attack on American soil...more attacks on the police...a police brutality story...an illegal immigrant killing someone...Trump getting caught on a live Mic saying something foolish...more revelations about another Clinton scandal...unlike any other election I see this one trashing the old rules and being a more day-to-day/week-to-week battle based on current events...also, current events have never been so easy to obtain and the days of the old-guard media dictating what the general public knows are long gone...this election could turn into a game of musical chairs where the last scandal/current event prior to the election could influence enough voters to swing it to one candidate...I just listened to David Pflouffe, Obama's former campaign manager, on MSNBC. He said there are 3 keys to this election:
1. Hillary's ability to get her base to vote vs. Trump's ability to do the same.
2. Trump's ability to peel away blue collar Democrats
3. Hillary's ability to peel away Republican women (especially suburban women who voted for Romney and McCain).
Interesting stuff. I would have added a 4th: Trump's ability to attract people who normally don't vote to go to the polls.
What says love more than serial adultery...The whole time Bill was talking about their courtship, I was thinking "At what point did you decide to cheat on her?"
why put corruption in quotes?Hillary should be nervous.The anger is insurmountable. Her 40 year record of service isn't resonating. It's coming down to Obama hatred, emails, and "corruption". Donald played it well. Apparently you can invent childish nicknames for your opponents, and that works in 2016. Sad.
Oh bs Tim. Look at how many more people voted in the Republican primaries compared to 4 years ago. The numbers don't lie. You are in fantasyland on that one.timschochet said:Glad you added "at the moment", because we never know if these people will actually vote in November. Keep in mind that Trump, despite his assertions to the contrary, has yet to attract new voters. The people who voted for him the primaries were almost all Republicans who had voted for Romney 4 years earlier.
We (as in We the People) aren't going to win anything.MattFancy said:What are we going to win? Do we get a trophy and hats and t-shirts like the Super Bowl winners?
We already discussed this about 500 pages ago.Oh bs Tim. Look at how many more people voted in the Republican primaries compared to 4 years ago. The numbers don't lie. You are in fantasyland on that one.
15) Trump then promised to change that: “We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you’re going to say, ‘Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible.’ And I'm going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again.’ You're gonna say, ‘Please.’ I said, ‘Nope, nope. We're gonna keep winning.’We (as in We the People) aren't going to win anything.
Do you mean like the 16.8 million votes for Hillary versus the 14.0 million for Trump?Oh bs Tim. Look at how many more people voted in the Republican primaries compared to 4 years ago. The numbers don't lie. You are in fantasyland on that one.
Please pay attention. This statement by Tim was what I was referring to:bueno:
We already discussed this about 500 pages ago.
Primary turnout means nothing for the general election
The statement was about who voted in the primaries, not about who will vote in the general.The people who voted for him the primaries were almost all Republicans who had voted for Romney 4 years earlier.