Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Lizzie Warren to Ax Hillary?Follow

#27 Sep 17 2014 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I find it hard to believe that Clinton will let that pass her by

Right, and what with the foreign policy she ran as SecState going so well, she should win over a lot of new voters. Her real problem is that her coalition within the party only moves one way every day that passes. It gets smaller. She can do math. Still you may be right, I lose bets all the time. I still think she takes a hard look and decides her legacy is more impressive without losing another nomination fight.


Who do you think will step up to the plate?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#28 Sep 18 2014 at 6:56 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
She will not run, because it will cause an unnecessary rift in the party. If she wants to be President, and I think she does, it's better to stay on her side, get placed in a higher position to get her name known and then run for president. If she were to run, she would definitely give Hillary a scare and have a chance of winning. However, if she's a safe player, she'll stay by her side and walk into higher positions of authority.

I would definitely vote for Hillary Clinton over Warren, because I'm more of a centrist and while I think Warren's message is clear and beneficial to the US, I don't see her moving to the right on any issue. In my mind, they are the tea party for the left. No bueno.
#29 Sep 18 2014 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Who do you think will step up to the plate?
I want Sean Hannity to run.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Sep 18 2014 at 12:48 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Who do you think will step up to the plate?


I really don't have a strong opinion, and I don't think there's an obvious choice. That said the Democratic Party process tends to be more organic, and "he's the one we should have picked last time" doesn't really impact the decision all that much. Lots of seemingly minor players could make a big splash in the next year and catch fire.

In September 1990, Bill Clinton certainly had lower profile than Martin O'Malley, for example. The modern 24 hour news cycle has made campaign coverage a constant thing, so in some ways it's lengthened the election cycle for President, but with the ability to bombard people with news that sells, it can also shorten the investment needed to gain name recognition. We'll see who best works the media. Maybe that'll be Hillary after all, but her negatives are really really really entrenched at this point, it'd take quite a rehab to fix that.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#31 Sep 18 2014 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
At least being secretary of state is more foreign policy experience than "I can see Russia from my house!"
#32 Sep 19 2014 at 5:15 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
The only problem with that is that people are giving her more credit after that Russian "invasion", even though they are completely unrelated. Good 'ol Mitt was wanting us to focus on Russia and FOX news was ecstatic after Putin busted a move a few months ago, claiming that President Obama was wrong. Because, you know.... everyone is talking about Russia right now, with air strikes, beheadings and boots on ground... oh wait.....
#33 Sep 19 2014 at 6:03 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Putin must be miffed that ISIS is stealing all his PR.

edit: I think the filter is clogged.

Edited, Sep 19th 2014 2:04pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#34 Sep 19 2014 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
The Dems over on the Daily Kos are rooting for some governor named O'Malley

Yeah, bad at PR.


But he used to play in a band at the bar down the street!! Even when he was still mayor! He ROCKS!!
He's become as divisive in MD as Obama has in US. I actually felt bad for him when everyone booed him at the local 4th July parade. (but I live in a red county now[I call it PA Jr.]).






He looks sexy in a muscle shirt.

His Lieutenant Governor is worst Candidate for Governor that the Dems could had chosen out of the primary front runners. His campaign is being hurt by him being in charge of MD health care roll out.

Plus I wanted Md to be first state with an openly lesbian Governor. Instead I'm afraid we may end up with Hogan.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#35 Sep 19 2014 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
ElneClare wrote:

Plus I wanted Md to be first state with an openly **** Governor. Instead I'm afraid we may end up with Hogan.


If all goes according to plan, Maine's next gov will be our current Congressman Mike Michaud (D-gay)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#36 Sep 19 2014 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
S e x y and L e s b i a n are censored? Really it's like trying to talk about using natural method of feeding a baby with ones own milk producing organs.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#37 Sep 19 2014 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


If all goes according to plan, Maine's next gov will be our current Congressman Mike Michaud


Gay, and yet soooo boring. Nice guy, surprisingly down to earth and unschemey for a politician, but ****, I'd rather watch someone murder kittens than listen to him talk. I get it, they closed the mill, your town is a ******** now.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Sep 19 2014 at 5:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Catwho wrote:
At least being secretary of state is more foreign policy experience than "I can see Russia from my house!"


In Clinton's case though, that experience is bad. A cushy high profile position that was supposed to set her up for an easy presidential bid has likely sunk her career due to a combination of bad luck, bad choices, and possibly even a bit of sabotage from Obama (whether you attribute his poor choices to incompetence or to intentional action it still kinda screwed Clinton up).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Sep 19 2014 at 10:16 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Yeah, Obama totally orchestrated Benghazi to give Hillary bad press.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 Sep 20 2014 at 5:59 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I'm not saying that she done a great a job, but Republicans are acting as if it were Hillary's job to make world peace in 4 years. "OMG, look Putin is still behaving the same, Hillary's "reset" was a complete failure!!!"
#41 Sep 20 2014 at 9:23 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not saying that she done a great a job, but Republicans are acting as if it were Hillary's job to make world peace in 4 years. "OMG, look Putin is still behaving the same, Hillary's "reset" was a complete failure!!!"


I feel like I am experiencing deja vu... was "reset policy" not a failure?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#42 Sep 22 2014 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Yeah, Obama totally orchestrated Benghazi to give Hillary bad press.


Did he? I don't think so. Why do you think that? You're one of those nutty conspiracy theorists, aren't you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Sep 22 2014 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not saying that she done a great a job...


This is the point at which we can stop the discussion. Why promote someone who didn't do a great job?

And btw, there's a massive range in between "didn't do a great job" and "failed to create world peace in 4 years". How about instead of leaping to the absurd straw man, we look at that range and base our evaluation on that? Yeah, crazy thought, I know!

In Clinton's case though, it was not just about her poor performance (honestly, just mediocre, but she was unfortunate enough to have things go wrong during her watch which made this more obvious than it might otherwise have been). It was about her response to her poor performance. She basically sat in front of a congressional committee hearing and testified that she didn't understand what the job of Secretary of State (the one she held) entailed, and didn't actually care (technically thought that it didn't matter). Her breakdown, captured on camera for the world to see, is more or less gold for any political enemy. Her angry insistence that it didn't matter why we were attacked in Benghazi speaks volumes about her mindset and how little she apparently cares about the rest of the "little people" whose lives her decisions affect.

Not a great advertisement if you want to become president. Hell. I can imagine an entire series of "what does it matter!?" political ads, designed to highlight all the different things which certainly do matter to us citizens, but might not to Clinton. That's the kind of mistake that is nearly impossible to come back from.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Sep 22 2014 at 9:34 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
This is the point at which we can stop the discussion. Why promote someone who didn't do a great job?
I didn't say that she didn't do a good job either. That was kind of the point. I don't know the appropriate metrics to fairly say one way or the other.

Gbaji wrote:
And btw, there's a massive range in between "didn't do a great job" and "failed to create world peace in 4 years". How about instead of leaping to the absurd straw man, we look at that range and base our evaluation on that? Yeah, crazy thought, I know
You should adhere to your own advice. Pundits and Politicians alike were saying that she had done a bad job because conflicts (i.e., Russia invading Ukraine) were still on going and her "reset" button with Russia didn't work.

Gbaji wrote:
Her angry insistence that it didn't matter why we were attacked in Benghazi speaks volumes about her mindset and how little she apparently cares about the rest of the "little people" whose lives her decisions affect.
Actually, it shows that if your concern is security, then maybe we should focus on the security aspects and focus on the plan to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again as opposed to a video. The entire Benghazi scenario demonstrated that Republicans cared more about elections than lives.

Gbaji wrote:
Not a great advertisement if you want to become president. Hell. I can imagine an entire series of "what does it matter!?" political ads, designed to highlight all the different things which certainly do matter to us citizens, but might not to Clinton. That's the kind of mistake that is nearly impossible to come back from.

Well, there will always be ignorant people. I would just respond with ads that include the sentence before and after that statement. It's actually sad that we're at the point of winning votes off of stupid people.
#45 Sep 24 2014 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
Hillary will probably win big over whoever the Republicans nominate after spending the next 1.5 years trying to out "conservative!" each other before spending 6 months trying to pull to the middle so they can win the general election.

Unless Warren, or someone else, pulls an Obama. Its not outside the realm of possibility that a Republican can pull an Obama, but their nomination process alienates way too many people for that to, probably, become a reality.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#46 Sep 25 2014 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
s not outside the realm of possibility that a Republican can pull an Obama,

Yes it is. Demographically and structurally, this is a group of people who are terrified of everything, all the time, most particularly terrified of novelty. Goldwater was the last *very slight* deviation from "it's his turn" that they've taken, and we know how that turned out.

It'll be whichever white guy's turn it is this time.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#47 Sep 25 2014 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Its not outside the realm of possibility that a Republican can pull an Obama

Republicans have a different primary delegate system than Democrats. The way Obama "pulled an Obama" (running up big delegate counts in smaller caucus states then running close enough to Clinton to prevent her from pulling a large lead in big states) just isn't available in the Republican system. The Republican system is mainly built around trying to lock down a nominee as soon as possible. They played with it a little after McCain ("We would have won with Romney if only he had a chance!") then disliked the results with Romney ("Romney would have won if he wasn't so beaten by the longer primary!"). They'll never go to the sort of system that allowed Obama to overtake Clinton and no Democrat is going to now overlook the states Obama used to win like Clinton did. "Pulling an Obama" was a one-time event.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Sep 25 2014 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
The fact that people think that the best selection for leading the country would happen to be the charismatic wife of a president who has been clearly being paraded by Dems to snag up on women voters.. . just.. astounds me. Out of a population of 300-400 million. This is the best?
Yeah yeah yeah.. I guess I'm naive for not realizing and accepting how much of a joke this all was a long time agoSmiley: rolleyes

Edited, Sep 25th 2014 11:28am by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#49 Sep 25 2014 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
The fact that people think that the best selection for leading the country would happen to be...

I'm sure the best selections for leading the nation never even run for office. We pick from those who actually decide to run and subdivide them into who actually has a chance of winning vs wasting votes on someone unelectable while the guys we DON'T want to win gain votes.
Quote:
I guess I'm naive for not realizing and accepting how much of a joke this all was a long time ago

Well, thinking that elections naturally result in the best selection is a little naive.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Sep 25 2014 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
As I re-read my post.. I realized I'm pretty much trolling.. albeit subconsciously.. fascinating(not really)

Quote:
We pick from those who actually decide to run and subdivide them into who actually has a chance of winning vs wasting votes on someone unelectable while the guys we DON'T want to win gain votes.


I think my beef is that really the people are ultimately figureheads and demagogues carefully maneuvered into place my all of the back-room special interests that simply have an agenda to push and any actual good for the public that comes from that agenda is a mere bi-product of their accumulation of power.
Smiley: tinfoilhat
If thinking this is some kind of neurosis.. well I can accept that.. but so far I have yet to be convinced otherwise.. quite the contrary.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#51 Sep 25 2014 at 1:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
"Pulling an Obama" was a one-time event.

Nah, Democrats have a long history of going with an emotional choice who is less electable. Carter, McGovern, Adali ******* Stevenson. Exactly what Obama did, no of course not. A person who seemed to have no chance two years out and wasn't considered electable when nominated?

Almost guaranteed.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 231 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (231)