Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Clinton/Warren vs Palin/Bachman

 

This could be so much fun ... The comedic value would be priceless

 

No, we've had a circus for years now. There are no laughs left. It's time to elect a principled leader for President.

Posted

No, we've had a circus for years now. There are no laughs left. It's time to elect a principled leader for President.

 

There are more laughs left than principled leaders.

Posted (edited)

 

 

There are more laughs left than principled leaders.

Who are they on either side? Rand Paul was a real conservative now his message is starting to get diluted too as he wooes big money support. With him going down its just same old, same old from all of them. I couldnt tell you the difference between bachman, santorum, Perry, etc ... except that they all suck. Just spouting the same big money, special interest crap that's clearly not resonating with american voters.

Edited by Joe_the_6_pack
Posted (edited)

I'm waiting for her peeps to announce her "listening tour" of the nation. She flogged that dog through NYS a number of years ago and it paid off for her then, so she'll undoubtedly ramp it up again. She'll feel our pain in Oh so many small towns across this great land....

 

Boots and Saddles, Hill'ry!

Edited by Keukasmallies
Posted

Hillary is inevitable no longer

by Tom Keane

 

Hillary Clinton is no longer the inevitable next President of the United States, a summertime development that is not unexpected yet still surprises. Now the question is: Who will be the first to mount a challenge?

 

Two potential challengers (although both deny they’ll run) hail from right here: liberal firebrand and US senator Elizabeth Warren and our cool and collected governor, Deval Patrick. The interest they’ve attracted is evidence of Massachusetts’ continuing influence in national affairs.

 

What a difference six months has made. Back then, polls showed Clinton handily beating potential Republican rivals. A February 2014 McClatchy-Marist survey, for example, showed her with a 58-38 percent lead over former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a 58-37 edge over New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and a 58-38 advantage over Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Her numbers were so strong it seemed possible that no serious figure would contest her for the Democratic nomination.

More at the link

 

http://www.bostonglo...4jUL/story.html

Posted (edited)

 

well B-Man she will present a dilemma for you and other neocon kooks on the board....

 

Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton Is A 'War Hawk'

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Calling Hillary Rodham Clinton "a war hawk," Sen. Rand Paul says that if the former secretary of state seeks the presidency, some voters will worry that she will get the U.S. involved in another Mideast war.

Paul is a leading anti-interventionist in the GOP and is considering running for president. Last year he opposed President Barack Obama's call for military action in Syria.

In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Paul predicted a "transformational election" if the Democrats nominate "a war hawk like Hillary Clinton."

 

"I think that's what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there's gonna be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, 'You know what? We are tired of war,'" Paul said. "We're worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she's so gung-ho."

http://www.huffingto..._n_5704507.html

Edited by Joe_the_6_pack
Posted

well B-Man she will present a dilemma for you and other neocon kooks on the board....

 

 

So we can add marketing to the ridiculously long list of things about which you know nothing.

Posted

So we can add marketing to the ridiculously long list of things about which you know nothing.

 

 

What ?? you mean she's not a "war hawk" ?

 

 

Even funnier of course, is jstp's wildly false belief that conservatives would automatically support war.

 

not surprising really.

 

.

Posted (edited)

What ?? you mean she's not a "war hawk" ?

 

 

Even funnier of course, is jstp's wildly false belief that conservatives would automatically support war.

 

not surprising really.

 

.

 

It's particularly funny to me that a man who so desperately wants to see all Jews wiped off the planet tries to peddle the idea that the problem with conservatives if that they just love going to war.

Edited by LABillzFan
Posted

This would be an interesting primary challenger to Hillary...

 

http://hamptonroads....es-profile-iowa

 

Yeah, but what's his stance on Ferguson ?...the left needs to know.

 

 

 

 

 

Point of No Return: Democrats Want Definitive Signal from Hillary Clinton

 

.....In the past few months, Clinton has concluded a big book tour with dozens of news interviews; distanced herself (either in small or substantial ways) from her party’s currently unpopular president; and is now heading next month to Iowa, which traditionally holds the first presidential nominating contest.

 

 

 

What’s significant about all of this activity, Democrats say, is that the more she walks and talks like a presidential candidate – effectively freezing out any other Democrats even contemplating a run – the more difficult it becomes to turn around and say no.

 

 

 

“The longer it goes, the harder it becomes for her not to run, unless there is a significant reason she can't,”....

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...

Posted (edited)

There's a growing feeling that Hilly won't run in 2016. I'm starting to believe it.

 

Don't believe it. She's running. And we'll elect her.

 

Because as a country, if we're too stupid to realize electing a black man president for the sake of electing a black man president was a horrible idea, we'll undoubtedly rush to elect a woman simply because she's a woman.

Edited by LABillzFan
Posted

 

 

 

What ?? you mean she's not a "war hawk" ?

 

 

Even funnier of course, is jstp's wildly false belief that conservatives would automatically support war.

 

not surprising really.

 

.

True conservatives wouldn't, historically they were non-interventionist vs dems. But note I said "neocon" who's very creation was driven by an agenda to make the party rely heavily on foreign intervention and military might.

Posted

True conservatives wouldn't, historically they were non-interventionist vs dems. But note I said "neocon" who's very creation was driven by an agenda to make the party rely heavily on foreign intervention and military might.

 

Every time I see someone reference neocons, I wait for them next to start discussing the breathable comfort of Zubaz.

 

Get current, fool.

Posted

Finally ! !...........................(focus group results must have come back) :lol:

 

 

Hillary Clinton Breaks Silence On Ferguson

 

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=politics

 

 

 

 

Sure, what Hillary said was insipid. But it was always going to be. Which is why she should have said nothing

 

.

 

But her handlers were smart enough to not let her mention it until it was largely over and off the front page.

×
×
  • Create New...