IDBillzFan Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Read this if you can, and if possible, read the comments, and then you'll understand why it's critical that our next president is Hillary. Together, let's make it a landslide.
B-Man Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Read this if you can, and if possible, read the comments, and then you'll understand why it's critical that our next president is Hillary. Together, let's make it a landslide. Sorry...........I made it to here and had to stop. People keep coming up to my office door asking why I am laughing hysterically. Like most in the Democratic Party, she is a centrist. Suzanna Danuta Walters is a Professor of Sociology and Director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University. She is the editor of the feminist journal Signs and the author of numerous books, most recently The Tolerance Trap: How God, Genes, and Good Intentions are Sabotaging Gay Equality
OCinBuffalo Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) Like most in the Democratic Party, she is a centrist. I laughed at that too. Once again we see the defiant delusions of the 29% of the US that still considers themselves Democrats. Unfortunately(or fortunately depending on perspective) the elected Ds that truly were centrist have all been culled from the herd. The idiot in this article likes to pretend that Obama addressed the pre-existing racial stife, rather than the truth: he incited it. In doing so, he has presided over utter disaster for the Democrats as a party. He required 1000s of centrist Demcrats to fall on their swords for Obamacare, or his continued presidency. Instead of stopping the bleeding there, he has presided over racial strife, riots, and chaos, as well as Islamic psychos running amok, and tried to blame everybody but himself and his weak, therefore failed, policies. It's embarassingly over for this president. He was never fit for the office, and now he's merely making a mockery of it. In fact, the Democrats have now become the "regional party" that they told us would be the fate of the Republicans back in 2008, if Rs didn't make sweeping ideological change. I warned them on this board that they were being stupid with this back then, and I also told them they would blow it, lose all they had gained, and end up right where they are today. All has come to pass. The only elected Ds that remain are those who are and represent the far left. As usual, this leftist tells just enough truth to appear credible: calling herself and hers leftists, but that's the only truth. The reality is that the socialist agenda in this country is F'ing done, Obama/Pelosi/Reid have seen fit to that. Thus, it doesn't matter who the Ds nominate: failure to recognize that the socialist agenda is done will merely lead to more defeats. They can yap about who is the most pure ideologically all they want. None of it matters. The only way they can win, and the only way they can get ANY of their ideas seriously considered, never mind passed, is capitulation/concession/huge tradeoffs. But without recognition/acceptance of the bolded above, they are doomed. Feminism alone is not enough to motivate anyone to do anything, on either side of the political spectrum, and certainly not something one builds a presidential candidacy upon. This is merely fact. What else needs to be said? Given the bolded above, this lady is obviously delusional. She still thinks it's 2006, and the D's don't have a 9-year track record of failing miserably since being given power in 2006. She still thinks they can bully and name-call people...because things like Global Warming, the Iraq War, Gay Marriage and Single Payer are still potent political weapons. Reality: all these are now political liabilities. IF this is the state of D thinking: defiant delusion? Laffer's prediction of a 45 state sweep in 2016...gains yet another small shred of credibility. At this point, it doesn't look like Hillary will win IA or NH. And if Bernie is he nominee? 45 states going to the Rs is the baseline, not the outlier. Edited January 14, 2016 by OCinBuffalo
B-Man Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 CHELSEA ATTACKS LEAVE DEMS IN DISBELIEF... Chelsea Clinton is stepping onto the 2016 battlefield against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a shift that some Democrats are interpreting as a sign of trouble for her mother’s presidential campaign. Making her first solo appearance on the stump, Chelsea Clinton late Tuesday ripped Sanders over his proposals on healthcare and college affordability, arguing the White House hopeful wants to “dismantle” ObamaCare and Medicare. Democrats have almost universally panned the attack, believing it to be ineffective and a misuse of her talents. They note that Chelsea Clinton has mostly been used to highlight Hillary Clinton’s softer side as a mother and grandmother and say she seemed uncomfortable shedding her first daughter persona for the role of attack dog. “The thing that tells you as much as anything about [the Clinton campaign’s] current state of mind is Chelsea going on the attack. It tells you everything you need to know,” said one Democratic strategist. “That this [challenge from Sanders] is real and they’ve got to be freaking out.”
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) Read this if you can, and if possible, read the comments, and then you'll understand why it's critical that our next president is Hillary. Together, let's make it a landslide. Here's where I'm divided.... 1- I think it would be great to have Hillary inherit Obama's disaster and the 16 years of democrat/progressive continuity of ideology. It would cement it as a completely failed experiment and strengthen the conservative/ libertarian counter movement. 2- my fear is the country cannot survive another 8 years of this and it needs to be fixed ASAP or we are doomed. Secondary fear is if a conservative wins the media will blame the impending disaster inherited from Obama on the conservative who takes over not the root cause of statist progressivism. 3- if Hillary gets 8 years she may effectively kill off any credible oppostion on the national level, forever and create an unofficial single national party. If she rapes the constitution like Obama has in 8 years the 2nd ammendment will not be recognizable, 15 million new (currently illegal aliens) will be given their citizenship to bolster democrat ranks. Many more millions of citizens will further be dependent on the government. Our defecit will have grown at exponential rates. We will not be able to recover from this scenario and the republicans will no longer be a viable national party and will never get enough delegates to win a preferential election ever. Lastly, Any criticism of her or her progressive policies no matter how justified and you are just a woman hating sexist pig. Edited January 14, 2016 by drinkTHEkoolaid
B-Man Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Selling her country out one deal at a time. Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State by Sarah Westwood Original Article
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Selling her country out one deal at a time. Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at Stateby Sarah Westwood Original Article But Cruz took cash out of his investment account on margin! Campaign finance scandal!
B-Man Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Hillary Clinton's national lead is slipping faster in 2016 than it did in 2008 http://wpo.st/3gs31 pic.twitter.com/GRMpIvUUba
B-Man Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Hillary Was Interviewed on Lifetime and It Was the Worst Thing Everby Katherine Timpf Original Article Last night, Hillary Clinton was interviewed on a Lifetime show called “The Conversation” by host Amanda de Cadenent and a bunch of “YouTube stars,” and I must admit that it wasn’t as bad as I expected it to be. It was much, much worse. Earlier this week, Politico touted the interview as something that would be “showing off a softer side” of Mrs. Clinton. In other words: It would be her campaign’s 9 billionth attempt at humanizing her, an attempt to get voters excited about Hillary the Gal and not just Hillary the Candidate. There’s just one problem: Hillary is Hillary is not an exciting person. I’m a young and energetic insomniac, but this “interview” had me wanting to pass out before 11 p.m., and had I not been repeatedly jarred awake by the urge to vomit in disgust, I’m sure that I would have done just that. More at the link............... Edited January 15, 2016 by B-Man
GaryPinC Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Went and saw the Benghazi movie, "13 hours" yesterday. Good movie, Obviously a Black Hawk Down, American Sniper type of movie. Definitely stayed apolitical but Bay did a great job of indirectly highlighting that no air support was ever given and that there was a drone monitoring most of the proceedings. Definitely makes one wonder who was watching and why the non decision for air support? Really a shame the administration botched the situation both before and after the attack. Obama, Hillary & co. casting it as a protest gone wrong was just shameful.
Nanker Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 Went and saw the Benghazi movie, "13 hours" yesterday. Good movie, Obviously a Black Hawk Down, American Sniper type of movie. Definitely stayed apolitical but Bay did a great job of indirectly highlighting that no air support was ever given and that there was a drone monitoring most of the proceedings. Definitely makes one wonder who was watching and why the non decision for air support? Really a shame the administration botched the situation both before and after the attack. Obama, Hillary & co. casting it as a protest gone wrong was just shameful. They weren't watching the live feed. They were trolling the Internet to find a "Disgusting video" they could blame the "spontaneous" attack on.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Hilarious. I literally spit beer out. Well done Edited January 16, 2016 by drinkTHEkoolaid
Nanker Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/us/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-not-attacking-bernie-sanders-earlier-her-allies-say.html?_r=0 She now regrets not going all Clinton on Bern earlier. She must have not thought much of him and too much of herself being the entitled presumptive candidate to bother to give him the regular foe-of-a-Clinton treatment. Her people probably poo-pooed Bernie's candidacy never thinking that he could be a serious challenger. I hope she does take the gloves off and go after him, because it'll be a delight to see her twisting into new contorted forms to try to appeal more to the far left while leaving what few centrist dems remaining to gulp in disbelief. I hope she gets completely desperate and that it shows. She's an elitist phony of the first order of magnitude.
keepthefaith Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Really a shame the administration botched the situation both before and after the attack. Obama, Hillary & co. casting it as a protest gone wrong was just shameful. Yes but it was for the greater good. The truth could have handed the election to Romney which would have ended Obama's reign and eliminated Hillary from a 2016 run. The country would have fallen into the hands of the evil racist Republicans. It was Obama and Clinton's duty to prevent that from happening.
GaryPinC Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 They weren't watching the live feed. They were trolling the Internet to find a "Disgusting video" they could blame the "spontaneous" attack on. C'mon now, they just opened another window and did both. Yes but it was for the greater good. The truth could have handed the election to Romney which would have ended Obama's reign and eliminated Hillary from a 2016 run. The country would have fallen into the hands of the evil racist Republicans. It was Obama and Clinton's duty to prevent that from happening. Yes, and it set Trump up nicely too!
Nanker Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) C'mon now, they just opened another window and did both. Yes, and it set Trump up nicely too! Probably. It did indeed. They easily rolled the gentleman businessman with the help of the media, and now they're facing a ruthless tiger who's a progressive much like themselves, but with no scruples about calling a spade a spade and going for the jugular. This guy spits in the Republican establishment's face and would never take their advice like Romney did to back off the attacks and play nice with his opponents. He knows that's bull **** advice that has never gotten him ahead. He's doing it his way. The libs and progs have excelled at controlling the dialogue and no-holds-barred twisting the narrative to suit their cause - which invariably distills to "get elected and then reelected". Well guess what? Trump is a master at that too which is a real change on the Republican side of things. No one is used to seeing that in a Republican candidate. He's unapologetic for his brash stands which is unheard of in a party where farting in church is grounds to be run out of office. I fear there's a lion in the tent who cares about as little for the Constitution as the Dems do. Edited January 17, 2016 by Nanker
B-Man Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/us/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-not-attacking-bernie-sanders-earlier-her-allies-say.html?_r=0 She now regrets not going all Clinton on Bern earlier. She must have not thought much of him and too much of herself being the entitled presumptive candidate to bother to give him the regular foe-of-a-Clinton treatment. Her people probably poo-pooed Bernie's candidacy never thinking that he could be a serious challenger. I hope she does take the gloves off and go after him, because it'll be a delight to see her twisting into new contorted forms to try to appeal more to the far left while leaving what few centrist dems remaining to gulp in disbelief. I hope she gets completely desperate and that it shows. She's an elitist phony of the first order of magnitude. "It's a sad commentary that Hilary Clinton's campaign sees her mistake as a failure to 'undercut' Bernie Sanders..." "... rather than a failure to realize just how desperately many people are seeking what Bernie has to offer. She had a lot of time to get out in front of that parade." The second-highest rated comment — with 1230 recommendations — at a NYT article
Doc Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 More like "rather a failure to realize just how much people just don't really like her. So much so that they'd rather nominate an unqualified community organizer or an admitted Socialist."
keepthefaith Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 More like "rather a failure to realize just how much people just don't really like her. So much so that they'd rather nominate an unqualified community organizer or an admitted Socialist." Yes but sadly the fine American public elected the community organizer twice.
Recommended Posts