U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-13-2014, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Alaska
6,306 posts, read 4,177,137 times
Reputation: 3719

Advertisements

In the end, which will be soon, her age won't matter. The liberal rags are already starting to shred her into little pieces. Sadly, they didn't do this with Obama, who, had not one shred of experience that qualified him for the white house. Based on this fact, her own people are going to throw her out with the bath water long before folks ever get to vote for her. She's toast before she ever gets out of the gate and she knows it.

Huffington Post which is about as liberal as you can get:

Hillary Clinton's Assassination Gaffe: Bad Idea In January, Worse Idea Now Rachel Sklar Moonbat Extraordinaire and founding media editor of the post

Why Hillary Clinton Should Not Be The Democratic Nominee Eric Zuesse Progressive

'Dead broke' after White House; Clinton says she and Bill struggled for 'houses' Ken Thomas Just an all around good guy

This was a quick search.. If they are holding her accountable now, before she even declares, they are going to assassinate her character and record long before people ever get to the booth. Add to that the amount of people that despise Obama and everything he has done in the last 6 years and you get a woman that will be dealing with her philandering husband in her retirement.

Anyone care to make a bet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2014, 02:06 AM
 
Location: Washington State
15,372 posts, read 8,036,047 times
Reputation: 13172
I hope Hillary wins the Dem nomination as I don't believe she would win the election...she's just not very likable or smooth. She comes across as a mean old whiny B**ch.

I think she would be a better President than O-bummer but that's like saying Kim Jung Uhn is better than Kim Jung Il...not a very high bar to cross.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2014, 05:10 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 6,830,316 times
Reputation: 37337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
You are bragging about her loss to an upstart Senator from out of nowhere with the entire Democratic machine backing her? Seriously?
Obviously not - well, obvious to anyone with even rudimentary reading comprehension skills.

Now, try and follow along. The issue was what was claimed to be her 'lack of overall appeal' [claimed by nmnita]. Her performance - the single-best vote-garnering campaign in Presidential primary history - utterly refutes the notion that she lacks appeal. Your suggestion that that constitutes bragging about her 2008 loss suggests that you think the two are one and the same - or, perhaps you just prefer attacking strawmen of your own creation. Who knows? I don't spend too much time trying to parse out stupidity from deceit.

Just out of curiosity - do you have anything other than an emoticon-strewn rant against what you clueless think (or simply dishonestly insist on falsely portraying) what was said, rather than what was actually said?

Quote:
Frankly, I'm more astonished that you kook-aid drinkers are backing her instead of another democrat after the big fat knife she has left in your back. I can only assume you are pro big oil, anti-union and pro-off shoring or are just incredibly gullible and listen to her soundbites instead of her actions.

I'm gonna take those profits.....sucker.

How about having some convictions instead of blind party loyalty?
Just so you know, to claim that I should support 'another democrat' while accusing me of 'blind party loyalty' is rather moronic, for self-evident reasons.

I get it. You don't like Clinton. Too bad you can't articulate that in an even semi-intelligent fashion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2014, 10:18 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,444,743 times
Reputation: 7274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post

Now, try and follow along. The issue was what was claimed to be her 'lack of overall appeal' [claimed by nmnita]. Her performance - the single-best vote-garnering campaign in Presidential primary history - utterly refutes the notion that she lacks appeal. Your suggestion that that constitutes bragging about her 2008 loss suggests that you think the two are one and the same - or, perhaps you just prefer attacking strawmen of your own creation. Who knows? I don't spend too much time trying to parse out stupidity from deceit.
The reality was we were watching the next two presidents battling it out for the Democratic nomination of 2008. Some of us were sharp enough to know it, even then.

The only thing 2008 determined was the order of who became POTUS first, Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2014, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Florida
19,702 posts, read 8,231,578 times
Reputation: 16113
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Some might stay sharper but Hillary is not sharp.

Just like she seems to remember some kind of poverty that she never had as First Lady. In her mind, they were dead broke. She was clueless regarding the Middle East, she has zero concern that she got people killed in Benghazi and she never realized Boko Harem was terrorist.
Yeah. That idiot Obama made Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State instead of someone as sharp as you. What a jerk. How bizarre that he would appoint a Yale law grad who worked on the Watergate case, was a former first lady of the State of Arkansas and the US, and was subsequently elected US Senator of New York. Why give someone like that the job when someone who knows as much as you is available? I'm sure you have accomplished so much more than she.

If you really want to talk about people who are clueless about the Mideast? How about we start with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in regard to their clueless debacle of an Iraq War. Iraq would no doubt be better off had the idiotic neocons restrained their urge to control and manipulate the world. And McCain----what's with that warmonger? Can you imagine how many wars we would be involved in if McCain and Palin had been elected?

Why Hillary Clinton Was Right on Boko Haram | The Fiscal Times

Former Bush Appointee Debunks Boko Haram Claim Used To Smear Clinton | Blog | Media Matters for America
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2014, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,306 posts, read 79,490,574 times
Reputation: 38667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Yeah. That idiot Obama made Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State instead of someone as sharp as you. What a jerk. How bizarre that he would appoint a Yale law grad who worked on the Watergate case, was a former first lady of the State of Arkansas and the US, and was subsequently elected US Senator of New York. Why give someone like that the job when someone who knows as much as you is available? I'm sure you have accomplished so much more than she.

If you really want to talk about people who are clueless about the Mideast? How about we start with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in regard to their clueless debacle of an Iraq War. Iraq would no doubt be better off had the idiotic neocons restrained their urge to control and manipulate the world. And McCain----what's with that warmonger? Can you imagine how many wars we would be involved in if McCain and Palin had been elected?

Why Hillary Clinton Was Right on Boko Haram | The Fiscal Times

Former Bush Appointee Debunks Boko Haram Claim Used To Smear Clinton | Blog | Media Matters for America
You are depending on 2 very liberal blogs to make a point? Let's just say, maybe you need to spread your attempt at research a little deeper?

No one should think she is dumb, you can be an idiot and not be dumb and dumb and you can be really dumb and not be an idiot. She is not dumb.

First lady of AR, that doesn't mean Sh## the first lady does nothing, all it means is you are married to the Governor.

Elected to the Senate in NY: she was a carpet bagger in true form, but had name recognition, people felt sorry for her (she had just gone through the Monica scandal) and had a poor opponent in a liberal state:

She worked on Watergate? What does that have to do with anything?

Being pegged as Sec. of State: Obama had to give her something as a token for her helping him become President; the question is: what kind of a Sec of State was she? I am not sure the majority of the people would consider her at the top of the chart.

And one more thing: we are not debating Bush, Chaney, McCain, Rumsfeld, or Sarah Palin right now, we are discussing Hillary Clinton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2014, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Florida
19,702 posts, read 8,231,578 times
Reputation: 16113
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
You are depending on 2 very liberal blogs to make a point? Let's just say, maybe you need to spread your attempt at research a little deeper?

No one should think she is dumb, you can be an idiot and not be dumb and dumb and you can be really dumb and not be an idiot. She is not dumb.

First lady of AR, that doesn't mean Sh## the first lady does nothing, all it means is you are married to the Governor.

Elected to the Senate in NY: she was a carpet bagger in true form, but had name recognition, people felt sorry for her (she had just gone through the Monica scandal) and had a poor opponent in a liberal state:

She worked on Watergate? What does that have to do with anything?

Being pegged as Sec. of State: Obama had to give her something as a token for her helping him become President; the question is: what kind of a Sec of State was she? I am not sure the majority of the people would consider her at the top of the chart.

And one more thing: we are not debating Bush, Chaney, McCain, Rumsfeld, or Sarah Palin right now, we are discussing Hillary Clinton.
That's right--and she's a helluva lot smarter than the bozos posting on this forum! Slap your head all you want. More people respect her than not.

I'm not "depending on liberal blogs." The quote was from a Fox News interview, which you probably did not bother to read.

WALLACE: Secretary Clinton has come under fire this week, because of the fact that back in 2011 she rejected calls by the FBI and the intelligence community to designate Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. As a Bush-appointee to be ambassador, do you think that's fair, the criticism of Secretary Clinton?

CAMPBELL: No I don't think that's fair, and along with a good many other Nigerian experts, at the time, we all opposed designation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2014, 06:15 PM
 
Location: United States
5,888 posts, read 4,475,860 times
Reputation: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzy jeff View Post
I have a question,

Does anyone believe that a Republican can win with only 10 percent of the black vote, and 30 percent of the Hispanic or Asian vote, other then if there was a very low turnout amongst those groups?
With the GOP stance of "put Marines on the border" they have no chance of carrying the Latino vote.

And black people absolutely despise the GOP so no chance there.

Finally, women will support Hillary in 2016 so that puts a nail in the coffin for any chance of a republican president.

Outnumbered and outfoxed!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2014, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
19,362 posts, read 13,027,109 times
Reputation: 14070
Foxes have brains and good looks. Young foxes tend to respect the old foxes, too, and Hillary was a fox in her day, for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 01:24 AM
 
2,458 posts, read 2,275,274 times
Reputation: 1731
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
By percentage of electoral college votes (the method we use to elect the president, like it or not), Obama won in a landslide in both '08 and '12.
Nah, THIS is a landslide

1984


1988


I wonder if people were thinking back then that "Democrats had no chance" in 1992. Hopefully once Obama's term is over people will realize a liberal is not what this country needs right now- similar to the mindset after Bush's term was over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top