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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2012, 02:36 PM
 
Location: North America
18,504 posts, read 11,737,180 times
Reputation: 7701

Advertisements

I dunno, she looks like she's pretty much over the political thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2012, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,633 posts, read 79,980,595 times
Reputation: 39008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli View Post
Do you have anything besides such a petulant, juvenile ad hominem as that?

Now, I'm sure you have this weird definition of any Democrat having the same bad moment (that every politician, including all nominees and all Presidents) as a disqualifying 'meltdown'. That's your problem.



Nonsense. You didn't just offer an opinion about what she wil do, you claimed to know what she is thinking. From your previous post:
"I do not think she has any interest in going through the primary process again."

By the way, I'm 43 years old. Are you capable of responding in a way that does not include petulant, juvenile insinuations that people who disagree with you are just young?
My oh my, it is ok for you tell through statements out but no one else is supposed to make comments. Is that what you are saying? Again, I ask you, where did you get the idea I know what she is thinking. I do take her at her word, she has said, more than once she is finished with politics. And no, I don't think she will run, but that isn't, in anyway saying I know what she is thinking. She has said she is thrugh with politics, looks like she is 105 years old, so does Bill right now and she will be just under 70. Plus, yes, her meltdowns were a little more than we normally see or hear. Put this altogether and I see her not running. does that mean she will not? Of course it doesn't. Wishing for something to happen and having it happen are 2 very different things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
16,495 posts, read 9,367,959 times
Reputation: 6230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
If the best you can come up with is Department of State - I will counter with people who have run actual states - like Sarah Palin.
Hillary cannot be a Sarah Palin.

Hillary doesnt know how to tuck tail and run when the going gets tough, and she doesn't know how to whine, dontcha know? All she knows how to do is work her fanny off.

If she does decide to run, I hope she runs with Liz Warren. We haven't had a good Warren in Washington since Earl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 04:04 PM
 
755 posts, read 614,908 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
My oh my, it is ok for you tell through statements out but no one else is supposed to make comments. Is that what you are saying? Again, I ask you, where did you get the idea I know what she is thinking. I do take her at her word, she has said, more than once she is finished with politics. And no, I don't think she will run, but that isn't, in anyway saying I know what she is thinking. She has said she is thrugh with politics, looks like she is 105 years old, so does Bill right now and she will be just under 70. Plus, yes, her meltdowns were a little more than we normally see or hear. Put this altogether and I see her not running. does that mean she will not? Of course it doesn't. Wishing for something to happen and having it happen are 2 very different things.
Where you said it. Period. I won't quote it again, because you're clearly determined to ignore what you've said.

Here's the problem -- you don't make any actual arguments. Your replies include declaratives like "WRONG!", as if the ability to use an exclamation point and the caps button strikes you as a cogent point. They also tend to include long strings of emoticons, another classic substitute for substance.

When you do strain yourself to actually approach something of substance, you pick and choose only that which supports the agenda you want to advance. You repeatedly note that Clinton has suggested she is done with electoral politics. Yet you blithely disregard that lots of politicians have claimed they would not run for President, and then did. A certain Governor of Texas was, in 2011, insisting that he absolutely would not run for President; by the end of the year he was running. A certain junior Senator from Illinois in 2005 said he would not run for President in 2008; he now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Further, you ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton occupies a position that is by law non-partisan, making it highly inappropriate to express any interest in running for President.

Your fixation on age is similarly nonsensical, considering that in the past several decades we've had several nominees of an age older than Hillary Clinton would be on Election Day 2016 (four times: in 2008, 1996, 1984 and 1980).

Tired? Of course she looks tired. She also looked tired in June 2008 when she folded her campaign, yet less than six months later she agreed to take one of the most demanding jobs in the world.

On the flip side, you completely ignore the factors suggesting that she may well run. There's the glaringly obvious fact that she wants to be President, demonstrated by the fact that, you know... she tried to become President in 2008. People who want to be President tend to run for President. More than once, even. There's the fact that she'll likely be well-rested long before the 2016 election cycle begins in earnest (you act as thought the concept of a rejuvenating sabbatical is a concept with which you are unfamiliar). There's the fact that she's a politician with tremendous drive, and really only one professional goal yet to attain. What do such people usually do?

As I have repeatedly said, I can see her running or not running. Your insistence that she won't, while using such shallow rationalizations, clearly suggests that you are merely shoehorning an eventuality for which you hope into whatever convenient facts you can dredge up, while dismissing everything that points in another direction.

No surprise. A lot of people can't separate their predictions from what they want to see happen. I've seen the exact same thing from Republicans over the years who insisted Romney would never be the nominee in 2012, or that McCain would not be in 2008. Why? They just didn't want those guys to be their nominees. They weren't actually looking at the evidence at hand. So it seems to be with you and Clinton.

At least you have a lot of company in this disconnect between where the evidence points and where your own wishes point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2012, 04:13 PM
 
6,797 posts, read 6,637,516 times
Reputation: 5416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli View Post
Where you said it. Period. I won't quote it again, because you're clearly determined to ignore what you've said.

Here's the problem -- you don't make any actual arguments. Your replies include declaratives like "WRONG!", as if the ability to use an exclamation point and the caps button strikes you as a cogent point. They also tend to include long strings of emoticons, another classic substitute for substance.

When you do strain yourself to actually approach something of substance, you pick and choose only that which supports the agenda you want to advance. You repeatedly note that Clinton has suggested she is done with electoral politics. Yet you blithely disregard that lots of politicians have claimed they would not run for President, and then did. A certain Governor of Texas was, in 2011, insisting that he absolutely would not run for President; by the end of the year he was running. A certain junior Senator from Illinois in 2005 said he would not run for President in 2008; he now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Further, you ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton occupies a position that is by law non-partisan, making it highly inappropriate to express any interest in running for President.

Your fixation on age is similarly nonsensical, considering that in the past several decades we've had several nominees of an age older than Hillary Clinton would be on Election Day 2016 (four times: in 2008, 1996, 1984 and 1980).

Tired? Of course she looks tired. She also looked tired in June 2008 when she folded her campaign, yet less than six months later she agreed to take one of the most demanding jobs in the world.

On the flip side, you completely ignore the factors suggesting that she may well run. There's the glaringly obvious fact that she wants to be President, demonstrated by the fact that, you know... she tried to become President in 2008. People who want to be President tend to run for President. More than once, even. There's the fact that she'll likely be well-rested long before the 2016 election cycle begins in earnest (you act as thought the concept of a rejuvenating sabbatical is a concept with which you are unfamiliar). There's the fact that she's a politician with tremendous drive, and really only one professional goal yet to attain. What do such people usually do?

As I have repeatedly said, I can see her running or not running. Your insistence that she won't, while using such shallow rationalizations, clearly suggests that you are merely shoehorning an eventuality for which you hope into whatever convenient facts you can dredge up, while dismissing everything that points in another direction.

No surprise. A lot of people can't separate their predictions from what they want to see happen. I've seen the exact same thing from Republicans over the years who insisted Romney would never be the nominee in 2012, or that McCain would not be in 2008. Why? They just didn't want those guys to be their nominees. They weren't actually looking at the evidence at hand. So it seems to be with you and Clinton.

At least you have a lot of company in this disconnect between where the evidence points and where your own wishes point.
I love your replies in this thread. You are completely calling out the stupidity and ignorance that the poster you are replying to has shown. +1 rep to you good sir.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2012, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Keosauqua, Iowa
8,883 posts, read 15,748,087 times
Reputation: 11463
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Hillary cannot be a Sarah Palin.
Why? Is she a hermie?

I could see Hillary running in 2016. She likes the limelight; she likes power. Bill likes being invited to the good parties.

But I'm not sure the DNC would get behind her. It would be her second run, and the Democrats like to run first-timers. Republicans generally don't look beyond the moment at hand when they select a nominee, but the Democrats would likely see in Hillary a candidate that would be in her mid-70s at the end of a second term. And while the party loves the Clintons it loves them more on the party's terms rather than the Clintons' terms.

I think she'll be in the mix in 2016, but I think it's more likely she'll support another candidate in hopes of securing another candidate post or possibly try to return to the legislature than make a serious run for president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2012, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,633 posts, read 79,980,595 times
Reputation: 39008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli View Post
Where you said it. Period. I won't quote it again, because you're clearly determined to ignore what you've said.

Here's the problem -- you don't make any actual arguments. Your replies include declaratives like "WRONG!", as if the ability to use an exclamation point and the caps button strikes you as a cogent point. They also tend to include long strings of emoticons, another classic substitute for substance.

When you do strain yourself to actually approach something of substance, you pick and choose only that which supports the agenda you want to advance. You repeatedly note that Clinton has suggested she is done with electoral politics. Yet you blithely disregard that lots of politicians have claimed they would not run for President, and then did. A certain Governor of Texas was, in 2011, insisting that he absolutely would not run for President; by the end of the year he was running. A certain junior Senator from Illinois in 2005 said he would not run for President in 2008; he now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Further, you ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton occupies a position that is by law non-partisan, making it highly inappropriate to express any interest in running for President.

Your fixation on age is similarly nonsensical, considering that in the past several decades we've had several nominees of an age older than Hillary Clinton would be on Election Day 2016 (four times: in 2008, 1996, 1984 and 1980).

Tired? Of course she looks tired. She also looked tired in June 2008 when she folded her campaign, yet less than six months later she agreed to take one of the most demanding jobs in the world.

On the flip side, you completely ignore the factors suggesting that she may well run. There's the glaringly obvious fact that she wants to be President, demonstrated by the fact that, you know... she tried to become President in 2008. People who want to be President tend to run for President. More than once, even. There's the fact that she'll likely be well-rested long before the 2016 election cycle begins in earnest (you act as thought the concept of a rejuvenating sabbatical is a concept with which you are unfamiliar). There's the fact that she's a politician with tremendous drive, and really only one professional goal yet to attain. What do such people usually do?

As I have repeatedly said, I can see her running or not running. Your insistence that she won't, while using such shallow rationalizations, clearly suggests that you are merely shoehorning an eventuality for which you hope into whatever convenient facts you can dredge up, while dismissing everything that points in another direction.

No surprise. A lot of people can't separate their predictions from what they want to see happen. I've seen the exact same thing from Republicans over the years who insisted Romney would never be the nominee in 2012, or that McCain would not be in 2008. Why? They just didn't want those guys to be their nominees. They weren't actually looking at the evidence at hand. So it seems to be with you and Clinton.

At least you have a lot of company in this disconnect between where the evidence points and where your own wishes point.
my views and opinions are just that, I certainly am not always rights,but I still have every reason to believe she will not run. Yes, people her age have run, but with the exception of Reagan, none have won...As for my wishes, I really don't care if she runs, I simply am basing my opinion on what she has said over and over: she is through with politics. No, she wouldn't be the first to change her mind.

Obviously we will just have to agree to disagree on this, no one knows at this time, I bet Hillary doesn't know. We can talk about it in 2 or more years, but we might as well just drop it now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2012, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,633 posts, read 79,980,595 times
Reputation: 39008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
I love your replies in this thread. You are completely calling out the stupidity and ignorance that the poster you are replying to has shown. +1 rep to you good sir.
thank you for the personal insult....I hope it makes you feel better. Of course young kids, still in highschool or barely out think insults will make them feel better. Could you,maybe learn to debate without attacking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2012, 03:16 PM
 
755 posts, read 614,908 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
my views and opinions are just that, I certainly am not always rights,but I still have every reason to believe she will not run. Yes, people her age have run, but with the exception of Reagan, none have won...As for my wishes, I really don't care if she runs, I simply am basing my opinion on what she has said over and over: she is through with politics. No, she wouldn't be the first to change her mind.

Obviously we will just have to agree to disagree on this, no one knows at this time, I bet Hillary doesn't know. We can talk about it in 2 or more years, but we might as well just drop it now.
No, you don't.

There are reasons for both her running and her not running, as I laid out above. Your claim that every reason indicates she won't run is demonstrably wrong, as it is obvious to anyone who looks at it with anyone resembling an open mind that there are both pros and cons to her running, as well as to her not running.

You're no more credible on this subject than you were when you were repeatedly claiming that Romney wouldn't get the nomination in 2012 here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/11044479-post24.html

And here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/11594445-post7.html

And here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/13034902-post8.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2012, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,633 posts, read 79,980,595 times
Reputation: 39008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli View Post
No, you don't.

There are reasons for both her running and her not running, as I laid out above. Your claim that every reason indicates she won't run is demonstrably wrong, as it is obvious to anyone who looks at it with anyone resembling an open mind that there are both pros and cons to her running, as well as to her not running.

You're no more credible on this subject than you were when you were repeatedly claiming that Romney wouldn't get the nomination in 2012 here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/11044479-post24.html

And here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/11594445-post7.html

And here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/13034902-post8.html
can't argue about the Romney thing. that is for sure!!!!
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
Similar Threads
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