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.
I have to wonder why all the excitement about a Hillary presidential run. I mean, as corrupt, arrogant and incompetent as she has proven herself to be, no one, not even the most partisan Democratic hack, could possibly vote for her. I mean...no one is that uninformed or outright ignorant.
Her main qualification to be president? I guess it's because she used to sleep with a president. Well...so did Monica but I don't see her claiming that makes her executive material. And what does that say about her in the first place? Clinging to a sexual predator just to be in a position of power?
After Billy's presidency she loads up her carpet bag and heads to NY state, where low-information voters elect someone as a senator with no experience or ties to their state. Now...what exactly did she do in her terms as senator? Any signature legislation to hold up as examples of leadership?
She gets the crumb of Sec State after losing the Democratic primary to perhaps the one candidate less qualified for the position. And exactly what were her accomplishments there? Well, for one she ran under sniper fire into a meeting...oh wait, that was a lie. Well, she helped negotiate a peaceful transition of power in a Middle Eastern country. What one was that again? She analyzed the situation in the ME and warned the president about the growth of Suni radicals and an Islamic State. Oh wait...no she didn't.
Well, lets look at what she got right. She addressed the failing government and rise of terrorist organizations in Yemin, and took steps to up security at State Dept facilities there. Oh, wait, wrong again. Well, at least when a a US embassy came under attack she reacted to reinforce it and protect and secure our Ambassador. What? Wrong again? You mean she actually did nothing and was responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans under her watch?
Well, at least as smart and qualified as she is, and as exemplary a SS and as knowledgeable as she is in her area of responsibility, she was aware that the attack was due to the rising power and success of Islamic terrorists in the region. I mean...as Sec State, that's a pretty basic part of her job. What? She thought it was over an old Youtube video? Nah, you're kidding, right?
Well, she at least offered condolences to the families of the men that died under her watch, right? Oh wait, when questioned about their deaths, she responds with "What difference does it make anyway?". Nah, I can't buy that. No one is that arrogant and insensitive to the loss of someone's loved ones.
Well...maybe she was a lousy Sec State, but she is at least a good administrator, right? One that streamlines a bureaucracy, ensures things are run according to acceptable practices and ensures accountability and transparency within her realm, right? What? She ignored rules in place, set up an unsecured, personal email server to circumvent the required record retention policies of the department? Not likely, certainly someone as tech savy as Ms. Clinton realized that she could access more than one email account on her iPhone and used that one only for personal business and used the secure, government one for work, right? She wouldn't use an unsecured, personal email system for classified work for the US government. No one is that stupid, right? What? No-you gotta be kidding.
Really, what would make even the most dedicated, and perhaps ignorant, Democrat possibly think that this woman was even remotely qualified or capable of being president? Her career has been a history of corruption, incompetence, lies and arrogance. She wouldn't even make a good mafia thug. You can do better. There are actually Democrats with a history of accomplishment, with abilities, and that are actually likeable, that show sparks of leadership ability. I'd like to see one of them become the Democratic front runner. Regardless of party I'd like to see the best this country has to offer run for president. But Hillary? She sure ain't it. And in spite of what you believe, I don't think the rest of the electorate is stupid enough to vote for her. Unless the Rs are dumb enough to give the nod to Bushie III, I don't think she stands a chance. We've had enough of bumbling incompetents of both parties in office for the last 20+ years.
Ooooh, I love this post, every point you have is SPOT ON. I am shaking my head at WHO exactly would even consider voting for her, if she does throw her hat in the ring??? Come on man, we can do BETTER than that.
As true as the above is, I think Hillary can do about anything she wants and still get the nomination and probably the presidency. The left doesnt care about facts. All decisions are based on emotion and they will overlook anything she does, no matter how unethical or illegal. She will get the votes simply because she is a woman running for President of the US.
Not only did Hilarious lose to Obama in the Iowa caucus (2008), she also lost to that other fine example of a Democrat, the adulterer John Edwards. The idiots running that campaign had no recovery plan.
So this time around, the Democrats are making sure this doesn't happen again simply by keeping everyone, but Hiliarious, out of the race. So far, only not one single Democrat has even indicated they might run against her.
As true as the above is, I think Hillary can do about anything she wants and still get the nomination and probably the presidency. The left doesnt care about facts. All decisions are based on emotion and they will overlook anything she does, no matter how unethical or illegal. She will get the votes simply because she is a woman running for President of the US.
This.
Vote For Hillary's Vagina 2016 is going to get 45% of the popular vote minimum simply because of her gender and the "D" after her name. The former reason makes her candidacy all legendary, transformative, and sign of hope/peace/love/tolerance/blah bleh blah, and the latter gives her all the standard "pull the D lever because well, that's what I always do anyway" votes.
So she's getting 45%. So would Elizabeth Warren or any other Democrat with a vajayjay. The gender thing is important. They already used the first minority, and now have first woman left to play as trump. So figure it to be Hillary by default, because Fauxcahontas hasn't made too much noise about wanting the gig.
No, how to crack a majority of that remaining 10-15% of the voters that do not reflexively vote D or R every 4 years (Republicans get 40-45% same as a Democrat, because people pull that R lever just because).
Here's Hillary's issues, right off the bat, where that middle 10-15% is concerned:
The middle voters tend to be more than single issue meme voters, as in, they'll look at more than just her gender.
If she runs against Scott Walker (who the GOP delegates are fools if they do not nominate), her record sucks in comparison. She's better off against Cruz or Paul, who as Senators accomplish little and talk much. She goes up against a governor, especially one who has a good track record of success, and that's a serious problem for that middle vote. Governors do better than legislators/secretaries, so says history.
America likes dumping one party for the other every now and then, and Obama has created exhaustion with Democrats. Quite simply, history says it's a Republican's turn, and with another whole year before her vagina's campaign gets going full swing, Obama can make her life a lot harder, given his need to constantly try and be emperor.
None of those easily identifiable reasons has anything to do with her baggage. That's the same for any non-governor Democrat running in 2016.
In the Hillary case, she also brings her baggage of Benghazi, the double secret email server, what difference does it make, a half dozen federal investigations into her and Bill's shadiness, the hag factor (sorry kids, but in popularity contests, looks matter, and she's an old, tired, bitter lady), the Russian "reset" that is basically Putin retaking Eastern and Central Europe at his whim, and a ton of speeches and votes in total agreement with neo-con imperialism and interventionism. She is a Clinton, and everyone should give credit to the most politically savvy team maybe in US history all time, but can Clinton scheming and cleverness outweigh a lot of what will drag her down and make her an easily defeated opponent?
The Dems are going to have a tough go of it this next POTUS cycle anyway. Obama has seen to that...with vigor. I think Hillary has the gender novelty, but is one of their most easily beaten candidates. They would be far better served to nominate Warren if they simply need a female on the top of the ticket, because she marks off the gender box, and has Obama's magical blank slate of accomplishment from 2008. She's done very little, so you can project upon her anything you want, like everyone did with Barry in his first campaign. She's a way better bet than Hillary is.
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.
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.
