- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31,926
- Reaction score
- 29,390
- Location
- Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Unnecessary hyperbolising the past is what may bring you harm by losing Clinton.
We lose nothing....with the Loss of Hillary and ANY of her people. Absolutely nothing. The Country loses nothing but some people who aren't worth anything at all.
She is lucky she was born in the time she was. If this would have been back when the Founding Fathers started things up. Hillary and her people would have already been hanging from some trees.
But they are.... "Benghazi!". "Emails!". "Worst secretary of state of all time!". Same **** different day.Those quips are nothing compared to what's likely coming. Nothing at all.
So your saying modern day first ladies arent political, they are only political if they want?Maybe you weren't around when Bill announced, after his election, that the country got a two-fer. Hillary was going to re-make healthcare, and she tried.
So your agreeing with my point?At the WH.
But they are.... "Benghazi!". "Emails!". "Worst secretary of state of all time!". Same **** different day.
So your saying modern day first ladies arent political, they are only political if they want?
So your agreeing with my point?
I just provided a a graphic showing how many times each candidate mentioned her.I haven't heard candidates going on and on about that. Yes, you get that here on DP, but I haven't heard the primary candidates harping on it.
Yea. Its called a political...What first lady has attempted to initiate such a thing as national health care?
So it started in the white house? What?You indicated you didn't know where the email business started, so I'm unaware you had any point to make in that regard.
I just provided a a graphic showing how many times each candidate mentioned her.
But here:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...akes-on-hillary-clinton-in-n-r-a-speech/?_r=0
Trump, Cruz Slam Iran Pact That Clinton Backs - WSJ
Ted Cruz jokes Hillary Clinton is going to jail - Business Insider
Jeb Bush, Trump paint each other as Hillary backers in dueling attack videos | New York Post
Jeb Bush to Attack Hillary Clinton for Islamic State?s Rise in Iraq - WSJ
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-hillary-cant-satisfy-america
http://www.businessinsider.com/mike...ton-should-go-to-jail-before-kim-davis-2015-9
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...l-candidates-hit-hillary-clinton-fo/?page=all
Yea. Its called a political...
But ummm.. Since the modern area examples include: Betty Ford lobbying state legislatures for the Equal Rights Amendment, Rosalynn Carter lead a global effort for refugees and met with central and latin American leaders, Nancy Reagan with the "drugs are bad mmmkay" campaign, Barbs with national literacy campaign, Hill with being a spokesperson for national insurance, Laura did a lot illiteracy, heart disease, health care for women around the world, now Michelle with obesity and supporting military families. I mean all are big problems. All were mostly spokespersons. There is a reason why the modern first lady is called a "political interloper"
So it started in the white house? What?
Ok.... I guess we will just have to see...Yeah, I saw it. Trust me, that's nothing.
Global refugee effort? Also she was a spokesperson... Whats your point?That's very nice. None of them attempted anything like health care,
No. "Its a big ****ing deal".or am I to believe that the ACA is no big deal
OK.- because if it isn't, don't tell Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the crowd.
OkThey seem to think it is, and so does the rest of the country or it wouldn't still be an issue.
It's not the Washington Post ya know. They are different. One is reputable. One is not or at the very least highly biased towards the extreme right wing.
Well you said, "The political implications from the political right haven't even started yet concerning her campaign". But in fact they have already started, since many bring her up as a talking point/campaign point.
When you are first lady you dont have much choice. Your essentially a politician whether you like it or not.
Eh... Yea...
So "where did it get started" then? Im a little confused on your point about her server and in regards to "Judicial Watch"...
[/QUOTE]Ok.... I guess we will just have to see...
Global refugee effort? Also she was a spokesperson... Whats your point?
No. "Its a big ****ing deal".
OK.
Ok
Really, you should read more and actually think about it a little.
Were you around and politically aware for the Clinton administration? That's not meant to be snarky or smug or anything. It's just a question so I can understand what your view might be.
Mornin OF. :2wave: Actually the real fun will be in watching those that lean left of their hardcore ranks, suffer the loss of their Hope and Dreams. Watching them experiencing their just dessert. Then reveling in their depression. While letting them see that all others rejoice at their demise.
Around, as in being alive? Yes.... Around, as being politically competent at that age? No. I was 8 when he left office.
Still just waiting for a straight forward answer....
Snarf. Now, now, MMC. It's not that big. It's not as big as, say, Rosie O'Donnell's. Prolly big enough for permanent teeth, though.
It's not the Washington Post ya know. They are different. One is reputable. One is not or at the very least highly biased towards the extreme right wing.
Before we go measuring her campaign for a coffin, I think we need to take a close look at this article, if I dare call it that.
It is the Washington Times, not exactly bi-partisan and not exactly a perfect record on calling the Clintons. Anyone saying any campaign is on "suicide watch"at this point in time is asinine.
I am always suspicious of an article that quotes no one. It appears this dolt just threw some wishful thinking around and came up with this.
I would say the Clinton campaign is in deep ****. They are obviously scrambling, trying to figure out what has gone wrong and what they need to do to fix it, but hello, there is more than a whole year to do it. I have seen campaigns shift 40 points in two weeks, it happened here in 2012.
The worst thing the Republicans could do now is to call her out. The best thing for her would be to become the underdog, and if these unnamed polls the author insists are true are correct, that she would lose to Carly, you can bet they will go into underdog mode. What has been "they're picking on me" will get bigger, fatter, and uglier.
I still say the Republicans best chance to win the congress and White House is to have Hilary win the nomination easily.
Had you been politically aware, you would not be asking for one. Hillary was more politically active than any other first lady ever thought of being. She was directly involved in administration initiatives of far greater political consequence than the feel good activities of other first ladies, and I'm not dismissing the efforts of the others. They just had no direct political consequence for those administrations.
Were you around and politically aware for the Clinton administration? That's not meant to be snarky or smug or anything. It's just a question so I can understand what your view might be.
Washington Times Editorial. What say ye?
Hillary in a corner
She’s on a suicide watch as her fibs and stretchers just keep coming.....
Getting caught at telling fibs and stretchers once or twice is embarrassing, but getting caught at lying every day for months is devastating. Even if she avoids an indictment, recovery and a return to popular acclaim will be difficult and probably impossible. The fact that a retired doctor with no political experience but regarded as scrupulously honest is besting her in the polls is enough to convince even the most cynical political pros that black lies matter.
Eggheads and policy wonks tell each other that it’s only “issues,” often dull but always important, that swing elections. Hillary’s positions on foreign policy, economic numbers and social issues could doom her next year, anyway. But what we do know now is that lying matters and voters can tell a lot about a candidate by how he or she behaves when challenged.
Hillary Clinton can joke about her email scandal, dismissing it as the sort of thing that goes on during the summer “silly season,” but the courts, the Congress, the FBI and the public are finally treating it as a serious matter. Only she seems determined to die laughing.....snip~
EDITORIAL: Hillary Clinton's campaign on suicide watch - Washington Times
That's exactly what I was about to ask. It's so easy to look through the prism of "today" at events that for you are actually "history."
And, yes, I'd say that Hillary Clinton was, in her way, the first "modern" First Lady and precisely because of her healthcare initiative.
Really? Rosalynn Carter sat in on cabinet meetings. Her legislation Equal Rights Amendment.... You do realize she was the voice for that just like Hillary with healthcare, and the ERA died... Right? It was an amendment to the constitution....
One that failed. And again, where were you during this time? What do you yourself remember about the ERA?
Hyperbolising?
Take a look at this forum and see how many terrified little democrats have dug down into the hyperbole of the past, present and future to demonize anyone Republican. Right next door there is a thread calling Ted Cruz "insane".
So a search of Sarah Palin and you will find such words as "whore, slut, pig, and worse, and as recently as today. The Amerikan left can't talk politics wiuthout demonizing with hyperbole.
Some would call your post ironic, I call it classic hypocrisy with unneeded and far too boring hyperbole.
The left needs to shut up, take a look at the garbage they're offering the voter and apologize....
They have come a long way down from just months ago when they were still assuming a Hillary coronation followed by the fall classic race against a weak RINO by the name of Jeb Bush.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?