• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Delete Your Account

SheWolf said:
He has already responded, "How long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up--and where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?"
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Hillary Clinton only comes across as polished because her publicity advisors have told her to never utter an original thought.
 




Hillary would like to thank you for being a Democrat voter!
 

Trump is right and ..................**** Hillary with a horse dong!!

beefheart said:
Owned
Click to expand...

NOT EVEN! How silly!
 
truthatallcost said:
Hilarious. Hillary Clinton only comes across as polished because her publicity advisors have told her to never utter an original thought.
Click to expand...

.............or her usual foul mouthed dialogue. The women is a PIG and I call her Miss Piggy!
 

The simple fact that this kind of behavior is being, not only accepted, but encouraged, in a potential President has me almost fully convinced we are doomed as a society, a nation and a species.

What a couple of spoiled brats.
 
Renae said:
It's ****ing beautiful, I can't stand herself, but that WAS a great response to the scumbucketrump.
Click to expand...

Yup and yup. It pains me to be in a position to commend Hillary or her staff in any way, but I have to hand it to whoever did that. It was the greatest response.

"Crooked Hillary". Great, is that the kind of **** we're going to have to see and read and hear about until November? We had "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco" and why the **** do I lose IQ points when I read anything Trump does? It's worse than 4th grade with the childish name calling ****.

Too bad Trump didn't think she was so very crooked back in 2008 when he was donating money to her campaign and attending her kid's wedding and inviting her and her baby daddy to his wedding to the communist he married.
 
First, Trumps right and second, a endorsement from Obama is bad news for Hillary

Obama and his " signature legislation " were so toxic, such a liability to the Democrats chances of retaining the Senate and winning back the House in 2014 that both were conspicuously absent from Democratic campaigns

Instead of running on the successes of the last 6 years Democrats had to turn to divisive pandering and insubstantial identity politics.

How did that work out for them ?

And the Dems still got their asses handed to them.....Lol

So how does this help Hillary ? It doesn't. If Obama really wanted her to win he would have endorsed Trump.
 
According to Jon Hutson, this has now become the most retweeted campaign tweet, at nearly 400k retweets, of any candidate throughout the primary season.
 
BrewerBob said:
That's a very funny tweet.

Which of course means I highly doubt Hillary is the one who came up with it.

"You would know about deleting things" would have been the perfect retort.
Click to expand...
No. She didn't come up with that. That would require being able to emote. She has as much chance of that as Kristen Stewart.

Another good retort would be:
"So you aren't only coming after my 2nd Amendment Rights but my 1st Amendment Rights as well?"
 
MrT said:
According to Jon Hutson, this has now become the most retweeted campaign tweet, at nearly 400k retweets, of any candidate throughout the primary season.
Click to expand...

Which goes to show the average intelligence of twit subscribers.
I mean supposedly a large number of people watched Borat you know?
 

Why is it funny?
 

I don't know how many times this fact has to be explained to you, but let's try it one more time.

First, midterm elections are much different from general elections. The former always tends to do better for Republicans and the midterm election for the second term of a President also tends to go very well for the party that is not in power.

Second, the approval rating for Obama is currently significantly higher today than it was in 2014. Today, it sits somewhere between 49-53%. At this time in 2014, Obama had actually dropped to the lowest approval rating during his Presidency with around 41%. And given that Presidential job approval numbers, historically, trend upwards in the twilight of their second term (the same was true of George W Bush even though he was dealing with the start of a massive recession), this number only projects to go higher.

Finally, this endorsement is designed to appeal to those individuals that already have a positive or at least neutral opinion of Obama, but have a negative opinion of Hillary. You - along with millions of others - clearly do not fall into that category because y'all have a wholly negative opinion of Obama. But guess what, the people who have a wholly negative opinion of Obama, but a positive opinion of Hillary, is extremely low.
 
Ntharotep said:
Which goes to show the average intelligence of twit subscribers.
I mean supposedly a large number of people watched Borat you know?
Click to expand...

It's not really a matter of intelligence, but a matter of dominating the news (or in this case the pseudo-news cycle). The last 96-168 hours have been really, really terrible for Trump. And it has only gotten worse with the last 24 hours given the number of enthusiastic endorsements that Hillary has received and compared to the number of unendorsements or lackluster endorsements obtained by Trump.

Add a pseudo-news story like this one to the flame, especially in a realm where Trump has historically dominated the trends (twitter), and it has only gotten worse for him.
 



Lol......Nonsense

Saying there's a distinction between midterm and presidential elections doesn't negate the fact that the Democrats as a decided strategy completely ignored not only Obama but his signature legislation


His own party knew he was a liability and what good is a endorsement if its just preaching to the choir ?

Whats the point if that endorsement doesn't compel the undecided and or independents to vote Hillary ?

His endorsement will do the opposite actually. Compel those people to either vote Trunp or stay home.
 
Fenton said:
Lol......Nonsense
Click to expand...

Dude...come on man. I get that if you think there's a different conclusion to be drawn, but pointing to actual facts and sound historical evidence does not equate to "nonsense."

Fenton said:
Saying there's a distinction between midterm and presidential elections doesn't negate the fact that the Democrats as a decided strategy completely ignored not only Obama but his signature legislation
Click to expand...

And pointing out that Democrats used that as a strategy in 2014 completely ignores that Democrats are doing the opposite currently. Is it possible that the Democratic losses in 2014 might have been, in part, the result of that strategy? Either way, the circumstances of 2014 and 2016 are different and you are effectively arguing that because Democrats used a particular strategy in 2014 that they would be better served by repeating that strategy that resulted in massive losses in the House and Senate. And that seems really, really counterintuitive.

Fenton said:
His own party knew he was a liability and what good is a endorsement if its just preaching to the choir? Whats the point if that endorsement doesn't compel the undecided and or independents to vote Hillary ?
Click to expand...

As to your first question, the battle and in-fighting within the Democratic party necessitates a "preaching to the choir." As to your second question, Obama's current approval ratings (particularly among the undecided and/or independents) help to explain why the endorsement would compel the undecided and/or independents to vote for Hillary.

Fenton said:
His endorsement will do the opposite actually. Compel those people to either vote Trunp or stay home.
Click to expand...

Well that is a prediction, but it is not one supported by the data or the history of general elections.
 

Not a big Clinton fan, but I am a fan of stoic and terse comebacks.

BrewerBob said:
That's a very funny tweet.

Which of course means I highly doubt Hillary is the one who came up with it.



"You would know about deleting things" would have been the perfect retort.
Click to expand...

All quite true as well.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I genuinely want to know how it's funny.
It's a pithy statement, which can be funny, but without context it comes off as nothing but a simple pithy statement.
There doesn't seem to be any humor.
Click to expand...

I think it's a twitter meme which means it means nothing if one doesn't twitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…