• 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!

Hillary on the brink of collapse

washunut said:
I think the democrats have to let her continue to take one for the team, while they beef up their bullpen. She was such a lock, or so some thought that Democrats now need to build up a respectable candidate.
Click to expand...

And who would that be? She is slated not just to win an election but for a coronation. I can't believe that isn't still the game plan. The party isn't pushing anybody else to build name recognition. And if they have only one candidate they don't have to spend much in the Primaries and can throw all their resources into the general election.

All this Clinton Foundation scandal has surfaced way too soon--it will be 'old news' along with Benghazi and the scrubbed e-mails and all the rest of it by the time the campaign really gets rolling. I'm pretty sure that is the game we're seeing played out at this time, i.e. get all the scandals out of the way early and then she should have clear sailing.
 
washunut said:
I think the democrats have to let her continue to take one for the team, while they beef up their bullpen. She was such a lock, or so some thought that Democrats now need to build up a respectable candidate.
Click to expand...

You can't help hating the woman, even the democrats know that....It gets worse every time she opens her mouth. Soon the only one behind her will be Disney Dude.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And who would that be? She is slated not just to win an election but for a coronation. I can't believe that isn't still the game plan. The party isn't pushing anybody else to build name recognition. And if they have only one candidate they don't have to spend much in the Primaries and can throw all their resources into the general election.

All this Clinton Foundation scandal has surfaced way too soon--it will be 'old news' along with Benghazi and the scrubbed e-mails and all the rest of it by the time the campaign really gets rolling. I'm pretty sure that is the game we're seeing played out at this time, i.e. get all the scandals out of the way early and then she should have clear sailing.
Click to expand...

I know that was the game plan. But now they have to dust off plan B, whatever that is. I do not agree with the thesis that millions of Americans will buy the thesis that this is old news. It is still news if you think it is relevant to have ethical president.

There is still plenty of time to build up another candidate. I will start will the name Cuomo. There have to be better names out there.
 
Navy Pride said:
You can't help hating the woman, even the democrats know that....It gets worse every time she opens her mouth. Soon the only one behind her will be Disney Dude.
Click to expand...

Wait, just a few days ago you told us she could not run, now you are busy campaigning against her. What happened NP?
 
Navy Pride said:
You can't help hating the woman, even the democrats know that....It gets worse every time she opens her mouth. Soon the only one behind her will be Disney Dude.
Click to expand...
you are going to really be upset when she is the next POTUS.....
 
washunut said:
I know that was the game plan. But now they have to dust off plan B, whatever that is. I do not agree with the thesis that millions of Americans will buy the thesis that this is old news. It is still news if you think it is relevant to have ethical president.

There is still plenty of time to build up another candidate. I will start will the name Cuomo. There have to be better names out there.
Click to expand...

Ethics and character have not been a factor in a political candidate, most especially the Democratic one, for a very long time now. Sometimes I think the most strongly partisan would defend Jack the Ripper or Charles Manson if they were running for something just as long as they had a D after their name. And okay, I know some Republicans are also just as bad about that. But look how many people still worship and defend Obama and won't admit he has done or said anything wrong about anything.

Hillary will be the beneficiary of the sort of adoration that is made possible only through extreme denial and blinders and a whole truckload of whitewash.

The only other names I have seen floated with any semblance of serious possibility is Cuomo who has his own baggage and Mallory who is to the left of Hillary. The only one even hinted at that I could cheerfully vote for with a clear conscience is Joe Manchin III, but so far he has made no indication he is interested in running.

Only 10 possibles have been put up for the Democrats and most of those have already said they won't run. The GOP has a whopping 21 names of folks on their roster, ALL of whom have said they are interested.
 
It's funny because the liberal majority of this country doesn't really care about whatever desperate fake scandals the right wing can concoct. It's doubly funny because they cry wolf so often that if there were a real problem, we would probably not listen. She may not be our ideal candidate, but she'll do a solid job. We're really hoping that she'll listen to her more liberal constituency, especially when it comes to corporate money and military action. But we won't have to hold our noses when we vote for her, because liberals don't eat their own nearly to the same degree that the right does. Will she inspire us to come out and vote the same as Obama did? Probably not. But I'll bet the crazy **** the Republicans say will. Maybe this time the party with the most votes will win the most seats in the house, too. That would be pretty cool.

AlbqOwl said:
But look how many people still worship and defend Obama and won't admit he has done or said anything wrong about anything.
Click to expand...


None of us actually do that. We like him. We legitimately do. But we don't worship him. We criticize him when he lets us down. But we don't make up nonsense and say that he was never qualified to be president. That's absurd. We defend his successes, and there have been many, but we certainly point out his failures. We just don't have a weird tourette's where we say that everything he does is the worst thing ever.
 
randel said:
you are going to really be upset when she is the next POTUS.....
Click to expand...
You may be right. After the last Presidential election I no longer overestimate the intelligence of the American electorate.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Ethics and character have not been a factor in a political candidate, most especially the Democratic one, for a very long time now. Sometimes I think the most strongly partisan would defend Jack the Ripper or Charles Manson if they were running for something just as long as they had a D after their name. And okay, I know some Republicans are also just as bad about that. But look how many people still worship and defend Obama and won't admit he has done or said anything wrong about anything.

Hillary will be the beneficiary of the sort of adoration that is made possible only through extreme denial and blinders and a whole truckload of whitewash.

The only other names I have seen floated with any semblance of serious possibility is Cuomo who has his own baggage and Mallory who is to the left of Hillary. The only one even hinted at that I could cheerfully vote for with a clear conscience is Joe Manchin III, but so far he has made no indication he is interested in running.

Only 10 possibles have been put up for the Democrats and most of those have already said they won't run. The GOP has a whopping 21 names of folks on their roster, ALL of whom have said they are interested.
Click to expand...

Some qualified democrats have said they won't run because of the Clinton machine. However if that is cleared away some will enter the race. Republicans may be sorry if Clinton decides not to run. She has name recognition, so is an early leader. But would be a stationary punching bag in a general election. Midwest independents will take kindly to her methods.
 
washunut said:
Some qualified democrats have said they won't run because of the Clinton machine. However if that is cleared away some will enter the race. Republicans may be sorry if Clinton decides not to run. She has name recognition, so is an early leader. But would be a stationary punching bag in a general election. Midwest independents will take kindly to her methods.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know. I do know that I have always thought if Hillary had been elected instead of Obama, she would have been a really really bad President but she would have done nowhere near the damage that he has done. On the other hand, given her lack of track record of ANY noteworthy accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas and the USA, as U.S. Senator, and as Secretary of State, would she simply be an Obama II at the mercy of her handlers?

If the GOP keeps putting up unelectable candidates, I wish the Democrats would put up a good man or woman with integrity and a clue. I don't see Hillary as that candidate.
 
Navy Pride said:
People in t h this country are stupid bu hot that stupid.
Click to expand...

You consistently FAIL to accept the fact that it's quite possible for the R's to nominate a "worse" option than Hillary.

You'll blindly insist there's no "worse" option, but the true reality is that there certainly is, and chances are we'll see who that is in due time.

The coming POTUS election is ripe for the R's to win, but it's highly possible for them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Where the R's will go wrong is having the same mindset you have. One which "thinks" it doesn't matter who "we" nominate because Hillary won't win no matter what.
That strategy didn't work very well the last two elections. It won't work in 2016.
 
Dragonfly said:
You consistently FAIL to accept the fact that it's quite possible for the R's to nominate a "worse" option than Hillary.

You'll blindly insist there's no "worse" option, but the true reality is that there certainly is, and chances are we'll see who that is in due time. The coming POTUS election is ripe for the R's to win, but it's highly possible for them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Where the R's will go wrong is having the same mindset you have. One which "thinks" it doesn't matter who "we" nominate because Hillary won't win no matter what.
That strategy didn't work very well the last two elections. It won't work in 2016.
Click to expand...
You sound like one of those who will vote the party rather than the person, a real problem in politics.

Hillary will tell the party faithful what they have been led to be believe and what they want to hear. Her and her husband have made billions through their foundation and yet she will tell the leftists that she wants money out of politics, that they were recently 'dead broke', and rail at the 'one percenters', despite being a member herself.

Of course we can expect this wild hypocrisy and over the top lies from a politician like Hillary Clinton but the real tragedy is that many Americans will actually buy into this and believe it. That's a real shame.
 
Grant said:
You sound like one of those who will vote the party rather than the person, a real problem in politics.

Hillary will tell the party faithful what they have been led to be believe and what they want to hear. Her and her husband have made billions through their foundation and yet she will tell the leftists that she wants money out of politics, that they were recently 'dead broke', and rail at the 'one percenters', despite being a member herself.

Of course we can expect this wild hypocrisy and over the top lies from a politician like Hillary Clinton but the real tragedy is that many Americans will actually buy into this and believe it. That's a real shame.
Click to expand...

#1) I've never, not ever, voted for a Democrat for POTUS.

#2) Are you trying to suggest R's are not guilty of wild hypocrisy and over the top lies?

#3) The "real tragedy" in the USofA is the two party system - which includes the R's and the D's equally.
 
Dragonfly said:
#1) I've never, not ever, voted for a Democrat for POTUS.
Click to expand...
There have not been many recent Democrats worth voting for , that's certain.
#2) Are you trying to suggest R's are not guilty of wild hypocrisy and over the top lies?
Click to expand...
No. What I said was quite clear. You should familiarize with what Hillary Clinton has done, the millions of dollars pouring in from foreign countries to the Clinton Foundation, the erased computer files, the deals over Uranium, open mines in Haiti, and so on. I know of no other democracy in the world where this person would be a serious candidate for the leadership of a country and yet, at this point anyway, she appears to have support. This is inexplicable.
#3) The "real tragedy" in the USofA is the two party system - which includes the R's and the D's equally.
Click to expand...
The two party US system in the US has outlasted many multi party systems in the world but any country must have an educated electorate who will understand the important issues of the day and vote accordingly for the best person for the job. Recall the 'issues' of the last election, and the lies of the Obama, the 'you must pass the bill before you can see the bill' craziness, etc. and you can see that the leaders of the Democrats have no respect for their constituents. They understand completely that they will believe anything the candidates say and forgive their lies.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I honestly don't know. I do know that I have always thought if Hillary had been elected instead of Obama, she would have been a really really bad President but she would have done nowhere near the damage that he has done. On the other hand, given her lack of track record of ANY noteworthy accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas and the USA, as U.S. Senator, and as Secretary of State, would she simply be an Obama II at the mercy of her handlers?

If the GOP keeps putting up unelectable candidates, I wish the Democrats would put up a good man or woman with integrity and a clue. I don't see Hillary as that candidate.
Click to expand...

I think she would have done health care, but along the lines of Medicare for all. Perhaps because I think that is what would work. I do not think she would have used executive orders as Obama has. We probably would have an immigration bill if she was president, as she would compromise more.

All that being said I agree with your last paragraph totally.
 
Grant said:
and you can see that the leaders of the Republicans have no respect for their constituents. They understand completely that they will believe anything the candidates say and forgive their lies.
Click to expand...

See how that works?

The solutions to the issues we face today will not be solved by the R's. Nor will they be solved by the D's.
Since basically the issues we face were created by both, neither can solve them.

The USofA has flushed itself into a never-ending cycle of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
Electing nothing but R's & D's is the very definition of insanity.
 
Navy Pride said:
You have to admit this is so sweet..:)

Hillary on the brink of collapse | New York Post
Click to expand...

Indeed.

If she’s got a winning defense, she’d better be quick about it. The ghosts of scandals past are gaining on her and time is not on her side.

The compelling claims that she and Bill Clinton sold favors while she was secretary of state for tens of millions of dollars for themselves and their foundation don’t need to meet the legal standard for bribery. She’s on political trial in a country where Clinton Fatigue alone could be a fatal verdict.
After 25 years of corner-cutting and dishonest behavior, accumulation is her enemy. Each day threatens to deliver the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It may already have happened and we’re just waiting for public opinion to catch up to the facts.
Click to expand...


Said a long time ago that the skeletons in her closet would make it very difficult for her to run and be elected to POTUS.

Seems that it's the most recent skeletons are the ones with the greatest traction. That's OK by me.

Grant said:
Every honest person should be asking themselves how the Clinton's managed to have such profound influence over such a long period of time. There certainly seems to be a flaw in the system that could allow this to happen.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps, using their skills and knowledge as lawyers, they know exactly where they can bend the laws, and being politically connected, they know when they won't be investigated by the DOJ.

Maybe ban lawyers from holding office? Or maybe ban amoral people from hold office?
 
Dragonfly said:
See how that works?
Click to expand...
Yes, I see how you changed what I said but have offered nothing to support your claim.
The solutions to the issues we face today will not be solved by the R's. Nor will they be solved by the D's. Since basically the issues we face were created by both, neither can solve them.
Click to expand...
These problems will continue to grow unless there is an informed electorate and I don't see that happening any time soon. Your concern over the parties rather than the quality of the candidates is not untypical.
The USofA has flushed itself into a never-ending cycle of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
Electing nothing but R's & D's is the very definition of insanity.
Click to expand...
The problem is the electorate, not the politicians. When you get an electorate more devoted to their team than looking for honest and capable people then the consequences will be what we see now.
 
washunut said:
I think she would have done health care, but along the lines of Medicare for all. Perhaps because I think that is what would work. I do not think she would have used executive orders as Obama has. We probably would have an immigration bill if she was president, as she would compromise more.

All that being said I agree with your last paragraph totally.
Click to expand...

There was nothing wrong with Mitt Romney, who was a far superior candidate than Barack Obama. But the electorate decided that government paid birth control was the issue, that there was a 'war on women', Romney was too successful and that, according to Harry Reid, he never paid any taxes. It worked and the party won, while the country and much of the world lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom