There's a difference between a few skeletons and just downright corrupt. I'm willing to give a wink and a nod to a few underhanded things but mark my words if she becomes President she will have more things from her past come up. Her entire presidency will be a circus.Originally Posted by Heywood
n the light of the news of the past year, riots in cioties, Warren takeover of the Senate etc, what leads you to believe a centrist candidate will come out of (D) nominating process. And, what leads you to think they can't win.
Crystal balling here
You must be too young for the 1990's. They've dug and dug on her ...
With all of the scrutiny she's faced she might be the cleanest of all of them. 35 years people have been trying to get her
Yeah, I might as well start using InfoWars as a reference. It's just as bad.
First of all, a self-proclaimed Democrat trying to use 'gerrymandering' in a negative context is really amusing.
Secondly, yes; every dog has his day, that's the point -- and your dog had its day from 2008 through 2013 and has been choking it up like a drunken prom queen ever since.
What's it called? Denial?
Actually, I voted for Bill Clinton during that time. I was a big time lib back then. In case you haven't noticed most white collar criminals get away with their activities. It's not just Hillary. Plus, that whole E-Mail situation is bad. Very bad. If you can't see it for what it is you really need to quit drinking the Kool Aid.
Last edited by Garmel; 05-14-2015 at 03:51 PM.
I think a centrist candidate most definitely can (and will) win. I never said they couldn't. Because the sprint for the middle is a basic tenet of American electoral politics in the 21st century. It's all about the swing and how much of your base you can hold onto without hemorrhaging votes somewhere.
The misunderstanding comes from that he thought was asked. He heard "at the time" not 'looking back".
Hawk (05-14-2015)
More of Bush's comments following his 'walk back' of the Iraq comment:
"That's not to say that there was a courageous effort to bring about a surge that created stability in Iraq. All of that is true. And that is not to say that the men and women that have served in uniform and many others that went to Iraq to serve, they did so, they did so honorably. But, we've answered the question now, so now going forward, what's the role of America going forward. Are we going to pull back now and be defeatists and pessimistic or are we going to engage in a way that creates a more peaceful and secure world. That is what 2016's about.
"Not about 2000, not about 1992, not about 1980, but about the future. And I hope that you want leaders that are going to be forthright in their views that will express those views with compassion and conviction and do so so that there's a clear understanding for America's role in the world."
---
That kind of language makes it pretty clear how he's going to attack Hillary/Obama.
Didnt use it as a negative -- just a fact of our electoral system Or, any system for that matter
"To the victor - the spoils""
But to pretend the past two off year elections indicate (R) has some sort of ideological highground is laughable.
and, statistically wrong.
“If you knew in 2003 what we know now, would you have launched the war in Iraq?”
What is there to mis understand ?
On Monday, “If you knew in 2003 what we know now, would you have launched the war in Iraq?” Bush said he would have launched the war anyway.
On Tuesday: “If you knew in 2003 what we know now, would you have launched the war in Iraq?” Bush said he doesn’t know what he would have done.
On Wednesday: “If you knew in 2003 what we know now, would you have launched the war in Iraq?” Bush said he doesn’t even want to answer the question at all, because a response would be a “disservice” to U.S. troops.
And on Thursday: “If you knew in 2003 what we know now, would you have launched the war in Iraq?” Bush said he wouldn’t have launched the war.
Last edited by 57Brave; 05-14-2015 at 04:40 PM.
She might be the most thoroughly vetted individual on earth. 8 years of Whitewater. 2 Senate races in NY State. Confirmation as Sec of State -- and this circus of a GOP is going to u ncover something
Benghazi perhaps
This is almost comical
The only thing comical here is you. If you actually believe that Hillary is clean you have serious issues with reality. I guess since Reagan got away with the Iran-Contra Affair he must be innocent too.
Last edited by Garmel; 05-14-2015 at 07:40 PM.
Hawk (05-14-2015)
We're not talking about ideological 'high-ground' -- frankly, that's irrelevant here -- we're talking about the results of elections dating back to 2010. It's a clear signal of change in basic ideological identification.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ctions/382394/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...publican-wave/
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/04/361112...term-elections
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...publican-sweep
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electio...s-here-to-stay
The amount of denial and wrongheadedness that you've exhibited in this thread is staggering.
Last edited by Hawk; 05-14-2015 at 05:20 PM.
Never said she was innocent I am saying if there was a smoking gun it would have been found by now.
She probably is the most vetted person in history
Be clear, Hillary is not my candidate of choice
From the guy rationaliing Jeb's politicking this past week
Sorry, I missed the Huffington Post manifesto providing me all the reasons I should hate Jeb Bush.
This is a candidate who aligns with liberal platforms on education, immigration, and at times big government, so your vitriol comes across as superficially partisan.
Last edited by Hawk; 05-14-2015 at 09:19 PM.
Tapate50 (05-15-2015)
Kim Dotcom is saying Julian Assange is going to come after Hillary hard next year. Has a lot of stuff on Hillary. Yu
Although, I imagine all the liberals who swore by Assange when leaked stuff about Bush will 'question' anything he releases in regards to Hillary
I think neoconservatives are going to come hard after Hillary on Benghazi. I would hammer on her to release the private email server data to a forensics team at every possible opportunity. I'm sure the worry on the Democrats side isn't so much a smoking gun, but a character assassination a la the Nixon tapes.
Gowdy claims he lacks the authority to force the server turnover, but the more likely explanation is that the party believes it can use its eventual nominee to force her hand vis a vis a public mandate.
If there's nothing to hide, why so shy? Jeb turned over all his emails months ago.
Last edited by Hawk; 05-14-2015 at 09:41 PM.
**** Hilary.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
57Brave (05-14-2015)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote