Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Varelse

Hillary has already "won" the Dem Nomination

383 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Merc14

Except the majority of peaceful, liberal, socially responsive nations in the world, many of which have very strong economies. Like, almost every country besides the US and all the other counties it is constantly entangled with - allies as well as enemies. We send kids to the military, shoot each other weekly, watch as our own citizens and veterans starve and fear the people supposed to be protecting us and legilsating our rights, while other countries have free healthcare and colleges and aren't embroiled in wars so long that their youngest adults don't remember when they were NOT at war.

So yeah, socailisism fails - except for ALL the times and nations it hasn't.

Wow, they really have sold you a LOS but see Greece if you want to know how well socialism works. BTW, anyone who says something as irredeemably silly as free healthcare makes further discussion pointless so enjoy your illusions.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Linda Tripp says......

http://www.dailymail...-President.html

Because, according to Linda Tripp, it was Hillary who manipulated and stage managed the story, converting herself from a lackluster First Lady with unimpressive approval ratings to admirable First Victim - the blindsided wife standing by her man.

She made him forgivable. She 'orchestrated the cover up' and she made damn sure that she moved on. Nothing, and no-one, was going to stand in her way.

After more than a decade of silence Tripp, 65, has chosen to speak out. In an exclusive interview with Daily Mail Online the woman who had a ringside seat throughout Clinton's administration has given a damning insight into - and assessment of- Hillary as the 'key player' in the scandals of the Clinton presidency.

She describes Hillary as the true 'ruler' of the White House through her husband's administration; tells how she watched Hillary 'blatantly lie' to the American people; describes her as utterly 'ruthless' in her pursuit of power; and voices her belief that Hillary must never gain the presidency - the position that has always been her goal and to which she has always believed herself entitled.

Tripp explained: 'I think the most compelling thing about Hillary is that she will stop at nothing to achieve her end and that she views the public as plebeians easily seduced into believing her point of view.'
Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Socialism fails everywhere but then again so does liberalism (see Detroit, Baltimore and New Orleans) https://en.wikipedia..._Democrats,_USA

I think capitalism fails over and over too. Some sort of balanced economy of private and public enterprises, combined with appropriate regulatory activity, seems best. The problem here is that regulators also need regulating -- something hard to put in place.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I think certain parties above are engaging in delusion when they say Clinton has no lock on the black vote in Democratic primaries. Give me strength. That they will turn out in droves in any close election for her is not hard to predict either.

My view of closed primaries as undemocratic was explained in my original post, but for those with difficulty reading and who only pay attention to things they agree with, I will repeat. The Democrats nominate a left-winger and the Republicans a right-winger (it is hard for a centrist to win in either case). Most people are centrists, but in effect the system denies them a vote (they have to select from between the choices of the ideologues).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse

This article made me LOL in real life....

http://www.latimes.c...ory.html#page=1

So, she's going to Pretend to be friendly and relatable just till she gets into office.... Hummmm.... OK, that's not going to work for me. I value Honesty.

Edit, just saw you beat me to it...

And there's this from someone who has no dog in the fight anymore. Hillary and Linda should be at least on neutral terms. After all, she let Killery know her husband was a cheat; something MOST women would be a little appreciative of. Instead we have this eyewitness account:

http://www.dailymail...-President.html

Edited by Varelse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse

I think Biden could prevail if he were to enter and bad odors keep coming up from Mrs. Clinton's history. Of course Clinton has an unbreakable hold on most of the black vote, so she might pull it off even if much worse things come out about her poor judgment -- and that is all the various scandals really are -- nothing really corrupt. Therefore worse news about Clinton would probably be needed to get Biden into it.

Regardless, I don't see how any Republican stands a chance no matter whom the Democrats select. Mr. Bush maybe, or a dark horse, but that's all remote and now possible only because the election is still a long way off.

As a foreigner I have to say I see the Republicans destroying themselves by turning off group after group out of prejudice -- some Republicans are of course worse than others. This is one of the big undemocratic aspects of American politics -- the closed primaries where minority views can determine the choices and the public ends up holding its nose when it votes because they get two undesirable, or at least less than optimal, candidates.

A better system would be a general primary where all candidates appear on the same list, followed by succeeding primaries filtering out the weakest each round until someone gets an absolute majority and is elected.

Biden has said he will probably decide in the next 6-8 weeks. So at least he's thinking. As for the urban vote, they don't really show up for primaries. Hispanic or Black.

The GOP does seem to be pretty good at alienating right now. They have the redneck vote, Christian evans and most of the top 5% income earners but split women, Jews, Catholics, the middle class and lose everyone else. That leaves Hispanics, the poor and Blacks to tip the scales for Demorats as I think i see it.

We need a 4 party system. I really hope Bernie and Trump both run on their own if they don't get their party's rigged nomination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The GOP does seem to be pretty good at alienating right now. They have the redneck vote, Christian evans and most of the top 5% income earners but split women, Jews, Catholics, the middle class and lose everyone else. That leaves Hispanics, the poor and Blacks to tip the scales for Demorats as I think i see it.

That is why we have a Republican Congress right now, and also how Obama got elected. The Christians, rednecks and wealthy all vote in higher rates then the poor and the minorities. Obama energized the poor and minorities, otherwise McCain probably could have won in 2008. I don't see the poor and minorities getting EXCITED about Hillary, so their support will be modest, rather then fantastic, in its help in getting elected.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

That is why we have a Republican Congress right now, and also how Obama got elected. The Christians, rednecks and wealthy all vote in higher rates then the poor and the minorities. Obama energized the poor and minorities, otherwise McCain probably could have won in 2008. I don't see the poor and minorities getting EXCITED about Hillary, so their support will be modest, rather then fantastic, in its help in getting elected.

There are two ways to lose an election -- fail to mobilize your supporters or mobilize your opponents. The Republicans at the moment seem to be busy doing both.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

There are two ways to lose an election -- fail to mobilize your supporters or mobilize your opponents. The Republicans at the moment seem to be busy doing both.

You need to stop listening to the biased media reports and understand the reality of the Obama years. Since he took office the democrats have lost office at historical levels. Much more devastating than their epic losses at the federal level is their horrendous defeats at the state level where the next generation of candidates is developed. We have effectively cleared their bench. You can read about it herehttp://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

Right now the republicans are angering their base by playing nice with the worst disaster of a president in our history and hopefully the leadership will be toppled but the democrats have zero momentum and there is no hope in sight for them. Hillary is a disaster and Sanders is unelectable. Obama has a hard core 40% that will never abandon him because of race but that will not extend to the next candidate.

The republicans worst enemy is their embedded leadership but the electorate is trying to dump them. The democrats are pushing policies that the majority disagree with regardless of what the biased media says and the midterms reflect that in a blinding glare.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

There are two ways to lose an election -- fail to mobilize your supporters or mobilize your opponents. The Republicans at the moment seem to be busy doing both.

I agree, if what you mean is that the Republicans are mobilizing their people while the Democrats seem to be loosing support.

If Democrats were mobilizing their base, we'd see polling numbers increasing their support, rather then the numbers staying flat and/or decreasing.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/republicans-early-views-of-gop-field-more-positive-than-in-2012-2008-campaigns/

Republicans’ Early Views of GOP Field More Positive Than in 2012, 2008 Campaigns
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

I agree, if what you mean is that the Republicans are mobilizing their people while the Democrats seem to be loosing support.

If Democrats were mobilizing their base, we'd see polling numbers increasing their support, rather then the numbers staying flat and/or decreasing.

When Obama was elected there was record numbers of minorities registering to vote for the first time in their long lives. Hillary won't inspire the same response.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Actually I think Obama has turned things around rather nicely, and so long as nothing much happens bad from here the Democrats will enjoy a sweep. I dunno that that will be a good thing, but it will be. The Republicans seems determined to show irresponsibility, although I think this is largely because the most irresponsible ones get the most press, the impression to the general public is more muddled.

When Obama was elected there was record numbers of minorities registering to vote for the first time in their long lives. Hillary won't inspire the same response.

She won't need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

Actually I think Obama has turned things around rather nicely, and so long as nothing much happens bad from here the Democrats will enjoy a sweep. I dunno that that will be a good thing, but it will be. The Republicans seems determined to show irresponsibility, although I think this is largely because the most irresponsible ones get the most press, the impression to the general public is more muddled.

You do realize that that is the exact same thing the media and Democrats have been saying for the past 7 years right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

You do realize that that is the exact same thing the media and Democrats have been saying for the past 7 years right?

I don't care what the Democrats and the media have been saying (and, by the way, the media hasn't been saying any such thing and the media never speaks with a unified voice anyway). That is irrelevant. I just care about what actually is the case right now -- look at Obama's approval ratings for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

Even going with the most modest estimate, Democrats have 232 electoral votes pretty much on lock, and to me, likely up to 250, leaving them needing only 40 votes to win the election with 270 or more votes. Republicans have 164, meaning they have to make up 106.

I'm not a math surgeon, but 106 to 40? WIth the insane way the Republicans have been doubling down on alienating everyone they possibly can? And another first, Hillary being a woman? I don't know who's going to be the democratic candidate, but even if Republicans win most of the battleground states, they still have almost no chance of actually pulling ahead to even be competitive, let alone win.

You can argue this or that or turnout or "mood" or whatever else, but it really relies entirely on the electoral college and each state, which is either voting that way they always have, or a few that have splt or gone "blue" - at least moreso that make up any difference where once-blue states have gone "red". If you can do simple math, you can easily "predict" (in other words, solve an addition problem) what party is going to be boast next president.

Electoral College Map of the US: http://www.270towin.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Actually I think Obama has turned things around rather nicely, and so long as nothing much happens bad from here the Democrats will enjoy a sweep. I dunno that that will be a good thing, but it will be. The Republicans seems determined to show irresponsibility, although I think this is largely because the most irresponsible ones get the most press, the impression to the general public is more muddled.

She won't need to.

Did you read the article I posted? Those are real numbers regardless of whether you like the source or not. There is nothing, nada, zero suggesting a democrat sweep in an Obama-less election (when Obama ran he got hiss base out, the midterms were disaster for democrats) The polls suggest an unmotivated base a d fringe aside, Bernie Sanders, a 73 year old socialist, won't bring out the masses.

Seems like I heard the same rhetoric from the same people in 2014 which was an unmitigated disaster for the democrat party. Nothing suggests the democrats are excited about 2016 because nothing good has occurred over the last 6.5 years. This election is for the republicans to lose but it won't be because the democrat base9other than the zealots like para, will bother going to the polls, at least right now , especially since the familiar chant "war on women" is now changing to "war on babies" with the planned parenthood debacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Even going with the most modest estimate, Democrats have 232 electoral votes pretty much on lock, and to me, likely up to 250, leaving them needing only 40 votes to win the election with 270 or more votes. Republicans have 164, meaning they have to make up 106.

I'm not a math surgeon, but 106 to 40? WIth the insane way the Republicans have been doubling down on alienating everyone they possibly can? And another first, Hillary being a woman? I don't know who's going to be the democratic candidate, but even if Republicans win most of the battleground states, they still have almost no chance of actually pulling ahead to even be competitive, let alone win.

You can argue this or that or turnout or "mood" or whatever else, but it really relies entirely on the electoral college and each state, which is either voting that way they always have, or a few that have splt or gone "blue" - at least moreso that make up any difference where once-blue states have gone "red". If you can do simple math, you can easily "predict" (in other words, solve an addition problem) what party is going to be boast next president.

Electoral College Map of the US: http://www.270towin.com/

That is something I have been trying to tell hardcore Reps for a long time now, and that you cannot win elections by p!ssing off those who are more likely to swing from Dem to Rep... an art where they are the undisputed masters.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

i think if Hillary survives the email thingy... she will probably win simply because of the HYPE that will be generated over electing the first woman president.

I won't vote for any of the top contenders.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

i think if Hillary survives the email thingy... she will probably win simply because of the HYPE that will be generated over electing the first woman president.

I won't vote for any of the top contenders.

yup... like Obama, Hillary will be voted in soley through emotions. Forget policy. None exists. It's an emotional vote. She'll help women the same way Obama helped the black voter.... through pure collectivism.... divide the sexes. She's here to bring equality. Business as usual.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

yup... like Obama, Hillary will be voted in soley through emotions. Forget policy. None exists. It's an emotional vote. She'll help women the same way Obama helped the black voter.... through pure collectivism.... divide the sexes. She's here to bring equality. Business as usual.

If Hillary wins, despite the insane corruption and downright evil things she has done, I will have lost my last shred of faith in the democratic system. The media has barely made a peep because they are bought and paid for, the main outlets American's use to stay informed have been heavily filtering her dirt. The same corporations are likely funding campaigns on both sides, ensuring that whoever wins is also a win for them. The system is very broken...

But hey - a lion got killed so let's make a national news story about that instead.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

There is no "socailist party"

Don't tell these folks that: http://socialistparty-usa.net/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

Even when typing it I knew it wasn't correct technically, and it's fair to call me on it. What I meant was "there is no major party called that, which is presenting even a showing, currently". It and the Green Party and the late Reform Party. Someday, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

Here's what the rest of the whole political field is up against.... and before it's mentioned that the video has been edited to make it appear like all Democrats are dumb, which it was(duhhhh), it's painfully obvious many people will still support her soley for the reason she's a woman. Personally I ask people all the time(here in Canada) if they support her for POTUS and the glossy eyed responses are pretty much the same as in the following video. The majority of people who support her are truly dumb and uninformed.

Enjoy!

Hillary Clinton supporters are asked if they agree with her supposed "campaign promise" to "repeal the Bill of Rights" to see if they would blindly agree with this clearly insane policy just because Hillary is supposedly behind it. The results of the experiment are disturbing. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Here's what the rest of the whole political field is up against.... and before it's mentioned that the video has been edited to make it appear like all Democrats are dumb, which it was(duhhhh), it's painfully obvious many people will still support her soley for the reason she's a woman. Personally I ask people all the time(here in Canada) if they support her for POTUS and the glossy eyed responses are pretty much the same as in the following video. The majority of people who support her are truly dumb and uninformed.

Enjoy!

Hillary Clinton supporters are asked if they agree with her supposed "campaign promise" to "repeal the Bill of Rights" to see if they would blindly agree with this clearly insane policy just because Hillary is supposedly behind it. The results of the experiment are disturbing.

ROFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

WTH?! ROFL!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.