A case for Hillary Clinton to run in 2020

[psyche101]

On 25/11/2017 at 8:52 PM, DieChecker said:

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/24/heres-your-leftover-turkey-the-case-for-hillary-clinton-2020/

I really hope that this doesn't come to pass. I think she was a horrible candidate that was only allowed to get as far as she did, because she has a vagina, and Identity Politics is in full swing in the Democrat party today. Otherwise her baggage would have very early on tossed her out of contention. Some say that is a misogynistic view, but from my perspective it is sexist to support her over better candidates just because she is a woman.

Mind you that if your are a politician, and have a (D) next to your name, then Salon will support you in any and all ways..... (not sarcasm BTW)

Please vote in the poll, and let's see how the UM citizens feel about Sec (Sen?) Clinton running again.

EDIT: I voted "No", but then that probably isn't a surprise. 

The whole world shook its head in dismay at the fact that these two were best candidates a country the size of America could produce.

They made the election process a joke, surely they are not still the only two worthy of standing for the job? Kermit the frog seems ten times more qualified than either of them.

[Astra.]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

The problem they have is that the bench has been obliterated over the last 8 years.  There are NO up and comers so there best hope for 2020 is soon to be  octogenarian Joe Biden and the lady who faked being a native American lizzy warren, a near socialist.

I thought I read that Elizabeth Warren didn't have any plans of running, so maybe that's changed ?..also wouldn't she have to provide some form of documentation concerning her claimed native ancestry, has she done this at all ?

I'm not 100% sure, but in Australia one may be asked to provide proof of claiming to be of Aboriginal and / or Torres Strait Islander heritage when applying for special indigenous services, such as programs and grants etc...which is fair enough, otherwise we would have every Tom, Dick, Harry and Sally claiming to have one half / or less indigenous blood so as to claim these special benefits.  

 

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Actually, in the federalist papers, the freedom of the press is explained and their main reason for being given constitutional rights was to hold the government accountable.  Our press and media, in general, is now completely corrupted and irretrievably progressive.  They have lost millions, if not billions, of dollars but the management, who are fellow travelers and working for billion dollar corporations, don't care as they will take the loss rather than the bad  press, which they own. Are you confused yet?  Well don't feel bad because it is inexplicable unless you think of progressives as a religion rather than a political party.  Do that, in your head and it all snaps into place (think 13th-15th century century catholicism and heretics, etc.)

 Bold^ - yes pretty much. The way you have made it sound, is that your press and media have gone completely rogue. And none of it is the fault of your government  / politicians. Your media / press is the blame for everything that is corrupt ?

I don't know, maybe you are right, as you live there, and know far more than me of what really goes on. But to be honest, you would have to forgive me for thinking it sounds more like being a conspiracy theory Merc.   

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Astra, by far, the most interesting thing about the US right now is the sudden emergence of women coming forward and exposing these people for what they are, misogynists who spew the politically correct verbiage on air and then abuse women under their power off air while management pretends it isn't happening. 

i still hold doors open for ladies and give my seat up so I am a dinosaur but I read what these guys have been doing and I know how we handled it in the Navy and I am amazed they could report are transgressions with such glee yet had no guilt for what they did after the cameras shut down. 

Yep, it's all terribly disturbing. It seems that an enormous can of worms have been opened in regards to exposing these people. Not only within the realm of being in politics, Hollywood, TV land etc...but in fact, this horrible can of worms has now over flowed into other countries, including the UK and Australia, where more people are now coming forth with stories of being abused. 

The latest person accused now is Geoffrey Rush (one of my all time favourite actors) who has also been accused of inappropriate behaviour. I am finding this extremely difficult to believe tho, as I'm wondering if it's just some crazy opportunist who is jumping on the band wagon, in the hope of making a financial gain. Unfortunately, this whole sordid business seems to be getting out of control. 

[Merc14]

48 minutes ago, Astra. said:

I thought I read that Elizabeth Warren didn't have any plans of running, so maybe that's changed ?..also wouldn't she have to provide some form of documentation concerning her claimed native ancestry, has she done this at all ?

No she hasn't because she has almost no Native American (NA) blood in her.  Her sole claim to being NA was that her family lore told the story of a female relative that was wed to an NA and she  has high cheekbones.  I kid you not.  Based on that she was considered NA by the various schools she attended and listed as a minority professor when teaching, only when she started to have presidential ambitions did the NA tribes become aware of Fauxcohantas and check their books at which point it was discovered teh entire story was a lie.

48 minutes ago, Astra. said:

I'm not 100% sure, but in Australia one may be asked to provide proof of claiming to be of Aboriginal and / or Torres Strait Islander heritage when applying for special indigenous services, such as programs and grants etc...which is fair enough, otherwise we would have every Tom, Dick, Harry and Sally claiming to have one half / or less indigenous blood so as to claim these special benefits.  

She never tried to claim any benefits from the NA tribes so she was never investigated by them.  You'll have to ask one of the leftist twits around here why Harvard never checked before granting her minority status but my guess is they were so thrilled to have a qualified minority that they simply opened the doors and welcomed her in.  Regardless, the democrats don't seem to care as she is one of them.  

48 minutes ago, Astra. said:

Bold^ - yes pretty much. The way you have made it sound, is that your press and media have gone completely rogue. And none of it is the fault of your government  / politicians. Your media / press is the blame for everything that is corrupt ?

I don't think you can point fingers and say "They did it!", I'd say it was more a by-product of the 60's-70's when the cultural  revolution occurred over here during the Vietnam war and radicalized leftists took over the college campuses.  They soon graduated and took over academia and raised generations of fellow travelers who also took over the media conglomerate. 

I don't believe it was intentional, nor do i think they see themselves as biased, they are simply delusional to the point that reality is what they believe it to be.  Obama's presidency, which was a disaster by every measure you can think if, is a perfect illustration of their delusional thinking as they see him and that congress as wonderful and glorious, never mind the disastrous economy and foreign affairs.

48 minutes ago, Astra. said:

I don't know, maybe you are right, as you live there, and know far more than me of what really goes on. But to be honest, you would have to forgive me for thinking it sounds more like being a conspiracy theory Merc.  

Yep, it's all terribly disturbing. It seems that an enormous can of worms have been opened in regards to exposing these people. Not only within the realm of being in politics, Hollywood, TV land etc...but in fact, this horrible can of worms has now over flowed into other countries, including the UK and Australia, where more people are now coming forth with stories of being abused. 

They have all known about it and have all protected themselves, at the price of these women's lives, because they all knelt at the same altar of progressivism. Hey the right had their abusers and perts as well but they were gleefully exposed by this same media that shielded their ownfrom prosecution. My guess it is much teh same in your country but the lid is still on.

48 minutes ago, Astra. said:

The latest person accused now is Geoffrey Rush (one of my all time favourite actors) who has also been accused of inappropriate behaviour. I am finding this extremely difficult to believe tho, as I'm wondering if it's just some crazy opportunist who is jumping on the band wagon, in the hope of making a financial gain. Unfortunately, this whole sordid business seems to be getting out of control. 

 

[godnodog]

6 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Because the Dems are just high "caliber" folks, and run such clean campaigns? 

 

Heal thyself, physician. 

 

no, its just that Trump is such a scumbag of a person that if someone loses to him the best thing is to give up.

[Farmer77]

30 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

No she hasn't because she has almost no Native American (NA) blood in her.  Her sole claim to being NA was that her family lore told the story of a female relative that was wed to an NA and she  has high cheekbones.  I kid you not.  Based on that she was considered NA by the various schools she attended and listed as a minority professor when teaching, only when she started to have presidential ambitions did the NA tribes become aware of Fauxcohantas and check their books at which point it was discovered teh entire story was a lie.

Lie is a bit of a stretch , she simply believed the family lore handed down to her. 

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, Astra. said:

Well it's good to know that your're not a total sexist DieChecker, and ones genitalia wouldn't influence your decision on who you would vote for. The reason that I had asked you what your general views were concerning females that may run for leadership (in spite of Hillary being a horrible candidate) was because you said this....

All in all, yes..a candidate should only be chosen on merit....what lies between their legs should have nothing to do with it. 

 

Well... To be fair, she did have a few other things going for her. She probably has "bought off", enough people and otherwise influenced enough people in the upper reaches of the Democrat Party, that they couldn't NOT back her, and not get burned in the process.

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The whole world shook its head in dismay at the fact that these two were best candidates a country the size of America could produce.

They made the election process a joke, surely they are not still the only two worthy of standing for the job? Kermit the frog seems ten times more qualified than either of them.

It was amazing. I remember back in early 2016 when I was absolutely sure that Trump would drop out due to lack of interest. I'm still not sure how it was that he did so well. His platform wasn't that different then any of the other career politicians. He simply had the unpolished appearance of an "Outsider", which enough people were angry that apparently that pushed him over. Then those who hated Clinton could either not vote, or vote for Trump, as everyone "knows" that third party is a waste of time.

[+DieChecker]

OUCH! Looks like this unofficial, unscientific poll has Hillary being DENIED. The vote is crushingly one sided.

• YES! The article is correct and she would be Great, and should run for President.                                   3
• NO! This article is lame and she's just a bad candidate, and she should not run for President.               32
• Meh? I don't care. She'd probably be OK, but probably not fantastic.                                                        3

[Space Commander Travis]

Quote

YES! The article is correct and she would be Great, and should run for President.  3

I'd love to know who the other two are.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[F3SS]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

OUCH! Looks like this unofficial, unscientific poll has Hillary being DENIED. The vote is crushingly one sided.

• YES! The article is correct and she would be Great, and should run for President.                                   3
• NO! This article is lame and she's just a bad candidate, and she should not run for President.               32
• Meh? I don't care. She'd probably be OK, but probably not fantastic.                                                        3

Pretty much the same way the thread about voting for her during the campaign went. There was just a couple of yes votes then.

 

3 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I'd love to know who the other two are.

I kind of feel like a schmuck for my yes vote but my reasoning is sound. In all honesty I really don’t want to see her run again even if that guarnatees keeping democrats out of power. 

[.ZZ.]

37 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I kind of feel like a schmuck for my yes vote but my reasoning is sound. In all honesty I really don’t want to see her run again even if that guarnatees keeping democrats out of power. 

Wait a minute my friend....you voted YES?

Edited December 1, 2017 by .ZZ.

[F3SS]

5 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Wait a minute my fiend....you voted YES?

You have nothing to worry about. See post 7. I disregarded the poll choice. 

[Paranormal Panther]

22 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

I left it alone until you pushed the issue.

Conduct unbecoming.

Edit: By the way, I voted 'No'. She was a horrible candidate.

Whatever. It makes me no never mind.

[Paranormal Panther]

20 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Webb seems wedded to the DNC and he will NEVER win anything there given how far left that party has gone. I believe he thinks it is still the party of Kennedy but it most certainly is NOT, they are pretty much socialists now

Jim Webb and Joe Manchin are their token "deplorables". They would promote them only if poor White people were seen as a victim group. They haven't yet found a way to incorporate them into the propaganda of identity politicians. The Democrats have a Plan B with illegal immigrants if they lose the Black vote up the road, which would be similar to the exodus of the White working-class vote this time. 

[AnchorSteam]

On 11/30/2017 at 8:14 PM, psyche101 said:

The whole world shook its head in dismay at the fact that these two were best candidates a country the size of America could produce.

Oh Baloney!

First of all, trying to speak for the whole world indicates budding megalomania at worst, and cheap theatrics at best.

And BTW; before you start passing your own brand of blinders around, you might want to reconsider the stature regained by the US and the respect earned by Trump on his trips to the Middle East and the Orient. 

Only in Western Europe did they sneer at him, just as they have been doing to Americans for 240 years.

On 11/30/2017 at 8:14 PM, psyche101 said:

They made the election process a joke, surely they are not still the only two worthy of standing for the job? Kermit the frog seems ten times more qualified than either of them.

There isn't anyone that you won't try to make Trump look guilty of by association ... and now it's SHrillary herself?!? 

The very dingbat you all would have voted for over Trump, wow.

Yup, have fun choosing between Crazy Bernie and senile Joe in 2020.

[Likely Guy]

1 hour ago, AnchorSteam said:

Oh Baloney!

First of all, trying to speak for the whole world indicates budding megalomania at worst, and cheap theatrics at best.

And BTW; before you start passing your own brand of blinders around, you might want to reconsider the stature regained by the US and the respect earned by Trump on his trips to the Middle East and the Orient. 

Only in Western Europe did they sneer at him, just as they have been doing to Americans for 240 years.

 

Did you see what you did there?

Edited December 2, 2017 by Likely Guy

[Space Commander Travis]

9 hours ago, .ZZ. said:

Wait a minute my friend....you voted YES?

Probably for the same reason I did; that she'd guarantee the "Democrats" would sink without trace and they might be prompted to have a serious rethink about what they've become since, at the very least, the Clinton years.

[AnchorSteam]

On 12/1/2017 at 9:33 PM, Likely Guy said:

Did you see what you did there?

Yes, I described what I saw of the leadership there, what they said and how they looked when they were saying it, both during and after.

 

Oh, I see. You are trying to conflate that into some kind of weird contradiction of my own posts?

Propaganda.... putting people to sleep since 1848.

[Likely Guy]

8 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Yes, I described what I saw of the leadership there, what they said and how they looked when they were saying it, both during and after.

 

Oh, I see. You are trying to conflate that into some kind of weird contradiction of my own posts?

Propaganda.... putting people to sleep since 1848.

No, you bemoaned someone for speaking for the whole world and then did pretty much the same.

[Space Commander Travis]

On 12/2/2017 at 4:32 AM, AnchorSteam said:

And BTW; before you start passing your own brand of blinders around, you might want to reconsider the stature regained by the US and the respect earned by Trump on his trips to the Middle East and the Orient. 

Only in Western Europe did they sneer at him, just as they have been doing to Americans for 240 years.

I'm not so sure about that. King whoever it is currently in S. Arabia would obviously have been eager to fawn all over him, but everyone else (particularly Chairman XI) seemed to smile and nod politely, the way that one would when you have a slightly embarrassing guest who you're hoping will leave before very long, particularly if you smile and nod politely at everything they say.  

[AnchorSteam]

21 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

No, you bemoaned someone for speaking for the whole world and then did pretty much the same.

That's what we call a lie where I live.

 

20 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I'm not so sure about that. King whoever it is currently in S. Arabia would obviously have been eager to fawn all over him, but everyone else (particularly Chairman XI) seemed to smile and nod politely, the way that one would when you have a slightly embarrassing guest who you're hoping will leave before very long, particularly if you smile and nod politely at everything they say.  

That must be why all the Shoplifters got a Get out of Jail Free card the next day, and China is making a show of going along with the sanctions vs North Korea. That's more than Obama ever got. 

Bored already...

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

That's what we call a lie where I live.

 

That must be why all the Shoplifters got a Get out of Jail Free card the next day, and China is making a show of going along with the sanctions vs North Korea. That's more than Obama ever got. 

Bored already...

I don't really understand what you're saying. Is China going along with the sanctions over N. Korea? They seem to be adopting a policy more of nodding in agreement but carrying on with their own policy, inscrutable as it may be. That's more than Obama ever got? Perhaps Obama's policy was less, well, confrontational, and you have to admit that N. Korea's little fat fellow didn't seem nearly so aggressive towards the previous administration.  

[psyche101]

On 02/12/2017 at 0:10 AM, DieChecker said:

It was amazing. I remember back in early 2016 when I was absolutely sure that Trump would drop out due to lack of interest. I'm still not sure how it was that he did so well. His platform wasn't that different then any of the other career politicians. He simply had the unpolished appearance of an "Outsider", which enough people were angry that apparently that pushed him over. Then those who hated Clinton could either not vote, or vote for Trump, as everyone "knows" that third party is a waste of time.

His success I find to be a small wonder, handy slogans and promises of the good old days. He embraced social media, murdered political correctness and generally removed himself of the social graces that a person of responsibility should express. People seemed to get excited over this. He became the anti politician in a political arena while people focused on past failures. And with predecessors like Bush the path was paid before him. His failures were glossed over and his disgusting nature lapped up when sold as anti establishment. He was completely different, few decent men, let alone the POTUS would stoop to the depths he did with his comments on women, married in particular. He broke the mold an people bought it. Shock value and sexual inuendo sells in all walks of life, even the polling booths. The voting map tells the story well. His strongest vote was a big red neck through America while the blue seemed to make up the borders on the coasts like a sensible collar. However, what's done is done and while nothing will change that it's astounding that his tactics still work enough for people to so much as consider reelection.

Edited December 5, 2017 by psyche101

[acidhead]

7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

His succeeds I find to be a small wonder, handy slogans and promises of the good old days. He embraced social media, murdered political correctness and generally removed himself of the social graces that a person of responsibility should express. People seemed to get excited over this. He became the anti politician in a political arena while people focused on past failures. And with predecessors like Bush the path was paid before him. His failures were glossed over and his disgusting nature lapped up when sold as anti establishment. He was completely different, few decent men, let alone the POTUS would stoop to the depths he did with his comments on women, married in particular. He broke the mold an people bought it. Shock value and sexual inuendo sells in all walks of life, even the polling booths. The voting map tells the story well. His strongest vote was a big red neck through America while the blue seemed to make up the borders on the coasts like a sensible collar. However, what's done is done and while nothing will change that it's astounding that his tactics still work enough for people to so much as consider reelection.

Yes the voting map does tell a story.  It was a HUGE win for Trump.  And not because of so-called 'red necks'.

The only wage demographic Hillary won the popular vote was those earning 50K or less per year.  Trump won the popular vote on each wage demographic above 50K. 

If my memory is correct you're an electrician.  What wage category did that put you in?

[F3SS]

Psyche your map is all wrong. That was some polling map or prediction. You just assumed that’s what happened based on your prejudices. It looks more like a big red country with some tiny blue spots.