• 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!

Clinton leads potential opponents in new poll

Fenton said:
Define "served" because as the Sec State she was a disaster, cost 4 Americans their lives and then lied directly to the faces of the parents who lost their sons in Benghazi.

She pathetic, as a leader and as a human being.
Click to expand...

Served means that she was Secretary of State. While I don't see any signature accomplishments that would put her on par with an Acheson or Kissinger or Marshall in terms of their historical impact and recognize she made her share of errors (and even the greatest Secretaries of State are not without errors of judgment given the nature of the job), I don't think she was an unmitigated failure either.

The Benghazi findings are publicly available: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Almost certainly her opponents will raise the issue. However, unless new credible evidence is found that goes significantly beyond those findings, the issue is not going to be a deal-breaker should she seek office. Her resilient polling in the face of the widespread controversy related to the issue indicates that new information would be required for the issue to pose a more serious threat to her campaign.

Having said this, there are no guarantees that she would win were she to seek the office. A lot would depend on her own health, her Democratic Party opposition, and her eventual GOP opponent. Between now and election day is an enormously long period of time, so much can change. If the economy remains sluggish or deteriorates and unemployment rises, any Democratic candidate would face formidable headwinds, barring the GOP's nominating a candidate who has only narrow appeal. On the other hand, if the economy picks up steam and the unemployment rate falls toward 6%, Clinton or any other Democratic nominee could be very difficult to beat. Non-economic issues could also impact the race, but the economic ones will very likely be the most influential ones.

Other than saying that Secretary Clinton could be a strong candidate, it's premature to suggest that she would be assured of winning the Democratic nomination, much less the Presidency. But as things stand now, she would have a realistic chance of doing so.
 
specklebang said:
She's hardly flawless but the same could be said of Obama - the guy who won the last election.

The election is over 3 years away. If this US continues its slow, painful recovery, we'll be in decent shape by that time.

If the GOP doesn't show some wisdom in their platform or candidate choice, she may well win by default rather than merit. The GOP has 3 years to straighten up, I'm seeing a few small signs. We shall see.
Click to expand...

You're comparison to Obama is not without merit - she could very well win. However, does America really need more of the same for another 4 years? And do you want the First Lad to be a former President who has an opinion on everything and is an expert in all?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Maybe a 3rd time will be a charm?
Click to expand...

Your'e picking on me because of my time honored tradition of making typos. It comes with a diminishing eye sight and a crappy cell phone and the fact that 98% of what I post is from my Android and from memory.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Served means that she was Secretary of State. While I don't see any signature accomplishments that would put her on par with an Acheson
or Kissinger or Marshall in terms of their historical impact and recognize she made her share of errors (and even the greatest Secretaries of State are not without errors of judgment given the nature of the job), I don't think she was an unmitigated failure either.

The Benghazi findings are publicly available: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Almost certainly her opponents will raise the issue. However, unless new credible evidence is found that goes significantly beyond those findings, the issue is not going to be a deal-breaker should she seek office. Her resilient polling in the face of the widespread controversy related to the issue indicates that new information would be required for the issue to pose a more serious threat to her campaign.

Having said this, there are no guarantees that she would win were she to seek the office. A lot would depend on her own health, her Democratic Party opposition, and her eventual GOP opponent. Between now and election day is an enormously long period of time, so much can change. If the economy remains sluggish or deteriorates and unemployment rises, any Democratic candidate would face formidable headwinds, barring the GOP's nominating a candidate who has only narrow appeal. On the other hand, if the economy picks up steam and the unemployment rate falls toward 6%, Clinton or any other Democratic nominee could be very difficult to beat. Non-economic issues could also impact the race, but the economic ones will very likely be the most influential ones.

Other than saying that Secretary Clinton could be a strong candidate, it's premature to suggest that she would be assured of winning the Democratic nomination, much less the Presidency. But as things stand now, she would have a realistic chance of doing so.
Click to expand...

Give me the name of the last Sec of State that lied to the Faces of the parents who's sons lost their lives due to that Sec State's incompetence.

A lie for one reason, because it was politically expediant in the middle of a election cycle.

I'll wait
 
Fenton said:
The GOP and the Dems will be passing the 2016 election back and forth like a hot potato..

"...no you take it"..."no you take it"..." no YOU take it"....

Because the Countries fiscal condition by 2016 is going to be irretrievable.

There is going to be massive debt and a massive unprecedented amount of static liquidity with High Interest Rates and High unemployment and a growing dependent class.

The consequence of the Democrats appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
 
Fenton said:
Your'e picking on me because of my time honored tradition of making typos. It comes with a diminishing eye sight and a crappy cell phone and the fact that 98% of what I post is from my Android and from memory.
Click to expand...
FFS...do think that using a cell phone for incessant posting is good for deteriorating eyesight?

And the original issue wasn't so much spelling but sentence structure....or the lack there of.
 
Gipper said:
Her husband essentially got her the SoS position. As a Senator, she was absolutely garbage. Her husband, as governor of Arkansas? Pretty good. Her? Crap. Complete crap.
Click to expand...

Whatever one thinks of her record in the Senate, the reality is that New Yorkers re-elected her with 67% of the vote in 2006. She has a large base of support. That doesn't mean she's not beatable.

In a hypothetical race, the GOP candidate would need to articulate a coherent and realistic vision for the future, offer a substantive positive policy approach for increasing the nation's economic growth/improve living standards, and offer real alternatives to policies adopted under the Obama Administration. For the economic growth strategy to be credible, it would need to outline tax policy, regulatory policy, investments that could increase the nation's rate of innovation/enhance its competitiveness, trade policy, etc. The fiscal numbers would need to add up. Barring unfavorable economic circumstances (which would strengthen the case for change), the burden of proof would rest with the candidate seeking to change direction.

Finally, in terms of personal attributes, the GOP candidate would need to be an effective communicator and have gravitas. A candidate along the lines of Ron Paul (below average communicator), Sarah Palin (below average communicator), or Herman Cain (no meaningful credentials to suggest that he could lead the nation) will face a very difficult challenge. A high profile governor (executive experience in getting things done) would probably be more attractive than a Senator (very low public approval rating of the Congress), excepting a few Senators who have distinguished themselves or have the ability to do so between now and the 2016 race.
 
Fenton said:
Give me the name of the last Sec of State that lied to the Faces of the parents who's sons lost their lives due to that Sec State's incompetence.

A lie for one reason, because it was politically expediant in the middle of a election cycle.

I'll wait
Click to expand...
I'll do better than that, I'll name one that needlessly extended a major war costing thousands of lives.

Kissinger.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Herman Cain (no meaningful credentials to suggest that he could lead the nation)
Click to expand...

Immaterial after the 2008 election...and further enforced after the 2012 election.

Well, unless you call being a US Senator for 17 minutes as "meaningful credentials".

Right now, I'd vote for anyone with a great idea.
 
We'll learn more next year. It may be revealing. I do know that many who voted for Obama are disappointed for a variety of reasons. So, the Ds are vulnerable but they will have to moderate and modify to overcome political inertia. Both Bush and Obama were re-elected at a time when they weren't popular but the alternative seemed worse.


Hatuey said:
Gindal was pretty good statements a few months ago on immigration. However, he's not a college educated hillbilly like a large percentage of high ranking Republicans. So his perspective is a lot different:

Gov. Bobby Jindal on Immigration | National Review Online



However, I'm sure he'll turn around by 2015.
Click to expand...
 
Fenton said:
Give me the name of the last Sec of State that lied to the Faces of the parents who's sons lost their lives due to that Sec State's incompetence.

A lie for one reason, because it was politically expediant in the middle of a election cycle.

I'll wait
Click to expand...

That's the political narrative, not a finding of the investigation. The ARB concluded:

However, the Board did not find that any individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.

Given the vast attention that has been given to the matter in the media and Congress and Secretary Clinton's resilient polling numbers, one will need credible evidence that goes beyond the ARB's findings if the issue is to pose a serious risk to her candidacy. Merely reasserting the political narrative (likely during the campaign) won't be sufficient, as Secretary Clinton can readily rebut it with the actual findings that do not support the political narrative.
 
JayGatsby said:
Kind of reminds me of Iraq, when the Bush Administration lied and costed thousands of American lives...
Click to expand...

LOL !! :lamo:lamo:lamo

Pathetic weak sauce. Empty left wing talking points drek.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Final vote on Iraq Resolution ??

YEAs — 77

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
 
No, we should be able to do better. For that to happen, we need better alternatives.


CanadaJohn said:
You're comparison to Obama is not without merit - she could very well win. However, does America really need more of the same for another 4 years? And do you want the First Lad to be a former President who has an opinion on everything and is an expert in all?
Click to expand...
 
In 2008 the first black American was elected president, in 2018 the first woman (HRC) will be elected POTUS. The GOP will nominate another piss-poor candidate (John McCain, Mitt Romney, ?????) because Fox News will be involved with the primary selection process as they have in the last two presidential elections. Presidential candidates need to introduce themselves through the mainstream media, not on a partisan news organization like Fox or MSNBC.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
FFS...do think that using a cell phone for incessant posting is good for deteriorating eyesight?

And the original issue wasn't so much spelling but sentence structure....or the lack there of.
Click to expand...

My deteriorating eye sight is due to issues unrelated to posting on a forum via a droid POS cell phone. But, I'm sure your right to some degree, it sure doesn't help.

But hey !!! I found a desktop with a 22 " screen. It's like getting that shot of epinephrine that counters a severe asthma attack...Fresh air.

If the original issue WAS structure why did you critique my spelling ?
 
pbrauer said:
In 2008 the first black American was elected president, in 2018 the first woman (HRC) will be elected POTUS. The GOP will nominate another piss-poor candidate (John McCain, Mitt Romney, ?????) because Fox News will be involved with the primary selection process as they have in the last two presidential elections. Presidential candidates need to introduce themselves through the mainstream media, not on a partisan news organization like Fox or MSNBC.
Click to expand...

So Obama is going to run for 6 years in his second term ? Nice...
 
Fenton said:
My deteriorating eye sight is due to issues unrelated to posting on a forum via a droid POS cell phone. But, I'm sure your right to some degree, it sure doesn't help.

But hey !!! I found a desktop with a 22 " screen. It's like getting that shot of epinephrine that counters a severe asthma attack...Fresh air.

If the original issue WAS structure why did you critique my spelling ?
Click to expand...
When I posted "???????????" it was limited to spelling?

Cut the excuses and get on with it.
 
Bump...
Fenton said:
Give me the name of the last Sec of State that lied to the Faces of the parents who's sons lost their lives due to that Sec State's incompetence.

A lie for one reason, because it was politically expediant in the middle of a election cycle.

I'll wait
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
I'll do better than that, I'll name one that needlessly extended a major war costing thousands of lives.

Kissinger.
Click to expand...

Nothing?

Bueller?
 
Hatuey said:
Gindal was pretty good statements a few months ago on immigration. However, he's not a college educated hillbilly like a large percentage of high ranking Republicans. So his perspective is a lot different:

Gov. Bobby Jindal on Immigration | National Review Online


However, I'm sure he'll turn around by 2015.
Click to expand...

He should contact Romney's campaign team. They are geniuses at morphing candidates literally over night.
 
pbrauer said:
In 2008 the first black American was elected president, in 2018 the first woman (HRC) will be elected POTUS. The GOP will nominate another piss-poor candidate (John McCain, Mitt Romney, ?????) because Fox News will be involved with the primary selection process as they have in the last two presidential elections. Presidential candidates need to introduce themselves through the mainstream media, not on a partisan news organization like Fox or MSNBC.
Click to expand...

1. If Hillary is running for President in 2018, she'll be two years late and a dollar short

2. A person who is qualified and has the potential to be President of the United States shouldn't need to "introduce themselves" through the media or in any other way, they should be well known and respected by their actions that preceed their run for the highest office in the world.
 
Fenton said:
LOL !! :lamo:lamo:lamo

Pathetic weak sauce. Empty left wing talking points drek.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Final vote on Iraq Resolution ??

YEAs — 77

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Click to expand...

The Leftists have to be reminded of this reality at least weekly.

Now the questions remains whether they will vote to continue with Obamaism by voting in another candidate with few credentials, and continue to break the country, or will they put their country first and elect a person of competence. It will be a real test of the American people.
 
Hatuey said:
Clinton leads potential opponents in new poll




It's way too early for this stuff. However, this is pretty interesting given how Republicans couldn't make Benghazi stick to Hilary. They can't even connect the IRS thing to the Obama administration. They've basically proven themselves completely incompetent to have anything really stick to the administration in the way they tried to do it with Clinton's administration. Given all of that, Hillary seems to be positioning herself for a 2016 run. Democrats don't seem to have any front runners other than her. So they may as well build on her popularity and try to cut off any rising Republican contenders.
Click to expand...

I can tell you this ....... If, in 2016, my choices are between another Clinton and another Bush, the electoral process can kiss my ass.
 
Fenton said:
LOL !! :lamo:lamo:lamo

Pathetic weak sauce. Empty left wing talking points drek.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware Bush wasn't the only one in favor of the war, I was just making a comparison.
I maybe should of included the media, the rest of the yes votes in congress, and the democrats you named.

My point is Hillary isn't the only one to "lie" about American deaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom