• 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!

Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40, 145]

Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

lizzie said:
She would have been far superior to what we have currently, imo. She's an ideologue to a certain degree, but she also has some common sense, and she knows not to take it too far.
Click to expand...

6 of one, a half dozen of the other, imo.
 
That's ridiculous. She's been a Senator and also a Secretary of State.

I would never vote for her, but this doesn't mean that she lacks the qualifications to be President. At least be fair.
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

apdst said:
The country will be screwed, if she doesn't have brain damage.
Click to expand...

The Mayor of San Antonio can beat her...but indoubt he'll step in front of that buzz saw.
 
nota bene said:
That's ridiculous. She's been a Senator and also a Secretary of State.

I would never vote for her, but this doesn't mean that she lacks the qualifications to be President. At least be fair.
Click to expand...

To be fair....Hillary was not qualified to be Senator or Secretary of State....and she is certainly not qualified to be President. She is merely a political carpetbagger benefiting from the coattails of her husband.
 
From Chris Ciilizza's WaPo blog:

“Thirty days in the hospital? And when she reappears, she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what’s up with that," Rove said at a conference near Los Angeles late last week in reference to Clinton's hospitalization in late 2012 to deal with a blood clot in the brain. (She was initially hospitalized Dec. 30, 2012, and released Jan. 2, 2013) After "Page Six" headlined their piece "Karl Rove: Hillary Clinton may have Brain Damage," Rove fought back in an interview with WaPo's Karen Tumulty."Of course she doesn't have brain damage," Rove said, adding, however, that Clinton endured "a serious health episode" for which "she is going to have to be forthcoming" if she runs for president.

...Putting aside the "brain damage" debate, which seems like a bit of a red herring, Rove -- perhaps purposely -- has injected a very serious question into the public debate (and one that has been bubbling just under the surface for months): Is Clinton's health and, by extension, her age -- she is 66 now and will be 69 on election day 2016 -- a legitimate topic of debate if she runs in 2016?

Yes, says Alex Castellanos, a prominent Republican consultant. "[Ronald] Reagan had to talk about his age and health," noted Castellanos. "[John] McCain had to talk about his age and health. Why shouldn't Hilary Clinton? Because of her gender? Welcome to the politics of equality." Karl Rove said Hillary Clinton has health questions to answer before 2016. So, does she?
 
ObamacareFail said:
To be fair....Hillary was not qualified to be Senator or Secretary of State....and she is certainly not qualified to be President. She is merely a political carpetbagger benefiting from the coattails of her husband.
Click to expand...

You know how someone becomes qualified to be a Senator? Winning a Senate election. Which she did.

In the conservative mind, there's no such thing as a qualified Democrat.
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

calamity said:
The Mayor of San Antonio can beat her...but indoubt he'll step in front of that buzz saw.
Click to expand...

I dont know the dude, so I cant respond other than saying, I dont know the dude.
 
Kobie said:
You know how someone becomes qualified to be a Senator? Winning a Senate election. Which she did.

In the conservative mind, there's no such thing as a qualified Democrat.
Click to expand...

Well, there I was going to "like" this post because I so strongly agree with your first statement. But then you had to go and ruin it with a dumb overgeneralization.

I have voted for Democrats in the past--often, election after election, keeping them in office for many years--and will do so again when the Democrat is the better candidate. I vote on individuals rather than parties but do happen to be generally conservative. Please don't broadstroke all conservatives like this.
 
nota bene said:
Well, there I was going to "like" this post because I so strongly agree with your first statement. But then you had to go and ruin it with a dumb overgeneralization.

I have voted for Democrats in the past--often, election after election, keeping them in office for many years--and will do so again when the Democrat is the better candidate. I vote on individuals rather than parties but do happen to be generally conservative. Please don't broadstroke all conservatives like this.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But my statement certainly rings true for a pretty vocal presence on this forum, at least.
 
Kobie said:
You know how someone becomes qualified to be a Senator? Winning a Senate election. Which she did.

In the conservative mind, there's no such thing as a qualified Democrat.
Click to expand...

So you see, as I've been telling you for some time, I'm no conservative. The late Paul Tsongas would have made a fine POTUS. In 2000 I hoped for the opportunity to vote for Bill Bradley, but Gore got the nomination.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
So you see, as I've been telling you for some time, I'm no conservative. The late Paul Tsongas would have made a fine POTUS. In 2000 I hoped for the opportunity to vote for Bill Bradley, but Gore got the nomination.:peace
Click to expand...

I was disappointed too.
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

Apparently, the only way the GOP can compete with Hillary is if she has brain damage.


I wonder how the vets suffering from brain damage feel about being exploited for the right wings political gain?
 
nota bene said:
Well, there I was going to "like" this post because I so strongly agree with your first statement. But then you had to go and ruin it with a dumb overgeneralization.

I have voted for Democrats in the past--often, election after election, keeping them in office for many years--and will do so again when the Democrat is the better candidate. I vote on individuals rather than parties but do happen to be generally conservative. Please don't broadstroke all conservatives like this.
Click to expand...

I always wondered about people who say that. The parties have fully ideologically aligned so much so that the most "liberal" republican is more conservative than the most "conservative" democrat at least at the national level. So even the most well meaning democrat won't represent conservative interests as an incompetent republican would. There have been some pretty awful candidates lately so I can understand not always voting with a party but I would go 3rd party vote before voting for a the opposite party. I like some democrats like Corey Booker but he is still pretty liberal on social issues even on some very unpopular views like supporting late term abortion so Im not sure of a scenario where I would vote him over a republican.
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

lizzie said:
She would have been far superior to what we have currently, imo. She's an ideologue to a certain degree, but she also has some common sense, and she knows not to take it too far.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. Hillary and Obama's vision on healthcare are not any different. How's that working out? Hillary and Obama's vision on counter-terrorism isn't any different. All is based on a social ideology where the terrorist is a victim of his surroundings. How's that working out with failures in Benghazi, the Egyptians and the Brotherhood, the rebels in Syria, the Iran situation and lately the Boko Haram terrorist organization? Victimhood is a major factor in the left ideology. Without victims they would fold. That's why they need the gender cards, the race cards, the inequality cards, etc. etc. If they can't create victims they lose their power to create crisises. Spread the wealth is a big factor in both Obama and Hillary's ideology. Have you ever met a Democrat that didn't believe in raising taxes as a means to spread the wealth? Obama and Hillary are both students o Saul Alinsky and the furthering of Marxism.. Common sense you claim she has? I guess it depends on which way you want this country to go. ....Free Republic or just another socialist country. And this whole campaign by the left claiming a war on women when this woman, Hillary blames the women in Bill's life including herself for all his fooling around. Jeesh. I don't want something like that to represent women in the most powerful office in the land. One can only hope she doesn't run again.
 
Last edited:
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

Moot said:
Apparently, the only way the GOP can compete with Hillary is if she has brain damage.


I wonder how the vets suffering from brain damage feel about being exploited for the right wings political gain?
Click to expand...

Somebody mentioned 'the vets'?
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

AJiveMan said:
I've have used the FOIA to access documents contained in my DIS file. It's going through proper channels, it's not anything like most people think it is.
It's a legal procedural step used to obtain documents and information from a government agency.

Judicial Watch needed to file paperwork with the US Department of Justice, by law.

FOIA.gov - Freedom of Information Act
Click to expand...

if any government agency has documents/information that you are legally entitled to, that you have requested, you should NOT have to use FOIA to force the government to turn them over to you.

don't you think that is correct?

Moot said:
Did Judicial Watch fill out the proper paperwork for the request? Do they have proof that such documents even exist? Because if the documents don't exist then that might explain why they haven't been released.
Click to expand...

i can reference that email JW got thru FOIA that seemingly didn't exist.

see above!!
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

Grant said:
Somebody mentioned 'the vets'?
Click to expand...

They prefer to call it "traumatic brain injury"...not "brain damage".
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

mtm1963 said:
i can reference that email JW got thru FOIA that seemingly didn't exist.

see above!!
Click to expand...
Would the email have prevented the attacks at Benghazi? If not, then what difference does it make?
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

Moot said:
Would the email have prevented the attacks at Benghazi? If not, then what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

this is just about as damn silly as what rice had to say on the talk shows.

the preemptive email!! lol..............................
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

mtm1963 said:
if any government agency has documents/information that you are legally entitled to, that you have requested, you should NOT have to use FOIA to force the government to turn them over to you.

don't you think that is correct?



i can reference that email JW got thru FOIA that seemingly didn't exist.

see above!!
Click to expand...

No. You must use FOID to obtain documents from the US gubbermint. Look it up, Google can be your friend.
 
Re: Karl Rove: Hillary may have brain damage [W:40]

Moot said:
They prefer to call it "traumatic brain injury"...not "brain damage".
Click to expand...

Oh. And which one does Hillary have?

Why did you mention 'the vets', by the way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom