• 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!

Is Hillary done?

zimmer said:
She is done, but I hope she runs. She hasn't done enough damage to the Clinton name and Socialists of America Partei (SAPs) yet.

I want to see the Hillary, Bill and Chelsea wrecking ball finish off what Obama started.

Then perhaps a half sane party can rise from its ashes.

PS. This time around she won't have the corrupt DNC behind her, and the press leaking her questions. And she's have to expend more energy, of which we saw during the election and her long breaks from campaigning... she lacks. A shame, because I'd love for her to run. My guess is she won't...

... a shame.
Click to expand...

I agree that the DNC is not likely stupid enough to hand her the nomination keys again. Hillary's brand is done whether she has worked it out or not. What she will do now is anyone's guess. Her blametour is probably an attempt to cash in and recover lost income that she is no longer making from selling political influence through the Clinton Foundation. She could also be testing the waters for a possible 2020 run, however she more is more likely planning on positioning her homely offspring for an eventual run.
 
Chillfolks said:
After going after Trump for saying he may not accept the election results and claiming there was no significant voter fraud Hillary tied her hands in any challenge to the results. She never though she would loose.

Also after seeing how challenging an election damaged Gore and his political brand she didn't want to appear hands on in any recounts. I have a hard time believing Clinton camp and Stein camp didn't do some dealing. Stein gets to keep any funds raised Clinton gets her challenges without asking for them
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Jill Stein had nothing to gain politically from recounts other then keeping the leftover funds. She gave Hillary plausible deniability.
 
Superfly said:
Well if that's the case - I don't know. I was never a huge fan of hers, but I lost all respect for her after that. It was like she didn't even care. And once SCOTUS told Stein no, HRC should have come forward and questioned it. At that point it was what, two weeks or so after the election?

With all the ruckus going on immediately after, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one pissed that she didn't fight for it. Would it have made a difference? I don't know - there is even more evidence now that the election was tampered with. At the very least, had this come out sooner, maybe there would have been a recount.
Click to expand...

The recount should have been in California where illegal immigrants voted.
 
Superfly said:
So the truth is all that matters. No matter whose version. Got it. Bannon hates people of color. He hates Catholics. He hates Muslims. He hates women. He hates immigrants. He actually had a headline that read, "Would you rather your child have feminism or cancer?" THIS is the kind of truth you are seeking?

Good luck. It's out there, under every white sheet.
Click to expand...

You are lecturing someone else regarding truth while you are slandering Steve bannon?
 
Superfly said:
Same. I held my nose and voted for her after my candidate did not get the nomination. I wasn't happy with her, but wanted what was best for the country. I still believe she would be far better than the **** show we are stuck with now.

That being said, I'd never vote for her again. She rolled over like a dog when she lost. She did. Didn't fight at all, despite the fact that there was widespread voter fraud in the three states she needed the most. Jill Stein, for piss sakes, tried to fight for a recount, and the Wisconsin SCOTUS disallowed it because she didn't have a dog in the hunt. Why the hell did HRC not fight for this?
Click to expand...

I'll have to look into the voter fraud issue more - I'm not aware of any significant voter fraud that swayed the electoral college vote Trump's way. My feeling is that HRC should have won so decisively that it would not have mattered. She pulled a Seattle Seahawks and "threw and interception on the one yard line instead of handing it to Beastmode".

Trump is such a horrible human and was such a flawed candidate that any Dem candidate that knew what they were doing should have won by a mile, IMHO.

What's really pissing me off now is HRC shilling her whiny new book. You f'd up, Hillary. Please just go away.

The bottom line is - the Democrats need new blood. We need a new exciting candidate that can relate to people (like Obama did) to motivate our base and Hillary ain't it!
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
The DNC is not too bright. Don't give them any stupid ideas. We need a real leader from the democrats or it is vote for Trump again.
Click to expand...

That's what it might come down to, especially if the economy stays strong and if Trump can get some things done like he promised. If the guy could only think before he speaks!
 
Surrealistik said:
Completely disagree.

If we repeat the mistake of trying to play to the corporatist 'centre' again, otherwise known as 90s Republicanism, we'll get destroyed. If nothing else we'll give up our best chance of winning, especially given that the trajectory of opinion polling on policy increasingly leans in Bernie's direction: there's a reason Booker and Harris are flipping their script and at least paying lip service to progressive ideas. It's the same reason establishment Dems are using Bernie to shore up the party's fortunes despite their obvious and sustained enmity towards him.
Click to expand...

So who do you think the Dems should run in 2020?
 
lurchadams said:
I'll have to look into the voter fraud issue more - I'm not aware of any significant voter fraud that swayed the electoral college vote Trump's way. My feeling is that HRC should have won so decisively that it would not have mattered. She pulled a Seattle Seahawks and "threw and interception on the one yard line instead of handing it to Beastmode".

Trump is such a horrible human and was such a flawed candidate that any Dem candidate that knew what they were doing should have won by a mile, IMHO.

What's really pissing me off now is HRC shilling her whiny new book. You f'd up, Hillary. Please just go away.

The bottom line is - the Democrats need new blood. We need a new exciting candidate that can relate to people (like Obama did) to motivate our base and Hillary ain't it!
Click to expand...

Nice to talk to someone who feels the same way I do. When I usually say that I am not a fan of HRC, people usually try to kick me out of the cool kids club.
 
zimmer said:
I think this reflects a state of delusion that has infected the Socialists of America Partei (SAPs). It's sad, and illustrates the Left only has their politics of destruction.

Look at what they're trying to do with Kid Rock. Another perfect illustration of the above post.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the Left doing to Kid Rock?
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are lecturing someone else regarding truth while you are slandering Steve bannon?
Click to expand...

slan·der

noun

1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

verb

1. make false and damaging statements about (someone).

It's not slander if it's the truth, and you know this. At least I hope you know this, and you aren't throwing around words you don't understand.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No, democrats should not debase themselves by nominating celebrities to cater to the reality show mentality of the electorate.

We can win elections with traditional candidates
Click to expand...

^^ This. I think this country has had enough celebrities in office. I think that the idea that "anyone can be president" is an experiment that failed miserably, and we should probably never, ever say that again.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Sitting back while kid rock makes an idiot of himself.

I bet that most people don't know his real name and he can't call himself "kid rock" on the ballot
Click to expand...

I literally threw up in my mouth a little when I saw that he was running. And last I heard, he was 4 points ahead in the race. I feel like we, as a country, are being punked.
 
Superfly said:
I literally threw up in my mouth a little when I saw that he was running. And last I heard, he was 4 points ahead in the race. I feel like we, as a country, are being punked.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he has officially declared himself as a candidate or filled out the proper paperwork necessary to run as a candidate.

But I think kid rock is thinking that he can get himself elected by his stage name, but I don't think people are allowed to run under a stage name. Does anyone know kid rocks real name? I don't think so.

And Debbie stabbenow does not have any political baggage that I know of, so she has a better image than Clinton.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
No, democrats should not debase themselves by nominating celebrities to cater to the reality show mentality of the electorate.

We can win elections with traditional candidates
Click to expand...
She's more than a celebrity, she's a businessman. One that didn't declare bankruptcy six times. She has National name recognition and humble roots. She is a candidate both liberal and moderates could support. Should would win on a national scale including the South which no Democrat has carried in decades. She'd be both a great president and a great candidate. That's hard to find.

I am the first person on this blog to call for her to run for president.

Is there any doubt how great she could be.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Dirt Sands said:
She's more than a celebrity, she's a businessman. One that didn't declare bankruptcy six times. She has National name recognition and humble roots. She is a candidate both liberal and moderates could support. Should would win on a national scale including the South which no Democrat has carried in decades. She'd be both a great president and a great candidate. That's hard to find.

I am the first person on this blog to call for her to run for president.

Is there any doubt how great she could be.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But does she have any interest in running for president?
 
Superfly said:
slan·der

noun

1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

verb

1. make false and damaging statements about (someone).

It's not slander if it's the truth, and you know this. At least I hope you know this, and you aren't throwing around words you don't understand.
Click to expand...

And we both know that the claims you slandered Bannon with are not true.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don't know if he has officially declared himself as a candidate or filled out the proper paperwork necessary to run as a candidate.

But I think kid rock is thinking that he can get himself elected by his stage name, but I don't think people are allowed to run under a stage name. Does anyone know kid rocks real name? I don't think so.

And Debbie stabbenow does not have any political baggage that I know of, so she has a better image than Clinton.
Click to expand...

There are a couple out there that I am watching. And I certainly don't know Kid Rock's real name. Never cared for the hillbilly enough to even bother finding out.
 
Superfly said:
There are a couple out there that I am watching. And I certainly don't know Kid Rock's real name. Never cared for the hillbilly enough to even bother finding out.
Click to expand...

And I bet that no one would know if he was on the ballot if he was forced to use his real name.
 
ObamacareFail said:
And we both know that the claims you slandered Bannon with are not true.
Click to expand...

LOL whatever helps you sleep at night. Bannon himself will tell you everything you are accusing me of slandering him with. All you have to do is buy him a $10 bottle of gin.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
But does she have any interest in running for president?
Click to expand...
Well she has succeeded at everything. The one thing she hasn't succeeded in politics, only because she has not tried.

The trust factor would be through the roof. She won't need name recognition. She won't have to run a campaign for 3 years. She can jump in the race late in the game.

At this point it's very likely that the Democrats will pick a candidate that will lose, because they're bad at politics.

Oprah could win liberals and moderates from both parties, could even unite the Democratic Party which today is not. She would be the first candidate in politics in decades and have an approval rating of over 50%. She said she's not interested but so did Hillary.

If you dissected the part about "interest" you have to say that part of it would be about caring for the country. And she does care. You could ask her if she cares about income disparity, or social justice, for diplomacy as a first option over war.

When you look at the facts about if she's interested in being president, the details of the interest is there.

Whoever the Democrats are talking about now for president ain't going to happen.

Take me away Oprah

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom