• 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!

Scott Walkers lack of College Degree.

Is Scott Walkers lack of a degree an issue

  • Yes, I dont take orders from some quitter

    Votes: 13 21.0%
  • No, he has enough real world experience to do the job

    Votes: 43 69.4%
  • Somewhat, I would like to see him finish.

    Votes: 6 9.7%

  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .
Well, guess if a person is smart enough...no need for high school. Go straight to med school. I knew a number of people in college who were "pre-med" students who were in majoring "OLOGIES" of one type or another...and even chemistry. They graduated. If I had my ruthers when seeing a doc, I'd prefer an ologie/chem undergrads that went on to med school than an english undergrad, but thats just me.

I see medical professionals who have gather a body of knowledge that usually involves undergrad work...might possibly be skill/practice enhancing. But that's just me.

If the undergrad drop out works for you...groove.

You are equating politics and business administration with MEDICINE?

How about we get just a little bit real and jump off the Obama panic wagon.....it does not take genius to get elected. We have ample proof of that with Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Harry "smash mouth" Reid and his nuclear option, and of course Hillary, the queen of average stupid. You do not need a science degree nor rocket science....

This is the most amazingly paranoid and desperate thread I have seen in Obama's time. and there has been a lot of gutter desperation. A governor who has said he is taking a look at running, still TWO YEARS away and we have over 400 opinions offered on his college education amid lies, exaggerations and half truths. Outright lies about the unemployment rate, his record and so forth and it hasn't even started.

Clearly the Democrats, their supporters have nothing to offer. They are so bereft of content in talent and policy all they can do is hammer negatively on every candidate who surfaces no matter how minor it may be.

If I go shopping for a stereo and the sales clerk tells me all about the defects of the other brands and never mentions the positives of his own, I always figure he has nothing to offer.

I don't see any threads offering that kind of advice, no one saying Hillary is smarter, or Warren has a PHD in basket weaving, or that Joe Biden is a genius with vast experience with running a government......

Clearly they have nothing to offer and know it...their only hope is creating fear in the alternative
 
It took the 2014 midterms for the left to realize and accept how badly they were damaged by the 2010 midterms, and it went a lot deeper then just losing control of the house of representatives. They lost the control of the majority of state legislatures as well, giving the republicans the majority of gerrymanding power for the first time in over five decades. The legislature in my own state went republican for the first time since Ulysses S Grant was president in the late 1800s. The republicans have a majority in the house of reps bigger then they have had in over 70 years. About the only bright spot the democrats can claim is that more republican senate seats will be up for grabs in 2016.
Unfortunately for them, the obamacare chickens will be coming home to roost by then.

I agree with the caveat that they are only beginning to learn what all that means.

The tactics they are using are the complete opposite of what they should be doing..

"we know we are right" is NOT something you tell voters the day after they spanked you ...hard. The attitude of the party is arrogance. We know, you don't and we sneer at anyone who disagrees with us. They fail to remember the **** kicking THEY handed Republicans or that Obama declared war when he named Republicans "enemies"

The vote, as I insisted at the time, was not merely a condemnation of congress as the liar in chief has been insinuating, but a rejection of the Democratic party itself. All of it. Not just the stupid policies like amnesty, nor Obamacare specifically, but the doings, the attitude, nuclear options and Harry Reid's school yard bully name calling. It was a wake up call, one which went unheeded.

Instead, it seems the Democratic tactic now is only one of bashing even the most remote hopeful well enough that over-the-Hillary looks acceptable as an alternative.
 
I agree with the caveat that they are only beginning to learn what all that means.

The tactics they are using are the complete opposite of what they should be doing..

"we know we are right" is NOT something you tell voters the day after they spanked you ...hard. The attitude of the party is arrogance. We know, you don't and we sneer at anyone who disagrees with us. They fail to remember the **** kicking THEY handed Republicans or that Obama declared war when he named Republicans "enemies"

The vote, as I insisted at the time, was not merely a condemnation of congress as the liar in chief has been insinuating, but a rejection of the Democratic party itself. All of it. Not just the stupid policies like amnesty, nor Obamacare specifically, but the doings, the attitude, nuclear options and Harry Reid's school yard bully name calling. It was a wake up call, one which went unheeded.

Instead, it seems the Democratic tactic now is only one of bashing even the most remote hopeful well enough that over-the-Hillary looks acceptable as an alternative.

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

I don't think it will work, judging from the last midterm, and I still don't agree that Hillary will even run, but time will tell. There's a lot of baggage to be overcome there, and after eight years of one party, the voters are usually ready for a change, and this time they demand to see some improvements in their personal pocketbooks - which usually trumps everything else, IMO!
 
Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

I don't think it will work, judging from the last midterm, and I still don't agree that Hillary will even run, but time will tell. There's a lot of baggage to be overcome there, and after eight years of one party, the voters are usually ready for a change, and this time they demand to see some improvements in their personal pocketbooks - which usually trumps everything else, IMO!


I believe we are on the cusp of a sea change...

I also agree that Hillary running is a long shot. She is old, looks old, her campaign is tired and they have no platform....just lots and lots of money and political capital. More than Obama? That remains to be seen as both factions [they are at war] will try to own the next in line.

The problem is, there isn't one. Unless they can find a credible outsider, like a governor with experience and success, they will be looking at wilderness.

My gut tells me that the vote will favor integrity. As in 1980, the country has been through an ordeal, that one was two years of Nixon/Ford and four years of Jimmy the loser. Here we have eight years of primarily bitter political fighting and 15 years of war, growing worse by the day. As then a nation turned instinctively to integrity, Reagan had a proven track record of doing what he said he would do, as a student protest leader, union leader, governor and then president.

And interesting fact I uncovered years ago that more people voted for Reagan than supported his policies.....1980 was an election about trust. I think 2016 will be as well...
 
Yes......the democrats are brutal on opposition research. If he pulled a girl's pigtails in third grade, we will hear about it. However you can pretty much tell how much they have by how they start out. I think if they had anything really devastating, they would have used it as he was taking on the civil service labor unions and fighting off the recall effort.

This just means that they will have to just make something up, and their base will believe it. Think Bush AWOL or the larest NBC crap. The truth only matters when they want it too, and their base is just fine with that. Look how they post here: Was there a valid point made? Never mind that, they will discount the source, often to the extreme. "Wait, the link is from Fox News? Well everybody knows it must be the black matter of truth then, and we will find the very suggestion to be the single funniest thing to ever happen, in fact I am right this moment ROTFLMAO pissing myself and losing control of my bowels at the meer suggestion". But as we saw with the Bush story, Bill Clinton, Brian Williams, etc., truth means nothing if it interfers with the agenda. Conversely, a terror attack can be explained away by workplace violence and obscure videos, because, you know, THAT seems legit. And such a juvenile tactic will not be questioned as long as it forwards the agenda. This is why conversation here breaks down so quickly andsubjects just swirl around the bowl with no resolution. There is no such thing as an honest progressive. The agenda, given even neutral scrutiny, fails every time. The only way to perpetuate the ideology is to dismiss the true purpose (with a nod and a wink) with the willful deception of the True Believers.
 
There are two tactics at play here and neither is very bright. IF, and I say IF an opposition candidate has real baggage, you hold on to it and see how far he gets, then drop the bomb.

Here they are attacking out of the gate, on petty insignificant issues on all candidates, apparently to undermine faith in all the Republican party. A very, very stupid tactic when you are trailing.

They have always been sore losers and now, after last November and Obama's growing list of severe weaknesses, thousands of lies, fabrications and utterances being continuously exposed, they are in panic mode. They have no viable candidate and those sniffing at the possibility are simply not presidential timber.

About a year after Obama was elected and these boards were filled with leftist arrogance, I advised the chickens would come home to roost. Payback is just beginning, the Senate is not done investigating the IRS scandal, I suspect the majority, having been beaten and trashed by Harry "smash mouth" Reid are going to be less than cordial about ramming stakes into the Obama administration and the Democratic party itself and the dregs who occupy chairs in congress.

The Democrats in their strutting arrogance forgot the first rule of politics...."they" can shoot back.

Now, with no prospects, no forwards, no game plan, they see the opposing team, bigger, stronger, smarter skating at them in a 5 on 3 rush and all they can do is yell insults at them.

Again, I am not a Democrat. If the Democrats strutted their arrogance, and I am not saying they didn't, they didn't do much of anything else. High and mighty Nancy Pelosi crowed as the Democrats ascended to power in 2006, "Impeachment is off the table." The nation elected Obama and other than saving the nation from a looming depression not much "Change" happened.

Somehow partisanship has divided the nation to the point that partisans see the opposing party not as fellow Americans, but the enemy. We see and hear a lot of gotcha these days and not much substance.

It's perfectly fine to ask a presumptive candidate his or her position on evolution. It's been asked of candidates for years and years. Why now is it wrong? As a voter I would find it difficult to support someone who doesn't believe in science. Does Walker? Not readily, no.
It is reasonable to ask a basic question regarding foreign policy when a candidate with no foreign policy experience whatsoever travels to a foreign country to begin to establish his street creds.

I'm not "the enemy" but as an American I want to hear the responses from a candidate that has far right partisans all excited. Now I wonder why so many of the people on the far right are upset about questions that have been asked of candidates for years in the past. Why is it that Walker and his supporters don't want the rest of us to know?

To tell you the truth, the last time I saw this type of strange protective support and defense of a candidate it was in the defense of Sarah Palin, who was probably the least qualified GOP candidate to run in my lifetime. It raises red flags for me.

No, I am not going to vote for Walker. However, I wasn't going to support GOP candidates who ran against him either. As with Palin, Walker has little chance of becoming President. If I ever think he might I'll throw some money to the other guy.
 
You are equating politics and business administration with MEDICINE?

How about we get just a little bit real and jump off the Obama panic wagon.....it does not take genius to get elected. We have ample proof of that with Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Harry "smash mouth" Reid and his nuclear option, and of course Hillary, the queen of average stupid. You do not need a science degree nor rocket science....

This is the most amazingly paranoid and desperate thread I have seen in Obama's time. and there has been a lot of gutter desperation. A governor who has said he is taking a look at running, still TWO YEARS away and we have over 400 opinions offered on his college education amid lies, exaggerations and half truths. Outright lies about the unemployment rate, his record and so forth and it hasn't even started.

Clearly the Democrats, their supporters have nothing to offer. They are so bereft of content in talent and policy all they can do is hammer negatively on every candidate who surfaces no matter how minor it may be.

If I go shopping for a stereo and the sales clerk tells me all about the defects of the other brands and never mentions the positives of his own, I always figure he has nothing to offer.

I don't see any threads offering that kind of advice, no one saying Hillary is smarter, or Warren has a PHD in basket weaving, or that Joe Biden is a genius with vast experience with running a government......

Clearly they have nothing to offer and know it...their only hope is creating fear in the alternative

Actually I wasn't equating politics/admin with medicine. I was responding to Tres about why I'd rather have a doctor who who finished undergrad program (preferably in an "biology, physiology, etc" related school or perhaps chemistry related) before beginning med school. Rand Paul dropped out of his bio/eng undergrad program at Baylor and went to Duke for medical school which didn't require students to have completed undergrad programs. It currently does,

Actually I have an ENT whose undergrad was electrical eng. I've seen a radiologist who was an attorney in his prior professional life. :shrug:

My latest post said the following:

Removable Mind

I take back any positive kudos that I've been attempting to give to Scott Walker. He's a common run-of-the-mill imbecile politician.

HEADLINE:

Scott Walker: 'I Don't Really Know' Whether Obama Loves America

Really? The boy ain't got no love for America?

Where is Walker's: "THIS IS MY VISION FOR AMERICA! These are what I believe to be successful plans to fix some of the things I consider to be hardships on America!"

Geeezzzzusss Gawd...what a crock of ****ing ****!

Sounds a little critical, huh? I hope folks don't get me wrong. This is a common political ploy that's used by Democrats, Republicans, etc. But my old bones are getting tired of this type of nonsense.

To be honest FAL, I think that our political system is an irreparable FUBAR beginning with the primary system - up. I think it's a toss up between the voters and politicians as to which is the most incompetent.

And by the way, I'm not at all an Obama fan. I'm not a fan of the Democrats...nor Republicans. Actually any specific party.

Thanks...
 
Again, I am not a Democrat. If the Democrats strutted their arrogance, and I am not saying they didn't, they didn't do much of anything else. High and mighty Nancy Pelosi crowed as the Democrats ascended to power in 2006, "Impeachment is off the table." The nation elected Obama and other than saving the nation from a looming depression not much "Change" happened.

Somehow partisanship has divided the nation to the point that partisans see the opposing party not as fellow Americans, but the enemy. We see and hear a lot of gotcha these days and not much substance.

It's perfectly fine to ask a presumptive candidate his or her position on evolution. It's been asked of candidates for years and years. Why now is it wrong? As a voter I would find it difficult to support someone who doesn't believe in science. Does Walker? Not readily, no.
It is reasonable to ask a basic question regarding foreign policy when a candidate with no foreign policy experience whatsoever travels to a foreign country to begin to establish his street creds.

I'm not "the enemy" but as an American I want to hear the responses from a candidate that has far right partisans all excited. Now I wonder why so many of the people on the far right are upset about questions that have been asked of candidates for years in the past. Why is it that Walker and his supporters don't want the rest of us to know?

To tell you the truth, the last time I saw this type of strange protective support and defense of a candidate it was in the defense of Sarah Palin, who was probably the least qualified GOP candidate to run in my lifetime. It raises red flags for me.

No, I am not going to vote for Walker. However, I wasn't going to support GOP candidates who ran against him either. As with Palin, Walker has little chance of becoming President. If I ever think he might I'll throw some money to the other guy.



Sarah Palin?

Protection?

That's kind of out there and when you even raise Sarah Palin you lose me. You may not be a Democrat but you bleat like one. The socialists have to get over a second rate, failed vice presidential candidate who has been OUT of public office for as long as Obama has been president. You cannot use her as a laughing stock to hide Obama's many lies and failures. "The least qualified GOP candidate? Not even close, and certainly no where near as unqualified as Obama
 
I think Obama's loyalties are fair game. He started off his first term going on an international apology tour. He cannot seem to form the words "radical Islamic terrorism" He is defensive in regards to Islam to the point where he delves back to the crusades and tells us not to get on our high horse. And there is the matter of his attending radical reverend Jeremiah Wright's church for 10 years.

The guy is a lame duck. I don't love Obama. Not a big fan. But what he said is: ISIS is a "perversion of Islam".

They are indeed terrorists who have "strong political motives", and who are using religion to suck in people to fight for their agenda under the guise of religion. In a region of the world who have been controlled by religious extremists...who believe their religious leaders with their life, their soul, their being...really believe that ISIS is fighting for God. What better candidates to suck into and use as a means to an end.

ISIS leaders have been planning and building their war chest for about 25 years. They studied all of the mistake of other terrorists organizations....around the world. These folks are psychopaths with political goals. They don't give a **** about Jihad, virgins in heaven. But they need a lot of ignorant folks willing to kill themselves and others and help their organization strike fear into the minds of tens of thousands - if not hundreds of thousands in the region by using the most inhumane methods.

The religious angle is getting a bit boring. Psychopaths don't give a **** about religion. The do give a **** about having complete control over the masses. THIS IS POLITICAL.
 
Sarah Palin?

Protection?

That's kind of out there and when you even raise Sarah Palin you lose me. You may not be a Democrat but you bleat like one. The socialists have to get over a second rate, failed vice presidential candidate who has been OUT of public office for as long as Obama has been president. You cannot use her as a laughing stock to hide Obama's many lies and failures. "The least qualified GOP candidate? Not even close, and certainly no where near as unqualified as Obama

F&L, so if I understand your response correctly, it's all Obama's fault. I'm not certain what Obama has to do with Walker's refusal to answer a question about evolution and a question about foreign policy. However, your answer is precisely the way Palinestas used to talk when people would address Palin's refusal to respond directly to questions.

All I know is that I really don't know where Walker is on either of those questions - and apparently no one else knows either.

Now we have Walker again going all wobbly responding the Guliani's statement that Obama doesn't love America.

All 3 no answers are telling and cause me concern.

I don't know all that much about Walker's character. I really don't know Walker's core beliefs, but I'd like to. Is Walker his own man? If Walker were to be elected would we have Walker in the White House or a Koch Brother's puppet? I think those are legitimate concerns.

[Disclosure: My entire family, extended family and the vast majority of my friends are Christians. Most of the people I love are Christians. I was raised and baptized as a Christian. I have nothing at all against the Christian faith. I have no ax to grind, no debt to settle with Christianity. I am not a Christian, however. If I believed everything Christians believe I'd be a Christian, but I don't. I accept their beliefs and I support their beliefs, but some Christian beliefs aren't my beliefs.]

It has been reported that Walker has strong Christian beliefs. No problem for me. But how do I know that Walker isn't some end timer who wants Christ to return in his lifetime? Fine if Walker wants to believe that, but I don't want anyone like that in the White House. How do I know Walker doesn't have dreams of being the Christian whose foreign policy ideas brings about the second coming by starting WWIII via a Christian war with Islam?

I want to know more about the level of his beliefs. He has shied away from answering a very simple yes or no question. Even Romney answered the question head on and without pause. Even Palin answered the question. Walker refused. Does Walker hold extreme right religious beliefs? Do I want a religious extremist in the White House? No way. Never.

Seems to me the Religious Right is attracted to Walker. Why? Does Walker want to dance around that? So far he appears to be.
 
F&L, so if I understand your response correctly, it's all Obama's fault. I'm not certain what Obama has to do with Walker's refusal to answer a question about evolution and a question about foreign policy. However, your answer is precisely the way Palinestas used to talk when people would address Palin's refusal to respond directly to questions.

All I know is that I really don't know where Walker is on either of those questions - and apparently no one else knows either.

Now we have Walker again going all wobbly responding the Guliani's statement that Obama doesn't love America.

All 3 no answers are telling and cause me concern.

I don't know all that much about Walker's character. I really don't know Walker's core beliefs, but I'd like to. Is Walker his own man? If Walker were to be elected would we have Walker in the White House or a Koch Brother's puppet? I think those are legitimate concerns.

[Disclosure: My entire family, extended family and the vast majority of my friends are Christians. Most of the people I love are Christians. I was raised and baptized as a Christian. I have nothing at all against the Christian faith. I have no ax to grind, no debt to settle with Christianity. I am not a Christian, however. If I believed everything Christians believe I'd be a Christian, but I don't. I accept their beliefs and I support their beliefs, but some Christian beliefs aren't my beliefs.]

It has been reported that Walker has strong Christian beliefs. No problem for me. But how do I know that Walker isn't some end timer who wants Christ to return in his lifetime? Fine if Walker wants to believe that, but I don't want anyone like that in the White House. How do I know Walker doesn't have dreams of being the Christian whose foreign policy ideas brings about the second coming by starting WWIII via a Christian war with Islam?

I want to know more about the level of his beliefs. He has shied away from answering a very simple yes or no question. Even Romney answered the question head on and without pause. Even Palin answered the question. Walker refused. Does Walker hold extreme right religious beliefs? Do I want a religious extremist in the White House? No way. Never.

Seems to me the Religious Right is attracted to Walker. Why? Does Walker want to dance around that? So far he appears to be.



I believe we are done here.

Where have I said this anything to do with Obama?

Stick with demonizing Sarah Palin. It's safe ground
 
Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

I don't think it will work, judging from the last midterm, and I still don't agree that Hillary will even run, but time will tell. There's a lot of baggage to be overcome there, and after eight years of one party, the voters are usually ready for a change, and this time they demand to see some improvements in their personal pocketbooks - which usually trumps everything else, IMO!

I believe that Hillary wants to run so bad that she can taste it. She thinks she is entitled to it. Whether or not she runs, I think will largely depend on who the front runners are for the republican nomination. If it looks as if they will coronate Jeb Bush, she will in all likelihood run. If the GOP nominates a viable candidate like Scott Walker, she will suddenly bow out for health reasons and say she wants to spend more time with her granddaughter. I don't think she will risk humiliation.
 
This just means that they will have to just make something up, and their base will believe it. Think Bush AWOL or the larest NBC crap. The truth only matters when they want it too, and their base is just fine with that. Look how they post here: Was there a valid point made? Never mind that, they will discount the source, often to the extreme. "Wait, the link is from Fox News? Well everybody knows it must be the black matter of truth then, and we will find the very suggestion to be the single funniest thing to ever happen, in fact I am right this moment ROTFLMAO pissing myself and losing control of my bowels at the meer suggestion". But as we saw with the Bush story, Bill Clinton, Brian Williams, etc., truth means nothing if it interfers with the agenda. Conversely, a terror attack can be explained away by workplace violence and obscure videos, because, you know, THAT seems legit. And such a juvenile tactic will not be questioned as long as it forwards the agenda. This is why conversation here breaks down so quickly andsubjects just swirl around the bowl with no resolution. There is no such thing as an honest progressive. The agenda, given even neutral scrutiny, fails every time. The only way to perpetuate the ideology is to dismiss the true purpose (with a nod and a wink) with the willful deception of the True Believers.

They will make something up....however I think in 2016, the democrats may be in the same position as they were in 1980. Only the most partisan diehard lefties still see Obama as competent in either foreign or domestic policy. Even Jimmy Carter thinks he's incompetent.
 
Again, I am not a Democrat. If the Democrats strutted their arrogance, and I am not saying they didn't, they didn't do much of anything else. High and mighty Nancy Pelosi crowed as the Democrats ascended to power in 2006, "Impeachment is off the table." The nation elected Obama and other than saving the nation from a looming depression not much "Change" happened.

Somehow partisanship has divided the nation to the point that partisans see the opposing party not as fellow Americans, but the enemy. We see and hear a lot of gotcha these days and not much substance.

It's perfectly fine to ask a presumptive candidate his or her position on evolution. It's been asked of candidates for years and years. Why now is it wrong? As a voter I would find it difficult to support someone who doesn't believe in science. Does Walker? Not readily, no.
It is reasonable to ask a basic question regarding foreign policy when a candidate with no foreign policy experience whatsoever travels to a foreign country to begin to establish his street creds.

I'm not "the enemy" but as an American I want to hear the responses from a candidate that has far right partisans all excited. Now I wonder why so many of the people on the far right are upset about questions that have been asked of candidates for years in the past. Why is it that Walker and his supporters don't want the rest of us to know?

To tell you the truth, the last time I saw this type of strange protective support and defense of a candidate it was in the defense of Sarah Palin, who was probably the least qualified GOP candidate to run in my lifetime. It raises red flags for me.

No, I am not going to vote for Walker. However, I wasn't going to support GOP candidates who ran against him either. As with Palin, Walker has little chance of becoming President. If I ever think he might I'll throw some money to the other guy.

Democrat or not, you are clearly a partisan and of the left. Your lack of objectivity regarding Walker is evidence enough. You were never going to vote for him anyway....and it has nothing to do with his take on evolution or lack of a college degree.
 
Sarah Palin?

Protection?

That's kind of out there and when you even raise Sarah Palin you lose me. You may not be a Democrat but you bleat like one. The socialists have to get over a second rate, failed vice presidential candidate who has been OUT of public office for as long as Obama has been president. You cannot use her as a laughing stock to hide Obama's many lies and failures. "The least qualified GOP candidate? Not even close, and certainly no where near as unqualified as Obama

He bleats like a sheep alright.
 
Last edited:
Yes......the democrats are brutal on opposition research. If he pulled a girl's pigtails in third grade, we will hear about it. However you can pretty much tell how much they have by how they start out. I think if they had anything really devastating, they would have used it as he was taking on the civil service labor unions and fighting off the recall effort.

That's one of his upsides - he's pretty much already been nationally vetted.
 
I believe that Hillary wants to run so bad that she can taste it. She thinks she is entitled to it. Whether or not she runs, I think will largely depend on who the front runners are for the republican nomination. If it looks as if they will coronate Jeb Bush, she will in all likelihood run. If the GOP nominates a viable candidate like Scott Walker, she will suddenly bow out for health reasons and say she wants to spend more time with her granddaughter. I don't think she will risk humiliation.


The fading of a dream is difficult, the fading of a dream tasted is a bitter event and the realization comes slowly. For four, at least, of the six years we have had Obama, they have been whistling past the grave yard. Barrack Hussein Obama is such a very gifted speaker and debater, they bought his act, or believed the people had. 2010 was, I said then, a wake up call that ultimately went unheeded, then completely ignored when Obama manipulated a second term......

but they missed the part where the voter said "OK, we like you better than the other guy, but we want some restraints. here's more "enemies" to deal with....and it is there where the dream goes from almost real to a fog slowly burning off the mountain. And, as noted they didn't wake up then, Obama went "pen and phone" and boldly provoked yet another fight....

And down goes Humpty.....instead of a Clinton turn around, one of the most popular presidents to leave office in history, a lesson not learned and more damage to the brand.

Now, anyone attached to that, anyone who served in it, is suspect, guilt by association...as the political winds shift yet again, as they have since the first cave man figured out he could get more to eat if he "led"...

Now Hillary, serving so close to the presidency, tasting it, and now a chancy thing for her to brag on her record, she has a machine.....only a machine, force without substance. If she thinks she can win, she will run, which will be pretty much what I would want if I were managing the Republicans. It is lot harder to score off a fresh face than an old hag who has been in front of the US electorate for a quarter century. She is, in fact, too well known now....like an unwanted wart
 
He bleats like on alright.

I love it.....

They bleat like pigs to the slaughter; "old news".....when it is anything over a week old dealing with the Obama administration. But when it comes to a failed vice presidential candidate......almost seven years later, yes it is bleating to go on about someone who had absolutely no impact on any part of US government.

That's unhealthy to say the least. At this point, I read Sarah Palin and I hear ignorant and desperate
 
I love it.....

They bleat like pigs to the slaughter; "old news".....when it is anything over a week old dealing with the Obama administration. But when it comes to a failed vice presidential candidate......almost seven years later, yes it is bleating to go on about someone who had absolutely no impact on any part of US government.

That's unhealthy to say the least. At this point, I read Sarah Palin and I hear ignorant and desperate

What else do they have? Not a thing.
 
What else do they have? Not a thing.

As I have been saying for some time, the obsessive attraction she and others, Ted Cruz for example, tend to indicate the left has nothing of substance to offer. What other failed vice presidential candidate gets that much attention? And why, at this point, should anyone care? The truth is she was an easy hatchet job, her many 'sins' so well known, it is safe ground for those not quite in touch, say something between a Gruber and tin foil hats....

And that is the essence of the continuing smear. Without her, without something to look down on, they cannot look up to themselves. It is becoming increasingly evident that so long as the focus is on a tabloid figure, no one will look to close at the man behind the curtain.

However, there is no man behind the curtain, just more curtain...and that is too frightening to accept.
 
The fading of a dream is difficult, the fading of a dream tasted is a bitter event and the realization comes slowly. For four, at least, of the six years we have had Obama, they have been whistling past the grave yard. Barrack Hussein Obama is such a very gifted speaker and debater, they bought his act, or believed the people had. 2010 was, I said then, a wake up call that ultimately went unheeded, then completely ignored when Obama manipulated a second term......

but they missed the part where the voter said "OK, we like you better than the other guy, but we want some restraints. here's more "enemies" to deal with....and it is there where the dream goes from almost real to a fog slowly burning off the mountain. And, as noted they didn't wake up then, Obama went "pen and phone" and boldly provoked yet another fight....

And down goes Humpty.....instead of a Clinton turn around, one of the most popular presidents to leave office in history, a lesson not learned and more damage to the brand.

Now, anyone attached to that, anyone who served in it, is suspect, guilt by association...as the political winds shift yet again, as they have since the first cave man figured out he could get more to eat if he "led"...

Now Hillary, serving so close to the presidency, tasting it, and now a chancy thing for her to brag on her record, she has a machine.....only a machine, force without substance. If she thinks she can win, she will run, which will be pretty much what I would want if I were managing the Republicans. It is lot harder to score off a fresh face than an old hag who has been in front of the US electorate for a quarter century. She is, in fact, too well known now....like an unwanted wart

Well, she won't be able to blame the Republicans if she doesn't win, and if she even mentions Bush, that will open up a canyon of questions she won't want to answer since she has been a large part of the current administration, and she did vote to invade Iraq. Maybe she could hint at a "2-fer," but Bill has health problems too. A lot might depend on her who VP pick might be, though...A Hispanic, as an example might help her. She could also tout "you'd be electing the first woman POTUS" card, too. Why anyone in either party
would want to be POTUS at this time in history totally escapes me, but who knows?
 
As I have been saying for some time, the obsessive attraction she and others, Ted Cruz for example, tend to indicate the left has nothing of substance to offer. What other failed vice presidential candidate gets that much attention? And why, at this point, should anyone care? The truth is she was an easy hatchet job, her many 'sins' so well known, it is safe ground for those not quite in touch, say something between a Gruber and tin foil hats....

And that is the essence of the continuing smear. Without her, without something to look down on, they cannot look up to themselves. It is becoming increasingly evident that so long as the focus is on a tabloid figure, no one will look to close at the man behind the curtain.

However, there is no man behind the curtain, just more curtain...and that is too frightening to accept.

Thats clear, they have already lost the war of ideas so they have moved into typical reality show fare.

What they are good at, is rhetoric and on occasion winning elections.
 
Well, she won't be able to blame the Republicans if she doesn't win, and if she even mentions Bush, that will open up a canyon of questions she won't want to answer since she has been a large part of the current administration, and she did vote to invade Iraq. Maybe she could hint at a "2-fer," but Bill has health problems too. A lot might depend on her who VP pick might be, though...A Hispanic, as an example might help her. She could also tout "you'd be electing the first woman POTUS" card, too. Why anyone in either party
would want to be POTUS at this time in history totally escapes me, but who knows?

VP choices don't win elections, they can make them easier to win.

But you hit the nail on the head and my point, she will be too closely associated with the Obama era, coupled as you noted her errors as Senator. What she will be remembered for is as First Lady. And in that regard, those who love her and would only vote for her on gender she leads. But neither will add any voters to her cause.

She is in a war against attrition. She ruled the polls as the next in line, the heir apparent for four plus years. But the heir to a sewer is still just a sewer owner and the American people are tired of stink.

When you have good government you get dynasties. Here, the Liberals have been in power since 2000 and just gained seats electing a women, not the first woman to be premier, but the first to be elected in a general election.

You have not had "good government". Good government is one you hardly hear from, relatively free of controversy, division and dispute. Obama has governed as though the goal is controversy, division and dispute.

And Hillary has been an eager part of that, an unquestioning supporter of Obamacare and the author of "regime change" in Libya, which isn't exactly working out so well.
 
Thats clear, they have already lost the war of ideas so they have moved into typical reality show fare.

What they are good at, is rhetoric and on occasion winning elections.


A Republican win is dependent on that being evident to the voter. To do that, Republicans will have to stop waring against Obama and get much more pro-active than they have been in the idea department, or at least do a job of any kind in letting someone know they have ideas.

They will need a new battle plan for Islamic terrorists.

They will need a workable program for dealing with illegals, and to do that they must act to stop the flow as a priority, make it stick before they will have any acceptance on any amnesty. They will have to avoid that word, LOL.

They will need a clear plan to get the economy back on a footing with some substance.

And they will have to at least, begin a dialogue on creating a real, workable health insurance scheme.

Otherwise, the meme of not having no alternate plans of their own will stick.
 
Democrat or not, you are clearly a partisan and of the left. Your lack of objectivity regarding Walker is evidence enough. You were never going to vote for him anyway....and it has nothing to do with his take on evolution or lack of a college degree.

Actually, an independent by definition is not a partisan.

You've never questioned my objectivity when I have question Hillary's candidacy or expressed opposition to the possibility of her being in the White House. You never called me a partisan when I said I would never vote for her.
 
Back
Top Bottom