Hillary Clinton 2016 - Eeeks!

Watch this documentary:



It shows Hillary's scandals, and how corrupt and manipulative she is - I hope she loses! If this is the best the Democrats can do, it seems like a gift to the Republicans.

 

The elderly, corrupt, white, uber elite, neo-con, who helped sell the Iraqi WMD lie, before Bush ever came to power.

This is the spokesperson for the Democratic party. Amazing.

 

I really have a hard time believing they would allow her to run. She will get ripped apart on the handling of Benghazi and this BS with the "personal Email account" alone. . .

But, I hope they do so I can both the Republicans and Democrats destroy her.

 

Take a step back and look at it from another angle. How many years has Hilary been in the spotlight? 10 years? 20 years?
And yet, the amount of dirt people have on her is barely a handful. And most of it has been spent and recycled.

For comparison purposes, look at Romney during the last election. He was in the spotlight for barely 18 months . And yet, the skeletons in his closet could've sunk the Titanic. Even Ryan didn't do much better.

Any GOP candidate aiming to beat Hilary just need to have a squeaky clean closet - otherwise, it will be Romney all over again.

 

Oh, things like the Benghazi and Email crap are spent and/or recycled? Got it...

Which "skeletons" are you referring to?

 

I think she will fail not due to lack of charisma or weak electorial basis. She will lose because she cares little of all the rest of the world and concentrates on gay rights, minorities, immigrants, etc. All this will mean little if Russians launch their nukes. She must adress matters at hand, this would be the best promotion. She is not doing what she should so I hope Republicans will tear her apart.

 

Good.

Do you not know?

ps: I love debates. However, I will not pander to snide remarks.

 

You make an interesting point. Hillary has nearly 100% name recognition, while most of her GOP challengers, save Bush, are known by roughly 40% of the population. It gives her an automatic advantage in every poll being conducted at the moment,and yet she is still losing to every GOP candidate in New Hampshire. Perhaps it is the fact only 25% of those polled find her trustworthy. I guess some dirt doesn't wash out.

In fairness to Hillary, the fact she is an unlikable, corrupt, elderly, white, neo-con who was selling the Iraqi WMD lie before Bush ever came to power is not her largest problem this election cycle. US voters haven't elected a Democratic President to follow another Democratic President since 1856. Some might call that just another meaningless statistic, but the truth is, the GOP hasn't done too much better on that front. Even prior to 1856, voters tend to swap the party of the president out once an incumbent is no longer running.

Why you might ask? The illusion of change.

P.S. I too would like to see what "dirt" you thought was dug up on Romney. That guy was a boy scout, to the point of being a boring candidate. He too suffered from a "fundamental" electoral flaw. The incumbent almost always wins any presidential election. With rare exceptions, the known is always less risky than the unknown, according to voters.

 

That is a great point. One could argue that the trend looks likely to continue in 2016 considering the incumbent's ~40% AR. On the other hand, some feel that the paleolibertarian/Tea Party boost the GOP enjoyed over the past two election cycles will probably wither away. The inevitable Tea Party blowback will also come - whether in time for 2016, I don't know.

For the record, I think Hillary's biggest concern right now is the Democratic primary. I don't think the nomination is her's yet - far from it. In fact, I think she looked stronger in 2007. Martin O’Malley, Elizabeth Warren or John Hickenlooper, to name a few, are strong potential candidates in their own right - and they might be perfectly okay to let Hillary take center stage this early in the game.

As for Romney, I like him. By all accounts, he is a nice guy. However, the amount of dirt that came out within an 18-month period destroyed whatever chances he had. Less anyone forget, Obama won 2012 in a landslide. He became the first incumbent since Roosevelt to secure more than 50 percent of the popular votes as he swept eight of the nine swing states. As for Romney's dirt: the 47% comment, binders full of women, London Olympics insult, "not concerned with the poor" remark, promising his donors he would take advantage of any hostage situation, insinuating coal plants kill people - these are just off the top of my head.

I just saw a Bloomberg poll that edges her ahead of all her GOP rivals?

 

So Romney lost because of the "dirt" they dug up on him, which you cant seem to name. And the Democrats are going to break a 150 year trend, despite the fact both their incumbent and only candidate are unpopular.

These are not exactly compelling arguments.

 

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.

Seriously dude, did you read my post at all? I even said you made a great point, for heaven's sake!

 

The 47% comment was dirt? Was it your assertion that those 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income tax actually do? If not, how is that dirt? Your "dirt" appears to be statements taken out of context to appear inappropriate, like "binders full of women". I especially loved when Obama ridiculed one of these meme's with the words, "The 80s called and they want their foreign policy back". Watching the JV team in DC mismanage foreign policy to bring back the cold war and several failed states in the middle east, really highlights the intelligence of giving credence to such idiocy, doesn't it?

An analogue for Hillary would be the claim that, "Businesses don't create jobs". Outside of the fact such a statement demonstrates stupidity on her part, it is quite simply not "dirt".

There is such a thing as "Dirt".
"Dirt" is when you run your State Department email through your own personal email server.
"Dirt" is when it appears your charitable foundation accepts money from foreign governments in exchange for favors from you in your role as Secretary of State
"Dirt" is when your "Charity" is delisted as a legitimate charitable organization because it appears it gives less than 15% of the money it receives to the causes it claims to support.
"Dirt" is when your husband has more than 14 visits to a private island where children are held as sex slaves.

But no, I don't pay any mind to the dirt. Hillary really will be the one to break the 150 year curse for the Democrats. LOL.

 

Aah, I see. So because you use a different definition of 'dirt', Romney is dirt free. I am getting tired of your immature and confrontational debating method. Whether you like it or not, as I've said much, much earlier, the amount of dirt on Romney within an 18-month period effectively derailed his campaign. Deal with it. Everyone else have.

You're like a child. You're aware that this is a non-point because we both agree with it, but for some reason, you keep repeating it. Why? Are you incapable of a nuanced and thoughtful debate that goes beyond silly partisan gamesmanship?

 

Different than who? LOL

The chances of Romney winning, or any other candidate running against an incumbent, is close to zero. A brief walk through US presidential election history would inform you of as much. It actually plays very much hand in hand with why the Democrat's chances this election cycle are very close to zero.

Nuanced and thoughtful debate require the ability to follow a logical argument, and the ability to use and cite facts in the making of that argument. Are you seeing the problem here?

 

LOL what? That you are denying that Romney lost the election because of all the dirt uncovered during his campaign period?

Really? Close to zero? That must be why Ford, Carter and Bush Sr. won their reelections. Oh wait...
I guess the hundreds of million spent by GOP in the last presidential election was just for show.

I do. You have problems with telling the truth and answering simple questions and your 'facts' are based on opinions. Like I said, you are like a child. Grow up. Our debate started out so well until you threw a hissy fit and started getting confrontational. Looking at your posting history, this seems to be a pattern.

 

Equatorial, my best guess is you were Googling for naked pictures of Hillary Clinton and accidently stumbled upon this thread. We are trying to discuss her lack of credentials as a candidate, and Obamanation is absolutely right. Please stop being such a child. Sheesh.

 

LOL @ your inability to read my post and figure out what I attributed Romney's loss to, or what I had to say about your "dirt" on Romney. Of course there are many other things to laugh at/about, but those are good starters.

Bush was a Republican elected to follow another Republican, itself an anomaly, though Reagan was VERY popular. That said, it made room for Perot to spoil his midterms and give the election to Clinton. Pretty stunning considering how well the gulf war went. Carter was a complete catastrophe. It is possible to lose your midterms if you are a complete idiot like Carter, but still unlikely. Again, an anomaly. Gerald Ford was never elected president so I'm not sure why you wasted the typing to bring him up.

Still waiting for you to post your first link...... /zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Yes, because using phrases like "Googling for naked pictures of Hillary Clinton" is so mature. You do realize that when you support trollish behavior you are an enabler?

Nothing to figure out - you just threw a tantrum when confronted with simple, basic facts that you surprisingly are unaware of.

So wait. Those three men actually failed to get reelected? But you said chances were close to zero?

Link to what? That Romney lost? Or that he was buried under an enormous amount of dirt over an 18-month period?

Edit: Since you really are being serious about this, I'll oblige with a few.

(i) FEDERAL ELECTIONS 2012: Election Results for the U.S. President, the U.S. Senate and the
U.S. House of Representatives
(ii) Gov. Mitt Romney Denies 'Flip-Flop,' Says He's Opposed to Gay Marriage and Abortion
(iii) Letter to the Log Cabin Republicans
(iv) Mitt Romney's Incredible 47-Percent Denial: "Actually, I Didn't Say That"
(v) Mitt Romney Blames His "47 Percent" Comment on a Donor. Paul Ryan Blames ... Mitt Romney.
(vi) Romney’s 47% comment named quote of the year
(vii) The truth about Romney’s “binders full of women”
(viii) Obama says Romney once said a coal-burning plant ‘kills people’
(ix) Oh, Mitt: those Romney gaffes in full
(x) Corporations are people, my friend

 

Reelected implies you were elected in the first place. Of course I explained this to you already, so perhaps if you read the explanation again, more slowly this time.

Sure, some links to legitimate dirt on Romney. You know, something like him sitting in the church of an America hating racist for a decade, or perhaps a meeting between him and his good friends who were convicted terrorists who set off bombs in government buildings, something like that. Hell, I'd be happy to see you source this one: " Less anyone forget, Obama won 2012 in a landslide. He became the firstincumbent since Roosevelt to secure more than 50 percent of the popular votes as he swept eight of the nine swing states".

So you are saying I should stop responding to your posts?

 

Huh. I must've missed the part where you explain how Carter and Bush Sr. were not elected in the 1976 and 1988 presidential elections. Could you point your quote out please? This time, with feeling! As for Ford, the fact that he is not qualified to run again in 1980 if he had won in 1976 indicates he is on his second term - ergo, reelection. Anyway, just so we stay on topic, you claimed that the chances of of

. Remember?

Your passive aggressiveness aside, so I was right? Are you finally conceding the point that everyone else is aware of - that there was huge amount of dirt on Romney during his campaign period? You wasted my entire day for stating the blindingly obvious and you don't have the courtesy to apologize?

As for your request, sure, I can give you a link. However, I'd like to qualify that statement as the first incumbent Democrat since Roosevelt to do so (I missed out 'Democrat'): And here is the result of the 2012 presidential election again. Please view the results for the nine swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, N. Hampshire, N. Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Considering my comment was directed at another poster, and contain nothing close to what you are asking, I must question your basic comprehension skills.