ADVERTISEMENT

Crazy Uncle Joe entering the race declaring as a one-term President?

CWertz said:
Balding, old, fat and white probably pretty closely describes you.
Click to expand...
anigif_enhanced-buzz-10854-1361458583-0.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
catFANatic80 said:
Money is vastly overrated at the presidential level..whomever is nominated will surely be sufficiently bankrolled by their respective party..where money buys power is at the state level and is the reason the republicans control the House and Govs and have hence gerrymandered any hopes of the dems to take back control of the house for another 5 years....
Click to expand...


Money makes all the difference in the world. Jeb can lose Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He just has to outlast everyone like Romney did in 2012. The only guy who could compete would be Trump because he can self fund. Jeb can have tv spots going in South Carolina while people are sweating out their ability to pay stuff in New Hampshire.

Barring a Sheldon Adelson/Newt Gingrich scenario, I bet there are 3 guys left in the race when South Carolina goes to vote.
 
kjbert said:
Money makes all the difference in the world. Jeb can lose Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He just has to outlast everyone like Romney did in 2012. The only guy who could compete would be Trump because he can self fund. Jeb can have tv spots going in South Carolina while people are sweating out their ability to pay stuff in New Hampshire.

Barring a Sheldon Adelson/Newt Gingrich scenario, I bet there are 3 guys left in the race when South Carolina goes to vote.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right having money is a key element for the primaries but I was speaking to the general election where the media will cover both candidates non stop and each party will break out their war chests.
 
kjbert said:
Money makes all the difference in the world. Jeb can lose Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He just has to outlast everyone like Romney did in 2012. The only guy who could compete would be Trump because he can self fund. Jeb can have tv spots going in South Carolina while people are sweating out their ability to pay stuff in New Hampshire.

Barring a Sheldon Adelson/Newt Gingrich scenario, I bet there are 3 guys left in the race when South Carolina goes to vote.
Click to expand...
For ND's jokebag sake, I hope it is Ben Carson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
I'd prefer one crazy candidate and one reasonable candidate:
Hillary v. Trump
or
Robio/Walker v. Sanders.

Let's be honest though. Sanders, though he himself believes what he is saying, is not in the race because he has a shot. His insane poor-pandering commie ideas make Hillary look conservative by comparison. That's his purpose in this charade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
NickleDimer said:
I'd prefer one crazy candidate and one reasonable candidate:
Hillary v. Trump
or
Robio/Walker v. Sanders.

Let's be honest though. Sanders, though he himself believes what he is saying, is not in the race because he has a shot. His insane poor-pandering commie ideas make Hillary look conservative by comparison. That's his purpose in this charade.
Click to expand...
Everyone has a purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
I can't see Hilary getting the nod its just getting worse and worse for her. Can Bill run again
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
pipermal1 said:
I can't see Hilary getting the nod its just getting worse and worse for her. Can Bill run again
Click to expand...

That's because you watch too much of Fox and accept what they say...other than these emails which if there really is something awful why don't they have the receiver's email of this bad thing...gosh since when did such bad things happen over emails...and what exactly is it that she did in Benghazi...I mean how long ago was that and yet I am still unsure of what the hell the witch hunters have on her yet?...best to let it all go soon or the publicans are gonna look specious again much as they were on there efforts to repeal and replace the that god forsaken law obamacare which turns out the nation is beginning to appreciate.
 
I don't see Hillary losing the nomination. It would take ironclad proof of criminal wrongdoing for loyal center-left democrats to defect from her. As long as groups like Media Matters stay in her corner, she isn't losing to anyone in the primary.
 
Number one I rarely watch fox. Number two Its the lies that get you not the act itself. This issue isn't going away because of what they did to Petrius who did far less. The Liberal chant about fox news makes you all seem like such followers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
The truth is she can. What in the unlikely event she gets charged with a misdemeanor. I hope she gets through because even the possibility of Bernie as President is scary
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
CNN, The Washington post. Just about everyone outside of MSNBC (maybe thats where you get your news) is saying the FBI is investigating. Seriously the liberal stick your head in the sand approach is getting old
 
If people don't think that in a national campaign Hillary could be made to just look terrible over the whole Bengazhi incident and her handling of it, especially coupled with her email practices that covered that time period, well you probably don't remember what was done to Kerry with the swift boat thing. Not nearly as much to go on and not something people knew about coming in (unlike Bengazhi, people have more of an inkling there), but it struck a chord with some voters in my view. There's plenty to work with on Bengazhi as well that could turn people in the national electorate who are not totally sold on Hillary (believe there will be a lot of those people relatively speaking).
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
pipermal1 said:
CNN, The Washington post. Just about everyone outside of MSNBC (maybe thats where you get your news) is saying the FBI is investigating. Seriously the liberal stick your head in the sand approach is getting old
Click to expand...

Better there than having your head up your arse..the conservative approach!
 
lowry99 said:
If people don't think that in a national campaign Hillary could be made to just look terrible over the whole Bengazhi incident and her handling of it, especially coupled with her email practices that covered that time period, well you probably don't remember what was done to Kerry with the swift boat thing. Not nearly as much to go on and not something people knew about coming in (unlike Bengazhi, people have more of an inkling there), but it struck a chord with some voters in my view. There's plenty to work with on Bengazhi as well that could turn people in the national electorate who are not totally sold on Hillary (believe there will be a lot of those people relatively speaking).
Click to expand...

Ohh please...how much time and money has been spent on this whole affair..its getting to approach the Lewinski debacle in terms of investagative magnitude...and for what...people have tired of hearing about it...move on....
 
pipermal1 said:
The truth is she can. What in the unlikely event she gets charged with a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's necessary to note that a candidate's chances are hurt if they're charged with a misdemeanor. That's pretty obvious. Unless it was a possible self-defense misdemeanor. Would Hillary gain popularvote if she was charged with George Zimmerman-ing someone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
Benghazi is same deal. Its wasn't the act its the lies after the act. Just say we f'd up, end of investigation. And follow up that with as a result of our f' up we are implementing XY and Z. Imagine if government took responsibility for their actions and worked on improvements. I call this the anti Hillary. We had to wait for the soldiers to spill the beans to get the truth.
 
I, for one, don't demand flowery apologies of our leaders. They make decisions. Tough decisions. And don't get them all right. Didn't hear many flowery apologies for f-ing up the entire WAR ON TERROR, ruining hundreds of thousands of lives and costing trillions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: catFANatic80
NickleDimer said:
I like how some have attempted to make Benghazi into this mega-scandal despite the decade long avalanche of f*ck-ups that was/is the war on terror.
Click to expand...
The problem with Benghazi was the willful deception by the administration less than two months before the election. If they had been upfront with what they knew at the time, then it would be remembered as a lesser version of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

It's like how Watergate shouldn't have brought down Nixon, but it did because of the deception by Nixon and his people afterwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
TheFoyeEffect said:
The problem with Benghazi was the willful deception by the administration less than two months before the election. If they had been upfront with what they knew at the time, then it would be remembered as a lesser version of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

It's like how Watergate shouldn't have brought down Nixon, but it did because of the deception by Nixon and his people afterwards.
Click to expand...

So I am confused is Benghazi then an Obama thing as it was his election that was being fixed or a Hillary problem...Watergate and Benghzi not even remotely close to being similar on any level...
 
Well when you consider that Hillary was part of the head of that administration's department that was involved in spreading the lie, then it becomes a Hillary problem too, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
I thought that Hillary's role was that she didn't add more security there despite them requesting it a couple times? Note that she didn't deny the requests, she didn't get a chance to review them. That's a yaaaaaawn mistake for a secretary of state. Did she cover something up? Please describe where and how she lied. Otherwise it just seems like pre-emptive jockeying for 2016 election points vs. Clinton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
I think what irks most people is that for several days after the attack, hillary (and Obama) trotted out the "this was a reaction to an online video" when it was apparent that it was a terrorist attack the entire time. Then you roll in the shady dealings with her email server and it raises doubts for folks when they consider, "what did she know, and when did she know it?"

We have seen time and time again, in politics and life, "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" that brings you down. If it turns out that Hillary lied about things (Benghazi or other events) to protect her reputation, it will have damaging effects on her campaign.
 
just trying to gauge the level of outrage here: are we outraged that she didn't supply the requested security? Or are we outraged at her for other people mischaracterizing the nature of the attack? How long ago was this? And there's no evidence yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
NickleDimer said:
just trying to gauge the level of outrage here: are we outraged that she didn't supply the requested security? Or are we outraged at her for other people mischaracterizing the nature of the attack? How long ago was this? And there's no evidence yet?
Click to expand...
hiding his true colors.
 
Maybe if she didnt wipe her server she wouldn't seem so guilty of wrong doing but she's Hilary so we should expect nothing less from this poor sole who left the white house bankrupt and poor
 
pipermal1 said:
Maybe if she didnt wipe her server she wouldn't seem so guilty of wrong doing but she's Hilary so we should expect nothing less from this poor sole who left the white house bankrupt and poor
Click to expand...

"I'm just trying to figure out why anyone might find it suspicious that the Secretary of State erased 30,000 emails from her personal server after stonewalling the FBI for months. This is someone whose integrity is impeccable. It's those old, white, balding Republicans who made the whole thing up. Nothing to see here."

---Nickel and Dimer
 
NickleDimer said:
I, for one, don't demand flowery apologies of Democrats. They make decisions. Tough decisions. And don't get them all right. Didn't hear many flowery apologies for f-ing up the entire WAR ON TERROR, ruining hundreds of thousands of lives and costing trillions.
Click to expand...
Fixed
 
still waiting for some solid evidence on this one. All sounds like a lot of circumstantial conspiracy theory nonsense. Do emails just disappear as soon as they are sent? Might need to call in our resident IT expert for this one.
 
NickleDimer said:
Sounds like some tin-foil hat conspiracies over regular home server maintenance. If that's the worst you can come up with about her, she is a better candidate than I thought.
Click to expand...

If you ignore the fact that she had top secret/SCI information on her unsecure server.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back