2016 Election
Honestly, would you want either of them running your Fortune 500 company? How about your small business?
We really can't afford another attempt at "on the job training" with Hillary. Besides, she seems to be running rather low on moral fiber.
Quote: EvenBobShe's a
fat, ugly, worn out old hag. And she's
not all that bright. That's ol Hill in a
single paragraph.
You really think America wants to look at THIS
on the news every night? Shudder..
Bob... I want Hilary in office LESS than you do. But she is not fat, not ugly, not worn out...... She is old...... Please tell me we don't want her because of Benghazi, because of her uselessness as a Senator, because of the abject failure trying to get Hilarycare....., because she will expand the debt.... because her main credentials were being married to someone who was President.....
Remember, Bob... YOU voted for Obama when he was wholly unsuited for the job......... I guess he looked good enough for you.....
Quote: rxwineI googled "ugly president", but Google suggested a Vice President as a clear winner. John Calhoun.
Was he still alive when this was taken?
Lots of fun at a party, though.. People
never smiled in early photos because
it was thought to make a person look
frivolous. Better to look grim and be
taken seriously.
I do know when growing up my parents had no control what I listened too.
As a youg teen, me and my friends loved to listen to Country Joe and the Fish's cheer at Woodstock.
Its was a hoot and funny and very political. "Give an F, Give me a U, Give me a C" ect. You get the gist.
http://www.lyricsbox.com/country-joe-and-the-fish-lyrics-vietnam-song-live-from-woodstock-dzgc6jx.html
As kids, we listened to what we wanted to. How can parents control that.
Now posible Presidential canidate is furious that the Obama daughters listen to Beyonce and critized the parents.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mike-huckabee-slams-obamas-beyonce-fandom-article-1.2075884
Is he serious?
Even those on the right in my office luagh at Huckabee for this.
of when he covered Hillary lying about sniper
fire in Bosnia. She has to find a way to get Bill
to shut up, he does her more damage than
good, which is highly entertaining. Another
lying Clinton, what a surprise.
This ones even better:
I guess you'd rather bang Chris Christie....
Quote: EvenBobAll this about Brian Williams lying, reminds me
Reminds me of the biggest lie of the century that caused many US soldiers to lose their lives.
Weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.
Quote: terapinedReminds me of the biggest lie of the century that caused many US soldiers to lose their lives.
Weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.
Or weren't there?
At least, it would be hard to explain the presence of WMDs in the absence of WMDs ... but such is the mental gymanstics of today's American liberal.
Quote: ams288Keep talking about how old and ugly she is. That'll work real well for you guys.
No talking will be needed. Just seeing her is enough.
What has changed? She was Secretary of State, but in an administration with a less than stellar ability to deal with foreign policy. Not much else has changed. She's not the speaker her husband is and she doesn't have the personality.
I think she will remain the frontrunner, of course, but I'm less confident in her ability to actually become the candidate.
Quote: RonC
I think she will remain the frontrunner, of course, but I'm less confident in her ability to actually become the candidate.
Nobody remembers what an awful candidate
she was, that's why she lost. If she wasn't
putting her hoof in her mouth, Bill was always
undermining her. She has a complete inability
to speak off the cuff coherently, and come
across as sincere. This is all true, I'm not
bashing her just to bash. She really is awful.
Quote: EvenBobNobody remembers what an awful candidate
she was, that's why she lost. If she wasn't
putting her hoof in her mouth, Bill was always
undermining her. She has a complete inability
to speak off the cuff coherently, and come
across as sincere. This is all true, I'm not
bashing her just to bash. She really is awful.
She has not been a success in anything she has done, ever. I do not like Obama's personality, but at the least he acts like he likes people and wants to be friendly. Hillary comes off as if anybody she has to deal with is a nuisance. There are plenty of jobs for people who do not like dealing with people, but politics is not one of them. Why she wants anything to do with public life is a mystery.
Quote: AZDuffmanHillary comes off as if anybody she has to deal with is a nuisance. .
She has a very hard time hiding who she
really is. Shrill, bitchy, small minded. There
are a lot of people on the Right I don't like.
Jeb Bush (really, another Bush?), Christie
(too fat and big mouthed), Rand Paul (what's
wrong with that guy. Something.) Huckabee
(I really can't stand him, he's mealy mouthed
and insincere). What's to like about Hillary,
somebody inform me. What has she done that
shows she would be a good president.
with Scott Walker. To say I was impressed is
an understatement. He's the polar opposite of
who's in the WH now. I connected with him
immediately. I wonder if he effects a lot of
people that way.
Quote: EvenBobHoly crap. I just saw an on the street interview
with Scott Walker. To say I was impressed is
an understatement. He's the polar opposite of
who's in the WH now. I connected with him
immediately. I wonder if he effects a lot of
people that way.
He has so far been the absolute sleeper in the race. The Hillary supporters will misunderestimate him and call him a hick from a small state. Then they will try to say he is "dumb." Same playbook from the left every time.
Quote: AZDuffmanHe has so far been the absolute sleeper in the race. The Hillary supporters will misunderestimate him and call him a hick from a small state. Then they will try to say he is "dumb." Same playbook from the left every time.
Drudge did an unscientific poll this week
and Walker ran away with it. He got 47%
of the votes and the closest to him was
Paul, who got 13%.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Female president coming up and then a gay or even a transgender president after that. Then maybe back to normal.
So the only "normal president" is a straight white male?
Quote: GandlerSo the only "normal president" is a straight white male?
Normal: adj - conforming to the standard or the common type.
The defense rests.
It's all moot anyways. 8-12 years from now my coup will be in full swing. Enjoy the clown show while it lasts.
Quote: FaceNormal: adj - conforming to the standard or the common type.
The defense rests.
It's all moot anyways. 8-12 years from now my coup will be in full swing. Enjoy the clown show while it lasts.
Well, its only normal because for the majority of American history women and African Americans could not run (or vote).
For the record I don't think that it matters. I have no more desire for a woman than a man or a black than a white. I think it should be based purely on qualifications, and if 100% of Presidents are white males or 100% are black females because that is who happens to win then great.
But, the only point I am making is, the reason it is the norm is because of lack of opportunity. Statistically there should be at least a little more variance.
But, as for this election, a woman is unlikely. Certainly no GOP woman, and IMO Hillary is not going to win the primary.
The most unlikely candidate of any group is an atheist (the most distrusted group in America, even over Muslims and Gays), which is ironic, because I think an atheist President would be the best. Everyone was blasting Obama's references during the national prayer breakfast (granted his crusader reference was absurd). I was blasting that such a thing is even a thing, may as well have a national astrology dinner funded by taxpayers. I think a Gay Atheist Republican would be the best candidate.
Quote: GandlerI think it should be based purely on qualifications, .
And how is Hillary qualified, exactly. Sound of crickets.
Just like when asked to show her accomplishments.
Quote: EvenBobAnd how is Hillary qualified, exactly. Sound of crickets.
Just like when asked to show her accomplishments.
She isn't. The only reason I want her to win the primaries is because it will hand the election to the GOP.
Quote: Gandler
For the record I don't think that it matters.
Nor I. I was just stopping the PC pain train in its tracks.
Now back to your regularly scheduled bashing of the two sides of the same coin.
Quote: FaceNormal: adj - conforming to the standard or the common type.
The defense rests.
It's all moot anyways. 8-12 years from now my coup will be in full swing. Enjoy the clown show while it lasts.
As it happens, 7 of these Presidents pictured are black. So maybe it's about time to get past the nonsense about skin color around here.
Quote: beachbumbabs
As it happens, 7 of these Presidents pictured are black.
This wikipedia article disagrees with you.
Quote: beachbumbabs
As it happens, 7 of these Presidents pictured are black. So maybe it's about time to get past the nonsense about skin color around here.
It wasn't skin color, it was a comment about normalcy. I believe it was something about expecting a woman president, then someone from the LGBT movement, then getting back to "normal". Gandler asked if only straight white men were "normal", a comment, I felt, was going to be a start of a long derail about race, misogyny, gay rights, gay hate, and all the other nonsense. So I simply pointed out that the use of "normal" was not offensive, but was fact.
If 7 are black, that still leaves 30+ who were white. One was a crossdresser if memory serves, that leaves 40+ who went about their day as men. None are women, all are men. A straight, white, male is "normal" in this context.
Quote: beachbumbabs
As it happens, 7 of these Presidents pictured are black.
As it happens, only Obama is black.
Quote: beachbumbabsAs it happens, 7 of these Presidents pictured are black.
:-D Who cares?
The important question is: how many were stupid ? How many were bastards (in the moral sense) ? How many were liars ? How many were assassins ?
--Or, to sum it up: do you really want to get back to "normal" if normal is previous experience ?
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: FaceNormal: adj - conforming to the standard or the common type.
The defense rests.
It's all moot anyways. 8-12 years from now my coup will be in full swing. Enjoy the clown show while it lasts.
As it happens, 7 of these Presidents pictured are black. So maybe it's about time to get past the nonsense about skin color around here.
What do you mean by this?
I agree 100% skin color does not matter. But unless I am misunderstanding something, there is only one "black" President, and he is technically only half black (he is just as "white" as he is "black").
Quote: FaceIt wasn't skin color, it was a comment about normalcy. I believe it was something about expecting a woman president, then someone from the LGBT movement, then getting back to "normal". Gandler asked if only straight white men were "normal", a comment, I felt, was going to be a start of a long derail about race, misogyny, gay rights, gay hate, and all the other nonsense. So I simply pointed out that the use of "normal" was not offensive, but was fact.
If 7 are black, that still leaves 30+ who were white. One was a crossdresser if memory serves, that leaves 40+ who went about their day as men. None are women, all are men. A straight, white, male is "normal" in this context.
Well, I feel the need to press this again after reading this. As you know, I am far from somebody who cares about being politically correct. However, your point is invalidated because of past laws and social pressures.
For the majority of history African Americans could not vote or get an advanced education in many areas let alone run.
And, women could not Federally vote until the 1920s let alone run.
While I hate PC as much as you, calling this "normal" while statistically true, its logically false, simply because of historical circumstances and laws that prevented a fair representation of the national demographic.
If America was discovered and founded in 1980, likely, our politics would be much closer to 50/50 (as far as men and women, I agree men would still outweigh women a bit because of social factors, but it would be much closer), and even more importantly , racial demographics would be far more accurate (meaning a closer number of black representatives would be about the same percentage as the overall black population).
While I am no PC fan, I just take exception to calling straight white males as the only "normal candidate" because that is just not the right road to go down (or perhaps I should say go back down) (and many of my favorite public figures are anything but).
Quote: EvenBobAnd how is Hillary qualified, exactly. Sound of crickets.
Just like when asked to show her accomplishments.
Qualified? The election in 2008 proved that the bar set by the voters for "qualification" is very low. Like the President or not, his resume was nothing spectacular and he won. I don't think "qualified" matters beyond being old enough and born a US Citizen...it is the candidate's ability to win over the voters that matters.
Quote: RonCQuote: EvenBobAnd how is Hillary qualified, exactly. Sound of crickets.
Just like when asked to show her accomplishments.
Qualified? The election in 2008 proved that the bar set by the voters for "qualification" is very low. Like the President or not, his resume was nothing spectacular and he won. I don't think "qualified" matters beyond being old enough and born a US Citizen...it is the candidate's ability to win over the voters that matters.
Well yes the legal qualifications are minimal (there is an age limit and citizenship requirement and that's pretty much it). You don't even need to pass a background check. I have heard it said that Obama would not even be eligible for a security clearance if he applied to the CIA or some such job requiring a top secret clearance, and I believe it. Not because, he is a bad person, but purely because he has had past association and writing with extremist parties (communists, and anti-government/war radicals), and I am not saying he holds any such views or not, but even association is enough for denial (not to mention he also has admitting to using and selling hard drugs, another activity frowned upon when assessing personality). Yet, since he won the election he is still commander and chief over all such people.
But when people say qualified they usually mean do they have a background that will give the voters confidence. And, to be honest, I prefer as little political experience as possible. I don't know if a lifelong political career is a good thing, I would much rather have a private sector worker who knows how to manage be President than a career debater and law maker. But a lot of people seem to think spending decades doing nothing in congress makes you an ideal candidate.
44.Quote: kubikulann:-D Who cares?
The important question is: How many were liars ?
Quote: GandlerQuote: RonCQuote: EvenBobAnd how is Hillary qualified, exactly. Sound of crickets.
Just like when asked to show her accomplishments.
Qualified? The election in 2008 proved that the bar set by the voters for "qualification" is very low. Like the President or not, his resume was nothing spectacular and he won. I don't think "qualified" matters beyond being old enough and born a US Citizen...it is the candidate's ability to win over the voters that matters.
Well yes the legal qualifications are minimal (there is an age limit and citizenship requirement and that's pretty much it). You don't even need to pass a background check. I have heard it said that Obama would not even be eligible for a security clearance if he applied to the CIA or some such job requiring a top secret clearance, and I believe it. Not because, he is a bad person, but purely because he has had past association and writing with extremist parties (communists, and anti-government/war radicals), and I am not saying he holds any such views or not, but even association is enough for denial (not to mention he also has admitting to using and selling hard drugs, another activity frowned upon when assessing personality). Yet, since he won the election he is still commander and chief over all such people.
But when people say qualified they usually mean do they have a background that will give the voters confidence. And, to be honest, I prefer as little political experience as possible. I don't know if a lifelong political career is a good thing, I would much rather have a private sector worker who knows how to manage be President than a career debater and law maker. But a lot of people seem to think spending decades doing nothing in congress makes you an ideal candidate.
+Traveling to Pakistan when Americans were not allowed on an Indonesian passport.
At least he's not Biden though, we dodged a bullet there.
Quote: Gandler
Well yes the legal qualifications are minimal (there is an age limit and citizenship requirement and that's pretty much it). You don't even need to pass a background check. I have heard it said that Obama would not even be eligible for a security clearance if he applied to the CIA or some such job requiring a top secret clearance, and I believe it. Not because, he is a bad person, but purely because he has had past association and writing with extremist parties (communists, and anti-government/war radicals), and I am not saying he holds any such views or not, but even association is enough for denial (not to mention he also has admitting to using and selling hard drugs, another activity frowned upon when assessing personality). Yet, since he won the election he is still commander and chief over all such people.
There is a difference between "requirements" and "qualified." Requirements are spelled out in the Constitution. To be "qualified" you should have some experience managing and administrating as well as be of an intelligence level that you can take what your advisers tell you and make a decision. Much more, of course, but by any objective standard Obama was the least "qualified" of our time.
Quote:But a lot of people seem to think spending decades doing nothing in congress makes you an ideal candidate.
At least doing nothing in congress keeps them out of the private sector where important things are done.
Quote: Gandler
Well, I feel the need to press this again after reading this. As you know, I am far from somebody who cares about being politically correct. However, your point is invalidated because of past laws and social pressures.
It is not invalidated in the least. Sure, there are many reasons non-white, non-straight, non-female persons have not ascended to the throne. In some cases it was law, in some cases it was prejudice, in some cases it was hate, in others, bigotry. That matters not a lick.
"Normally" freshwater crayfish are a sort of reddish brown in color. You can argue that it's because of their habitat, or because of their diet, or because of their genetics, and you'd be right on all counts. You could further point out that those that live in perpetual darkness are a cream color, and those found in caves are translucent, and those in the tropics can be more blue than anything, and you'd again be entirely correct. But those facts don't change a single thing. "Normally", they're a reddish brown.
It's the same thing. The only way you can argue my point is if you change the definition of "normal", or fast forward until another sub group becomes standard. The only thing invalid here is your claim of being anti-PC, which I'll prove with this thought experiment - I hand you a box of Good and Plenty. You thank me. You open it. You pick one out. It's eggshell white. I ask you if it's "normal". You've given me no reason to think you're insane, so I will chance that you'll say "yes". You chew it up. You enjoy it. You go back for more. You pick one out. It's avocado green. I ask you if it's "normal".
The defense rests. Again. Hopefully.
Quote: Dalex64There is no evidence to support or refute space aliens being decendants of or the progenetors of human life on earth, and other species have also carried illnesses caught by humans, therefore there is no evidence that space aliens would or would not carry diseases communicable by humans.
If the space aliens were to visit us, they would be from vast numbers of light years away. To have the technology and the ability to travel so long, they would have to be highly evolved. It's possible that bacteria and diseases on their home planet(s) are so different they may not havery the resistance for what we have here.
When the Europeans and Asians came and colonized the New World, they did not suffer significantly from diseases here. But the Native Americans were devastated by European diseases. I have a feeling when we get visited by aliens it will be a similiar circumstance. They will have so much more exposure to diseases and illnesses from all over the universe, whatever barely evolved bacteria on earth would be no issue. And, even if it is they probably have advanced medical technology.
Sorry, Gandler, you posted the above while I was splitting the thread and did not capture this one. You're welcome to leave it or re-post it there as you prefer.
be president. She's a couple years older than
me, it makes me tired just thinking about it.
Just today she opened her yap and inserted
her foot to the knee again. At the same time
she was saying there were lots of emails
between her and Bill on her server, Bill
issued a statement he never sends email,
has only sent 2 in his life, in the 90's.
Who's lying? Does it matter? One of them
always is.
in politics? This was made by a DC political
group.
Quote: mickeycrimmWomen will come out in force for Hillary. Repubs will keep hammering her over email to impact the 2016 election.
Yes, the GOP will keep hammering her over her email her criminal behavior as Secretary of State to impact the 2016 election.
What puzzles me is why the extreme left is salivating about the corrupt, backstabbing, triangulating, globalist, corporate and Wall Street neo-liberal whores when they know full well they will have their throats cut by them just as they did in the first 2 terms?
Quote: bobsimsSadly, half of the country is dumb enough or ideologically blinded enough to return the aged, kleptocratic Clintons to the White House.
What puzzles me is why the extreme left is salivating about the corrupt, backstabbing, triangulating, globalist, corporate and Wall Street neo-liberal whores when they know full well they will have their throats cut by them just as they did in the first 2 terms?
Its not one side smart and one side dumb.
Its simply a different world view.
A lot of my politics is based on freedom.
I dont believe the govt has the right to determine who can and cannot get married.
If 2 people want to get married, so be it. Let them have the freedom to get married. None of my business.
I have a philosphy that its important to have a safety net for those less fortunate then myself.
I have never taken a govt handout.
I dont mind paying higher taxes so that those less fortunate then me get the help they need with a social safety net.
I can afford higher taxes, I'm going to Vegas Sunday :-) whoopee
Quote: AZDuffmanYes, the GOP will keep hammering her over her email her criminal behavior as Secretary of State to impact the 2016 election.
Yes, and Republicans are little candy ass do gooders who have never done anything wrong.
Quote: AZDuffmanYes, the GOP will keep hammering her over her email her criminal behavior as Secretary of State to impact the 2016 election.
Criminal behavior is getting us into a needles trillion dollar war that cost thousands of American lives like your precious Georgie Bush did. That's criminal behavior.
Quote: EvenBobThis is frightening. You think looks don't matter
in politics? This was made by a DC political
group.
Your sexism is shining through, Bob.
Quote: bobsimsSadly, half of the country is dumb enough or ideologically blinded enough to return the aged, kleptocratic Clintons to the White House.
What puzzles me is why the extreme left is salivating about the corrupt, backstabbing, triangulating, globalist, corporate and Wall Street neo-liberal whores when they know full well they will have their throats cut by them just as they did in the first 2 terms?
Because a lot of the extreme left are under the impression that there's little, if any, possible way one of their own would get elected with a sizable enough majority in Congress to get anything that they want done.
I wonder how many Republicans are salivating over the fact that there's still the remotest possibility that Elizabeth Warren might get the Democratic nomination.
Side note: if Hillary does decide to run, how late into the campaign do the Republicans wait before showing a picture of her taking the Eucharist at a Catholic church in South Africa, targeted at the Catholic crowd (which you would think would be mainly Republican anyway, but when heavily Catholic countries like Mexico and France start supporting same-sex marriage, you have to wonder)?
Quote: terapined
A lot of my politics is based on freedom.
I dont believe the govt has the right to determine who can and cannot get married.
If 2 people want to get married, so be it. Let them have the freedom to get married. None of my business.
This is freedom? Mayhap we should take a look and reexamine.
Freedom: noun - the power of self-determination attributed to the will.
Is that what you think this is? Because I think you may be confusing "freedom" with...
Permission: noun - consent; authorization: an official document giving authorization:
Don't be fooled. Whether allowing or disallowing, it's still control. It's all permission, and not a bit of it is free.
And check this out...
Quote: WikiIn the United States, same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government and has been legalized in 37 U.S. states,[a] the District of Columbia and 22 Native American tribal jurisdictions. More than 70% of the population live in jurisdictions where same-sex couples can legally marry.
Ever cut trees? You don't cut the whole thing. You just cut enough, and gravity does the rest. Well... the gay tree doesn't need any more cutting. You won. So make like Kool and the Gang and celebrate good times, c'mon.
Bazillions in debt, war on 2? 3? 5? fronts, unemployment everywhere, cities going bankrupt, infrastructures failing... "where we can stuff our pee pees" has got to come of the list of things that we worry about. Demanding "gay rights" was a mistake. Demanding the gov get their heads out of our bedrooms was the play we should have made.
Quote: terapinedI have a philosphy that its important to have a safety net for those less fortunate then myself.
I have never taken a govt handout.
I dont mind paying higher taxes so that those less fortunate then me get the help they need with a social safety net.
I can afford higher taxes, I'm going to Vegas Sunday :-) whoopee
I thought a lot of your politics were based on freedom?
A dollar of your taxes. A chunk of it "disappears". Gotta pay the wages of all those politicians. A handful of pennies goes to Dade country. Some more over to Jacksonville. Some to the vice squad in Miami. Blah, blah, blah. Maybe some or a fraction of one lands in Clearwater. Is that "good" to you? Hope so, because you have to do it, else you get financially ruined and go to jail.
That seems neither free nor productive. And since when has the gov been the pinnacle of efficiency? Seems that dollar would be much better spent voluntarily directed to a cause of your choosing. At least then you only need worry about the director of the food bank skimming a quarter, and a whole $0.75 of your dollar goes to assistance right down your own street.
It's one thing to be for a safety net. It's another thing entirely to force everyone to engage in your worldview.
