Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
bruto said:
The word "democrat" is not verboten and you would have to be unbelievably stupid actually to think that. I simply believe that if you are going to be taken seriously as a person with points of view that are reasonable and not stupid, you ought to be capable of writing the proper name of the party to which a Democrat belongs, which is, as you perfectly well know, the "Democratic Party." It is an old and unsavory habit of persons who do not have actual substance to their arguments to use distorted names, and it is particularly a habit of conservatives to refer to the "democrat" party, I suppose because it combines intentional offensiveness with ugliness. Of course, you can go on doing so if you think it a good reflection on your character. I merely suggest that to some of us, such a usage immediately identifies you as a person who ought to be ignored. If you actually want to argue points against people who don't already agree with you, it's worth considering.

Or, as goes the motto of one of my favorite frivolous political parties (the Guns and Dope Party): If you can't achieve kindness at least attempt courtesy.
Click to expand...

for the love of god, i was openly mocking the hypocrites that whine about the use of the word democrat while ignoring idiotic comments like pubbies or republickers.

cry moar
 
Foolmewunz said:
I don't think Bill plays as well in NH as he does elsewhere
Click to expand...


I think he's probably best used to for getting donors and endorsements. But he's popular enough with the Democratic base to be used effectively during the primaries. For the general election, I think you're right. They can't use him outside of solid blue states. And, as I circle back to my first point, those states are only good for fundraising and endorsement grabbing.
 
Loss Leader said:
I think he's probably best used to for getting donors and endorsements. But he's popular enough with the Democratic base to be used effectively during the primaries. For the general election, I think you're right. They can't use him outside of solid blue states. And, as I circle back to my first point, those states are only good for fundraising and endorsement grabbing.
Click to expand...

I disagree on "solid blue". He's not needed in those (in the GE). Hillary's in no danger of losing Massachusetts or New York or California. Bubba brings value in purple states. The Dems go into the GE with about 200+ electoral votes already banked. It's the infamous swing states where Bubba appeals to Reagan Democrats where he'll be a force. If his good old boy appeal swings a couple of percentage points in VA, NC, PA, OH, CO and FL, he's back in the White House, albeit as First Husband.
 
Loss Leader said:
For the general election, I think you're right. They can't use him outside of solid blue states.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is right.

I think the thought must be based on the idea that he is widely disliked by people outside the Democratic base, but I think that is wrong. He is widely despised by the Republican base, but I think he has some appeal to the split ticket and swing voter.

The Clinton years were a pretty good time to live in America. It was pretty much a time of peace and prosperity. Oh, there was a little bitty war with Serbia, but that ended with American casualties of 0 dead, 0 wounded, and 3 captured, so not so bad. And the prosperity may have been just a run-up to a stock market bubble that hit hard in 2000-2001. And some would say that the Republican congress had more to do with the prosperity than the Democratic president. In other words, partisan bickerers will either give him all of the credit, or none of it, but, really, things weren't bad when he was president. An awful lot of swing voters will remember that, and might be inclined to give him at least some of the credit.

Also, if he is involved, he knows that the hard line Republicans won't be able to resist bringing up his personal life, and the Democrats know that every time the Republicans do that, some people are turned off and that makes them inclined to vote for Democrats.
 
Meadmaker said:
He is widely despised by the Republican base, but I think he has some appeal to the split ticket and swing voter.
Click to expand...
Foolmewunz said:
Bubba brings value in purple states.
Click to expand...


Excellent points. We'll have to see what they do with him.


he's back in the White House, albeit as First Husband.
Click to expand...


I think it will be "First Gentleman." It'll be really interesting to see what the heck they do with that. He's earned the title of President.

The Secret Service are still calling Hillary "Evergreen" and Bill "Eagle." It'll be interesting to see if they give her a better name, considering Presidents get to be cool things like Renegade, Rawhide and Lancer. George W. Bush got upgraded from Tumbler to Timberwolf when he was elected.
 
Loss Leader said:
Excellent points. We'll have to see what they do with him.





I think it will be "First Gentleman." It'll be really interesting to see what the heck they do with that. He's earned the title of President.

The Secret Service are still calling Hillary "Evergreen" and Bill "Eagle." It'll be interesting to see if they give her a better name, considering Presidents get to be cool things like Renegade, Rawhide and Lancer. George W. Bush got upgraded from Tumbler to Timberwolf when he was elected.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Bill's girlfriend, they call her Energizer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shment-author-reveals-explosive-new-book.html

Why do they call Hillary Evergreen?
 
Loss Leader said:
I doubt it. Chelsea's name is Energy.



ETA: For the love of Meg Ryan, that article was even sillier than I imagined.
Click to expand...

You didn't notice the give away did you "www.dailymail.com", that should have been enough to warn you. The Daily Mail is a very popular tabloid style sensationalism based newspaper over here that is just ever so slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan. It and its owners have consistently supported fascists and dictators for generations. Being pilloried by the Daily Mail should be seen as a mark of good character!

But I am sure she can be and is nasty, abrupt, unpleasant, driven, tough and so on, they are the attributes of many successful people. It's a sad testament to our society that to "succeed" often requires those attributes.
 
Darat said:
...But I am sure she can be and is nasty, abrupt, unpleasant, driven, tough and so on, they are the attributes of many successful people. It's a sad testament to our society that to "succeed" often requires those attributes.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it is required, in fact in most cases it is counter-productive to good and effective leadership and management. However, the people in these positions tend to get away with abysmal behavior and horrid people skills, because of other traits or characteristics that are important, and occasionally vital, to a particular business or organization.
 
Darat said:
You didn't notice the give away did you "www.dailymail.com", that should have been enough to warn you. The Daily Mail is a very popular tabloid style sensationalism based newspaper over here that is just ever so slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan. It and its owners have consistently supported fascists and dictators for generations. Being pilloried by the Daily Mail should be seen as a mark of good character!

But I am sure she can be and is nasty, abrupt, unpleasant, driven, tough and so on, they are the attributes of many successful people. It's a sad testament to our society that to "succeed" often requires those attributes.
Click to expand...


The cited article is drawn from a book by Ronald Kessler, an American reporter who used to work for the Washington Post and who has written extensively about the Secret Service, FBI and CIA. The book might (or might not) be crap, but the author, not the paper, is responsible.
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Fam..._UL160_SR104,160_&refRID=10N4Y5NAFARETDTEYJ1S
 
Bob001 said:
The cited article is drawn from a book by Ronald Kessler, an American reporter who used to work for the Washington Post and who has written extensively about the Secret Service, FBI and CIA. The book might (or might not) be crap, but the author, not the paper, is responsible.
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Fam..._UL160_SR104,160_&refRID=10N4Y5NAFARETDTEYJ1S
Click to expand...
Criticism
Kessler's writings have been criticized in publications such as the Washington Post and The Week for overt partisanship and a lack of journalistic rigor.
Every book ever written has mistakes. But experts are supposed to get the main things right, and reporters generally follow through when someone tells them something. Too often, Kessler seems to have listened to his sources, written their words down, and then simply printed as fact their allegations or observations without checking on them.
— Marc Ambinder, The Week, August 6, 2014
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Criticism
Click to expand...

Ambinder, really? While I agree with your general point, using one journalist who has, on recent occasion, had his own idiocy in print moments, probably isn't the best critic of another journalist's sloppiness to use. Admittedly, he apologized for calling secret service agents high functioning alcoholics, but the point is that he himself should have exercised some judicious restraint and checked some facts himself before penning and submitting such an article.
 
Bob001 said:
The cited article is drawn from a book by Ronald Kessler, an American reporter who used to work for the Washington Post and who has written extensively about the Secret Service, FBI and CIA. The book might (or might not) be crap, but the author, not the paper, is responsible.
http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Fam..._UL160_SR104,160_&refRID=10N4Y5NAFARETDTEYJ1S
Click to expand...
There are also countless others who've written similar things about the Clinton's. It amazes me how so many leftists adore these two corrupt people, says a lot about them.
 
logger said:
There are also countless others who've written similar things about the Clinton's. It amazes me how so many leftists adore these two corrupt people, says a lot about them.
Click to expand...

For certain meanings of "leftist", one assumes? (e.g. "anyone more progressive than Torquemada)

You really do need to get up-to-speed on your terms. The "leftists" on these forums, for the most part, have readily self-identified as not being Hillary supporters. Some, e.g. myself, are firm Sanders supporters who will support Hillary if/when she gets the nomination but only because the evils of the GOP are a greater concern than making a gesture at the polling booths.
 
Foolmewunz said:
For certain meanings of "leftist", one assumes? (e.g. "anyone more progressive than Torquemada)

You really do need to get up-to-speed on your terms. The "leftists" on these forums, for the most part, have readily self-identified as not being Hillary supporters. Some, e.g. myself, are firm Sanders supporters who will support Hillary if/when she gets the nomination but only because the evils of the GOP are a greater concern than making a gesture at the polling booths.
Click to expand...

And some of us who identify as, well to the Progressive left, are Clinton supporters because she has a better resume and we don't all believe you should elect a President based on a dream.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom