Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distracted1 said:
To a certain extent, yes.
My experience is that they have a reaction towards her (in particular, as opposed to any random Democrat) that is on par with the hypothetical response of a liberal to a third GWBush term.
She is extremely disliked by conservative and right leaning voters- and not popular enough with the left to motivate enthusiasm for her election- or even strong turnout.

Some, like me, may even sit this out from a " fed-upness " with political dynasties.
Click to expand...

This may have been true a few decades back when rationality generally prevailed in political considerations by most voters. Any more, the most reliable voters are hyper-partisan, the conservatives that I know, generally acknowledge that the Clintons, Hillary in particular, are more business friendly and fiscally conservative, than any other of the top Democratic potentials and always have been,...of course most of the conservatives I know are old school mainstream conservatives that didn't really care about social liberalisms beyond obligatory snorts and head shakes. Today's conservatives are far away from such rationalities.

I won't sit out, but I may well give my vote to a candidate outside either of the major parties, and I don't think I'll be lonely if I choose that route, at least according to the people (Republican, Independent and Democratic) that I regularly talk with about such issues. (particularly the Independents and the more progressive wings of both major parties)

Of course, the elections are a long ways away, and much will depend upon how things shake out in both major parties and the nation as a whole pver the coming year and a half.
 
bruto said:
I think that's true only to a certain extent. People who supported Nader said the same thing, but even if you don't think Gore was much different from Bush, I doubt he'd have started a war in Iraq, among other things. There are differences even if there aren't enough. Little as I like Hillary I think it would be a mistake to think there's no difference between her and another Bush, or Ted Cruz, or whoever the Republicans choose. I wish the Democrats could come up with a better candidate, and I think Bernie would make a pretty good president. He's done pretty well here in Vermont. But I must agree that realistically, I can't see him as electable, and I hope that he doesn't decide to run.
Click to expand...

Anymore, electability is more about fund-raising ability than any other single factor, whether we like it or not. Bernie seems to be much more an issues politician than a money raising magnet, which is probably one of the reasons I've always had a positive attitude regarding him,...but you are probably correct in that he is unlikely to ever mount a successful national campaign. Kind of the opposite counterpart to Ron Paul (who I also liked -- a lot more than his son).
 
Trakar said:
Anymore, electability is more about fund-raising ability than any other single factor, whether we like it or not. Bernie seems to be much more an issues politician than a money raising magnet, which is probably one of the reasons I've always had a positive attitude regarding him,...but you are probably correct in that he is unlikely to ever mount a successful national campaign. Kind of the opposite counterpart to Ron Paul (who I also liked -- a lot more than his son).
Click to expand...

I think we've ever only-so-rarely (in my life) seen a niche candidate make it to the Presidential run. Goldwater and McGovern would be the two who come to mind, and the results are apparent for all to see. Too far left or right of the perceived middle, and able to be labeled as such? The voters shift to the other candidate regardless whether they agree with him/his party or not. My mother termed the '64 election "a choice between a crook and a sonofabitch... you bite your tongue and vote for the crook".

While I can give Sanders my respect, I'm not sure the swing voter would and am sure he'd be tarred Socialist-Commie-Greenie so heavily that enough of that would stick that it'd be another McGovern run.

I have problems with Hillary, but not to the extent that it would have me voting Republican, based on the current definition of Republican ideology. My vote MIGHT go to a fringe candidate, but my vote is counted in NYC/NYS. I won't have an impact on the outcome, so it'd be just for personal satisfaction.
 
Travis said:
The differences do scare me. I don't think Hillary thinks she needs to prepare America for the rapture. Ted Cruz likely does.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the base fanning rhetoric for personally held beliefs with any significant presidential candidate (regardless of party affiliation), they all say what they say because constituents are listening. Regardless of beliefs however, he would fight harder for legislation that matched his words than for legislation that matched his beliefs, because the former are important to him and the latter clearly are not.
 
Trakar said:
Don't confuse the base fanning rhetoric for personally held beliefs with any significant presidential candidate (regardless of party affiliation), they all say what they say because constituents are listening. Regardless of beliefs however, he would fight harder for legislation that matched his words than for legislation that matched his beliefs, because the former are important to him and the latter clearly are not.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the things his father has been saying for years? If that is who raised him I don't want him in charge of a Dairy Queen let alone the nation.
 
SezMe said:
[nit pick] Ross Perot? [/nit pick]
Click to expand...

That's not a "nit-pck" so much as it's wrong. We've had more than one niche candidate run as a third party alternative. That's sort of why they do that - they are out-liers within the two mainstream parties. Wallace, Thurmond, Nader, Paul, Perot. Ross is just the one with the highest popular vote, but does anyone think he could've won the Dem or GOP nomination?
 
Foolmewunz said:
That's not a "nit-pck" so much as it's wrong. We've had more than one niche candidate run as a third party alternative. That's sort of why they do that - they are out-liers within the two mainstream parties. Wallace, Thurmond, Nader, Paul, Perot. Ross is just the one with the highest popular vote, but does anyone think he could've won the Dem or GOP nomination?
Click to expand...

To be fair, it wasn't clear what you meant by "make it to the Presidential run".
 
16.5 said:
Well, I muddled through the lede, but stopped when I got to this: "some very nefarious-sounding players (Russians! Uranium!)." If I wanted insipidly written pro-Hillary propaganda I'd read ISF.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes the 16.5 knee jerk reflex of stopping reading before you have to deal with inconvenient facts. Well done, you carefully avoided be educated. Very telling and explains quite a bit.
 
16.5 said:
Sounds "legit."

Thanks for posting. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No thanks for not.

You said there were good reasons why Hillary shouldn't be president. You named people who died but not why it was her fault. In any case that would be ONE reason, not the number I asked. You have your work cut out for you.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
No thanks for not.

You said there were good reasons why Hillary shouldn't be president. You named people who died but not why it was her fault. In any case that would be ONE reason, not the number I asked. You have your work cut out for you.
Click to expand...

Oh let me JUMP! right on that because you seem like a serious sort who expects instant compliance with your internet posts demanding lists that you will carefully weigh in a non-partisan manner before concluding that Hillary is the bee's knees.

Lolz!

Here is ANOTHER list: Benghazi, Anarchy in Libya and Hillary's pathological lies.

That is three, that enough?
 
16.5 said:
That is three, that enough?
Click to expand...

I asked you for reasons, not a laundry list of things that may or may not be related to her competence. "Benghazi" doesn't mean anything without some sort of argument or demonstration. If you had typed exactly the same number of characters as you did to me since my original question but instead for answering rather than being flippant, we'd be done by now.
 
Belz... said:
I asked you for reasons, not a laundry list of things that may or may not be related to her competence. "Benghazi" doesn't mean anything without some sort of argument or demonstration. If you had typed exactly the same number of characters as you did to me since my original question but instead for answering rather than being flippant, we'd be done by now.
Click to expand...

She is a liar, she has a pathological need for secrecy, she breaks her vows, and is incompetent.

There, that is four, can I go home now or are you just going to continue to scold me because I am not jumping through your hoops in the manner and fashion you demand?
 
Travis said:
Have you seen the things his father has been saying for years? If that is who raised him I don't want him in charge of a Dairy Queen let alone the nation.
Click to expand...

I generally don't judge people by their parents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom