Obama ran on HOPE and CHANGE and look what that brought.
Worse than Jimmy C.

What a train wreck, domestically and internationally.
And now he is listed as one of the the worst US President.

Dick heads like you voted for this man not because of experience but because he is black. ZERO experience! YEA that is a good enough reason.


Vote for Hillary because :
She is a Woman
She is a cheater ( DNC scandal)
She is married to a pedophile
She is too faced on woman's rights
She is part of the corrupt ruling elite
She has foreign policy experience- everything she touched went bad.

YEA that is a good enough reason.


So what change do you want? Clinton sound like more of the same. OBAMA and Clinton are not taking ISIS seriously TRUMP, as miss guides as his words are will be taking ISIS out.

NUKES? same shit was said about OBAMA when he was running. BS .

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

Mis-speaking one word does not a dumb person make. Equating a the so-called ability to see another country from the state you live in as "foreign policy experience" does.

I don't even know if you can call this a gaffe. We all know what he meant and there is no subtext to call upon that brings that into doubt.

>> ^ulysses1904:

She always sounds to me like a grade-school teacher speaking. It's hard to explain but I never hear any detail about anything from her mouth, just big vague terms. It's like a grade-school kid might believe she has foreign policy experience just because part of Alaska is right next to part of Russia but nobody whose brain has developed would think that. Everything she says has this "Dick and Jane" simplicity to it.


So it's perfect for America then?

She always sounds to me like a grade-school teacher speaking. It's hard to explain but I never hear any detail about anything from her mouth, just big vague terms. It's like a grade-school kid might believe she has foreign policy experience just because part of Alaska is right next to part of Russia but nobody whose brain has developed would think that. Everything she says has this "Dick and Jane" simplicity to it.

Serious people can tell there is nothing to her like there is most of the people in politics.

To say she's nothing but talking points requires putting bias-blinders on regarding her record. As far as I can see, Palin has not been just talk in regards to cutting budgets. Not saying she's the person to vote for, but to say that "there's nothing there" is both inaccurate and disingenous. She has a record of doing the stuff she's recommending. Could she do that for the entire Republican PARTY? Pht - not bloodly likely. The GOP is so full of RINOs right now that no real fiscal conservative could do anything with it.

Lower taxes isn't always better, but holding the government to an extremely high standard of making sure that our tax dollars are used responsibly is.

That's a fair way to put it. There are SOME taxes that are useful, but the pendulum has definitely swung in the wrong direction and we're long overdue for a massive correction in our "government bubble" (as I call it).

To me, Palin was a poorly planned gimmick response to Hillary being a force in the primaries before the election.

Hmm - I'd say Palin was a desperate attempt by McCain to appeal to his base. When Obama ousted Hillary, McCain ended up looking like a doddering old liberal RINO coot who couldn't sell himself out of a paper bag. He needed a big jolt to his base. Enter Palin, who was both socially and fiscally more conservative than McCain. Too little too late though because (as you note) the Republican party no longer has any real interest or loyalty to fiscally conservative principles.

She created that visage herself by saying things like that she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house.

Uh - no - you are repeating a long debunked lie perpetuated by neolibs. Her actual quote is "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." What you are quoting - to your everlasting shame - is a SNL skit. You know - a parody. At no point did Palin ever say she could see Russia from her house or backyard. And yet neolibs with Liberal Derangement Syndrome actually beleive that's what she said and meant. But that's what ideologues do. They take quotes out of context, they massage them into grotesque parodies, and then pretend they're truth. Every person in the public eye does & says stuff that is ripe for parodies & poking fun. Obama has made some HUMDINGERS. But only a brain-washed, biased, fool takes the parodies and pretends they're reality.

Now - the more I see Palin the less I think of her as a candidate. I just think she's not fully baked yet. She gets that tight sort of clench in her voice and just seems nervous. She's not easy & comfortable - probably because she hasn't had enough experience. She needs more time, and the book tour may help her get over it. She's got the right goals. She needs to get her sea legs before she's a serious contender though.

Oh, Winstonfield. Your obviously-biased rhetoric becomes a tiresome trudge. Palin doesn't have people thinking she's an idiot just grabbed out of nowhere. She created that visage herself by saying things like that she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house. The truth is, no matter how well she memorizes boilerplate talking-points, no one will trust her after her faux 'debate' with Biden where she just chose to ignore the questions and spout more bolierplate. And the bullshit about 'real America'. Shes just a mire of partisan idiocy. I feel sorry for people who trust this woman when she's shown from the get go that she's just a sham. I must say, having her as some sort of figurehead in your country makes others in the world exceptionally pitiful of you. That someone who has no ability to defend their beliefs, no ability to govern in ways that are not corrupt, no common sense of when to speak and when to not could become such a venerated figure in some circles is so sad.

Maybe she'll go to school and take a trip somewhere outside of the States for the first time in her life. Maybe she actually has some sort of hidden potential that she just needs time to make shine. It's possible. It seems very unlikely, but it's possible. Maybe she'll help inspire those wallowing in ignorance who look up to her. Help them out of their ignorance by being an example of a changed person. I would welcome that. But from what she has shown and is continuing to show, she chooses to be someone who wears their ignorance like a badge of honour. Like it's a good thing that sticking to one's guns that a mastery of foreign policy could come from a vision of, and not a walk to, the other shore. Until she has made it clear that she has chosen knowledge instead of her particular brand of uninformed but active vexation, she will continue to keep her self-made visage of ignorance. And rightfully so.

You see? She does have foreign policy experience! Look how much she know about Turkey!

So THAT'S where Palin got her foreign policy experience!

>> ^MINK:
^it seems that way because maybe it's true. In Europe we still have the remains of this thing called "Education", and it's hard to live more than 200 miles away from a university. Obviously there's great intellects and great dumbasses in every part of the world, but if you had to bet on a winner...

Claiming that living within a proximity to a university creates a more intelligent populous is like claiming that living within a proximity to Russia gives you foreign policy experience.

The more I hear her say she has foreign policy experience by being just several hundred miles away from another country, the more I'm convinced she's really ready to be commander-in-chief of our military and leader of the free world. I think each time she explains it, she gains more experience points. She's practically ready to be president of Russia even.

I'm actually shocked that after being ridiculed during the last few weeks for this absurd line of thinking that she's sticking with the "I'm right up there next to Russia so I have foreign policy experience" bullcrap. That tells you she has nothing else.

And that's scary.

This woman is highly skilled at giving responses that are not answers. This is a political tactic that is highly valued, and is not in any way an "epic fail". If she were to admit she has no foreign policy experience or knowledge, that would be an epic fail. This is business as usual for America.

>> ^thinker247:
I love the comparison of Hillary's years of experience versus Palin's hop-step and a jump into the Oval Office.
Think about this for a second:
I am 28 years old. If I become mayor of a tiny town in my state of Idaho, then become governor, in 2016 I could be on the ticket for President of the United States. And why not? I live a few hundred miles from the Canadian border, so I have the same amount of foreign policy experience. I went to college in Idaho. I've never hunted wolves from a helicopter, but I could learn! If Palin can do all of this and be on the ticket, what's stopping me? Or anybody else?
WTF?!


Wow, we're like twins...If you need a running mate gimme a call

Depends on how attractive you are really. I mean would I want to see your face photoshopped onto a bikini model. I mean yeah sure I would, I'm easily amused, but would others?

>> ^thinker247:
I love the comparison of Hillary's years of experience versus Palin's hop-step and a jump into the Oval Office.
Think about this for a second:
I am 28 years old. If I become mayor of a tiny town in my state of Idaho, then become governor, in 2016 I could be on the ticket for President of the United States. And why not? I live a few hundred miles from the Canadian border, so I have the same amount of foreign policy experience. I went to college in Idaho. I've never hunted wolves from a helicopter, but I could learn! If Palin can do all of this and be on the ticket, what's stopping me? Or anybody else?
WTF?!