Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, will announce today that he will seek the GOP nomination for president in 2016, ABC News has learned.
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
All politicians need to lie at times. However not all politicians are pathological liars. I said that here about her here over 10 years and she has never disappointed.
I think there's a huge difference. This is not political lying that we are talking about here. We are talking about actual real world lying, Petreaus rule-breaking, evidence destruction, influence peddling and perhaps even bribery. And that's just what we know now without a full investigation or retrieving (perhaps permanently) communications.
Honestly feel like this is a litmus test for voters and how they prioritize integrity versus party. I think it would be akin to Repubs having to decide to vote for Spiro Agnew had her not resigned and rather, had run versus carter instead of Ford.
Agreed. Clinton's not lying to get elected, she's stonewalling, covering up AND outright lying to stay out of jail.
this country if we elect a person like Hillary to the Presidency?
That we will vote party lines over good judgment?
I can't think of a recent presidential candidate with a worse history of lying, manipulating the truth, or outright deceit, going back all the way to Whitewater than her.
I can think of people once they took office who had that kind of behavior, but before stepping into the position?
It will speak very loudly about either the stupidity of the public, or the insistence to vote on party or gender lines if she is elected.
Sanders doesn't have a chance. He's a left-wing darling, but, (1) he's a self-described socialist, (2) he's far left, (3) he's created the illusion that he has no foreign policy plan, and (4) I don't think our country is ready to elect a Bernie to the top job.
Sanders doesn't have a chance. He's a left-wing darling, but, (1) he's a self-described socialist, (2) he's far left, (3) he's created the illusion that he has no foreign policy plan, and (4) I don't think our country is ready to elect a Bernie to the top job.
Too late. There's a Bernie already in the White House. Except for the "illusion" part. There IS no foreign policy.
Sanders doesn't have a chance. He's a left-wing darling, but, (1) he's a self-described socialist, (2) he's far left, (3) he's created the illusion that he has no foreign policy plan, and (4) I don't think our country is ready to elect a Bernie to the top job.
Too late. There's a Bernie already in the White House. Except for the "illusion" part. There IS no foreign policy.
If you have nothing to say about Rick Santorum jumping into the race or the GOP primary by extension why don't you just start a thread about Clinton and the Dems?
ISIS came about because they hate everything that we believe in and we stand for,” Santorum added. “I think the idea that we accept now that this tripe from the left that it’s our fault that ISIS exists -- go back to the thousand-year history of Muslim expansionism, and look at some of the horrible things that were done to spread radical Islam. That is not something that America had anything to do with.”
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Sen. Paul asserted GOP hawks “created” ISIS.
“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” he said. “They created these people.”
But Santorum, who touted his national security credentials, took issue with Paul’s comment.
“I would expect to hear that from maybe Bernie Sanders. I don't expect to hear that from someone running for the Republican nomination,” Santorum told Stephanopoulos.
But there's more to being an appealing candidate to me than that. She's a hawk, and I don't see much reason to believe that she isn't as plutocratic as any Republican candidate.
If you have nothing to say about Rick Santorum jumping into the race or the GOP primary by extension why don't you just start a thread about Clinton and the Dems?
Already did @ 12:21. Unfortunately for him he's gonna get caught up in the #'s crunch. As for a thread on Clinton & the Dems, no thanks I'll pass.
RE: ISIS was around before Obama became president Â
It doesn't take a genius to figure out who created ISIS. Also W signed an agreement to get the troops out. W also released the spokesperson for isis. ALBAGDADI. I butchered his name. It's going to be Jeb vs Hilary. They have the most money.
this country if we elect a person like Hillary to the Presidency?
That we will vote party lines over good judgment?
I can't think of a recent presidential candidate with a worse history of lying, manipulating the truth, or outright deceit, going back all the way to Whitewater than her.
I can think of people once they took office who had that kind of behavior, but before stepping into the position?
It will speak very loudly about either the stupidity of the public, or the insistence to vote on party or gender lines if she is elected.
So in all of politics, the examples you have involving what you deem are the worst of the worst are Hillary and Bill Clinton?
And if/when she wins, the GOP can blame itself for a generation of crying wolf over the Clintons. Y'all may have a good case against her, but the messenger has no credibility.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout. I dont think either party will make any nods or significant moderations to stake out the middle.
fringe candidate mistake. Talking to his base after the 'start gun' fires, whereupon one ought to start talking to the whole electorate.
If he had simply said, "Saddam would have killed all those ILS freaks before you could say 'spit' " that would have been taken for what it is, fairly irrelevant to what is happening in this moment, rhetorical and possibly true.
Instead, he was lazy or unfocussed in his rhetoric and will pay a political price for it. His party is paying a price, as the debate has not been as productive as it could have been.
Too bad, Paul might actually make a better president than candidate, as some types become more rational once in power, once they realize the real work does not always involve firing up a bunch of yips at town meetings it the mountain states. we may never find out.
Would Jindal start a (get the u.s. into) ground war in iraq? The electorate would certainly want specifics on that as well.
None of this gives a pass to the current administrations lack of tactical vision, insight or willingness to use certain resources.
one thing about any fringe candidate, left or right Â
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
RealClearPolitics average of polls has Hillary ahead of everyone. But given the current state of name recognition she'd be toast if she wasn't.
Link - ( New Window )
I saw something recently that had her slipping in swing states with candidates like Walker and Bush beating her in their states.
I still can't believe that people would support her when she and Bill have basically put the Presidency up for sale, and I'm not talking about the Lincoln Bedroom. There is still time to get a viable Dem candidate. You can laugh at the Republican candidates, but sticking with Hilary is just giving up.
the Iraq War. She owns it, just as much as John Kerry and George Bush... It's hillarious that people talk crap about the war and the strawman argument about WMD, but won't acknowledge her complicancy.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
just there are very few cases of politicians having such a dubious track record BEFORE they take office.
I suppose you could argue someone like Marion Barry, although I don't know if drug use and corruption are the same (at this point, I'd rather have a druggie than a conniver) Maybe Alcee Hastings?
And if/when she wins, the GOP can blame itself for a generation of crying wolf over the Clintons. Y'all may have a good case against her, but the messenger has no credibility.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout. I dont think either party will make any nods or significant moderations to stake out the middle.
What messenger? The Press should be the messenger and so far the NYT and WaPo have done a somewhat decent job on the Foundations issues. But when you have Clinton Attack Dogs IN the media, like Stephanopolous, it makes it a bit difficult to get unbiased coverage.
We'll see what happens when she has to debate or answer questions. It seems the more the public sees of her, the less they like her. And for good reason.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
Lucky for her, there's no serious Dem candidates so she won't even have to answer real questions until the general election.
And people putting stock in polls this far out
SanFranNowNCGiantsFan : 4:59 pm : link : reply
is LOL worthy.
Waaaaay too early. The best thing that can come-out of the 2016 election is that the American public finally wakes-up and realizes that the political process has jumped the shark and is in real danger of rolling back our liberty. These clowns have us fighting over stupid boob-bait arguments about race, gender and sexual orientation while they fill their pockets.
HRC isn't perfect. And nor will be the Republican nominee.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
No one really knows what HRC believes in. She and her husband believe in getting as much money for themselves and they don't care how they do it.
Are you for selling our uranium to Russia to possibly sell to Iran? Are you for countries like Qatar? Are you for not putting Boko Harum on the terrorist watch list because you took money from Nigeria and they don't want to look bad?
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
Lucky for her, there's no serious Dem candidates so she won't even have to answer real questions until the general election.
Well that's what I mean. By then it will be too late to get another candidate. She fell apart in 2008, so she may do that once again.
RE: And people putting stock in polls this far out Â
RE: On the issuesMajority of Americans side with Democratic policies.
Today's "Democrat Party" is a coalition of people who feel disenfranchised. It's a giant pay-back scheme for support. The various coalitions don't have issues, they have causes. Their party promises them a seat at the table and uses that seat to force feed the agenda to Amercians. These policies are consistently voted down by the public (immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, tax increases... etc), but they are legislatively pushed through the power of Government.
Quote:
In comment 12302557 Matt M. said:
Quote:
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
All politicians need to lie at times. However not all politicians are pathological liars. I said that here about her here over 10 years and she has never disappointed.
I think there's a huge difference. This is not political lying that we are talking about here. We are talking about actual real world lying, Petreaus rule-breaking, evidence destruction, influence peddling and perhaps even bribery. And that's just what we know now without a full investigation or retrieving (perhaps permanently) communications.
Honestly feel like this is a litmus test for voters and how they prioritize integrity versus party. I think it would be akin to Repubs having to decide to vote for Spiro Agnew had her not resigned and rather, had run versus carter instead of Ford.
Agreed. Clinton's not lying to get elected, she's stonewalling, covering up AND outright lying to stay out of jail.
Quote:
That is a fair stance about Hillary at this point. But, the scary part is, she still may very well be the best candidate out there right now.
Um, no. Her resume is filled of using, abusing, and lying.
Quote:
In comment 12302677 Matt M. said:
Quote:
That is a fair stance about Hillary at this point. But, the scary part is, she still may very well be the best candidate out there right now.
Um, no. Her resume is filled of using, abusing, and lying.
Based on what? What did she accomplish as Secretary of State?
Her 4 years as Secretary of States has more questions, doubts, and inaccuracies than any of recent future.
If her name was Hillary Jones, she would be laughed at by mainstream media for president.
And isnt it scary she has done things as controversial and worse than those 2? When your talked about in the same regards as them, yikes!
Thanks for the response, njpm!
Seriously, we does fucking everyone who responds to me insert a P in my screen name?
That we will vote party lines over good judgment?
I can't think of a recent presidential candidate with a worse history of lying, manipulating the truth, or outright deceit, going back all the way to Whitewater than her.
I can think of people once they took office who had that kind of behavior, but before stepping into the position?
It will speak very loudly about either the stupidity of the public, or the insistence to vote on party or gender lines if she is elected.
Quote:
No ulterior motive for Kasich. If he goes he's serious.
Thanks for the response, njpm!
Seriously, we does fucking everyone who responds to me insert a P in my screen name?
I'm glad you didn't take it personally.
Too late. There's a Bernie already in the White House. Except for the "illusion" part. There IS no foreign policy.
Quote:
Sanders doesn't have a chance. He's a left-wing darling, but, (1) he's a self-described socialist, (2) he's far left, (3) he's created the illusion that he has no foreign policy plan, and (4) I don't think our country is ready to elect a Bernie to the top job.
Too late. There's a Bernie already in the White House. Except for the "illusion" part. There IS no foreign policy.
Tinfoil hat patrol in full force today.
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Sen. Paul asserted GOP hawks “created” ISIS.
“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” he said. “They created these people.”
But Santorum, who touted his national security credentials, took issue with Paul’s comment.
“I would expect to hear that from maybe Bernie Sanders. I don't expect to hear that from someone running for the Republican nomination,” Santorum told Stephanopoulos.
Link - ( New Window )
I think Jeb loves that he's in the race. Makes him look more reasonable and electable.
Didn't Mitt keep someone in the race last time to split the conservative vote, maybe Huckabee?
Already did @ 12:21. Unfortunately for him he's gonna get caught up in the #'s crunch. As for a thread on Clinton & the Dems, no thanks I'll pass.
Perhaps. But they appeared to be taking a sabbatical from 2008-2011.
That we will vote party lines over good judgment?
I can't think of a recent presidential candidate with a worse history of lying, manipulating the truth, or outright deceit, going back all the way to Whitewater than her.
I can think of people once they took office who had that kind of behavior, but before stepping into the position?
It will speak very loudly about either the stupidity of the public, or the insistence to vote on party or gender lines if she is elected.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout. I dont think either party will make any nods or significant moderations to stake out the middle.
If he had simply said, "Saddam would have killed all those ILS freaks before you could say 'spit' " that would have been taken for what it is, fairly irrelevant to what is happening in this moment, rhetorical and possibly true.
Instead, he was lazy or unfocussed in his rhetoric and will pay a political price for it. His party is paying a price, as the debate has not been as productive as it could have been.
Too bad, Paul might actually make a better president than candidate, as some types become more rational once in power, once they realize the real work does not always involve firing up a bunch of yips at town meetings it the mountain states. we may never find out.
Would Jindal start a (get the u.s. into) ground war in iraq? The electorate would certainly want specifics on that as well.
None of this gives a pass to the current administrations lack of tactical vision, insight or willingness to use certain resources.
which could be a good thing in terms of getting stuff done, or in terms of stepping away from [either parties] bullshit parts of the agendas.
Quote:
In comment 12302445 OC2.0 said:
Quote:
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
RealClearPolitics average of polls has Hillary ahead of everyone. But given the current state of name recognition she'd be toast if she wasn't.
Link - ( New Window )
I saw something recently that had her slipping in swing states with candidates like Walker and Bush beating her in their states.
I still can't believe that people would support her when she and Bill have basically put the Presidency up for sale, and I'm not talking about the Lincoln Bedroom. There is still time to get a viable Dem candidate. You can laugh at the Republican candidates, but sticking with Hilary is just giving up.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
I suppose you could argue someone like Marion Barry, although I don't know if drug use and corruption are the same (at this point, I'd rather have a druggie than a conniver) Maybe Alcee Hastings?
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout. I dont think either party will make any nods or significant moderations to stake out the middle.
What messenger? The Press should be the messenger and so far the NYT and WaPo have done a somewhat decent job on the Foundations issues. But when you have Clinton Attack Dogs IN the media, like Stephanopolous, it makes it a bit difficult to get unbiased coverage.
We'll see what happens when she has to debate or answer questions. It seems the more the public sees of her, the less they like her. And for good reason.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
Quote:
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
Lucky for her, there's no serious Dem candidates so she won't even have to answer real questions until the general election.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
The Dems...maybe
HRC is in line with whoever's writing the checks.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
SanFranNowNCGiantsFan : 4:59 pm : link : reply
is LOL worthy.
Waaaaay too early. The best thing that can come-out of the 2016 election is that the American public finally wakes-up and realizes that the political process has jumped the shark and is in real danger of rolling back our liberty. These clowns have us fighting over stupid boob-bait arguments about race, gender and sexual orientation while they fill their pockets.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
No one really knows what HRC believes in. She and her husband believe in getting as much money for themselves and they don't care how they do it.
Are you for selling our uranium to Russia to possibly sell to Iran? Are you for countries like Qatar? Are you for not putting Boko Harum on the terrorist watch list because you took money from Nigeria and they don't want to look bad?
Quote:
In comment 12303016 Deej said:
Quote:
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
Lucky for her, there's no serious Dem candidates so she won't even have to answer real questions until the general election.
Well that's what I mean. By then it will be too late to get another candidate. She fell apart in 2008, so she may do that once again.
At this point in the 1992 election cycle Bush 41 had something like a 89% approval rating.
Today's "Democrat Party" is a coalition of people who feel disenfranchised. It's a giant pay-back scheme for support. The various coalitions don't have issues, they have causes. Their party promises them a seat at the table and uses that seat to force feed the agenda to Amercians. These policies are consistently voted down by the public (immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, tax increases... etc), but they are legislatively pushed through the power of Government.
You just said it was laughable to put stock in polls at this point. So how are you telling who could beat HRC. I think Rubio or Walker could beat her.