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.
"so what, the other guys did worse..." That's a shitty fucking rejoinder. It's probably untrue, but even if it was it's a pretty pathetic bar to surmount if all we ask of someone is that prior to taking office their scandals be arguably lesser in magnitude than their predecessors.
Is this a response to me? Are you kidding? My "rejoinder" is the first 4 paragraphs of my post, which you ignore completely to mischaracterize the 5th paragraph. I guess you have no thoughtful response.
My point in the 5th paragraph was probably not worth making, but it's that Bill's presidency was investigated to hell, and the best anyone got him on was lying about marital infidelity. Yet GOPers go on and on like it was the end of times when Crooked Arkansas Bill was running things. The dishonesty out of Nixon, Reagan, and GWB's administrations on the other hand went to affairs of state. It's many, many times worse.
I think the electoral college in general is outdated.
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
Well they tried and still are trying to delegitimize the Obama
Presidency, is it a surprise that a Clinton Presidency wouldn't be delegitimized also? I mean how can she be legit with a 100 scandals hanging over her head?
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
LOL...okay so tell me what has been "revealed" that meets that qualifier of yours?
RE: RE: I think the electoral college in general is outdated.
Can't see a reason why presidential elections wouldn't be better decided by the popular vote.
Diminishes the smaller states. I think a popular vote is closer to what SanFran was suggesting. Why go anywhere other than top 7-8 states to campaign?
You're right. I think the EC is outdated. Maybe made sense in an era where sectarian lines were drawn at the state level -- MA, VA, PA, and NY could team up. That's not a material concern these days.
The EC effectively disenfranchises most voters. As a NYer my presidential vote has never once mattered. The battle for the presidency is fought over a few swing states. Over the years the states may move, but in any election it is really just 3-8 swing states that really matter. And so politicians promise things that appeal to the voters in those states, while ignoring the people of NY, CA, TX, WY, MT etc.
In comment 12303457
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President. [/quote]
She made Thriller. Thriller.
Show me a scandal I should care about. Blow my mind. You're coming with weak sauce.
In comment 12303457
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
She made Thriller. Thriller.
Show me a scandal I should care about. Blow my mind. You're coming with weak sauce. [/quote]
You should care about the donor scandal. It's a giant fuck you to the electorate. It is one big giant appearance of impropriety. I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils plenty of times, but let's be up front and admit that's the issue here. That's what I'll do for a majority of the Republicans in the field (a couple I could grow to like and a couple would make me vote write-in). Independently Hillary has little more to recommend her than the sense of inevitability she's had since '06 or so.
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
The best is that now since there is nothing tangible, its all about the appearance of wrongdoing as specified by her political opponents, that disqualifies her. That completely ignores the fact that no other politician has had the staggering amount of investigations after investigations (some nonsensical) they have had to endure that have amounted to nothing.
The fact that it is unprecedented how much money and power was lined up against them is completely ignored as a factor, and that any politician would have had some shit to deal with from that kind of scrutiny
Is this a response to me? Are you kidding? My "rejoinder" is the first 4 paragraphs of my post, which you ignore completely to mischaracterize the 5th paragraph. I guess you have no thoughtful response.
My point in the 5th paragraph was probably not worth making, but it's that Bill's presidency was investigated to hell, and the best anyone got him on was lying about marital infidelity. Yet GOPers go on and on like it was the end of times when Crooked Arkansas Bill was running things. The dishonesty out of Nixon, Reagan, and GWB's administrations on the other hand went to affairs of state. It's many, many times worse.
Diminishes the smaller states. I think a popular vote is closer to what SanFran was suggesting. Why go anywhere other than top 7-8 states to campaign?
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
Quote:
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
Quote:
In comment 12303307 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
LOL...okay so tell me what has been "revealed" that meets that qualifier of yours?
Quote:
Can't see a reason why presidential elections wouldn't be better decided by the popular vote.
Diminishes the smaller states. I think a popular vote is closer to what SanFran was suggesting. Why go anywhere other than top 7-8 states to campaign?
You're right. I think the EC is outdated. Maybe made sense in an era where sectarian lines were drawn at the state level -- MA, VA, PA, and NY could team up. That's not a material concern these days.
The EC effectively disenfranchises most voters. As a NYer my presidential vote has never once mattered. The battle for the presidency is fought over a few swing states. Over the years the states may move, but in any election it is really just 3-8 swing states that really matter. And so politicians promise things that appeal to the voters in those states, while ignoring the people of NY, CA, TX, WY, MT etc.
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President. [/quote]
She made Thriller. Thriller.
Show me a scandal I should care about. Blow my mind. You're coming with weak sauce.
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
She made Thriller. Thriller.
Show me a scandal I should care about. Blow my mind. You're coming with weak sauce. [/quote]
You should care about the donor scandal. It's a giant fuck you to the electorate. It is one big giant appearance of impropriety. I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils plenty of times, but let's be up front and admit that's the issue here. That's what I'll do for a majority of the Republicans in the field (a couple I could grow to like and a couple would make me vote write-in). Independently Hillary has little more to recommend her than the sense of inevitability she's had since '06 or so.
Quote:
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
The best is that now since there is nothing tangible, its all about the appearance of wrongdoing as specified by her political opponents, that disqualifies her. That completely ignores the fact that no other politician has had the staggering amount of investigations after investigations (some nonsensical) they have had to endure that have amounted to nothing.
The fact that it is unprecedented how much money and power was lined up against them is completely ignored as a factor, and that any politician would have had some shit to deal with from that kind of scrutiny