Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
:smileylaughing:
Socal - you could not be more wrong.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Strategy
:smileylaughing:
Socal - you could not be more wrong.
Classic socal :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Another sign of hope for you rethugs and teabaggers with this weeks update. Seems some crazies in Colorado think Rand Paul would do a better job than Mrs. Clinton. But if any of you rethugs/teabaggers think Paul could win in a general election against Mrs. Clinton, think again, cause it ain’t gonna happen.
https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u..._July_2014.JPG
https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u..._July_2014.JPG
Florida’s Quinnipiac Poll, Virginia’s Roanoke College Poll, Colorado’s Quinnipiac Poll, Iowa’s NBC/Marist Poll and New Hampshire’s NBC/Marist Poll
The rest of the Florida Survey USA poll results here.
Seems Ms. Clinton isn’t doing well in the confederate state of N. Carolina. Go figure.
The Florida poll, the Ohio poll and the FOX General Election poll related to the image below.
https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u.../26069/HC1.JPG
https://teakdoor.com/Gallery/albums/u.../26069/HC2.JPG
There was another poll taken in New Jersey that wasn’t reported in the picture above and it shows Fat Boy not doing well in his home state.
Despite his favorite son status, New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie trails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 50 - 42 percent in an early look at the 2016 presidential race in the Garden State, measured in a Quinnipiac University Poll released today.
Secretary Clinton has double-digit leads over other possible Republican contenders, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds:
54 - 34 percent over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
55 - 35 percent over U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky
57 - 34 percent over former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
New Jersey voters say 55 - 39 percent that Christie would not be a good president. Democrats say no 79 - 16 percent and independent voters agree 55 - 39 percent.
In other news there was a national launch to get the 47 percenter Romney to run again, but Romney stepped in to stop that movement.
Above: Mrs. Clinton stopped by The Colbert Report to do some name dropping.
She annoyed the zionist lobby recently. I reckon she is not going to run. She wouldn't have done this otherwise.
Why would she run? Ya remember Kerry and the Swiftboat? Hillary would be "Bengazied" by the same folks.
I predict a conservative Latino or east Indian, I think a south Korean will step up as they are some the best educated people on the planet these days.
nothing has changed from when people first started talking about her running in 2016:
if she chooses to enter the race, she wins.
normally you'd have to be crazy to make a prediction about an election more than two years in advance, but her demographic edge is so overwhelming that it's a done deal.
the only group she won't win is white males and even that won't be a blowout. she'll win every other major demographic group without breaking a sweat.
it also helps that the GOP doesn't have anyone credible on their bench to put up against her. personally, i hope it's romney because i'd enjoy watching him lose again.
Have to agree with Ray. If she runs, she wins. I see nothing that can stop her, other than a major medical issue.
it seems that she will run
Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS - The Atlantic
Quote:
Clinton responded to this idea with great enthusiasm: “That’s how I feel! Maybe this is old-fashioned.” And then she seemed to signal that, yes, indeed, she’s planning to run for president. “Okay, I feel that this might be an old-fashioned idea, but I’m about to find out, in more ways than one.”
I don't think Hillary will run.
She's been in politics up to her ears for decades, knows the ins and outs, and knows just how much work is involved. Not only in campaigning but also in running the country. Couple in her age, her grandchild, why would she sign up for a 24/7 type job? I don't think her ego will drive her to the oval office.
During the past two weeks two polls
were reported at RCP. All Clinton.
One Alaska poll
wasn’t.
Little bit about the Alaska poll. Clinton doesn’t do well in this red state, which hasn’t voted Dem since 1964 (Johnson).
Pual 50 & Clinton 36
Huckabee 47 & Clinton 39
Bush 47 & Clinton 38
Christie 45 & Clinton 34
Palin 40 & Clinton 46
Palin finishes 6th when it comes to who Republican voters want to be the 2016 Presidential candidate in her home state. Ted Cruz leads with 16%, followed by Rand Paul at 15%, Mike Huckabee at 14%, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie at 12%, Palin at 11%, Scott Walker at 7%, Paul Ryan at 6%, and Marco Rubio at 5%.
Now the fun part about the poll,……..
Alaskans remain down on Palin
PPP's newest Alaska poll finds that voters in the state continue to hold a very dim view of Sarah Palin and any aspirations she might have about running for President in 2016. Only 36% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of Palin to 55% who view her negatively. Just 20% would like to see her make a bid for the White House, compared to 74% who think she should sit it out. There's actually almost as many Democrats- 17%- who want Palin to run as there are Republicans- 23%- suggesting there are as many Alaskans who want to see her run for the entertainment value as because they actually want her to be President. :)
I know this isn’t the political humor thread but you should view this video below.
At the beginning of the video Tina Fey is spoofing Sarah Palin, which is entertaining (if you’re not a rethug or teabagger). In the second part of the video it shows the real interview (that Ms. Fey was parodying) with the ½ term grifter Palin. Scary.
And there some out there that still admire and support this idiot Palin.
Disagree. Same thing was thought by many when Obama whooped her ass. I personally wouldn't vote for her unless some idiot like Sarah Palin was her competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
shocking.....a 50+ white guy who voted for GWB isn't likely to vote for HRC. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
anyway....even amongst republicans it's an open secret that women are completely turned off by the GOP:
women from every imaginable demographic group are going to vote for HRC because of who she is, what she's done and what she represents. if she runs in 2016 republicans don't have a chance.Quote:
A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups — including one backed by Karl Rove — paints a dismal picture for Republicans, concluding female voters view the party as “intolerant,” “lacking in compassion” and “stuck in the past.”
Women are “barely receptive” to Republicans’ policies, and the party does “especially poorly” with women in the Northeast and Midwest, according to an internal Crossroads GPS and American Action Network report obtained by POLITICO. It was presented to a small number of senior aides this month on Capitol Hill, according to multiple sources involved.
^ Bullshit ... And now you're using "Turd Blossom" (Rove) to back your assertion ... :rofl:
No question- she's the obvious republican candidate.
Some news,…….
Mrs. Clinton made an announcement when she might announce she is running. “I am going to be making a decision … probably after the first of the year about whether I’m going to run again or not”.
In other news, Ted (I’m an idiot) Cruz is beefing up his political staff in speculation he may run for president in 2016.
And Glenn Beck says “Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States”. I wonder how many teabaggers are following him now? :)
_________________
National Clean Energy Summit
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes the United States has what it takes to become "the clean energy superpower of the 21st century" if the nation is willing to take on the "hard choices" it needs to lead the world in investing in clean energy infrastructure and technology.
Dismissing a subset of Americans who think otherwise, Clinton said in a speech at the seventh annual National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas organized by her ally Senator Harry Reid of Nevada that climate change is "the most consequential, urgent and sweeping set of challenges" faced by the world. She cited melting ice caps and "carbon dioxide in our atmosphere not seen in millions of years" as proof of the threat of climate change.
"We shouldn't have to state the obvious... the data is unforgiving," she said. "The threat is real - but so is the opportunity. If we come together to make the hard choices, the smart investment in infrastructure, technology and environmental protection, America can be the clean energy superpower for the 21st century."
____
She especially touted the economic impact of clean energy development, saying, “Aside from the deniers and the special interests and all the other folks who want to pretend we don’t have a crisis is the fact that we are leaving money and jobs behind. For those on the other side, they have to answer to the reality they are denying peoples’ jobs and middle class incomes and upward mobility by their refusal to look to the future.”
____
On carbon dioxide emissions and rising temperatures, she said: “The data is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers try to assert.
“The threat is real. But so is the opportunity.”
Clintons biggest backers
Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $645,994 $638,494 $7,500
All of them are heavily invested and owners of various companies involved in dirty energy, and knowing a few owned by Goldman Sachs, they are not interested at all in "clean energy". They are interest in Filthy Lucre.
Just another big business shill and the Brand is being built up for her already so all the nodding donkeys can get a semi on thinking about how pious they will feel when she is handed the presidency.
You have no choice - it has been decided for you. Look forward to 8 more years of wars, increasing debt, and fear.
:usa:
Killjoy!Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
And I am asking Hillary, "how so?"Quote:
Originally Posted by baldrick
The rebels would be more organized and militarily effective than Assad?
How would the US "help" the rebels? Military aid? How? Training? How?
Attack the Syrian govt and Assad backers?
This reminds me of the stupidity of her "blow Iran to oblivian comment" - conveniently made while she was vying for the nomination against Obama in 2008.
She's a typical shite politician.
You have posted assertion that is presented out of context. You do not include the funding provided to the GOP candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
However, let's get something straight first: Goldman Sachs has not made political contributions to any politician. Goldman Sachs is considered a national bank and as such PROHIBITED by law from making political contributions. Same as Citi Bank or Wells Fargo etc. Contributions can be made to political action committees but the funds must come from segregated funds separate from the operations of the donor and are subject to filings. Goldman Sachs does not contribute to PACs. It has been a long standing corporate policy. Donations to PACs are subject to board approval and shareholder scrutiny. In case you missed it, Goldman Sachs is a public company. It cannot afford to piss off its shareholders and clients, many of whom traverse the range of political views in the USA. Are you aware that GS clients include union and government employee pension funds, as well as regular Americans through their pooled investment funds (i.e. mutual funds)?
An employee of a national bank can make a political contribution. In the last election, Goldman Sachs employees provided just under $1million in donations to the Mitt Romney Campaign. They contributed $137,000 to Obama. This should give a hint as to where the employee sentiments were.
No I haven't. She is standing infront of a "clean energy" poster and I point out that her backers are up to their eyes in dirty energy. If you do not know this, well now you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by zygote1
The GOP candidates mostly have the same bunch funding them. Most of the Koch types backers will have massive funding from the bankers bank rolling shillery.
They are all the same - same owners telling them what to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Why is it that you always choose the man least likely to be on the republican ticket for your comparisons?
I haven't seen the Women for Hillary polling but assume she has the "women vote."Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
Worth noting is that Romney got killed on the Woman's vote that went to Obama by a huge margin in 2012.
Worth noting that the Republican party is full of men who think they can tell women what to do with their bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by barbaroI haven't seen the Women for Hillary polling but assume she has the "women vote."Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
Worth noting is that Romney got killed on the Woman's vote that went to Obama by a huge margin in 2012.
Doesn't go down too well.