2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

**Boon Mee** · 05-07-2013, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

They wuz a fightin' communism, the one true cause du jour. Now I really dunno what we is a fightin'.

Well, ask the Drone Ranger?

**sabang** · 05-07-2013, 09:53 AM

I'm sure we'll get a straight answer. It's quite amusing to watch barry debate himself, on Youtube.

**mao say dung** · 05-07-2013, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

They wuz a fightin' communism, the one true cause du jour. Now I really dunno what we is a fightin'.

What you mean is... you bought the communism scam but can't do the same with the equally bogus "terrorist" scam.

This tendency to pretend that America has somehow morphed into an evil killer on the international scheme is part and parcel of the successful implementation of the History for Dummies program, cf. the chapter on Amnesia or How I Learned to Love Myself by Ignoring the Murder I Supported.

**Boon Mee** · 05-07-2013, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

I'm sure we'll get a straight answer. It's quite amusing to watch barry debate himself, on Youtube.

The man has no core beliefs other than to campaign for some nebulous ideal(s) associated with wealth redistribution.

**sabang** · 05-07-2013, 10:03 AM

Maybe- I'm certainly not supporting Reagans foreign policy in Sth America in particular, I think it stunk. It failed, too. But I don't recall the US switching horses midstream, and arming (and funding, and training) a Communist insurgency drawing in nasty Communista guerilla's from around the world, to overthrow a democracy.

**mao say dung** · 05-07-2013, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

But I don't recall the US switching horses midstream, and arming (and funding,

Switch horses, ride two at a time... Iran Contra represents what in your "Holy Moly Batman!" moment?

**Boon Mee** · 05-07-2013, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

Maybe- I'm certainly not supporting Reagans foreign policy in Sth America in particular, I think it stunk. It failed, too. But I don't recall the US switching horses midstream, and arming (and funding, and training) a Communist insurgency drawing in nasty Communista guerilla's from around the world, to overthrow a democracy.

Cuba at that time was in the expansionist mode so there was a need to stifle some of that activity much the same as in Chile and Grenada.

**sabang** · 05-07-2013, 11:34 AM

^^ Everything I'm warning against- the security state acting outside of it's constitutional and legal boundaries, and misleading or covering it up from Congress, and thus the people. This could be considered a form of coup. You seem to be saying, "it goes on, and this is no different, so it doesn't matter". But I recall something (insipid) being done about the Contra scandal- not being shrugged off by an indifferent public and a corporate media, which totally shirks it's responsibility in the modern era. Congress has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this, which it is visibly shirking. That is who Edward Snowden should be talking to.

Congress is too busy squabbling among itself, and entangling legislation, to step up to the mark. It is making itself an irrelevance, and others are more than happy to fill the vacuum.

**mao say dung** · 05-07-2013, 11:46 AM

My point is that things haven't changed at all in terms of how the American system works at the level of those in power.

What has changed is that no one cares any more and even "liberals" listen to voices like that of larva and struggle to be mature and accept that democracy means disenfranchisement just like war means peace.

Your problem, from my perspective, is that you think the government's perfidy and illegality are new. They aren't. Not by a long shot.

**S Landreth** · 08-07-2013, 06:14 PM

HRC is yesterdays news..

Republicans in search of an attack line against Hillary Clinton have begun to cast her as a tired relic of the past — an implicit contrast to their own bench of up-and-comers like hip hop-listening Marco Rubio and libertarian-leaning Rand Paul.

But Democrats are confident that giving voters the chance to make history by electing the first female president — by definition a forward-looking act — would trump any argument that Clinton is too 20th century and give her a “change” mantra of her own.

“If Secretary Clinton runs, she’ll be the nominee — the first female nominee of either party,” said Stephanie Cutter, a former top adviser to the Obama White House and campaign. “That breaks through the ‘old’ tagline that the Republican geniuses are cooking up because, if handled correctly, women of all ages will absolutely be inspired by that. I don’t recommend that be the totality of her message or platform, but there’s no way to hide that fact and it certainly shouldn’t be discounted. “

_____________________________

And this article showing what a joke they (rethugs) are.

Is This A Joke?

Welcome Crooks & Liars!

Is someone at the New York Times getting pwned or is this for real?

The 2016 election may be far off, but one theme is becoming clear: Republican strategists and presidential hopefuls, in ways subtle and overt, are eager to focus a spotlight on Mrs. Clinton’s age. The former secretary of state will be 69 by the next presidential election, a generation removed from most of the possible Republican candidates.

Despite her enduring popularity, a formidable fund-raising network and near unanimous support from her party, Mrs. Clinton, Republican leaders believe, is vulnerable to appearing a has-been.

“Perhaps in the Democratic primary and certainly in the general election, there’s going to be an argument that the time for a change of leadership has come,” said the Republican strategist Karl Rove. “The idea that we’re at the end of her generation and that it’s time for another to step forward is certainly going to be compelling.”

For a party trying to make inroads with women voters, calling Hillary Clinton’s age into question seems a dubious strategy. But also:

• The party that ran John McCain, born in 1936, for president in the 2008 election questions the age of Hillary Clinton, born in 1947?

• The party that constantly invokes the sainted name of the long-dead Ronald Reagan, the oldest president ever elected, questions Hillary Clinton’s age?

• The party whose base shows up wearing Revolutionary War costumes is questioning how current the likely Democratic Party candidates are?

• The party whose White House hopes rest with Jeb Bush, brother of the last failed Republican president and son of a failed Republican president before that, is throwing around words like “change of leadership” and “end of a generation”?

• The party whose unofficial motto is “party like it’s 1954″ is calling the Democratic Party old-fashioned?

• The party whose pick for governor of Virginia is actively trying to bring back long outmoded anti-sodomy and anti-oral sex laws dares question the modernity of the Democratic Party?

[ADDING ... the party which is trying to repeal Obamacare for the gazillionth time says Democrats don't have new ideas?]

Hilarious!

Seriously, they just don’t have a clue, do they?

**slackula** · 08-07-2013, 07:57 PM

Republican strategists and presidential hopefuls, in ways subtle and overt, are eager to focus a spotlight on Mrs. Clinton’s age.

One can only imagine the howls of spastic apoplexy if either Obama or Clinton had brought up McCain's age in 2008. Unreal.

**S Landreth** · 13-07-2013, 05:58 AM

Hillary Clinton continues to rule the 2016 roost

In an early snapshot of the 2016 presidential race, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leads both Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Friday.

Clinton tops Christie 46 to 40 percent, and she beats Paul by a margin of 50 to 38 percent. Vice President Joe Biden, by contrast, trails Christie, 46 to 35 percent, and is tied with Paul at 42 percent apiece.

Fifty-five percent of voters view Clinton favorably, while only 38 percent view her unfavorably. Christie, who is not as well known, still boasts strong favorability numbers, at 45 to 18 percent. Even 41 percent of Democrats view Christie favorably, while only 19 percent view him unfavorably.

in the same poll more information that should make a nice weekend for the rethugs

68 percent of voters say congressional Republicans are doing too little to reach across the aisle

51 percent of voters blame the gridlock on the GOP's determination to block any initiative backed by the president

54 percent of voters said undocumented immigrants living in the United States should be given an eventual path to citizenship

62 percent of voters voiced agreement with the recent Supreme Court decision extending federal benefits to same-sex couples

**Boon Mee** · 13-07-2013, 09:13 AM

U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman routinely ditched his security detail in Brussels and solicited prostitutes—this according to a suppressed Inspector General report. Further, Gutman was alleged to have been engaged in pedophilia—sex with children. When agents discovered that Howard Gutman was having sex with children—underage prostitutes—it was allowed to continue for months! Why? It proved to be too damaging to the State Department. It proved to be too damaging to Hillary Clinton, slated by the Democrat party to run for President in 2016.

**Boon Mee** · 17-07-2013, 04:22 PM

A recent photo of the TDMA's heroine!

Christ on a Crutch! She's looking even frumpier than DemocraticCongresswoman Rosa DeLauro!

Michelle Obama's Mirror

**barbaro** · 18-07-2013, 04:01 AM

^^^^^ Thanks for the article.

Trying to use age and a "has-been" for HRC will fail, IMO.

She got the name recog, financial backing, and support of the party machine.

She can appeal to women voters (Romney got killed by single and married women voters in the last election).

The GOP needs to focus on ISSUES.

Not these side-tracking shallow things.

**Storekeeper** · 18-07-2013, 07:12 AM

S Landreth ... I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren over HRC. Far more intelligent but probably no chance in hell of winning.

**Boon Mee** · 18-07-2013, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

S Landreth ... I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren over HRC. Far more intelligent but probably no chance in hell of winning.

The fake Native American?

**Storekeeper** · 18-07-2013, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

S Landreth ... I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren over HRC. Far more intelligent but probably no chance in hell of winning.

The fake Native American?

Yes, I guess the same ... And now a Senator. And a brilliant watchdog of the financial market.

**S Landreth** · 19-07-2013, 05:27 AM

Ready For Hillary PAC Rejects Million-Dollar Donation Offer, Says It's Focusing On Grassroots

Though she has kept silent about whether she plans to run for president in 2016, Hillary Rodham Clinton's potential candidacy has continued to pick up steam. Ready for Hillary, a super PAC pushing Clinton to run, has reportedly already received -- and declined -- offers for donations worth millions of dollars.

"We have turned away seven-figure checks," Adam Parkhomenko, the group's executive director, told Agence France-Presse.

As an independent expenditure committee, Ready for Hillary is legally allowed to accept unlimited donations from individuals and corporations. But the organization has chosen to instead focus on the same kind of grassroots efforts that gave the competitive edge to then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who defeated Clinton in the 2008 primary.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

S Landreth ... I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren over HRC. Far more intelligent but probably no chance in hell of winning.

Ms. Warren seems to be doing a good job where she is it at now. I think it would be nice if she kept it up and not thin the party out too much. Better to have both women, Clinton and Warren working for the American public.

**S Landreth** · 23-07-2013, 05:42 AM

a horse race, an outliner or just Iowa

In a possible 2016 White House matchup, 41% of Iowa voters say they would back Clinton, the former secretary of state, 2008 presidential candidate, U.S. senator, and first lady, if she were the Democratic nominee, with an equal amount saying they would back New Jersey Gov. Christie if he were the GOP nominee. In a hypothetical general election showdown with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Clinton has a 46%-39% edge.

According to the poll, Clinton has a 52%-41% favorable/unfavorable rating with Iowa voters. Christie stands at 42%-16%, with the vice president at 38%-47% and nearly two-thirds saying they don’t know enough about the Wisconsin governor to form an opinion.

"Quinnipiac University has tested Clinton against a variety of Republicans in a number of states and Christie seems to be running the best so far."

Iowa (IA) Poll - July 22, 2013 - Quinnipiac University Connecticut

**S Landreth** · 23-07-2013, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by pseudolus

They are all "faux" representatives of the people.

yada, yada, yada

Well, one can only hope for a Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz as a change for the better.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Coming on strong:

BM, you don't have a clue

In a short interview with ABC News, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) laid out just how little he thinks of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, saying Hillary Clinton would "destroy" either of them if they become their party's nominee in 2016. For a hawk like King their isolationist talk is complete anathema.

PETER KING: I think she’s very strong on foreign policy, and I think that if we nominate somebody from our isolationist wing of the party, she’ll destroy them. We need somebody that can stand up to her.

**Boon Mee** · 24-07-2013, 10:59 AM

Once again HRC shows what a shameless hag she really is.

Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton Congratulations from across the pond to the Duke and Duchess! Wishing you the best of luck and a bit of advice: It Takes a (Royal) Village!
8:01 PM - 23 Jul 2013

Ludicrous...

**slackula** · 27-07-2013, 11:01 AM

Heh, it seems that the prospect of Prez Hillary is causing some great discomfort..

Stop Hillary PAC Implies Clinton Presidency Would Make Them Suicidal

Seems like a compelling reason to support her bid to me, I wonder what would happen if she picked Pelosi for the VP slot?

**Boon Mee** · 27-07-2013, 04:51 PM

Hollyweird doesn’t produce much of any interest these days, but don’t count it out yet. Here’s a trailer for a horror film due out in 2016 that will raise the hair on the back of your neck:

If Hillary Clinton taking the oath of office as President of the United States doesn't scare you -- and make you fear for the future direction of our county -- I don't know what will.

**Boon Mee** · 01-08-2013, 12:12 PM

Quote of the Day

"The funny thing about Hillary Clinton is how vastly her reputation exceeds her accomplishments. In reality, the only reason anyone has heard of her is that she married Bill Clinton. Otherwise, she would have toiled away as an obscure, reasonably competent if obnoxious lawyer. She was a relatively unpopular First Lady who is best remembered for being embarrassed by her husband's serial infidelities. She served a brief term as a Senator from New York, a role in which she achieved nothing. Then she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, and punched her ticket during a singularly unsuccessful stint as Secretary of State. Never has she had an original thought, formulated a successful strategy, or stepped out of the shadow of her singular husband.

But none of that matters: Hillary already has the establishment's enthusiastic backing as she prepares for her next presidential run."

And she's well on her way to getting the highly coveted Maverick endorsement.

They don't call him McRino for nothin'...

Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions