s0crates Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Obama's first election, in '08, was the first since 1980 that did not have a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket.But it did have a Clinton in the primaries. And 1980 had a Bush in the primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 But it did have a Clinton in the primaries. And 1980 had a Bush in the primaries. And before that Bush was head of the CIA. While not on the ticket, certainly still in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 And before that Bush was head of the CIA. While not on the ticket, certainly still in power. Oh I'm aware. Criminals in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Oh I'm aware. Criminals in action. How so? ( but then I imagine given your posting history that you would consider any CIA chief a criminal). And no Bush was not the CIA Chief in 1980. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 How so? ( but then I imagine given your posting history that you would consider any CIA chief a criminal). And no Bush was not the CIA Chief in 1980.If you don't know about the CIA's long history of war crimes, atrocities, drug trafficking, brain washing, torture, assassinations, etc., then I would suggest you don't know much about the CIA's history. Ever heard of MK Ultra? Salvador Allende and Pinochet? Jacob Arbenz? Watergate? The Mujahideen? The drug trafficking with the Nicaraguan contras? Operation Mockingbird? The bay of pigs? Castro Branco's death squads? Operation CHAOS? Dan Mitrione? Oscar Romero? "The Human Resource Exploitation Training Manuel"? The Iran Contra Scandal? That's just the tip of the iceberg. The CIA is pure evil. As I said, "criminals in action." And nobody said Bush was head of the CIA in 1980, we said he was head of the CIA before that. Not sure why you would quibble about this, perhaps a red herring? As far as your cryptic remark about my posting history, I can only speculate about what you have in mind since you fail to provide any specifics. Perhaps you object to my belief in things like liberty, justice, democracy, human rights, and the Republic? Judging by your posting history, I can only assume those beliefs bother you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Unless you died before Obama, I'm sorry that you don't realize that he's a far left/progressive believer who makes JImmy Carter look good.Yes, and didn't get to move anything forward because he's a half-black man. The animosity here in the South is friggin' crazy. Admit it, AND try to claim credit for it, AND try to blame somebody else for the best growth in my life not being even better, AND try to claim that it didn't exist, at all. Doesn't matter if their spin contradicts itself. As long as they enthusiastically repeat the slogans on command. Keep it up...you'll get me to be lively again... (Fight Club Bartender in neck brace): "Is this a test, sir?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 it will be nice not to hear that excuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Obama's first election, in '08, was the first since 1980 that did not have a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket. Yeah, I do realize that, but like another said, Hilary was in the primary in 08. While I have nothing against Bill and what he did in office, I'm ready for a fresh face on either side. would Walker or the faux Indian maiden get yer juices flowing PJ? maybe Biden or Perry? just anyone other than a Ivy League lawyer? I'm not sure who I would vote for at this early point who is not a Clinton or a Bush. I've voted 3rd party the last two elections, so there is always that if I find the right candidate, but of course they won't win because the country has been brainwashed into the two party system. Because of the stupidity of the ordinary voters, we get stuck every 4 years with tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee. Not really a democracy when 2 parties dominate the landscape all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 the faux Indian maiden I believe "Fauxcahontas" is the preferred nomenclature among her detractors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I thought this was good. Most of the people I talk to feel the same way this focus group does: A signal of distaste for dynasties bodes ill for Bush, Clinton Dan Balz January 10 at 8:10 PM AURORA, Colo. — It’s been a good few weeks for Jeb Bush, who has been setting the pace among prospective 2016 presidential candidates — at least in the view of some in the elite world of political donors, strategists and commentators. But even before the news that Mitt Romney is thinking about a third campaign, a dissenting view on Bush was registered here Thursday night. A dozen Denver-area residents spent two hours dissecting the state of the country and its politics. The 12 participants — Democrats, Republicans and independents — are weary of political dynasties. They were dismissive, sometimes harshly, in their assessments of Bush, the former Florida governor. They were also chilly toward former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton. When the name of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was introduced into the conversation, however, many of those around the table, regardless of party affiliation, responded positively. To this group, who spoke in stark terms throughout the evening about the economic challenges of working Americans, Warren has struck a chord. The two-hour session, moderated by Democratic pollster Peter Hart for the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, turned upside down much of the conversation about the coming presidential campaign, where Bush and Clinton occupy so much space. . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-signal-of-distaste-for-dynasties-bodes-ill-for-bush-clinton/2015/01/10/079258f2-98d3-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html?tid=HP_more?tid=HP_more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The Republican anthem at the next GOP Convention (with a nod to Meghan Trainor) I'm all about my base 'bout my base 'bout my base No Justice I'm about my base 'bout my base 'bout my base No Science I'm all my base 'bout my base 'bout my base Big Tax cuts (Thought of this a few days ago and it tickled me. Hopefully, others are amused too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Could have massive implications for the SCOTUS, because of ages of several justices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Could have massive implications for the SCOTUS, because of ages of several justices. Very scary indeed esp. considering how political this SCOTUS already is. So many cases not weighed on merits, but on ideology and inconsistent ideology at that. This Court sometimes pretends to be small government/strict Constitutionalist until they reach a pet issue and then they list way over to the extreme activist side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 "Can I have some money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Paul Ryan says he isn't running (not that he had a chance...I hope). http://news.yahoo.com/republican-u-rep-ryan-says-hes-not-running-213209247.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 not enough money for this coming crop, gonna be a expensive one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't think Clinton is going to run. Her husband is too much of a liability at this point given today's climate with the Cosby situation and the sex slave issue. Similar accusations have been made against Bill Clinton as have been made against B Cosby (though just one as far as I know) but worse is his direct links to the villian in the sex slave scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't think Clinton is going to run. Her husband is too much of a liability at this point given today's climate with the Cosby situation and the sex slave issue. Similar accusations have been made against Bill Clinton as have been made against B Cosby (though just one as far as I know) but worse is his direct links to the villian in the sex slave scandal. What's the sex slave scandal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 There's going to be up to 20 candidates running on the Republican side at one point. By the time we get to the actual primaries and caucuses in Feb. 2016; that will whittle down to 4. One candidate for the Establishment, one for the tea party, one for the religious right and one for liberatarians. I think Hillary will run but she will lose the nomination to either Elizabeth Warren or a Elizabeth Warren type candidate. I do think there's an opening for a third party/independent candidate in 2016 that could finish 2nd and defeat the Republican candidate. Also, why on earth does Mitt Romney think he has a chance in 2016? Is he mentally challenged? Does he honestly think the REpublican primary voters are going to give him the nomination? The last time the Republican gave a former nominee a second chance was Richard Nixon in 1968. I don't see that happening again. Also, by the chance he got the nomination again; what on earth makes him think he would win a majority of the voters. He would lose worse than he did in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 What's the sex slave scandal? Really? Jeffrey Epstien and his island? You haven't heard about that? The scandal around Prince Andrew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Really? Jeffrey Epstien and his island? You haven't heard about that? Prince Andrew scandal? You got to remember there were endless witch hunts during the Clinton Administration. The Republicans started at least a dozen formal investigations. Every day practically had a new ...gate. Watergate, fostergate, etc. Not hard to imagine that one of the conspiracy theories got lost in the muck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 You got to remember there were endless witch hunts during the Clinton Administration. The Republicans started at least a dozen formal investigations. Every day practically had a new ...gate. Watergate, fostergate, etc. Not hard to imagine that one of the conspiracy theories got lost in the muck. Well yes I can understand how that could happen but this particular scandal is less than a month old and Bills links to Epstein came out in the press less than 2 weeks ago. Reportedly Hillary's fury at her husband was on display at the Cuomo funeral. Now there is no accusations that Bill participated in Epstein's escapades but in this case it is like an alchoholic hanging out at a bar (heck it paints an even worse picture than that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Really? Jeffrey Epstien and his island? You haven't heard about that? The scandal around Prince Andrew?It was news to me too (apparently because I don't follow right wing blogs like Breitbart).Here's an article: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/bill-clinton-jeffrey-epstein-conservative-media Republicans Are Pushing a New Clinton Sex Scandal Even if it's not yet a Clinton sex scandal. —Tim Murphy on Wed. January 7, 2015 6:15 AM PDT Pedro Portal/El Nuevo Herald/ZUMA Conservatives think they've found new ammunition for their campaign against the Clintons—a new Clinton sex scandal. Or sort of. On Monday, Raffi Williams, deputy press secretary for the Republican Party, tweeted, "Woman Suing Jeffrey Epstein For Sexual Slavery Claimed Bill Clinton Must Have Known" and linked to a post that in turn referred to a Daily Mail story from 2011. The Drudge Report went for the more sensational "BUBBA AND THE PALM BEACH PEDOPHILE" and linked to the same story. Conservative viral news sites Twitchy and IJReview piled on, as did pundits at conservative websites, including Breitbart and the Blaze. What has the right in a tizzy is a six-year-old lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, a former Democratic donor who has been accused of luring underage girls to his island resort to give massages before ultimately sexually assaulting them. Epstein, a billionaire hedge fund manager, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting an underage woman and served 13 months in prison. But unsealed court documents revealed that he had been the subject of a much larger federal probe into alleged prostitution and could have faced 10 years in prison or more, if the case had gone forward. After his guilty plea, two of his alleged victims, who had were underage at the time of their encounter with Epstein, sued him in federal court, claiming that he had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage girls" and that he had sexually assaulted them (and many others). Epstein has consistently denied criminal wrongdoing and downplayed his 2008 conviction, telling the New York Post that he is "not a sexual predator." Last week a new anonymous allegation was introduced in the case, with a court filing charging that Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, had sexually abused an underage girl when he was a guest at Epstein's house in the US Virgin Islands. (Prince Andrew has denied any wrongdoing.) And on Monday, The Smoking Gun resurfaced old court documents revealing that Epstein's phone book included telephone numbers and email addresses for Bill Clinton. ("Now that Prince Andrew has found himself ensnared in the sleazy sex slave story of wealthy degenerate Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Clinton can't be too far behind," the site declared.) Clinton's relationship with Epstein is old news. It's long been publicly known that Clinton and other notable figures hobnobbed with Epstein. Still, the new headlines the case has generated have given GOPers a fresh opportunity to try to link Clinton to a sex scandal. Williams, the GOP spokesman, was attempting to draw attention to a three-year-old story that does not implicate Clinton in any lawbreaking. That article, which relies on court documents, recounts the story of Virginia Roberts, who alleged that she became Epstein's sex slave at the age of 15 and that Clinton had once had dinner with Epstein and two girls whom she believed were underage (but she didn't know their ages). But, according to the Daily Mail, Roberts said that "as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait." Roberts did say that she believed Clinton had to have been aware of Epstein's alleged illegal activities, but provided no evidence to support her assumption. . . . It seems the Clinton connection is pretty tenuous, and it might be noteworthy that Ken Starr was Epstein's lawyer. It's hard to trust right wing press on this kind of thing (or anything really), but after seeing "conspiracy of silence" (the one about the Franklin child prostitution ring circa late 1980s) recently, I can't be dismissive either. A lot of sick stuff goes on in the corridors of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't think Clinton is going to run. Her husband is too much of a liability at this point given today's climate with the Cosby situation and the sex slave issue. Similar accusations have been made against Bill Clinton as have been made against B Cosby (though just one as far as I know) but worse is his direct links to the villian in the sex slave scandal. your posts are much more fun when i imagine a silly sock puppet delivering your lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 your posts are much more fun when i imagine a silly sock puppet delivering your lines. Given your political bent I imagine that would be true (A coping mechanism for unpalatable information). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.