[Dexter Moser]

(01-19-2014 07:37 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  



Hillary is an old hag.

I hope that will limit her appeal.

She sure is. All the other points above have merit, also: She is a charmless, charisma-challenged old shrew. Or as Tom Leykis said, "America so did not want a Hillary presidency, they elected the black guy"

[Sombro]

Hillary Clinton: Triumph of the Mediocre

Quote:

Hillary Clinton, so we are told, kept a spreadsheet devoted to her enemies, whom she rated on a scale of her own devising.
[...]
I suppose that keeping your hatreds warm, never forgetting them, and fanning their embers when they threaten to go cold is one way to succeed in life—perhaps the way if you are an ambitious person of no particular talents or gifts for anything but intrigue and bureaucratic infighting.
This is not to say that talented persons never bear grudges or never hate, but their ascent is not attributable solely or even in part to acting upon their grievances or resentments, and they would have succeeded in life even if they had been more sweetly disposed to their fellow beings. Nor do I mean, of course, that untalented people are intrinsically prone to hatred: That, too, would be a logical mistake.

No, the deadly combination is lack of talent and ambition, especially when allied to average intelligence and above. Just as talent has little connection to character, it also has little connection to intelligence, beyond the basic cognitive abilities necessary for the talent to flourish.
[...]
The mediocre triumph because, having little or nothing else to do, they can devote themselves to intrigue, backstabbing, and jockeying for power. In my own little career, I have often seen the genuinely gifted and morally upright pushed aside or thwarted by schemers and apparatchiks who viewed their betters with a mixture of fear and hatred. An apparatchik may be defined as a person who doesn’t mind how long a meeting goes on unless he has another meeting to attend. He is interested in power for its own sake, divorced from purpose though he claims to want it for the good of humanity, but has very sensitive antennae for the power of others. When that power is strong, he retreats; when it shows a weakness, he pounces. Apparatchiks, like the Clintons, never forget; their minds are like filing cabinets.

There are Mrs. Clintons now in all organizations, each according to his or her level. Some dictate the fate of nations and others decide on the most trivial of local matters, but their manner of proceeding is identical. Why, almost everywhere you look, should such mediocrity triumph?

http://takimag.com/article/triumph_of_th...z2qtiWJ7Ts

[Jaydublin]

Hillary has seemed like a grumpy old witch in recent years. I doubt she will make it due to that alone. That side will show when she gets flustered in debates.

[tmason]

(01-19-2014 10:07 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

Hillary has seemed like a grumpy old witch in recent years. I doubt she will make it due to that alone. That side will show when she gets flustered in debates.

This is why folks need to relax.

How have ALL of the other "inevitables" in politics worked out?

I'd argue that all of this Hillary 2016 talk may he hurting her chances; too easy for a decent up and comer from either party to swoop right in and steal the show.

[nomadicdude]

The GOP is basically dead as a national party. For the last thirty plus years they succeeded by instigating racist poor and middle class angry whites to vote for their pro-corporate and pro-rich policies. It doesn't work anymore because of demographics.

Baring a complete collapse by the Dems such as a major real scandal (not some BS made up Bengazhi bullshit), it is almost mathematically impossible for any GOP candidate except for Christie to win.

And Christie has no chance because to win the primary he is going to have to go hard right, which will make it harder for him to moderate in the general.

[tmason]

(01-20-2014 11:50 PM)nomadicdude Wrote:  

The GOP is basically dead as a national party. For the last thirty plus years they succeeded by instigating racist poor and middle class angry whites to vote for their pro-corporate and pro-rich policies. It doesn't work anymore because of demographics.

Baring a complete collapse by the Dems such as a major real scandal (not some BS made up Bengazhi bullshit), it is almost mathematically impossible for any GOP candidate except for Christie to win.

And Christie has no chance because to win the primary he is going to have to go hard right, which will make it harder for him to moderate in the general.

You're reselling the "GOP has Failed" lines from the liberals.

I don't buy it just yet. What you said has some truth to it but 2016 is a long way off.

Now, I don't think any of the people I am about to name are "good" politicians but they could be contenders in the general election:

Paul Ryan
Bobby Jindal
Rand Paul
Scott Walker

I personally like Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker's chances. They got some of the limelight but people still don't know 100% about them.

Plus, Scott Walker is on record fighting for a host of Republican causes. Expect him to be a wildcard...

[It_is_my_time]

(01-20-2014 11:50 PM)nomadicdude Wrote:  

The GOP is basically dead as a national party. For the last thirty plus years they succeeded by instigating racist poor and middle class angry whites to vote for their pro-corporate and pro-rich policies. It doesn't work anymore because of demographics.

Baring a complete collapse by the Dems such as a major real scandal (not some BS made up Bengazhi bullshit), it is almost mathematically impossible for any GOP candidate except for Christie to win.

And Christie has no chance because to win the primary he is going to have to go hard right, which will make it harder for him to moderate in the general.

#1) Calling people racists for voting for Republicans, is really really bad.

#2) Pro-rich policies are pushed by the Democrats. Which is why 5 years into Obama's presidency the wealth gap has increased so greatly. The policies pushed by Democrats take from the middle class, and give to the rich, under the false pretenses it will help the poor. The poor remain poor and the middle class pays for policies that bail out the wealthy elites.

#3) There have been major scandals under Obama. IRS is a huge one. The executive branch targeting US citizens by using the IRS is terrifying. The NSA and Obama's strong support of it. These are strong reasons Obama's approval ratings are so low.

#4) I agree, I don't think the Republicans can win. There are too many who depend on the govt. handouts the Democrats offer and the media protects the Democrats so much.

[tmason]

OK, so there is no doubt that she is running now:

Quote:

The nation’s largest liberal super PAC has started raising money in support of Hillary Clinton’s possible presidential bid, putting the political machine in place to smooth the path to the Democratic nomination well before most voters have begun thinking about 2016.

Priorities USA Action announced on Thursday that it has tapped former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to co-chair the super PAC and its non-profit arm. The New York Times was first to report the news.

Republicans need to think long and hard...

[Dr. Howard]

Reviving this thread based on the Hilary speculations that "ready" campaign, domestic violence fanaticism and that show "madam secretary" all which are somehow hyping up Hillary http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-40556....llary+2016

I think her coup de grace campaign will be saying that she is a domestic abuse survivor and/or has been raped.

[The Father]

(09-22-2014 03:36 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

I think her coup de grace campaign will be saying that she is a domestic abuse survivor and/or has been raped.

Domestic abuse, eh? Looking at that face, I think it will be easy for people to believe she survived a pummeling.

But a rape? Not even the most deprived, crack-addled mind could rape that...

[Sourcecode]

(01-17-2014 05:14 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

I really don't think she has a chance in hell, the democrats are ruthless in the primaries and will nail her to the wall

The Republicans do the same thing.
Thats why they lost the last two elections.. Republicans distance themselves from each other before they can join together

[Tail Gunner]

(09-22-2014 05:38 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 05:14 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

I really don't think she has a chance in hell, the democrats are ruthless in the primaries and will nail her to the wall

The Republicans do the same thing.
Thats why they lost the last two elections.. Republicans distance themselves from each other before they can join together

Republicans lost those elections because the nominees were RINO Republicans (at least in perception, if not in fact) that were not in sync with the party's conservative base.

Everyone knew John McCain's RINO voting record in the U.S. Senate and everyone knew Mitt Romney's RINO voting record as Governor of Massachusetts. The Party was not energized and lacked enthusiasm, so they stayed home in droves.

Obama and Hillary tore each other up, yet Obama won the general election. He energized his base; McCain could not. Republicans lose when they do not nominate a solidly conservative candidate who energize their base.

[El Chinito loco]

(09-22-2014 06:12 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Obama and Hillary tore each other up, yet Obama won the general election. He energized his base; McCain could not. Republicans lose when they do not nominate a solidly conservative candidate who energize their base.

It goes beyond energizing a base. It's about winning swing states. The only way to do that is if you have a sufficiently populist image to win over fence sitters and other simpletons. The only way to do that is to have the most talented media team that is able to mount an extensive propaganda and disinformation campaign to pump your image.

Politics in America is all a dog and pony show. There is no substance to anything in it. Both parties are full of frauds from the top down. It's 100% money and image with plutocrats pulling strings to juice the population.

[Dr. Howard]

(09-22-2014 07:17 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 06:12 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Obama and Hillary tore each other up, yet Obama won the general election. He energized his base; McCain could not. Republicans lose when they do not nominate a solidly conservative candidate who energize their base.

It goes beyond energizing a base. It's about winning swing states. The only way to do that is if you have a sufficiently populist image to win over fence sitters and other simpletons. The only way to do that is to have the most talented media team that is able to mount an extensive propaganda and disinformation campaign to pump your image.

Politics in America is all a dog and pony show. There is no substance to anything in it. Both parties are full of frauds from the top down. It's 100% money and image with plutocrats pulling strings to juice the population.

Either way I'd rather have a devil with a dick in power vs. one with a dried up vagina.

[Baldwin81]

William Hill has her at 5/4. PS I am thankful for the TO(h)R Browser... can't access William Hill in "The Land of the Free..."

The only thing stopping Hillary from becoming president is her health. She's not as well as her handlers let on. Still, for all the anti-Hillary shit, if there's one person who's going to see this thing through to the end it's going to be her.

Republicans do not have the numbers anymore. The tea party, the mainstream, and the libertarians don't get along anyway, but even if they got behind one candidate the numbers still don't add up when weighed against: 1. The majority of white women voters 2. A shameful amount of white "men" 3. Blacks 4. Latinos (Minus Cubans) PS One of these days the Latino vote is going to turn out, every four years the odds increase. 5. Asians are the minority group nobody mentions but they go overwhelmingly Dem as well

Why do you think Romney keeps saying he won't run, while still keeping himself on the radar?

He's not going to run against Hillary. He already lost to the black guy - no sense in doing the double and losing to the woman. Sure, if she falls ill, he'll run, but would still have a tough go of it. Laugh if you want, but Romney vs. Biden would not be sure thing for GOP, what does that tell you about the numbers?

After more than six years it's easy to forget how remarkable of a story Obama was in the run-up to 2008. Now it's her turn...

[The Father]

(09-22-2014 07:48 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

Either way I'd rather have a devil with a dick in power vs. one with a dried up vagina.

The women who run for President are basically men, anyway. I'm an old-school sexist, can't stand women bosses, think too many women work when most are best at raising kids, etc. But I don't object to a woman President - it depends on the woman. Margaret Thatcher was also a dried up old prune - but a magnificent leader. Who could tell her from a man? The problem with Hillary isn't that she's a woman, it's that she's a 1960s victim-feminist woman.

[El Chinito loco]

(09-22-2014 07:48 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 07:17 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 06:12 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Obama and Hillary tore each other up, yet Obama won the general election. He energized his base; McCain could not. Republicans lose when they do not nominate a solidly conservative candidate who energize their base.

It goes beyond energizing a base. It's about winning swing states. The only way to do that is if you have a sufficiently populist image to win over fence sitters and other simpletons. The only way to do that is to have the most talented media team that is able to mount an extensive propaganda and disinformation campaign to pump your image.

Politics in America is all a dog and pony show. There is no substance to anything in it. Both parties are full of frauds from the top down. It's 100% money and image with plutocrats pulling strings to juice the population.

Either way I'd rather have a devil with a dick in power vs. one with a dried up vagina.

Just from basic principle I agree a woman should never be in a position of authority or power like this. However, in reality it's completely irrelevant. Your average American is deeply and truly fucked no matter the outcome.

[Feisbook Control]

Hillary would be an unmitigated nightmare, but that's precisely what is needed to wake the average American (male) up from the slumber he's been in for the past two generations. It's precisely because of the demographic issue that things need to get really bad right now, rather than in ten years when it will be too late. The frog is in the pot. There are two ways to stop it from boiling. One way -- the strategy that the so-called "right" has been trying for decades, and failing at -- is to turn the heat down or off. The other way is to actively encourage -- or at least not prevent -- the heat to be turned up as high as it will go right now, and thus, force the frog to jump out of the pot.

[Renzy]

(09-22-2014 10:49 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Hillary would be an unmitigated nightmare, but that's precisely what is needed to wake the average American (male) up from the slumber he's been in for the past two generations. It's precisely because of the demographic issue that things need to get really bad right now, rather than in ten years when it will be too late. The frog is in the pot. There are two ways to stop it from boiling. One way -- the strategy that the so-called "right" has been trying for decades, and failing at -- is to turn the heat down or off. The other way is to actively encourage -- or at least not prevent -- the heat to be turned up as high as it will go right now, and thus, force the frog to jump out of the pot.

Relavent article: Why We Need Hillary by Jack Donovan

Quote:

Most men I know like to brush aside feminism. Actually, most men I know are barely aware of feminism unless they are taking a college class or dealing with a lot of politically correct women at work. Most masculine “All-American” men, don’t read The Atlantic or the New York Times or Slate. They don’t even know what Feministing or Jezebel are.

The average working class men I come in contact with don’t appreciate the scope of the changes happening in America and throughout most of the First World.

I’m not saying that men don’t perceive the new rules. They know they can’t technically expect to get married and become head of the household and king of the castle. They know that their wives or potential wives can easily leave, take the kids, and siphon a court-ordered paycheck for the better part of eternity. They know that women work, and they may have had a female boss. They know that they can be accused of sexual harassment for behaving the way men have behaved for thousands of years. They know that women aren’t allowed to be excluded from anything, anywhere, at any time. They know that women are being pushed into the trades and the military. They see that the majority of television programming and marketing is no longer aimed at them. They see everything getting rounder and “cuter” and more female-friendly. They see the female sportscasters, but they’re more focused on the sports.

Men know and see all of this, but they continue to proceed “as if.”

Quote:

Hillary Clinton will wake up millions more men to the fact that America’s ruling class has stopped even pretending to be interested in the interests of average American men.

President Hillary Clinton will reveal to American men that America is no longer a nation that elevates rugged cowboys and pioneers. That’s the bad, old America. The new America wants its men emasculated, weak, and completely controlled by a corporate-owned state that’s far more concerned with the wants of acquisitive career gals. Who better than Hillary Clinton to put the “nanny” in “nanny state?”

The Hillary Clinton Presidency will drive home the fact that America isn’t “our” country anymore.

We just live here.

Quote:

Hillary is another mother, another schoolteacher, another human resources manager, another guidance counselor, another therapist, another bossy girlfriend, another woman telling them what to do, want, and buy. The Hillary Clinton Presidency will ensure that American men continue to withdraw from public life as they become increasingly alienated from the American Dream.

[Sonsowey]

I think the U.S. Presidential elections are really just a contest of charisma.

You can't deny that Obama is more charismatic than Romney or McCain.

Or that Bush was more charismatic than Gore or Kerry.

Who has the nicer smile? Who is more charming?

These factors, I believe, weigh far more heavily than the economy, foreign policy, social issues...

And so, don't worry about Hillary.

Unless Republicans can actually do worse than her... Romney again? Perry? Christie?

Hillary vs. Christie would be the most honest choice for America. A fat slob vs. an old nag.

[Slim Shady]

Rand Paul is the only hope. Obviously people are trying to undermine him like they did his father. But Ron Paul has laid the foundation for his son to be a serious candidate. In fact I don't understand why even here he is not talked about.

[VincentVinturi]

[internations]

The feminazi Hillary Clinton will be the next United States president.

Can we do anything for this nightmare not to come true ?

[kosko]

(09-23-2014 09:45 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

Rand Paul is the only hope. Obviously people are trying to undermine him like they did his father. But Ron Paul has laid the foundation for his son to be a serious candidate. In fact I don't understand why even here he is not talked about.

Rand Paul is nothing like his father. His con-game is to make folks think he is 'Ronnie-Lite' but his track record, flip-flopping, and posting is all pandering and woven in establishment views. Him being a "serious choice" proves all of that. You don't run for either of the two parties unless you support establishment views.

Ron Paul never had a chance for the Republican ticket, but would of cleaned house as a Independent.

[NY Digital]

(09-25-2014 09:08 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 09:45 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

Rand Paul is the only hope. Obviously people are trying to undermine him like they did his father. But Ron Paul has laid the foundation for his son to be a serious candidate. In fact I don't understand why even here he is not talked about.

Rand Paul is nothing like his father. His con-game is to make folks think he is 'Ronnie-Lite' but his track record, flip-flopping, and posting is all pandering and woven in establishment views. Him being a "serious choice" proves all of that. You don't run for either of the two parties unless you support establishment views.

Ron Paul never had a chance for the Republican ticket, but would of cleaned house as a Independent.

Rand Paul is the closest thing to Ron Paul. He has his father's ideologies while trying to be as electable as possible. Someone radical like Ron would never get elected, you have to pander to all sides and then make change when you're sitting in the oval office.

Rand is the closest thing we'll get to some kind of change.