View previous topic :: View next topic |
How will the HRC Presidency be regarded? |
Positive and rewarding |
|
27% |
[ 3 ] |
Negative and disappointing |
|
72% |
[ 8 ] |
|
Total Votes : 11 |
|
Author |
Message |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, and they make a very unattractive ticket - fortunately for them, the Republican ticket is so hideously ugly ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015 Location: ex-ROK
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:16 pm Post subject: RE: The Future Legacy of President HRC |
|
|
bucheon bum wrote: |
Plain Meaning wrote: |
Her Vice President will likely be either Vilsack or Kaine (80% certainty). Clinton can actually control Kaine's replacement through her pawn McAuliffe. Either might shore up a half of a percent in terms of voting share in swing states. I prefer Vilsack because Kaine is a another goddamned Harvard Law grad. |
If she goes with Kaine, she will basically affirm she's about as predictable and risk-adverse a politician as we've ever seen. Those aren't good traits for someone going against the Trumpster. |
Oops. Kaine it is. Oh well. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:38 am Post subject: Re: RE: The Future Legacy of President HRC |
|
|
Fallacy wrote: |
bucheon bum wrote: |
Plain Meaning wrote: |
Her Vice President will likely be either Vilsack or Kaine (80% certainty). Clinton can actually control Kaine's replacement through her pawn McAuliffe. Either might shore up a half of a percent in terms of voting share in swing states. I prefer Vilsack because Kaine is a another goddamned Harvard Law grad. |
If she goes with Kaine, she will basically affirm she's about as predictable and risk-adverse a politician as we've ever seen. Those aren't good traits for someone going against the Trumpster. |
Oops. Kaine it is. Oh well. |
Yeah, I was originally going to say I was 99% certain she would pick him, but decided to be as risk-adverse as her and hedge my prediction. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015 Location: ex-ROK
|
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 6:02 am Post subject: RE: The Future Legacy of President HRC |
|
|
bucheon bum wrote: |
Fallacy wrote: |
bucheon bum wrote: |
Plain Meaning wrote: |
Her Vice President will likely be either Vilsack or Kaine (80% certainty). Clinton can actually control Kaine's replacement through her pawn McAuliffe. Either might shore up a half of a percent in terms of voting share in swing states. I prefer Vilsack because Kaine is a another goddamned Harvard Law grad. |
If she goes with Kaine, she will basically affirm she's about as predictable and risk-adverse a politician as we've ever seen. Those aren't good traits for someone going against the Trumpster. |
Oops. Kaine it is. Oh well. |
Yeah, I was originally going to say I was 99% certain she would pick him, but decided to be as risk-adverse as her and hedge my prediction. |
Excellent humor at HRC's expense! On the plus side, TMK speaks Spanish. However, after the pro-women speech given by Ivanka, HRC should have picked her as VP. That would have been a radical move, something along the lines of rerunning McCain's pick of Palin. Hillary/Ivanka 2016! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Unigwont
Joined: 11 Jul 2016
|
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hubris.
Hahaha |
|
Back to top |
|
|
goat
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Otus wrote: |
A small fortune could be made finding T supporters and nailing them down to bets. At least they must be convinced he is serious about winning. This will be fun once his nomination is secured. |
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J.Q.A.
Joined: 09 Feb 2017 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
goat wrote: |
Otus wrote: |
A small fortune could be made finding T supporters and nailing them down to bets. At least they must be convinced he is serious about winning. This will be fun once his nomination is secured. |
. |
...wait for the side step...the excuse(s)...."Russia...Bush (OK..I'll sponsor some of that)...Obama..(definitley)...Sanders was cheated (by the DNC..but...he is a coward anyway)...9/11 was outside of U.S. government control...Bill Oreilly is a racist...Fox News is the Anti-Christ...there is no left-wing media bias....right wing conspiracy theory....he did not inhale."
...ah well... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
J.Q.A. wrote: |
9/11 was outside of U.S. government control |
Those who buy into truther "conspiracy theories" do so for reasons other than evidence. Evidence shows that it was bin Laden and his outfit, not the US government, involved in those attacks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J.Q.A.
Joined: 09 Feb 2017 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CentralCali wrote: |
J.Q.A. wrote: |
9/11 was outside of U.S. government control |
Those who buy into truther "conspiracy theories" do so for reasons other than evidence. Evidence shows that it was bin Laden and his outfit, not the US government, involved in those attacks. |
Indeed...like the theory the government was not involved in that. Or, how those two towers just neatly collapsed...(WTC #7 is interesting)...THAT is a conspiracy theory.
So...go on...say whatever you wish.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The towers did not fall "neatly". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J.Q.A.
Joined: 09 Feb 2017 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
CentralCali wrote: |
The towers did not fall "neatly". |
Sure they did...very demolition, like. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frankhenry
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who is HRC?
huhuhuhuhuhu
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
frankhenry wrote: |
Who is HRC?
huhuhuhuhuhu
. |
Hillary Rodham Clinton won 65,853,516 votes in the 2016 Presidential election. This was the highest vote tally in that election, and the second highest vote tally amounted to 62,984,825 votes. At 48.2% of the vote, this was not enough to secure her the Presidency due to an affirmative action program historically known as the 'Electoral College.' |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J.Q.A.
Joined: 09 Feb 2017 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros wrote: |
frankhenry wrote: |
Who is HRC?
huhuhuhuhuhu
. |
Hillary Rodham Clinton won 65,853,516 votes in the 2016 Presidential election. This was the highest vote tally in that election, and the second highest vote tally amounted to 62,984,825 votes. At 48.2% of the vote, this was not enough to secure her the Presidency due to an affirmative action program historically known as the 'Electoral College.' |
That is right...why should New York and that crap hole known as California decide the fate of the rest of the country? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|