The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

[Derideo_Te]

And the conclusion is, The Right is anything but terrified of Hillary. Hell, we want her to run. Let's bring back Monica, Buddhist nuns, and no controlling authority. Let's let her lay out her accomplishments as senator and sec.state. Those would be "none." She is an empty pants suit with nothing but a glittery name.

And yet that "empty pants suit" is capable of beating every single GOP contender for the nomination to run against her.

She wasnt able to beat a one term junior senator with nothing but a dark complexion. What makes you think she can beat smart people with real accomplishments?

Care to name any of those "smart people with real accomplishments" who are beating her in the polls?

 

[The Rabbi]

And yet that "empty pants suit" is capable of beating every single GOP contender for the nomination to run against her.

She wasnt able to beat a one term junior senator with nothing but a dark complexion. What makes you think she can beat smart people with real accomplishments?

Care to name any of those "smart people with real accomplishments" who are beating her in the polls?

Polls at this stage measure name recognition more than anything else. Obama wasn't polling at all at this stage.
/fail

 

[Derideo_Te]

She wasnt able to beat a one term junior senator with nothing but a dark complexion. What makes you think she can beat smart people with real accomplishments?

Care to name any of those "smart people with real accomplishments" who are beating her in the polls?

Polls at this stage measure name recognition more than anything else. Obama wasn't polling at all at this stage.
/fail

So according to you Rand Paul and Ted Cruz don't have much in the way of "name recognition" even though they have both been front and center ever since they tried to shut down the government and destroy the economy?

 

[The Rabbi]

Care to name any of those "smart people with real accomplishments" who are beating her in the polls?

Polls at this stage measure name recognition more than anything else. Obama wasn't polling at all at this stage.
/fail

So according to you Rand Paul and Ted Cruz don't have much in the way of "name recognition" even though they have both been front and center ever since they tried to shut down the government and destroy the economy?

Believe it or not most people arent paying attention.
You are a loser and a troll with nothing of substance to contribute who gets pwned with every post. Go play in the sand box.

 

[Jroc]

Did you just clap for yourself, Jroc???

Hmmmm...

Now, the content of the thread is:

The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton

I clapped for Hillery's "accomplishments" of destroying women, and covering up for her husband for all those years. How about you post something you feel makes Hillery qualified to be president? Something which you have yet to do on your own thread..unless i missed it ?

 

[Jroc]

Well, that is your opinion and I do respect it. I just don't agree with it.

Counter it Give us your opinion

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, that is your opinion and I do respect it. I just don't agree with it.

Counter it Give us your opinion

Gladly. Here is my opinion.


Hillary Clinton will be a formidable force for the GOP to try beat in 2016. Demographics, a long resume and the name "Clinton" are on her side, in my opinion. And money, too. Plus, if the GOP does not change it's ways and truly reach out to all sorts of minorities, it risks dooming itself to becoming a minority party in presidential electoral politics for a long time to come.

It's not like we have always had 8 years of one-party rule and then the next party was up to bat:

1861-1885 GOP rule
1897-1913 GOP rule
1921-1933 GOP rule
1933-1953 DEM rule
1981-1993 GOP rule

So, the argument that the "other side" has better chances in 2016 is probably a weak one.

The very fact that so many Righties keep saying gross and nasty stuff about Hillary tells me that they are concerned that she can win, and she can win big. In politics, you don't sling shit at people whom you think are unimportant. And lots of GOPers have already started to fling poo at her. Unfortunately for them (and the polling numbers bear this out), it's not sticking.


Is she a shoe-in to win in 2016? No. Does she have the decidedly better cards in her hand. YES.

That's my opinion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Polls at this stage measure name recognition more than anything else. Obama wasn't polling at all at this stage.
/fail

So according to you Rand Paul and Ted Cruz don't have much in the way of "name recognition" even though they have both been front and center ever since they tried to shut down the government and destroy the economy?

Believe it or not most people arent paying attention.
You are a loser and a troll with nothing of substance to contribute who gets pwned with every post. Go play in the sand box.

Once people start paying attention do you believe that they are going to embrace the "smart people" that tried to destroy the economy and their jobs?

And just so you know I always whenever I see you throwing your little hissyfits.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, that is your opinion and I do respect it. I just don't agree with it.

Counter it Give us your opinion

Gladly. Here is my opinion.


Hillary Clinton will be a formidable force for the GOP to try beat in 2016. Demographics, a long resume and the name "Clinton" are on her side, in my opinion. And money, too. Plus, if the GOP does not change it's ways and truly reach out to all sorts of minorities, it risks dooming itself to becoming a minority part in presidential electoral politics for a long time to come.

It's not like we have always had 8 years of one party rule and then the next party was up to bat:

1861-1885 GOP rule
1897-1913 GOP rule
1921-1933 GOP rule
1933-1953 DEM rule
1981-1993 GOP rule

So, the argument that the "other side" has better chances in 2016 is probably a weak one.

The very fact that so many Righties keep saying gross and nasty stuff about Hillary tells me that they are concerned that she can win, and she can win big. In politics, you don't sling shit at people whom you think are unimportant. And lots of GOPers have already started to fling poo at her. Unfortunately for them (and the polling numbers bear this out), it's not sticking.


Is she a shoe-in to win in 2016? No. Does she have the decidedly better cards in her hand. YES.

That's my opinion.

So your argument is Hillary will win based on demographics, resume, and name.
Those are all the reasons she will lose. Fewer people voted for Romney than McCain. If Republicans actually get fired up about a real Republican they will turn out and flip the election, especially if the Democrats fail to achieve their voter fraud goals.
Resume? She has no resume. Being married to the president is not a qualification. She ran for senator as a reverse carpet bagger and didnt have a single accomplishment. She served as SecState and her one accomplishment seems to have been keeping Boko Haram off the terrorist list. She offers more of the same, not anything new. And after 8 years of tax and spend and crony people want something different.

After 8 years of Bush we got Obama, because he offered something new.
After 8 years of Clinton we got BUsh because he offered something new.
After 4 years of Bush Sr we got Clinton because he offered something new.
After 8 years of Nixon/Ford we got Carter because he offered something new.
History is not on your side here.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Counter it Give us your opinion

Gladly. Here is my opinion.


Hillary Clinton will be a formidable force for the GOP to try beat in 2016. Demographics, a long resume and the name "Clinton" are on her side, in my opinion. And money, too. Plus, if the GOP does not change it's ways and truly reach out to all sorts of minorities, it risks dooming itself to becoming a minority part in presidential electoral politics for a long time to come.

It's not like we have always had 8 years of one party rule and then the next party was up to bat:

1861-1885 GOP rule
1897-1913 GOP rule
1921-1933 GOP rule
1933-1953 DEM rule
1981-1993 GOP rule

So, the argument that the "other side" has better chances in 2016 is probably a weak one.

The very fact that so many Righties keep saying gross and nasty stuff about Hillary tells me that they are concerned that she can win, and she can win big. In politics, you don't sling shit at people whom you think are unimportant. And lots of GOPers have already started to fling poo at her. Unfortunately for them (and the polling numbers bear this out), it's not sticking.


Is she a shoe-in to win in 2016? No. Does she have the decidedly better cards in her hand. YES.

That's my opinion.

So your argument is Hillary will win based on demographics, resume, and name.
Those are all the reasons she will lose. Fewer people voted for Romney than McCain. If Republicans actually get fired up about a real Republican they will turn out and flip the election, especially if the Democrats fail to achieve their voter fraud goals.
Resume? She has no resume. Being married to the president is not a qualification. She ran for senator as a reverse carpet bagger and didnt have a single accomplishment. She served as SecState and her one accomplishment seems to have been keeping Boko Haram off the terrorist list. She offers more of the same, not anything new. And after 8 years of tax and spend and crony people want something different.

After 8 years of Bush we got Obama, because he offered something new.
After 8 years of Clinton we got BUsh because he offered something new.
After 4 years of Bush Sr we got Clinton because he offered something new.
After 8 years of Nixon/Ford we got Carter because he offered something new.
History is not on your side here.

The bolded: uh, no. Wrong.

2008: McCain: 59,950,323
2012: Romney: 60,932,235

Romney scored the second highest raw-vote total for a Republican presidential nominee ever, behind Bush (43) from 2004. He got almost 1,000,000 more votes in 2012 than McCain got in 2008. Care to try again?

The rest is your opinion, which I do not share.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[The Rabbi]

Gladly. Here is my opinion.


Hillary Clinton will be a formidable force for the GOP to try beat in 2016. Demographics, a long resume and the name "Clinton" are on her side, in my opinion. And money, too. Plus, if the GOP does not change it's ways and truly reach out to all sorts of minorities, it risks dooming itself to becoming a minority part in presidential electoral politics for a long time to come.

It's not like we have always had 8 years of one party rule and then the next party was up to bat:

1861-1885 GOP rule
1897-1913 GOP rule
1921-1933 GOP rule
1933-1953 DEM rule
1981-1993 GOP rule

So, the argument that the "other side" has better chances in 2016 is probably a weak one.

The very fact that so many Righties keep saying gross and nasty stuff about Hillary tells me that they are concerned that she can win, and she can win big. In politics, you don't sling shit at people whom you think are unimportant. And lots of GOPers have already started to fling poo at her. Unfortunately for them (and the polling numbers bear this out), it's not sticking.


Is she a shoe-in to win in 2016? No. Does she have the decidedly better cards in her hand. YES.

That's my opinion.

So your argument is Hillary will win based on demographics, resume, and name.
Those are all the reasons she will lose. Fewer people voted for Romney than McCain. If Republicans actually get fired up about a real Republican they will turn out and flip the election, especially if the Democrats fail to achieve their voter fraud goals.
Resume? She has no resume. Being married to the president is not a qualification. She ran for senator as a reverse carpet bagger and didnt have a single accomplishment. She served as SecState and her one accomplishment seems to have been keeping Boko Haram off the terrorist list. She offers more of the same, not anything new. And after 8 years of tax and spend and crony people want something different.

After 8 years of Bush we got Obama, because he offered something new.
After 8 years of Clinton we got BUsh because he offered something new.
After 4 years of Bush Sr we got Clinton because he offered something new.
After 8 years of Nixon/Ford we got Carter because he offered something new.
History is not on your side here.

The bolded: uh, no. Wrong.

2008: McCain: 59,950,323
2012: Romney: 60,932,235

Romney scored the second highest raw-vote total for a Republican presidential nominee ever, behind Bush (43) from 2004. He got almost 1,000,000 more votes in 2012 than McCain got in 2008. Care to try again?

The rest is your opinion, which I do not share.

Reallly? Obama didnt win after 8 years of Bush? Clinton didnt win by promising something different? This is now my opinion?

 

[Goodoledays]

Hillary will get the female, moderate, minority and Democrat vote, what's left for the far right? Hmmmm, let me think.

True Americans.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So your argument is Hillary will win based on demographics, resume, and name.
Those are all the reasons she will lose. Fewer people voted for Romney than McCain. If Republicans actually get fired up about a real Republican they will turn out and flip the election, especially if the Democrats fail to achieve their voter fraud goals.
Resume? She has no resume. Being married to the president is not a qualification. She ran for senator as a reverse carpet bagger and didnt have a single accomplishment. She served as SecState and her one accomplishment seems to have been keeping Boko Haram off the terrorist list. She offers more of the same, not anything new. And after 8 years of tax and spend and crony people want something different.

After 8 years of Bush we got Obama, because he offered something new.
After 8 years of Clinton we got BUsh because he offered something new.
After 4 years of Bush Sr we got Clinton because he offered something new.
After 8 years of Nixon/Ford we got Carter because he offered something new.
History is not on your side here.

The bolded: uh, no. Wrong.

2008: McCain: 59,950,323
2012: Romney: 60,932,235

Romney scored the second highest raw-vote total for a Republican presidential nominee ever, behind Bush (43) from 2004. He got almost 1,000,000 more votes in 2012 than McCain got in 2008. Care to try again?

The rest is your opinion, which I do not share.

Reallly? Obama didnt win after 8 years of Bush? Clinton didnt win by promising something different? This is now my opinion?

Every candidate promises to be or to do something different. I notice that Reagan is not on your list. the argument you are trying to give is that those people won only because they claimed to be something new, but there is also this thing called a party platform.

And you avoided the fact that you fucked up the math. Back to math class with you.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bolded: uh, no. Wrong.

2008: McCain: 59,950,323
2012: Romney: 60,932,235

Romney scored the second highest raw-vote total for a Republican presidential nominee ever, behind Bush (43) from 2004. He got almost 1,000,000 more votes in 2012 than McCain got in 2008. Care to try again?

The rest is your opinion, which I do not share.

Reallly? Obama didnt win after 8 years of Bush? Clinton didnt win by promising something different? This is now my opinion?

Every candidate promises to be or to do something different. I notice that Reagan is not on your list. the argument you are trying to give is that those people won only because they claimed to be something new, but there is also this thing called a party platform.

And you avoided the fact that you fucked up the math. Back to math class with you.

No that is not correct. Carter did not promise something different. Bush Sr basically ran on continuing Reagan's legacy. Logic is just not your friend here.
As to the math, what I said was true for critical states, not the country as a whole. I mis-spoke. Sue me, asshole.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Reallly? Obama didnt win after 8 years of Bush? Clinton didnt win by promising something different? This is now my opinion?

Every candidate promises to be or to do something different. I notice that Reagan is not on your list. the argument you are trying to give is that those people won only because they claimed to be something new, but there is also this thing called a party platform.

And you avoided the fact that you fucked up the math. Back to math class with you.

No that is not correct. Carter did not promise something different. Bush Sr basically ran on continuing Reagan's legacy. Logic is just not your friend here.
As to the math, what I said was true for critical states, not the country as a whole. I mis-spoke. Sue me, asshole.

Also false. You sure do lie a lot.

In every critical battleground state that both Romney and McCain lost, excepting Ohio, Romney surpassed McCain's raw vote totals, in: Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada and Colorado. In Ohio, he got all of 6,000 less votes than McCain, but Obama's vote share also went down vis-a-vis 2008 in the Buckeye State. And in the two Obama pick-ups from 2008 that Romney recaptured in 2012 (IN, NC), he also surpassed McCain's raw vote record.

So, not only did you misspeak the first time, you misspoke this last time as well.

The congressional record is your friend. Learn to read.


Carter most definitely promised something different. So did Bush 41. Your argument is full of holes all over the place. If you were a boat, you would have sunk to the floor of the ocean a long time ago.

You are really not very good at this, now are you..

 

[The Rabbi]

Every candidate promises to be or to do something different. I notice that Reagan is not on your list. the argument you are trying to give is that those people won only because they claimed to be something new, but there is also this thing called a party platform.

And you avoided the fact that you fucked up the math. Back to math class with you.

No that is not correct. Carter did not promise something different. Bush Sr basically ran on continuing Reagan's legacy. Logic is just not your friend here.
As to the math, what I said was true for critical states, not the country as a whole. I mis-spoke. Sue me, asshole.

Also false. You sure do lie a lot.

In every critical battleground state that both Romney and McCain lost, excepting Ohio, Romney surpassed McCain's raw vote totals, in: Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada and Colorado. In Ohio, he got all of 6,000 less votes than McCain, but Obama's vote share also went down vis-a-vis 2008. And in the two Obama pick-ups from 2008 that Romney recaptured in 2012 (IN, NC), he also surpassed McCain's raw vote record.

So, not only did you misspeak the first time, you misspoke this last time as well.

uselectionatlas is your friend. Learn to read.


Carter most definitely promised something different. So did Bush 41. Your argument is full of holes all over the place. If you were a boat, you would have sunk to the floor of the ocean a long time ago.

You are really not very good at this, now are you..

Yawn. Typically posturing by someone with nothing to offer.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No that is not correct. Carter did not promise something different. Bush Sr basically ran on continuing Reagan's legacy. Logic is just not your friend here.
As to the math, what I said was true for critical states, not the country as a whole. I mis-spoke. Sue me, asshole.

Also false. You sure do lie a lot.

In every critical battleground state that both Romney and McCain lost, excepting Ohio, Romney surpassed McCain's raw vote totals, in: Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada and Colorado. In Ohio, he got all of 6,000 less votes than McCain, but Obama's vote share also went down vis-a-vis 2008. And in the two Obama pick-ups from 2008 that Romney recaptured in 2012 (IN, NC), he also surpassed McCain's raw vote record.

So, not only did you misspeak the first time, you misspoke this last time as well.

uselectionatlas is your friend. Learn to read.


Carter most definitely promised something different. So did Bush 41. Your argument is full of holes all over the place. If you were a boat, you would have sunk to the floor of the ocean a long time ago.

You are really not very good at this, now are you..

Yawn. Typically posturing by someone with nothing to offer.

And again, you are unwilling to admit that you fucked up the math not only once, but twice now. All you have is bad math and ad hominem attacks that lead to --- nowhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

Buzzzzzzzz......

 

[Statistikhengst]

And once again, ladies and Gentlemen, Rabbi gets his ass handed to him because he lied about statistics and brought forth no cogent argument about the OP itself, which is:

The Right is truly, truly terrified of Hillary Clinton.

We can only hope that this is not the best that the Right has to offer in this debate.