PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: acrogimp on July 14, 2016, 10:51:19 AM
-
Not official until tomorrow but looks like Trump and his team have settled on social conservative Mike Pence (Gov, IN-R) as their VP pick.
Better choice than Christie or a few others, not as 'diverse' as I had suspected, and comes with pros and cos as a well-known social conservative and outward Christian.
Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out over the weekend and into the convention.
'Gimp
-
Not official until tomorrow but looks like Trump and his team have settled on social conservative Mike Pence (Gov, IN-R) as their VP pick.
Better choice than Christie or a few others, not as 'diverse' as I had suspected, and comes with pros and cos as a well-known social conservative and outward Christian.
Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out over the weekend and into the convention.
'Gimp
Funny how there's been no real speculation on Shrillary's pick.
-
Pence:
Obamacare: Check
TPP: Check
Common Core: Check
Making Religious People Cave: Check
Amnesty: Check
Yep, Trump shoring up his liberal base.
-
Rats. I was hoping for him to abdicate in favor of an open convention. It would probably be the best chance Republicans have to win.
-
Pence:
Obamacare: Check
TPP: Check
Common Core: Check
Making Religious People Cave: Check
Amnesty: Check
Yep, Trump shoring up his liberal base.
With the exception of his support for TPA/CAFTA and TPP, all the rest are demonstrably false or deliberately misinterpreted. Nice try.
Pence ran the conservative Republican Study Committee in the House, voted against Obamacare every time there was a vote and gained an exemption from it for IN to try something far more market oriented.
He signed a bill removing Common Core from IN schools
And he personally as well as the State of IN took massive heat for their religious freedom bill which remains intact for religious prople, churches and schools and still allows the use of religious belief as a defense in a suit, it just does not allow for open refusal of goods/services on basis of protected class.
As for amnesty, he is solidly and repeatedly come out against any blanket amnesty and for seucring the border - his own proposal (given in a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation) would require an illegal worker to return to their home country and apply for a job, get a background check, and only be eligible to return if a US company has a job for them and wants them back - agfter 6 years they must choose to apply for citizenship or GTFO. There are aspects of his proposal that I don't agree with or that I think may need more deep development/explanation but he is not an open border/amnesty guy.
Pence was TEA Party before there was one. The American Conservative Union rates Pence 100% as Governor of IN, same rating they gave to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and higher than all the other former candidates (e,g, Kasich 92). Disclosure, the ACU is run by a former classmate and acquaintance of mine, Matt Schlapp.
'Gimp
-
I don't think it will be Pence. I doubt that Mr. Reality TV Guy would allow himself to get preempted by the NY Times or whoever first published this "leak." Nor do I think he's sophisticated enough to use such a leak as a trial balloon to gauge opinion, especially within 24 hours of HIS announcement.
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking its Newt.
-
Gimp, that's pretty cool about knowing Matt Schlapp.
-
I don't think it will be Pence. I doubt that Mr. Reality TV Guy would allow himself to get preempted by the NY Times or whoever first published this "leak." Nor do I think he's sophisticated enough to use such a leak as a trial balloon to gauge opinion, especially within 24 hours of HIS announcement.
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking its Newt.
Well, that's why I said not official till it's official, I expect(ed) a more diversity candidate, someone of a minority background and with more national defense/international relations cred although he did not have anyone like that on his public 'list'. Someone like Col. Allen West maybe.
In the end Trump does not need, IMO, to go after the Republican base since polling shows he has ~82% or better locked up and only a 5% defection to Hillary (shes is under 80% of Democrats with something like 12-15% defecting to Trump) - he ought to, again IMO, seeking a VP candidate with broader appeal among the younger and more liberal/disillusioned crowd. No idea who that might be by the way, just following what I think has been and ought to be a strategy to win the White House.
I like Newt but don't believe he is the right fit nor do I think he brings enough to the party to overcome the negatives he would bring in the press.
Guess we'll see.
'Gimp
-
Well, that's why I said not official till it's official, I expect(ed) a more diversity candidate, someone of a minority background and with more national defense/international relations cred although he did not have anyone like that on his public 'list'. Someone like Col. Allen West maybe.
In the end Trump does not need, IMO, to go after the Republican base since polling shows he has ~82% or better locked up and only a 5% defection to Hillary (shes is under 80% of Democrats with something like 12-15% defecting to Trump) - he ought to, again IMO, seeking a VP candidate with broader appeal among the younger and more liberal/disillusioned crowd. No idea who that might be by the way, just following what I think has been and ought to be a strategy to win the White House.
I like Newt but don't believe he is the right fit nor do I think he brings enough to the party to overcome the negatives he would bring in the press.
Guess we'll see.
'Gimp
I wasn't endorsing Newt, just making an observation.
I'm a BIG fan of Col. Allen West.
-
Pence speech from 6 years ago"
-
I don't think it will be Pence. I doubt that Mr. Reality TV Guy would allow himself to get preempted by the NY Times or whoever first published this "leak." Nor do I think he's sophisticated enough to use such a leak as a trial balloon to gauge opinion, especially within 24 hours of HIS announcement.
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking its Newt.
A Trump/Gingrich ticket will contain a dynamic duo of unpredictable personalities.
-
A Trump/Gingrich ticket will contain a dynamic duo of unpredictable personalities.
Actually, I think Newt is the only person who has the street cred to keep Trump from self-immolating.
-
Actually, I think Newt is the only person who has the street cred to keep Trump from self-immolating.
Newt = Chief of Staff
Rudy = Sec DHS
Chrispy = AG
Who else for his Cabinet?
-
Actually, I think Newt is the only person who has the street cred to keep Trump from self-immolating.
Newt is a great ideas guy. He predicted cultural and economic trends well ahead of his time. His biggest problem is his mouth. It's what lost the Republican budget fight in 1996, and (I believe) remains a liability today.
The presumptive GOP nominee already has a mouth. Two of the same flock may not produce the answer that Trump wants, which is why I think the Donald may decide to ask Pence to run with him.
-
I don't think it will be Pence. I doubt that Mr. Reality TV Guy would allow himself to get preempted by the NY Times or whoever first published this "leak." Nor do I think he's sophisticated enough to use such a leak as a trial balloon to gauge opinion, especially within 24 hours of HIS announcement.
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking its Newt.
Yep. You were wrong.
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+pence&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearch
But don't get too upset. I was wrong once too.
-
Yep. You were wrong.
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+pence&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearch
But don't get too upset. I was wrong once too.
Thanks Captain Obvious.
-
Well, this VP choice ought to get the Democrats even more energized and behind Hillary no matter what she's done.
-
Well, this VP choice ought to get the Democrats even more energized and behind Hillary no matter what she's done.
It was so wrenching and frustrating to watch Romney fail to pick the low-hanging Obama fruit. Hillary has even more than Obama, ripe and ready to shake loose. She could be devastatingly defeated, if her opponent played right. But I don't have much hope of that. While choosing Pence shows that Trump isn't picking his VP with an eye to courting certain groups, he is sticking with his habit of doing things that don't fall in with the establishment's obviously flawed and ineffective strategies, like backing Jeb! with all their hopes. It is the year of outliers, and Hillary is not one.
-
It is the year of outliers, and Hillary is not one.
or it is the year of out and out liars and the corrupt doormat is indeed queen of the liars.
-
Well, this VP choice ought to get the Democrats even more energized and behind Hillary no matter what she's done.
Why do you say that?
-
Why do you say that?
My limited knowledge of Mike Pence is that he is mostly known as a social conservative. Those types energize liberals.
-
My limited knowledge of Mike Pence is that he is mostly known as a social conservative. Those types energize liberals.
Yeah, that's bound to piss off Jeff too. Of course, Jeff would also be pissed off if he nominated a social liberal.
-
It's definitely an interesting pick and I'm not sure what to think of it yet; I'm still reading up on him. I think he's a better pick than some of the others that Trump was considering, such as Chris Christie or Bob Corker.
-
My limited knowledge of Mike Pence is that he is mostly known as a social conservative. Those types energize liberals.
One small problem about the liberals getting "energized" this election cycle: Clinton Fatigue.
-
One small problem about the liberals getting "energized" this election cycle: Clinton Fatigue.
They don't actually suffer that bad from that. It's conservatives that are tired of her. They look at all the hearings on emails and Benghazi and all that stuff like Steingar does. Much ado about nothing and politically motivated, so now that Bernie's done, I'm starting to see Hillary bumper stickers showing up. Remember, I live smack dab in the heart of liberal territory, so I get decent pulse of mood of the left.
The left is not fatigued. The left is disappointed, but after the convention they will be resigned about Hillary, after all she is still married to their version of Ronald Reagan and all eyes will turn to this Trump/Pence ticket. We'll see how it goes, but I think that combo is horrifying enough to left leaning folks that they will get out the vote.
-
My limited knowledge of Mike Pence is that he is mostly known as a social conservative. Those types energize liberals.
So would he be better off picking a running mate that is a social liberal to make the liberals happy? The better and more conservative his pick, the more energized liberals will be against it. So if Pense "energizes" the liberals, that must mean Trump made a great choice.
-
They don't actually suffer that bad from that. It's conservatives that are tired of her. They look at all the hearings on emails and Benghazi and all that stuff like Steingar does. Much ado about nothing and politically motivated, so now that Bernie's done, I'm starting to see Hillary bumper stickers showing up. Remember, I live smack dab in the heart of liberal territory, so I get decent pulse of mood of the left.
The left is not fatigued. The left is disappointed, but after the convention they will be resigned about Hillary, after all she is still married to their version of Ronald Reagan and all eyes will turn to this Trump/Pence ticket. We'll see how it goes, but I think that combo is horrifying enough to left leaning folks that they will get out the vote.
Nah. An awful lot of liberals are fed up with, and can't stand Hillary.
-
So would he be better off picking a running mate that is a social liberal to make the liberals happy? The better and more conservative his pick, the more energized liberals will be against it. So if Pense "energizes" the liberals, that must mean Trump made a great choice.
IMO, if he wants to win in the general, yes. It's all about getting independents and defectors now. It was proven in the primaries that he already had the support of the evangelicals and social conservatives. Why does he think he needs to bolster that now? I guess Pence is supposed to make the Cruz supporters happy, but I suspect that they supported him for his constitutional positions rather than his bible thumping.
Anyhow, I think Pence is a poor choice, but that's just my opinion and the truth will be in November.
-
Nah. An awful lot of liberals are fed up with, and can't stand Hillary.
Sure, but where are they going to go? They could stay home and let Trump and Pence win, or suck it up and back Hillary just to stop the Trump/Pence nightmare from happening. I suspect they will do the later.
-
Sure, but where are they going to go? They could stay home and let Trump and Pence win, or suck it up and back Hillary just to stop the Trump/Pence nightmare from happening. I suspect they will do the later.
Lots of Republicans are saying they are going to vote for anyone or anything (like a fucking meteor) rather than vote for Trump or Hillary. I think many Dems that are fed up with Hillary will do the same thing. Which is fine by me because if a Democrat doesn't vote for Hillary, that is as good as a vote (or half vote) for Trump.
-
Having had time to think more about it I think this is a strategic mistake on the Donald's part. As I have mentioned before, Trump is polling such that he basically has the base locked up (over 80%) with few defections (~5%). Hillary on the other hand, is polling less than 80% with the Dem base, and is showing something like 12-15% defections.
To be clear, I basically like Pence although I disagree with him on a few positions, the problem is that Dav8or is right I believe, he may potentially motivate more support for ANY Dem ticket given his solid history as a Social and (mostly) Fiscal Conservative.
The safe move, in my opinion, safe meaning best chance to win the election, would have been a more middle-of-the-road running mate. VP should not be that big a deal in the overall scheme of things except if needed to shore up a swing state voting block (cough cough John Kasich, cough cough). The VP is not likely to exert a yuuuuge amount of influence therefore a more 'mainstream' choice might have been a better pick.
Only time will tell. Pence will probably give one hell of a speech during the convention next week but in hindsight I think he damages the overall potential for success of the ticket in the General. Fortunately, down-ticket polling shows no major shakeups for the Republicans, at least for now.
I still believe the turn to anti-cop violence by the Black Lies Matter crowd and seemingly increasing numbers of terror attacks at home and abroad plays very poorly for the Dem's but as always, the R's have to win by more than the margin of cheating and that is pretty tough.
'Gimp
-
Having had time to think more about it I think this is a strategic mistake on the Donald's part. As I have mentioned before, Trump is polling such that he basically has the base locked up (over 80%) with few defections (~5%). Hillary on the other hand, is polling less than 80% with the Dem base, and is showing something like 12-15% defections.
To be clear, I basically like Pence although I disagree with him on a few positions, the problem is that Dav8or is right I believe, he may potentially motivate more support for ANY Dem ticket given his solid history as a Social and (mostly) Fiscal Conservative.
The safe move, in my opinion, safe meaning best chance to win the election, would have been a more middle-of-the-road running mate. VP should not be that big a deal in the overall scheme of things except if needed to shore up a swing state voting block (cough cough John Kasich, cough cough). The VP is not likely to exert a yuuuuge amount of influence therefore a more 'mainstream' choice might have been a better pick.
Only time will tell. Pence will probably give one hell of a speech during the convention next week but in hindsight I think he damages the overall potential for success of the ticket in the General. Fortunately, down-ticket polling shows no major shakeups for the Republicans, at least for now.
I still believe the turn to anti-cop violence by the Black Lies Matter crowd and seemingly increasing numbers of terror attacks at home and abroad plays very poorly for the Dem's but as always, the R's have to win by more than the margin of cheating and that is pretty tough.
'Gimp
So an already non-conservative, barely a Republican candidate wasn't enough, we now have to dilute the ticket even further with someone who is just as, or more, socially liberal than Trump? Why even have a Republican ticket then? Whatever happened to conservative, or at the very least, Republican, values?
-
So an already non-conservative, barely a Republican candidate wasn't enough, we now have to dilute the ticket even further with someone who is just as, or more, socially liberal than Trump? Why even have a Republican ticket then? Whatever happened to conservative, or at the very least, Republican, values?
Because Trump will, I believe, govern far more conservatively than Hillary or Bernie would, more than Gary Johnston would, etc. The fundamental issue is winning the fucking election, something the R's have not managed to do when faced with an utterly defeatable candidate two times in a row.
I believe that Cruz, or anyone else (possible exception of Kasich, who I can't stand) would poll even worse against Hillary than Trump is, precisely because although we are still a center-right country it is only barely so, and with less tolerance for the hard-core conservative principles than probably any time in our history.
The population is changing and with it the elements needed to win an election. If we just keep losing time after time what good is that? It only serves to further minimize, marginalize and eventually neuter the conservative principles that matter at the national level. If it takes a little 3-card monty to get better/more conservative candidates to win then so be it.
And to be sure I am understood, the principles themselves never change - the means of communication and the standard bearer however, must, if we are to ever have someone in the White House. We have lost the media, pop-culture and education, we will always be made out to be monsters - what is needed is someone who can cut through that and Trump is the only one left, he is the one the people selected, and he happens to be the only one (possible exception of Christie and Perry IMO) who can cut through the BS and name it for what it is.
Of course that is all just my $0.03 ($0.02 adjusted for inflation).
'Gimp
-
Because Trump will, I believe, govern far more conservatively than Hillary or Bernie would, more than Gary Johnston would, etc.
I agree, but only because he couldn't be any worse. Though I think "far" might be a stretch.
The fundamental issue is winning the fucking election, something the R's have not managed to do when faced with an utterly defeatable candidate two times in a row.
Conservatives are winning at state and local levels across the country and control the majority of state legislatures. Unfortunately, you are so consumed with winning the election that you don't care how bad Trump will be, because no matter what, he'll at least be a "little" better than Hillary, and that's all that counts. Either way, both candidates are terrible. Though I do understand the desire to win the election if it means preventing Hillary from winning. There's merit to that argument and I can't say that I disagree with it.
I believe that Cruz, or anyone else (possible exception of Kasich, who I can't stand) would poll even worse against Hillary than Trump is, precisely because although we are still a center-right country it is only barely so, and with less tolerance for the hard-core conservative principles than probably any time in our history.
That pesky Constitution gets in the way every time, doesn't it? That's a silly statement. "Hard core conservative principles" mean sticking to the Constitution. The left spins this around and makes it seem like they are such outlandish and absurd ideals, that the government should be limited, that the States and/or people should retain the majority of rights, that basic freedoms should be protected and that they are not granted by the government, but rather protected by the government.
The population is changing and with it the elements needed to win an election. If we just keep losing time after time what good is that? It only serves to further minimize, marginalize and eventually neuter the conservative principles that matter at the national level. If it takes a little 3-card monty to get better/more conservative candidates to win then so be it.
Again, state legislatures are overwhelmingly held by Republicans. That's why states are banding together left and right on lawsuits; they don't like that the federal government is trying to tell them what to do to this extent.
And to be sure I am understood, the principles themselves never change - the means of communication and the standard bearer however, must, if we are to ever have someone in the White House. We have lost the media, pop-culture and education, we will always be made out to be monsters - what is needed is someone who can cut through that and Trump is the only one left, he is the one the people selected, and he happens to be the only one (possible exception of Christie and Perry IMO) who can cut through the BS and name it for what it is.
Of course that is all just my $0.03 ($0.02 adjusted for inflation).
'Gimp
Really? So Trump wanting to go after the 1st, 2nd and 5th Amendments are the same conservative principles and they haven't changed? The same principles that you just said were less tolerated?
-
I agree, but only because he couldn't be any worse. Though I think "far" might be a stretch.
Conservatives are winning at state and local levels across the country and control the majority of state legislatures. Unfortunately, you are so consumed with winning the election that you don't care how bad Trump will be, because no matter what, he'll at least be a "little" better than Hillary, and that's all that counts. Either way, both candidates are terrible. Though I do understand the desire to win the election if it means preventing Hillary from winning. There's merit to that argument and I can't say that I disagree with it.
That pesky Constitution gets in the way every time, doesn't it? That's a silly statement. "Hard core conservative principles" mean sticking to the Constitution. The left spins this around and makes it seem like they are such outlandish and absurd ideals, that the government should be limited, that the States and/or people should retain the majority of rights, that basic freedoms should be protected and that they are not granted by the government, but rather protected by the government.
Again, state legislatures are overwhelmingly held by Republicans. That's why states are banding together left and right on lawsuits; they don't like that the federal government is trying to tell them what to do to this extent.
Really? So Trump wanting to go after the 1st, 2nd and 5th Amendments are the same conservative principles and they haven't changed? The same principles that you just said were less tolerated?
You are conflating things or inserting words/intent that I didn't say - no point in responding beyond 'I didn't say what you said I said'.
I for one do not now and have never said I believe Trump to be a big 'C' conservative, in fact I have clearly stated I do not consider him that.
Yes, if we do not win the Presidential election we will not hold the White House. Local elections are no accurate predictors of National, and this seems to be something many people routinely fail to grasp. I hate Congress, but my Rep and Senators are OK is the rule not the exception. Congressional campaigns are different from Presidential campaigns because of this.
Conservative political principles are not 1-to-1 with the Constitution and that is getting to be a pretty tired and threadbare canard. Why are hard-core big 'C' conservatives not winning? This is why, claiming to be smarter than everyone else, more committed to the Constitution, etc. - the same things frankly that the far Left idealogues say.
'Gimp
-
Having had time to think more about it I think this is a strategic mistake on the Donald's part. As I have mentioned before, Trump is polling such that he basically has the base locked up (over 80%) with few defections (~5%). Hillary on the other hand, is polling less than 80% with the Dem base, and is showing something like 12-15% defections.
To be clear, I basically like Pence although I disagree with him on a few positions, the problem is that Dav8or is right I believe, he may potentially motivate more support for ANY Dem ticket given his solid history as a Social and (mostly) Fiscal Conservative.
The safe move, in my opinion, safe meaning best chance to win the election, would have been a more middle-of-the-road running mate. VP should not be that big a deal in the overall scheme of things except if needed to shore up a swing state voting block (cough cough John Kasich, cough cough). The VP is not likely to exert a yuuuuge amount of influence therefore a more 'mainstream' choice might have been a better pick.
Only time will tell. Pence will probably give one hell of a speech during the convention next week but in hindsight I think he damages the overall potential for success of the ticket in the General. Fortunately, down-ticket polling shows no major shakeups for the Republicans, at least for now.
I still believe the turn to anti-cop violence by the Black Lies Matter crowd and seemingly increasing numbers of terror attacks at home and abroad plays very poorly for the Dem's but as always, the R's have to win by more than the margin of cheating and that is pretty tough.
'Gimp
I'm not disappointed in Trump's pick of Pence, but I see a distinct lack of excitement for him. I'd like to think that Trump threw a bone to conservatives with that pick, but I don't think he has that in him to feel the need to do so.
Who would you have recommended that Trump pick for VP?
-
Who would you have recommended that Trump pick for VP?
Megyn Kelly
-
I'm not disappointed in Trump's pick of Pence, but I see a distinct lack of excitement for him. I'd like to think that Trump threw a bone to conservatives with that pick, but I don't think he has that in him to feel the need to do so.
Who would you have recommended that Trump pick for VP?
Well, FWIW I think it WAS throwing a bone to conservatives which is why I think it ultimately was not necessary (but if it mends fences in any way with conservatives it will be good).
As I said before, I am not sure who I think Trump should have chosen.
Expanding on my earlier thoughts, someone who, gasp, fits certain tick-boxes of life story/background that offset Trump's that may help to reel in middle-of-the-road (or left-of-the-road) voters (although he does better with blue-collar voters than might be expected). Give Democrat voters an alternative to Hillary and Fauxcohantas (my bet on her VP choice) and I think enough will bite.
I mentioned Col. Allen West who I think would have been a solid choice from both a VP need as well as being potentially attractive to non-traditional Republican voters. I also like Gov. Rick Perry but am not sure he is different enough from Trump in the public-eye (as defined by the media). Someone with governmental experience would be good (I have always liked Gov Bobby Jindal as well). An interesting choice would be NM Gov Susana Martinez who I agree with on a lot, but not all issues.
Doesn't matter now, but I would have advised a different choice were I on the team.
'Gimp
-
Doesn't matter now, but I would have advised a different choice were I on the team.
The other issue you're ignoring is that most of those you mentioned have political careers ahead of them that they really, really, don't want to have to explain later the statements they made during 4 months in 2016 acting as a Trump apologist.
-
According to the GOP Obama was a Muslim who wasn't even American. Now according to the GOP Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever live. Yeah, whatever.
I thought the E-mail thing was pretty classic Hillary, she is private to the point of obsession. It was dumb, and she brought it on herself. I never thought it amounted to criminal behavior, and the AG agreed with me. According to he GOP if Hillary litters she should go for a felony.
Benghazi was a sideshow. Some guys died, and it was a real pity. I thought she was right when she told the grandstanding Congresscritters that the job was to not let it happen again, and not to lay blame. Didn't sit well with them, they had more hearings on Benghazi than Pearl harbor or 911. Go figure.
I think the biggest problem with Hillary is she isn't anything new. She's done this before, and its really hard to get that excited about a familiar face. My dogs get hyper excited when I get home, Mrs. Steingar somewhat less so.
I think Hillary, should she win, will have the least transparent administration ever. I suspect she'll be enormously effective.
Should Trump win, well the only people who like him less than the Democrats are the Republicans. Should make damn fine TV. I suspect Trump will self-destruct before this is all over. He'll say something stupid and offend the wrong people, and everyone will remember who he is.
You guys better hope Trump doesn't win. It'll be the end of the GOP if he does.
-
According to the GOP Obama was a Muslim who wasn't even American. Now according to the GOP Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever live. Yeah, whatever.
I thought the E-mail thing was pretty classic Hillary, she is private to the point of obsession. It was dumb, and she brought it on herself. I never thought it amounted to criminal behavior, and the AG agreed with me. According to he GOP if Hillary litters she should go for a felony.
Benghazi was a sideshow. Some guys died, and it was a real pity. I thought she was right when she told the grandstanding Congresscritters that the job was to not let it happen again, and not to lay blame. Didn't sit well with them, they had more hearings on Benghazi than Pearl harbor or 911. Go figure.
I think the biggest problem with Hillary is she isn't anything new. She's done this before, and its really hard to get that excited about a familiar face. My dogs get hyper excited when I get home, Mrs. Steingar somewhat less so.
I think Hillary, should she win, will have the least transparent administration ever. I suspect she'll be enormously effective.
Should Trump win, well the only people who like him less than the Democrats are the Republicans. Should make damn fine TV. I suspect Trump will self-destruct before this is all over. He'll say something stupid and offend the wrong people, and everyone will remember who he is.
You guys better hope Trump doesn't win. It'll be the end of the GOP if he does.
The GOP said that Obama was Muslim and not even an American? Citation, please.
It's never about blame when it's a Democrat doing the crime, is it? Don't you feel like you need a shower after sweeping up all the filth dropped by Democrats?
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160718/14b6845b68d65e29e9182ba622502c6c.jpg)
-
The thing that pissed me off most about Benghazi was the stupid video excuse. The rest of it could be chalked up to mere incompetence.
But the email server, in my mind was truly criminal. And deleting those 30,000 emails was even worse.
According to the GOP Obama was a Muslim who wasn't even American. Now according to the GOP Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever live. Yeah, whatever.
I thought the E-mail thing was pretty classic Hillary, she is private to the point of obsession. It was dumb, and she brought it on herself. I never thought it amounted to criminal behavior, and the AG agreed with me. According to he GOP if Hillary litters she should go for a felony.
Benghazi was a sideshow. Some guys died, and it was a real pity. I thought she was right when she told the grandstanding Congresscritters that the job was to not let it happen again, and not to lay blame. Didn't sit well with them, they had more hearings on Benghazi than Pearl harbor or 911. Go figure.
I think the biggest problem with Hillary is she isn't anything new. She's done this before, and its really hard to get that excited about a familiar face. My dogs get hyper excited when I get home, Mrs. Steingar somewhat less so.
I think Hillary, should she win, will have the least transparent administration ever. I suspect she'll be enormously effective.
Should Trump win, well the only people who like him less than the Democrats are the Republicans. Should make damn fine TV. I suspect Trump will self-destruct before this is all over. He'll say something stupid and offend the wrong people, and everyone will remember who he is.
You guys better hope Trump doesn't win. It'll be the end of the GOP if he does.
-
According to the GOP Obama was a Muslim who wasn't even American. Now according to the GOP Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever live. Yeah, whatever.
I thought the E-mail thing was pretty classic Hillary, she is private to the point of obsession. It was dumb, and she brought it on herself. I never thought it amounted to criminal behavior, and the AG agreed with me. According to he GOP if Hillary litters she should go for a felony.
Benghazi was a sideshow. Some guys died, and it was a real pity. I thought she was right when she told the grandstanding Congresscritters that the job was to not let it happen again, and not to lay blame. Didn't sit well with them, they had more hearings on Benghazi than Pearl harbor or 911. Go figure.
I think the biggest problem with Hillary is she isn't anything new. She's done this before, and its really hard to get that excited about a familiar face. My dogs get hyper excited when I get home, Mrs. Steingar somewhat less so.
I think Hillary, should she win, will have the least transparent administration ever. I suspect she'll be enormously effective.
Should Trump win, well the only people who like him less than the Democrats are the Republicans. Should make damn fine TV. I suspect Trump will self-destruct before this is all over. He'll say something stupid and offend the wrong people, and everyone will remember who he is.
You guys better hope Trump doesn't win. It'll be the end of the GOP if he does.
Let's start with, "I never sent or received anything that was marked" yet Comey said she had messages that were marked.
Sounds a lot like, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"
I guess lying is oaky for Democrats. Maybe a badge of courage?
-
typical BS
do you get your kicks making shi.... um, stuff up?
-
I just listened to the mother of one of the Americans murdered by Muslim terrorists (that's redundant. I rarely see any other type of terrorist these days) call Hilary out as liar and a criminal at the GOP convention.
The funny part is that the DNC will go into total bullshit mode now and attack this old, frail woman, as if she were Joe the Plumber but the attacks will fail because everyone now knows that the sleazy pig Hilary Clinton sent Chelsea an email just moments after getting the news about the attack and telling Chelsea that it was a TERROR ATTACK.
After erasing 30,000 plus emails, the idiot saved that one.
When the all out assault on an old woman falls on deaf ears and helps her poll numbers fall a little more, I look for the party to do something truly desperate.
Wait for it. They will stop at nothing to stop a free election.
-
I just tuned in and saw Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke get a huge reception from the audience. Yuuge.
-
Rudy for Attorney General!!
-
According to the GOP Obama was a Muslim who wasn't even American. Now according to the GOP Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever live. Yeah, whatever.
I thought the E-mail thing was pretty classic Hillary, she is private to the point of obsession. It was dumb, and she brought it on herself. I never thought it amounted to criminal behavior, and the AG agreed with me. According to he GOP if Hillary litters she should go for a felony.
Benghazi was a sideshow. Some guys died, and it was a real pity. I thought she was right when she told the grandstanding Congresscritters that the job was to not let it happen again, and not to lay blame. Didn't sit well with them, they had more hearings on Benghazi than Pearl harbor or 911. Go figure.
I think the biggest problem with Hillary is she isn't anything new. She's done this before, and its really hard to get that excited about a familiar face. My dogs get hyper excited when I get home, Mrs. Steingar somewhat less so.
I think Hillary, should she win, will have the least transparent administration ever. I suspect she'll be enormously effective.
Should Trump win, well the only people who like him less than the Democrats are the Republicans. Should make damn fine TV. I suspect Trump will self-destruct before this is all over. He'll say something stupid and offend the wrong people, and everyone will remember who he is.
You guys better hope Trump doesn't win. It'll be the end of the GOP if he does.
That's what most of us fear, that she will be successful in implementing terrible feel good, political pandering policies.
-
That's what most of us fear, that she will be successful in implementing terrible feel good, political pandering policies.
more likely is that the corrupt doormat would be very successful in lining her pockets.
-
I just listened to the mother of one of the Americans murdered by Muslim terrorists (that's redundant. I rarely see any other type of terrorist these days) call Hilary out as liar and a criminal at the GOP convention.
One of the more negative aspects of her personality is she does tend to attack those who bring up allegations even when they're true.
The funny part is that the DNC will go into total bullshit mode now and attack this old, frail woman, as if she were Joe the Plumber but the attacks will fail because everyone now knows that the sleazy pig Hilary Clinton sent Chelsea an email just moments after getting the news about the attack and telling Chelsea that it was a TERROR ATTACK.
The photo I saw suggested someone north of old and frail. The funny thing is the most damning claim (most of them were actually outright lies) was something Hillary supposedly said to the woman in person that's been reported both ways by witnesses. Still, I wouldn't put it past the Hildebeast to treat a detractor poorly. That is her modus operandi and always has been.
-
One of the more negative aspects of her personality is she does tend to attack those who bring up allegations even when they're true.
The photo I saw suggested someone north of old and frail. The funny thing is the most damning claim (most of them were actually outright lies) was something Hillary supposedly said to the woman in person that's been reported both ways by witnesses. Still, I wouldn't put it past the Hildebeast to treat a detractor poorly. That is her modus operandi and always has been.
You can try to dance on the head of a pin all you want but the truth is that the lying criminal told everyone that a you tube video was the reason for the attack when it was apparent from the beginning that she was lying out her ass. Obama joined her in the lie and sent Susan Rice out to repeat it over and over again.
-
Rudy for Attorney General!!
Nah, DHS
-
Nah, DHS
David Clark for DHS!
-
David Clark for DHS!
He makes great headsets!