Hillary Rodham Clinton enters White House race; Democrat seeks to be first female president.

a reply to: CranialSponge

I will take that bet. You? A sitting prez loses Congress damn near every time in year 6. Including Reagan but disallowing Clinton. The Dem voters will come out in '16. I WILL take that bet.

She will destroy any Democrat running against her with her big pile of money because she still holds a grudge from Obama getting picked 8 years ago. Then she will have a fractured DNC unable to fully back her against Jeb with his big pile of money.

a reply to: intrepid

Yer on sweet cheeks.

By the way, I drink Crown Royal... but I'll also happily accept a 24 pack of Keith's Red Amber Ale.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Done.

a reply to: Involutionist

Wikipedia is the best source you got??? bahahahahaaaaa!

Seriously, until you grasp how the central banks of the transglobal financial system and the close knit global technocrats
work, coming to the understanding that they hold the total control of the global economy, you will be like most who give them satisfaction the truly powerful crave.

a reply to: intrepid

RNC pandering to the so-called centrist voter ends up with a dem or worse yet a bush in whitehouse because the compromise required eliminates the candidates running on constitutional issues in the primaries.

Hence the refrain "nothing changes, same old, same old" by many here and elsewhere.

Guess it's time time to make a stand instead of standing in the middle for many - if given the choice

The choice seems simple,

One is for intrusive big government that trades freedom for safety.

Or

Smaller government that trades personal risk for greater freedoms.

In between is that centrist area where no one seems to know what we have and both the left and the right play us all against one another.

I see "centrists" as a huge problem in this light.

One must admit going one way or the other will prove the issue valid in the end.

Centrist just beats more of the same and avoids blame.

a reply to: bullcat

So by your own admission that Hillary isn't female, the credibility of Wikipedia is nil.

originally posted by: caladonea

originally posted by: beezzer
If she becomes president, I will punch a tiny kitten in the face.

I (being a person who adores kittens)... am horrified at your above statement...even if it is in jest... it is not funny...I'm just saying.

As for Hillary...I predict she will get the democratic nomination...it is already written within the secret societies.

Relax. It is just a gesture. You see, tiny kittens heads are very light, so they move with a disappointed fist, as it flies towards them, quite easily and then springs right back. The air in front of your flying fist is heavier than the tiny kittens head, so a fist to face connection is weak. Looking down at the tiny kittens face after throwing a hay maker at it, you are both suddenly aware of the comedy and laugh together.

I know that might read a little confusing, I am just trying to explain the excepted science behind punching tiny kittens in the face.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: bullcat

So by your own admission that Hillary isn't female, the credibility of Wikipedia is nil.

The evil witch probably edited it itself.

a reply to: Phoenix

Seriously dude. The GOP hasn't reached a hand out to the centrists in forever. Just the religious right. That only works for so long. 2016 is going to be a waking up point. Will the GOP get it? If they don't by now......

a reply to: intrepid

Actually, George Bushs main platform was centrist in 2000.

He ran on ability to bring both parties together which he did do as Texas governor - he further did not fire Clinton holdovers out of government positions As predessesors did in other administrations.

That about center as one can get - then 9/11 usurped that initiative.

But folks always forget that platform due 9/11

I don't agree pandering any group is good such as religious right or abortive left.

What I agree with today,right now are candidates that speak of shrinking government role in our lives and expousing ideals that match our constitution.

Hillary does none of the above, in fact she offers another step to tyranny IMHO

Jeb Bush the same in a business suit Instead of a pantsuit.

Playing the center instead of making hard choices allows these types to thrive and succeed.

I'd much rather go hard left or right and let the people see which is best than play this in between game that just gets more of the same.

What I'm saying is get off the high horse and make oneself a stakeholder instead of an odds player.

a reply to: jude11

We all see it, but what are the alternatives?

After 8 years of Obama, the US has passed into a new era....Idiocracy.

Who takes the White Hut in the new era of Idiocracy does not really matter except to the extent that the occupant is more, or less, likely to engage in a lose/lose war situation. After reviewing the likely candidates for 2016, I guage Hilary as being the least likely to engage in another lose/lose war situation, thus perpetuating the status quo.

Perpetuating the status quo is about the best we can hope for.

a reply to: Swills

I just pray to God no one is insane enough to vote for her... I can only hope there is at least that much sanity left in America to tell that crazy witch to stick it.

And I dare anyone to call me a chauvinist pig.. my tits are 10 times bigger than hers plus I am 100 times smarter!

Bow to your new master!

Everyone should just vote 3rd party this round, although it probably won't matter anyway.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: CranialSponge

I will take that bet. You? A sitting prez loses Congress damn near every time in year 6. Including Reagan but disallowing Clinton.

The Dem voters will come out in '16. I WILL take that bet.

Are you sticking your head in the sand...again?
How many years is this now...12?

originally posted by: CranialSponge
I disagree with everyone.

Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn't a hope in hell of getting to plant her arse in the presidential throne.

Not a hope in hell.

In fact, no democrat has a hope in hell this next election.

Oh sure, it'll look like it's going in that direction for most of it, just to give the illusion that the voting polls are actually getting a say in the matter. But right near the very end, a republican will suddenly jump out in front and, wham ! The republicans will win the day.




Everybody take note and mark this thread post for future archived reference:

CranialSponge has made a prediction that will actually come true... It's going to make ATS history folks, a first of its kind !

It may not be so far off a prediction, Sponge. Disregarding honesty,
charisma and connections to the really major players, former Gov. Jeb
has a lot going for him... a positive track record in Florida.
That automatically puts a leg up on the Wicked Witch of Wherever.

For any other Repub to get the nod, would make it an obvious sword
-fallin-on time again. Mc Cain did it last time to let the Manchurian
Catastrophe get in in '08. It's the Dems job this time.

Off track a little this could be a giddy-up for a third party viable spot.
The worst that could happen is the same thing as Rahm getting in as
Chicago's capo... hey you want scrUd? Try THIS guy. And they just did
it again. I never understimate the awareness of US voters. sigh

Her announcing her candidacy changes nothing for me.


I still don't like any of them.

a reply to: derfreebie

For any other Repub to get the nod, would make it an obvious sword -fallin-on time again. Mc Cain did it last time to let the Manchurian Catastrophe get in in '08. It's the Dems job this time.

Heh... you always have a great way of turning words into spectacular visuals my friend !



Yep, it's the Dems turn to fall on the sword alright.

The military industrial complex and its foreign fanclubs™ want a war... a big war.

And the only way to achieve that (without so much opposition) is to place a Republican in office next. It seems the war machine has grown tired of all this 'wussy' diplomatic relations stuff and now want to roll up their sleeves and get down to real business.

Rawr.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: interupt42

The most corrupted win....a Bush, not a Clinton. Again, I encourage you to research Prescott Bush.

What does Bush have to do with anything?Are you suggesting because Bush was corrupted the Clinton’s aren't or can't be?

Here is a little secret , the Bush and the Clinton’s work for the same people.

If you are naive enough to believe that hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the lobbying industry and their 24/7/365 dream team of lawyers is left to 50 / 50 odds, than you might be the problem.

Like I previously said, she is to well connected, has been a proven team player, and has to much of an ego to allow herself to run again and not get elected. She has the connection and power to know ahead of time her outcome.

The Lobbyist group and special interest group control the MSM , the debates, the campaign funds, and the pool of candidates that the DNC and the RNC gets to present. They have total control on the candidates and how their viewed by the public.

I have a hard time believing she would allow herself to be defeated again in public without assurance.

The game is a match between the DNC + RNC + Lobbyist + Special Interest group versus the consumer and the individual democrats and republicans.

The DNC and RNC candidates are not on your team they are preselected team players by the Lobbyist group and special interest group . Clinton and Bush were on the same team. Heck its even hard to tell the difference between the Bush presidency and the Obama presidency if you take away the R and D labels.

I'm waiting for a galactic reset button to be pressed myself. This 2 party system is the problem. And all the people that feed that system are also part of the problem.