WSJ: Hillary Will Run Again

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: UnBreakable

Regardless of how badly the trumpsters wont this to happen hillary will NOT be running against trump in 2020.

Might as well stop even hoping for that.

Nah let them keep going as it keeps their rage and propaganda machine focused on someone not going to be running in 2020.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Well, there is next to no point posting a link to a paywalled article, but aside from that, allow me to express my attitude toward the notion of Hillary Clinton taking another swing at the ball.

The very idea is repugnant, not least because the fact is that Clinton could not roundly beat the least qualified candidate for the position to ever attain it. As well as that glaring inadequacy, she also lacks the history of campaigning in the interests of regular people, something that any liberal individual genuinely seeking office would require to have behind them. She has spent a far greater amount of time taking lobby money than she has working for the unadulterated, unfettered upholding of the regular citizen.

Were she to seek candidacy and gain it, it would be a disaster for the United States, for the party she is aligned with, and indeed for the people, who would, for yet another four years, lack an effective, representative voice in the halls of governance, for another four years, lack a motivator for change to government structure which puts the citizen closer to the decision making, which makes the will of the voter more important than the stock markets or the people who invest in them, and their petty concerns. She would make the same kind of mess that any other corporatist, any other beneficiary of the corrupting influence of money on world affairs would make, with her own twist of course. Everyone has a gimmick, after all.

No, the candidate for the Democrat Party next time around, will HAVE to be extraordinary, and not a beneficiary of the horrifically skewed systems which push money around, not be a person whose own investments have led to more suffering for innocents, not be a person who has made money from war, or from stocks of companies whose actions directly or indirectly contribute to suffering, either abroad or in their own communities. They are going to HAVE to put someone forward with GENUINE humility, an awareness and familiarity with hard living, someone who is more devoted to serving the people, than they are to serving themselves, and Hillary Clinton ticks not one single box on any checklist worth filling out in that regard.

It would be a hideous mistake, were the DNC to go that route, and I would hope the fact that fielding HRC failed last time, would wake them as a group, up to the fact that she is not leadership material, that her way of life and her lack of respect for the people who have been exploited in order for her to keep that lifestyle, render her utterly incompetent to solve the problems associated with that exploitation.

Wanna know the ATS members who voted for Hillary? Well, today is your lucky day because they all showed up for this thread with their European buddies that think they know what's best for us Americans.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UnBreakable
That's an Op-ed. You know that, right?
Not really Breaking News.

I got an email poll from the Democrats asking if I liked the possibility of Clinton running again. I was aghast. Have they learned nothing?

Nice of them to ask a foreigner, though.

How about Gavin Newsom?

a reply to: UnBreakable

I guess she hasn't gotten the message after losing two Presidential elections. She'll only hurt other democratic candidates who end-up throwing their hat in the ring. I think many in this country including myself are getting tired of the Oligarchy in the United States. I certainly don't think it's in America's best interest to have a select family like the Clinton's and the Bush's feel like they're all destined for power and the seat of the presidency of the United States.

I also think since we have a constitutional age requirement of 35 years-old as the required eligibility to run for president. We should also amend the constitution to have an age limit of 62 years-old to be eligible to run for president.

Mental sharpness and energy declines as we get older. Not to mention the increase chances of Dementia, early symptoms of Alzheimer's, and other physical ailments which can cause dangerous decision making that could affect the country and the world. I think the age of 35 is much more discriminating than putting a limit on an age to run. I've met some bright 30 year-olds in my day that could handle running this country.

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: UnBreakable

Trump will be so happy to run against her again.

It's gonna be a wonderful 6 more years! I'd say the Dems need to dump her, but really, all of their leaders are old, rich, and out of touch, just like her. Think of Pelosi, Feinstein, Waters, Sanders, etc.

a reply to: Gothmog

Yeah,she needs to run alright,she needs to run straight to jail.

a reply to: TheLead

My intellect may be a bit faulty at times,but,I seem to remember
that "SHE" stole the democratic nomination from Sanders.
Her response about the 4 dead Americans in Benghazi is something
to keep in mind.
Saying things like "Mr.and Mrs. America needs to be in re-education camps.
The possibility she was involved with a company that sold U.S. uranium
to a Russian company.
The problem with her e-mails should not be ignored and swept under the rug.

A champion of women...you have got to be joking!

a reply to: JBurns

That would be nice but I don't see that happening here.

a reply to: mamabeth

I'm not joking you, but apparently the dems have been for the last couple of years. They defended all of that , there was nothing to see. People that voted for Trump were evil nazi's followed by every ism or phone imaginable for voting for Trump, obviously they must of had a decent candidate for that to be the case. I'm supposed to think these people are reasonable caring people, but they were mad at me for not buying into the obvious hyperbolic praise of the lady. Even after the fact people still have defended her against every bit of her scandals and the election was stolen by Russia or Comey.

So my question to those people is what has changed to change their mind about her being president. Keep in mind these defenses persist to this day.

a reply to: TheLead

I only read a small part of your post and then stopped.
I voted for Trump in the last presidential election!
I did not want that brain-damaged witch in the White House!

Oh God, please no......

a reply to: mamabeth

Yeah, I thought you were a Trump voter, just figured I might as well reiterate just to give another opportunity for someone to explain that logic to me.

You mentioning brain damaged brings up another interesting point. Obama said she was the most qualified candidate ever, yet her sheer ineptitude of basic laws surrounding classification is what kept her crime from making her a criminal.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
If she wins, can I piss and moan for four years like my liberal friends? Or yell at the sky and cry "she's not my president"? Or join a conservative protest group similar to the left Antifa. destroying property and beating up people who voted for her? Maybe she figures the third time is the charm.

Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.

www.wsj.com...

As an independent liberal myself, i could never vote for her. If the Dems let her run you may as well just stick a knife in the party. It would undo all the gains from this election.

a reply to: Willtell

Bad pick. He only beat his unknown Republican candidate by a few points. Honestly it took Columbus, Cleveland, Dayton and Cincinnati to put him over the top. The rural areas did not vote him very well. His performance six years ago was a far better showing. Cordray would get a better showing than Brown, but would be a horrible pick for the Dems as he just isn’t likable enough to swing over soft Republican voters.

Ohio is a dud for Dem candidates right now.

Edit to add: Brown has announced that he might consider a run. But in either case the DNC should use his campaign as a model for the Midwest. I disagree. His negative ads (3-4 was addressing the same “scandal”) the other 3-4 were positive including fighting Chinese dog treats that were harming pets.

No that’d be sexist, and racist, and homophobic, and literally Hitler.
a reply to: UnBreakable

Please, pretty please, run for president again Hillary!

a reply to: Ahabstar

Maybe, but he’s better than Hillary

I know it's just an opinion piece but God I hope she doesn't run again. I really, really dislike trump as a person and as a leader, but having said that, I will not vote for Hillary.

Neither will most of the liberals that didn't vote or voted Green party. So Trump WILL get another 4 years for sure. And, I guess we can hope that Hillary is too old to run again in 2024.

a reply to: Willtell

My aunt’s cat that takes very foul craps outside the litter box could do a better job running the country than Hillary. Over 35 in cat years too.