Unlike your witty criticisms of Clinton.
But she isn't a poster here. CFC has been always run as a reptilian-free forum
Hypothetical Walker vs Clinton
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
But she isn't a poster here. CFC has been always run as a reptilian-free forum
We still have snakes.
Berzerker
Deity
Hillary voted to invade Iraq so she could appear tough
voting for her would be pissing on the graves of the people who died so she could run for prez
voting for her would be pissing on the graves of the people who died so she could run for prez
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
You act like she's the only one who voted to invade Iraq
Not even George W Bush voted to invade Iraq.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Given the way the Bush administration had stampeded the public anything but a yes vote would have been a total violation of the concept of representative government. I called my congressman to say no, and the phone person told me they had put on three temps to answer phones and I was only the fourth no the whole day.
It's funny how people would rather pretend that stampede never happened than acknowledge that the administration had the capability to cause it. Of course that would pretty much demand that something be done to prevent it happening again.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
And honestly, the American public had been wanting any pretense to topple Saddam's regime since the 90s.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I wouldn't say 'wanted', but it wasn't a hard thing to sell, that's for sure. Hopefully we learned something from that, but I am not terribly hopeful on the subject.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Walkers are even less human! And if one bites Clinton, she will turn as well.
Walker wins IMO - Clinton can be eaten or bitten and in such case she is gonna turn anyway.
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,989
I don't think she is electable, either. On the other side, her husband's name is very powerful. Maybe they will run her because momentum is running against the Democrats, and that means a Republican President, Senate, and Congress in 2016. The Democrats just need to run somebody to fall on the sword and that somebody is Hillary Clinton.
ADDIT: Chelsea is 35 in 2016, right? I would say she has a better chance for three reasons. First, I think her charisma is better. Second, her father's name is very powerful. Third, she is young and can wait until the political winds favor her party better.
Maybe Clinton vs Walker in 2032?
Wait, what do people think the word "electable" means? She ran a national campaign and nearly won a major party nomination in 2008, she's definitely electable.
Somebody like an extremist who has no national experience (or any experience whatsoever outside) their R+20 district is probably unelectable. Or a mayor. Or that homeless guy on the street, he's probably not electable.
As if on cue, I'm seeing a bunch of rumors today that Warren is being slotted for a minor leadership role. Not leader or whip, but as a voice for progressives in leadership meetings.
I figure MacCaskill is most likely to make a run for leadership post-Reid/post-Schumer/post-Durbin. She orchestrated the Kansas senate move this year with Orman and Taylor, and she's making a lot of noise against Harry Reid now. She's the kind of power player that moves up the ranks, but has made no overt moves towards the presidency so I think her ultimate goal is in the Senate.
I don't think it was just for appearances. While she was apologizing for the Iraq war vote in her book, she was simultaneously making moves to appear tougher than Obama on Libya, Syria, and oddly enough Iraq. I'm fairly certain she's actually a hawk, and was making the apology for the war vote as calculated outreach to the people who voted against her in 2008.
Somebody like an extremist who has no national experience (or any experience whatsoever outside) their R+20 district is probably unelectable. Or a mayor. Or that homeless guy on the street, he's probably not electable.
As if on cue, I'm seeing a bunch of rumors today that Warren is being slotted for a minor leadership role. Not leader or whip, but as a voice for progressives in leadership meetings.
I figure MacCaskill is most likely to make a run for leadership post-Reid/post-Schumer/post-Durbin. She orchestrated the Kansas senate move this year with Orman and Taylor, and she's making a lot of noise against Harry Reid now. She's the kind of power player that moves up the ranks, but has made no overt moves towards the presidency so I think her ultimate goal is in the Senate.
I don't think it was just for appearances. While she was apologizing for the Iraq war vote in her book, she was simultaneously making moves to appear tougher than Obama on Libya, Syria, and oddly enough Iraq. I'm fairly certain she's actually a hawk, and was making the apology for the war vote as calculated outreach to the people who voted against her in 2008.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Yeah it's been weird reading this "she's unelectable claim" still batting around since, what, 2000? Her whole life? She's one of the most electable persons. Her biggest problem in the 2008 election was that young people grew up on a diet of "Clinton is terrible because reasons" which was softened by the election and then completely turned around as secretary of state.
Also her big stance on Republicans in 2008 was that they'd obstruct everything and she was the one to handle that. Obama was like "naw, they won't do that. Let's reach out to them and try." Clinton can damn near run on that alone in 2016. "I told you so" in the the way that lets everyone in on it like we were doing the telling.
Also her big stance on Republicans in 2008 was that they'd obstruct everything and she was the one to handle that. Obama was like "naw, they won't do that. Let's reach out to them and try." Clinton can damn near run on that alone in 2016. "I told you so" in the the way that lets everyone in on it like we were doing the telling.
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,989
Maybe 2016 is going to be a Bush versus Clinton rematch. The last time was 1992 and you could type into your Unix server:
How do you rate George Bush's incompetence?
Unix Server: Unmatched '.
What would you have if you had one ( for every $ Congress spends?
Unix Server: Too many ('s.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,316
I would have to vote against Walker again in such as scenario. He's not quite as bad as Rick Santorum, who doesn't care about black people - would post the link but his language would violate forum rules - but his domestic policies line up very well with what I oppose. Clinton isn't my favorite candidate, but at least she isn't a total opposite.
Although if those are the actual candidates, I'll be looking seriously at any and all 3rd-party candidates as well.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
What if Yellowstone erupted during the next term. Who would you want to lead America in such a catastrophic time?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Wouldn't make any difference.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
You would want a president who could stop the partisan bickering in that situation.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Why? They could bicker, they could agree, they could all just go home. The results would be the same in any event.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
They need to come up with a strategic plan to combat the temporary global ice age, which would be on the new "Axis of Evil" then.
Similar threads
