Clinton Cash

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
You could clothe the world with the dirty laundry Clinton has in her closet. Same could be said for most lifetime politicians.

I think the Democrats best hope is her to lose/drop out for whatever reason. She will lose in the general. You can’t be a populist anti-Wall Street warrior when you’ve been in the crony capitalism game for decades. People are going to see right through the ruse. [/quote]

Obama duped the American people about him being against Wall Street, when in fact he took more money from Wall Street than any politician in history.

“The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history.”

People will always fall for bullshit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67770.html[/quote]

Ironically, Hillary would have been a better president than obama. [/quote]

A far better President than the gigantic failure that is the Obama years.

42

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Too much smoke in the Clinton forest for the past 25 years. Everything from wisps to towering billows.

There’s fires in there somewhere. Plenty of 'em.[/quote]

But is there enough to keep enough people from voting for her? People will overlook a lot of shit and still vote the way they want to. Our liberal media sure is hell isn’t going to fan the flames of that smoke.

I still think Hilary is going to win.[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. The “liberal” media has been asking a lot of questions about her lately and asking her to come clean on issues. She isn’t going to get a pass and I think some on the left are still hoping she goes down while they still have a chance to run someone else.

Better to lose a candidate now than during the general. [/quote]

I agree, something about Hilary rubs people the wrong way, though I cannot put my finger on what it is about her that people do not like. This goes for liberals as well as republicans. I do not think the democrats have a better candidate though. Maybe somebody will come out of the woodwork like obama in '08, but I don’t see another viable candidate. I think the candidacy is hers for the taking, scandals be damned.

I do think that this is a legit scandal where the whole email thing smelled like a witch hunt. [/quote]

The reason that many people inherently dislike her is because she is not a people person. She feels superior and shows it. She has no love in her for the common man.

43

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again…I just don’t think that “Hating Hillary” will be enough for the
GOP to win.

The GOP candidate will have to 1) paint a clear vision for the direction that they will take America AND 2) make sure that they are coming across as likable and worth someone’s vote.

I just don’t think that hating Hillary will be enough.

Mufasa [/quote]

Not being Hillary will be enough.

For example, picture Marco Rubio on stage standing next to Hillary Clinton. Enough said—she’s not beating him.

44

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Too much smoke in the Clinton forest for the past 25 years. Everything from wisps to towering billows.

There’s fires in there somewhere. Plenty of 'em.[/quote]

But is there enough to keep enough people from voting for her? People will overlook a lot of shit and still vote the way they want to. Our liberal media sure is hell isn’t going to fan the flames of that smoke.

I still think Hilary is going to win.[/quote]

NY times, National Journal, etc.

I don’t know what Clinton’s camp is thinking, but “staying” silent isn’t the way to go. I think she is in danger of having the left feel the need to pick someone else to have a chance.

If Democrats are smart they will do it sooner than later. The dynamics greatly favor their opponent and it may be easy to tie HRC to Obama as more of the same corrupt Washington. Essentially take Obama’s 08 playbook “McCain=Bush 2.0” and flip the script. Obama’s approval isn’t nearly as low as W’s (assuming trends hold) and barring collapse the economy will be much better than it was last go round, so it probably won’t be so easy, but should prove pretty potent.

No wonder ever Republican in the world is running for President…they are licking their chops and when 2012 might not have had them favored big time I can’t see a scenario where 2016 doesn’t.*

*Barring an amazing year foreign policy/economics wise that suddenly makes the Democratic brand hot which is unlikely.

45

It looks like this is only going to get worse for the Hillary campaign.

According to a new poll of registered voters in Virginia, in just two months, Hillary Clinton has lost major ground in the crucial swing state. The dual-scandals of her deleted emails and the corruption charges involving her family charity have taken a serious toll. Her five point lead against Republican Jeb Bush is now a two-point deficit.

In February, Clinton beat Bush 48-43%. Today, in this same poll, he beats her 48-46%.

When matched up against Marco Rubio in February, Clinton enjoyed a 51-42% lead. That lead is now down to 49-45%. Against Rand Paul, Clinton only holds a 2 point lead of 49-47%; two months ago, she dominated the Kentucky Republican Senator by a whopping 10 points, 52-42%.

Against the 7 GOP challengers, Clinton did not once break 50%. This is bad news for the most well-known politician in the country not named Barack Obama. It is also bad news because the corruption charges involving the Clinton family charity and Ms. Clinton?s time as secretary of state are just now starting to be detailed and reported. We?re only at the beginning of the beginning of the ?Clinton Cash? scandal.

The worse news for Clinton is that this poll was taken between April 13-24, which means that all the fallout from the ?Clinton Cash? scandal has not thus far been fully polled.

In February, in this same poll, Clinton?s favorability rating was only upside down by 3 points, 46-49%.

She is currently upside down 8 points, 44-52%.

46

Okay…

So the question is…

Will Conservatives “rally” behind Jeb Bush (the most likely candidate AT THIS POINT)…or will they play the “Whose more Conservative” game of the last election?

Mufasa

47

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay…

So the question is…

Will Conservatives “rally” behind Jeb Bush (the most likely candidate AT THIS POINT)…or will they play the “Whose more Conservative” game of the last election?

Mufasa[/quote]

This is the year we can play the “whose more conservative game”…and still win.

48

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Too much smoke in the Clinton forest for the past 25 years. Everything from wisps to towering billows.

There’s fires in there somewhere. Plenty of 'em.[/quote]

But is there enough to keep enough people from voting for her? People will overlook a lot of shit and still vote the way they want to. Our liberal media sure is hell isn’t going to fan the flames of that smoke.

I still think Hilary is going to win.[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. The “liberal” media has been asking a lot of questions about her lately and asking her to come clean on issues. She isn’t going to get a pass and I think some on the left are still hoping she goes down while they still have a chance to run someone else.

Better to lose a candidate now than during the general. [/quote]

I agree, something about Hilary rubs people the wrong way, though I cannot put my finger on what it is about her that people do not like. This goes for liberals as well as republicans. I do not think the democrats have a better candidate though. Maybe somebody will come out of the woodwork like obama in '08, but I don’t see another viable candidate. I think the candidacy is hers for the taking, scandals be damned.

I do think that this is a legit scandal where the whole email thing smelled like a witch hunt. [/quote]

I think people viewed her as a strong woman by standing by Bill in the face of embarrassment from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

A woman who earned her place, only to find out she is terribly shady all on her own.

49

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay…

So the question is…

Will Conservatives “rally” behind Jeb Bush (the most likely candidate AT THIS POINT)…or will they play the “Whose more Conservative” game of the last election?

Mufasa[/quote]

This is the year we can play the “whose more conservative game”…and still win.

[/quote]

Let’s hope so…and hope that the GOP doesn’t snatch defeat from the hands of Victory…(or something like that…!)

Mufasa

50

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Too much smoke in the Clinton forest for the past 25 years. Everything from wisps to towering billows.

There’s fires in there somewhere. Plenty of 'em.[/quote]

But is there enough to keep enough people from voting for her? People will overlook a lot of shit and still vote the way they want to. Our liberal media sure is hell isn’t going to fan the flames of that smoke.

I still think Hilary is going to win.[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. The “liberal” media has been asking a lot of questions about her lately and asking her to come clean on issues. She isn’t going to get a pass and I think some on the left are still hoping she goes down while they still have a chance to run someone else.

Better to lose a candidate now than during the general. [/quote]

I agree, something about Hilary rubs people the wrong way, though I cannot put my finger on what it is about her that people do not like. This goes for liberals as well as republicans. I do not think the democrats have a better candidate though. Maybe somebody will come out of the woodwork like obama in '08, but I don’t see another viable candidate. I think the candidacy is hers for the taking, scandals be damned.

I do think that this is a legit scandal where the whole email thing smelled like a witch hunt. [/quote]

Here I’ll put a finger on it for you. She is an insincere, fake as hell, phoney lying piece of shit and people can see it.
[/quote]
Yeah, but that can be said for a lot of politicians.

[quote]

The Democrats are doing themselves a huge disservice by not having anyone challenge her in the primary. That is their opportunity to see is she still is a viable candidate. If she can’t get past a friendly challenger from her own party there is no way she can get past a determined Republican.

How could you say the email server scandal was a witch hunt? Laws clearly were broken. Nobody wipes a server that is a target of a subpoena risking criminal charges for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence because they are protecting their Yoga routine. I am disappointed that they haven’t gone after the lawyers who were involved and threatened them with disbarment. [/quote]

It just seemed like reaching. I could be wrong, but of all the smoke surrounding the Clinton’s, that’s merely a puff.

I think what it is about Hillary is that she is just a shrill, classless bitch. She’s the kind of woman who sits with her legs wide open and burps out load and puts her thumb on her head. And still I would take her over obama any day of the week. At least she’s not titanically stupid, idealistic and completely detached from every semblance of of reality. She’s not my political slant, but I don’t think she would have fucked up foreign policy quite as bad. She’d at least tell the Saudis to lick her pussy, (or cock. Not sure what she has.)

51

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
You could clothe the world with the dirty laundry Clinton has in her closet. Same could be said for most lifetime politicians.

I think the Democrats best hope is her to lose/drop out for whatever reason. She will lose in the general. You can’t be a populist anti-Wall Street warrior when you’ve been in the crony capitalism game for decades. People are going to see right through the ruse. [/quote]

Obama duped the American people about him being against Wall Street, when in fact he took more money from Wall Street than any politician in history.

“The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history.”

People will always fall for bullshit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67770.html[/quote]

Ironically, Hillary would have been a better president than obama. [/quote]

A far better President than the gigantic failure that is the Obama years.
[/quote]

It’s going to take a long time to fix the damage that dumbass has caused. I don’t think it can all be undone. I feel history will judge him very harshly. Anybody who can make a democrat miss Bush must suck. I’ve heard it… Not like on the news or anything, just people talking.

52

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Too much smoke in the Clinton forest for the past 25 years. Everything from wisps to towering billows.

There’s fires in there somewhere. Plenty of 'em.[/quote]

But is there enough to keep enough people from voting for her? People will overlook a lot of shit and still vote the way they want to. Our liberal media sure is hell isn’t going to fan the flames of that smoke.

I still think Hilary is going to win.[/quote]

I’m not so sure about that. The “liberal” media has been asking a lot of questions about her lately and asking her to come clean on issues. She isn’t going to get a pass and I think some on the left are still hoping she goes down while they still have a chance to run someone else.

Better to lose a candidate now than during the general. [/quote]

I agree, something about Hilary rubs people the wrong way, though I cannot put my finger on what it is about her that people do not like. This goes for liberals as well as republicans. I do not think the democrats have a better candidate though. Maybe somebody will come out of the woodwork like obama in '08, but I don’t see another viable candidate. I think the candidacy is hers for the taking, scandals be damned.

I do think that this is a legit scandal where the whole email thing smelled like a witch hunt. [/quote]

I think people viewed her as a strong woman by standing by Bill in the face of embarrassment from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

A woman who earned her place, only to find out she is terribly shady all on her own. [/quote]

It’s not her past, it’s her presence. She just comes off as a bitch, she always has. She probably wears a wallet on a chain when nobody’s looking.

Anyhow, just like I felt like a democrat was going to win in 08, I feel a republican is going to win in '16. It’s just a gut feeling at this point, but I think over all people are sick of obama and all the shit in the ME has people scared and the democrats are perceived as weak in that area.

I see the ME becoming an increasingly large issue in the election as the threats from the region grows, as does the denial from the administration of it’s reality.
To me it looks like a very slow escalation in to a global conflict. The problems sure ain’t getting better, they are not staying steady, it’s just getting worse on a daily basis.

53

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Ironically, (…) would have been a better president than obama. [/quote]

We could start another thread with everyone who would have been a better president.

I’d much rather have had John Stewart in the oval office the past 8 years. Shit, puff daddy would have worked out better and would have appeased the racists. [/quote]

I would rather have dog shit as president. I think Mike Tyson whacked out on coke and meth would have been a better president. He wouldn’t cheat with the interns, he’d rape them. Obama does not live on the same plane of existence as reality. “Oh you Americans… Iran is ok, really. They just like different food, they mean no harm”

54

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again…I just don’t think that “Hating Hillary” will be enough for the
GOP to win.

The GOP candidate will have to 1) paint a clear vision for the direction that they will take America AND 2) make sure that they are coming across as likable and worth someone’s vote.

I just don’t think that hating Hillary will be enough.

Mufasa [/quote]

The GOP candidate just has to be likable. Likable people win elections. If people voted on the actual issues and understood them even modestly, obama wouldn’t have won. He talked a good game and made people feel good.
the GOP candidate just need to do the same thing. Just be likable and make people feel good.
Face it, the people who decide these things aren’t talking about it now, they don’t even know it’s coming. They are watching X factor or American Idol, or Game of Thrones and have no idea an election is even coming next year. The deciders jump in at the last minute and pick the best sounding, most attractive, most likable person. The most important feature a candidate needs to have is being likable. If they are likable, they stand a good chance.
That’s why the mid-terms are so different. That the election for those who do pay attention on a regular basis.

55

[quote]pat wrote:
The GOP candidate just has to be likable. Likable people win elections. If people voted on the actual issues and understood them even modestly, obama wouldn’t have won. He talked a good game and made people feel good.
the GOP candidate just need to do the same thing. Just be likable and make people feel good.
Face it, the people who decide these things aren’t talking about it now, they don’t even know it’s coming. They are watching X factor or American Idol, or Game of Thrones and have no idea an election is even coming next year. The deciders jump in at the last minute and pick the best sounding, most attractive, most likable person. The most important feature a candidate needs to have is being likable. If they are likable, they stand a good chance.
That’s why the mid-terms are so different. That the election for those who do pay attention on a regular basis.
[/quote]

So much truth in that post it hurts.

56

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again…I just don’t think that “Hating Hillary” will be enough for the
GOP to win.

The GOP candidate will have to 1) paint a clear vision for the direction that they will take America AND 2) make sure that they are coming across as likable and worth someone’s vote.

I just don’t think that hating Hillary will be enough.

Mufasa [/quote]

The GOP candidate just has to be likable. Likable people win elections. If people voted on the actual issues and understood them even modestly, obama wouldn’t have won. He talked a good game and made people feel good.
the GOP candidate just need to do the same thing. Just be likable and make people feel good.
Face it, the people who decide these things aren’t talking about it now, they don’t even know it’s coming. They are watching X factor or American Idol, or Game of Thrones and have no idea an election is even coming next year. The deciders jump in at the last minute and pick the best sounding, most attractive, most likable person. The most important feature a candidate needs to have is being likable. If they are likable, they stand a good chance.
That’s why the mid-terms are so different. That the election for those who do pay attention on a regular basis.
[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head!

When hear people talking about various positions that each candidate might take on inconsequential issues I laugh to myself. In the end the most likeable and charismatic candidate will win. It’s really that simple and it has always been that simple since the dawning of the media age. Abe Lincoln would have lost had he been running in the media age.

That’s (only) one reason that I’m convinced Hillary is not going to be the next President. Just about any of the GOP candidates can defeat her scandals or no scandals she not winning. Of course the quality of the campaign will ultimately determine who wins. But, wts it’s very difficult for any such marketing to actually work when your product (the candidate) is not charismatic and likeable.

Granted we have never had a woman vs. a man in a Presidential race so that may change things a bit. But I don’t believe it will matter much in the end. You are either likeable or you’re not and she is NOT.

57

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The GOP candidate just has to be likable. Likable people win elections. If people voted on the actual issues and understood them even modestly, obama wouldn’t have won. He talked a good game and made people feel good.
the GOP candidate just need to do the same thing. Just be likable and make people feel good.
Face it, the people who decide these things aren’t talking about it now, they don’t even know it’s coming. They are watching X factor or American Idol, or Game of Thrones and have no idea an election is even coming next year. The deciders jump in at the last minute and pick the best sounding, most attractive, most likable person. The most important feature a candidate needs to have is being likable. If they are likable, they stand a good chance.
That’s why the mid-terms are so different. That the election for those who do pay attention on a regular basis.
[/quote]

So much truth in that post it hurts. [/quote]

Sadly so. But that’s just the reality. People just don’t care about policy. They shoot for affable.

58

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again…I just don’t think that “Hating Hillary” will be enough for the
GOP to win.

The GOP candidate will have to 1) paint a clear vision for the direction that they will take America AND 2) make sure that they are coming across as likable and worth someone’s vote.

I just don’t think that hating Hillary will be enough.

Mufasa [/quote]

The GOP candidate just has to be likable. Likable people win elections. If people voted on the actual issues and understood them even modestly, obama wouldn’t have won. He talked a good game and made people feel good.
the GOP candidate just need to do the same thing. Just be likable and make people feel good.
Face it, the people who decide these things aren’t talking about it now, they don’t even know it’s coming. They are watching X factor or American Idol, or Game of Thrones and have no idea an election is even coming next year. The deciders jump in at the last minute and pick the best sounding, most attractive, most likable person. The most important feature a candidate needs to have is being likable. If they are likable, they stand a good chance.
That’s why the mid-terms are so different. That the election for those who do pay attention on a regular basis.
[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head!

When hear people talking about various positions that each candidate might take on inconsequential issues I laugh to myself. In the end the most likeable and charismatic candidate will win. It’s really that simple and it has always been that simple since the dawning of the media age. Abe Lincoln would have lost had he been running in the media age.
[/quote]
I don’t know, Abe had a way with words. He might have one anyway.

She just puts people off, which is great for the GOP. If the Republicans can put forth a candidate that people feel like they could share a beer with, he will be a shoe in. Hillary, barring disaster, is going to be the democratic candidate. And the past 2 elections, neither Romney or McCain flat were not personable. Obama puts forth a mellow and reasonable sounding persona, which concealed probably the most radical leftist president the nation has ever seen. But he spoke well. I remember in '08, I was at a party, and there was this otherwise seemingly intelligent older woman say “Have you heard obama talk? He speaks so nice!” I had to walk away, I wasn’t about to get into a political discussion with a neighbors parent about how dumb that sounded to me. But she’s one of those, one who has no idea a presidential election is nearing, no clue who the candidates are and what they represent. About 2 months before the election, she’ll listen and vote for the person who tickles her ass the most, no matter what their politics are.
I hear conservatives opine about the Reagan days. People didn’t really care about politics anymore than they do now. Reagan could sell snow to an Eskimo. He was a master orator. Bush Sr. won in '88 because Dukakis sounded like a complete moron. Clinton won in '92 because he could talk you in to letting him fuck your wife and have you thank him for it, etc.
I don’t think this will change anytime soon.

59

[quote]pat wrote:

I hear conservatives opine about the Reagan days. People didn’t really care about politics anymore than they do now. Reagan could sell snow to an Eskimo. He was a master orator.[/quote]

True, very true.

Yes, but he was also much shorter than Bush and also had zero charisma.

[quote]Clinton won in '92 because he could talk you in to letting him fuck your wife and have you thank him for it, etc.
I don’t think this will change anytime soon.[/quote]

It will never change as long as people can see the candidates. The Kennedy/Nixon debate was the first to be held via television. Those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won. Those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won. That was the moment of transition into the political media age. From that point forward personality, looks, charisma have carried one candidate to victory over the other.

Someday you see someone like Ben asspick…oops I mean Aflick (who has political aspirations) run for high office. And unless there is someone who can match his charisma and personality he will win…sad but true.

As for 2016 I’m just a bit giddy at the thought of Hillary trying to capture the White House.