## 2016 presidential nominees

Post by jonson000001 » Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:37 am

Who will run for president in 2016?
Democrats:
Some potential candidate:
Former senator and ssecurtry of state Clinton (New York)
Vice President Biden (Delaware),
Former governor O'Malley (Maryland)
sen sanders (Vermont )
governor Cuomo (New York)
Republican:
Many candidate:
Former governor Bush (Florida)
Governor Christie (New Jersey)
Former governor Perry (Texas)
Sen Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Governor walker (Wisconsin)
Do you know about any other name? Who do you think has the best chance?
Discuss
But most important: will we have another Bush vs Clinton?

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by wataru14 » Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:43 pm

I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run, even though she says she isn't. Hopefully she's just being coy and checking the waters. Barring that, I could dig Hillary. Sanders would be right up my alley, but I doubt he could win on his own. As for the Republicans, I'm not even going to comment. It will probably be another batshit insane theocrat like they've been churning out for the last few years.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by drawscore » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:08 pm

Hilary Clinton is still popular, but she is accumulating a lot of unwanted baggage. The use of a private and unsecure e-mail address, rather than the secure government address, is just the latest, and being subpoenaed to appear before congress again, is not going to work in her favor. She'll need to bring her "A-game" if she is to avoid a debacle in a setting that will be filmed from the moment she walks in the door, until the last question is asked, and will record every word she says, and every bit of facial and body language, which will then be analyzed and picked apart by both the left and right.
It remains to be seen, how much Benghazi will hurt her. It certainly won't do her any good, and you can bet your ass, that first, Democrat rivals, and, if she does get the nomination, her Republican rivals, and later, the Republican nominee, will try and dig up every bit of dirt they can find, going all the way back to the early 70's, when she was fired from the Watergate investigation, and branded as being an unethical lawyer, by members of her own party. They may even go back to her college days, when she was writing about Saul Alinsky, and carried on a brief personal correspondence with him.
All this is commonly available on the internet, from many different sources, both conservative, and liberal.
There are those that will say that going back 40 or more years is a bit of a stretch, but then, the Democrats are digging up shit from 30+ years ago, trying to discredit Fox's Bill O'Reilly, so, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. And O'Reilly is not considered as a probable candidate for the presidency.
Drawscore

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Chris12 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:07 am

In these parts its depicted as the inevitable battle between two Dynasties. The Clintons vs the Bushe's.

> It remains to be seen, how much Benghazi will hurt her

Seeing as its a conspiracy theory not taken seriously by many I would say not much. Some other things seem pretty damming and deserving so.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by skybird137 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:20 am

I just hope that there isn't a nominee who can't tell the difference between a country and an island, insulting the Scottish and Welsh populations in one fell swoop, knows not to turn the population on a union against them by making arrogant comments, and knows how to keep their lips shut concerning intelligence briefings.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Chris12 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:53 am

Or lie that an allied nation actively kills off its elderly to save costs! #Rick Santorum!

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Kyle » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:52 pm

> Chris12 wrote:In these parts its depicted as the inevitable battle between two Dynasties. The Clintons vs the Bushe's.

Probably. We tend to like our political family dynasties for some reason. We may as well throw in a Kennedy while we're at it. Even Cuomo is part of a political family, and some of the others might be and I just don't know about them (I have no idea who O'Malley or Sanders are). Although Jeb Bush's family name is more likely to hurt him than help him.
Anyway, of the people who've been listed, none of the ones I know anything about get me too terribly excited, although Walker is kind of intriguing. His views on a few issues, mainly education, seem rather bizarre though.
I just hope we have better choices than the last election.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Chris12 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 12:58 pm

> Probably. We tend to like our political family dynasties for some reason.

It seems to be a fairly recent thing though. Before the Kennedy's You got two Roosevelds and two Adam's but I believe that's it. There's no Washington, Lincoln or Jefferson dynasty.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by jonson000001 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:38 pm

well there is a kenndy: congressman joseph p. kennedy III (Massachusetts).
By the way mayor Rahm Emanuel (Illinois) is an intresting name. maybe not for president but for a running mate.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by drawscore » Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:16 am

Is there still a Kennedy family member in congress? I remember reading a while back, that for the first time in years, congress would convene without a Kennedy family member in either the house or the senate.
As for Rahm, I don't know. He, like Hillary, has baggage, and close ties to Obama, who is becoming increasingly unpopular. He might be a base favorite, along with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but could be perceived as being too far left by the more centrist members of the Democratic Party, and thus, unelectable. However, one "asset," is that he does have an abrasive personality, which is a good thing for a VP candidate. Traditionally, the VP candidate is the "attack dog" of the ticket, while the presidential candidate remains "above the fray." And people vote for the top of the ticket, not the VP.
Drawscore

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by jonson000001 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:07 pm

joseph p. kennedy III is a Congress Member from Massachusett since 2013. He is the grandson of Robert Kennedy.
A vp choise is very important. east coast presidental canidate like Clinton or O'Malley will probanbly try to balance the ticket with southern/west coat VP.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by misterg792000 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:23 pm

> drawscore wrote:Hilary Clinton is still popular, but she is accumulating a lot of unwanted baggage. The use of a private and unsecure e-mail address, rather than the secure government address, is just the latest

...just the latest manufactroversy, yet another thing that strangely wasn't a problem for you all when Powell did it as SecState.

> drawscore wrote:It remains to be seen, how much Benghazi will hurt her

Yes, I'm sure this is of vital concern to the "OMG CHEMTRAILS" crowd that wants us to know how the NWO knocked down the World Trade Center because of Agenda 21. You're deranged.
To those of us who pay attention to the facts of the matter instead of getting our "news" from a first-semester dropout drug addict and sex tourist, the dozens of investigations that found no "scandal" will suffice.

> drawscore wrote:There are those that will say that going back 40 or more years is a bit of a stretch, but then, the Democrats are digging up shit from 30+ years ago, trying to discredit Fox's Bill O'Reilly

BillO the Clown had no credibility to start with, and brought this scrutiny on himself by running his yap about Brian Williams after bragging about how "I covered four wars...with a pen!".

> drawscore wrote:close ties to Obama, who is becoming increasingly unpopular.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Or at the very least, tired of getting called out when you repeat unsubstantiated lies you hear on AM radio because you want them to be true, even when repeatedly presented with evidence that they are not?

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by misterg792000 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:25 pm

Also, re: the first post, the idea that Rand Paul would ever make it past New Hampshire is comedy gold. Perry too for that matter, given that his hilariously disastrous debate performance from 2012 will be replayed over and over.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by jonson000001 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:39 pm

> misterg792000 wrote:Also, re: the first post, the idea that Rand Paul would ever make it past New Hampshire is comedy gold. Perry too for that matter, given that his hilariously disastrous debate performance from 2012 will be replayed over and over.

The Republicans have to much canidates but no real strong canidate. It will be long and hard pramiry that could hurt the final canidate.
The Democrats have the opposed problem the have one strong canidate (Clinton) without any real threats so if she'll be nomaniee you could get a bit complacent.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Kyle » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:15 pm

What do people see in Hillary Clinton that makes them think she will be a good president?

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by drawscore » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:19 pm

>>>Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Or at the very least, tired of getting called out when you repeat unsubstantiated lies you hear on AM radio because you want them to be true, even when repeatedly presented with evidence that they are not?<<<
Do you suppose you could illustrate WHERE I am wrong, instead of just shouting "YOU ARE WRONG?"
So, point by point, first, Is Hillary Clinton accumulating a lot of unwanted baggage? Yes or no?
Second, will Benghazi hurt her politically, yes, or no? If "Yes," how much? If "NO," why not?
Third, did David Corn and Mother Jones go back 30 years to dig up dirt on O'Reilly? Yes, or no? If "YES," are political opponents justified going back to dig up dirt on Hillary? If not, why not? (BTW, Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964)
Fourth, has Obama's approval/popularity rating fallen in polls to under 50%, yes or no? If NO, what is your cite or proof?
You operate on the premise, that "If it's conservative, it's wrong." That's not necessarily so. And perhaps there are others that would like to answer the assertions, and offer their comments. And I don't mind disagreements, as long as a certain level of civility is maintained. I've always tried to disagree without being disagreeable.
Drawscore

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by misterg792000 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:28 pm

> drawscore wrote:>>>Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Or at the very least, tired of getting called out when you repeat unsubstantiated lies you hear on AM radio because you want them to be true, even when repeatedly presented with evidence that they are not?<<<
> Do you suppose you could illustrate WHERE I am wrong, instead of just shouting "YOU ARE WRONG?"

It's been illustrated, over and over (particularly your deranged obsession with Benghazi), and every time you disappear for a month so you can pretend it never happened

> drawscore wrote:So, point by point, first, Is Hillary Clinton accumulating a lot of unwanted baggage? Yes or no?

In the eyes of people like you who were never going to vote for her to begin with? Yes.

> drawscore wrote:Third, did David Corn and Mother Jones go back 30 years to dig up dirt on O'Reilly? Yes, or no? If "YES," are political opponents justified going back to dig up dirt on Hillary? If not, why not? (BTW, Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964)

ROFL. Bringing up support of Goldwater as a teenager and pretending it has any relevance whatsoever to today's Republican Party is just as cracked and disingenuous as calling it "The Party of Lincoln" is. But you'd have to actually have some knowledge of what you're talking about to understand that.

> drawscore wrote:Fourth, has Obama's approval/popularity rating fallen in polls to under 50%, yes or no? If NO, what is your cite or proof?

Wow, look at those goalposts move! From "becoming increasingly unpopular" (the refutation of which, BTW, was quite well cited) to "under 50%", which is par for the course for any second-term President in living memory.

> drawscore wrote:You operate on the premise, that "If it's conservative, it's wrong."

I operate on the premise of "if it's unsupported by evidence and/or history, it's wrong". You choose a conclusion and work backwards to try to justify it. Actually, as you've shown time and time again, you don't even do that, you let some dunderhead on the radio do it and just parrot what they say.

> drawscore wrote:And I don't mind disagreements, as long as a certain level of civility is maintained

You routinely cheer the death of other human beings in here, when you're not busy pretending to be a Vietnam vet. The word "civility" coming from you is a punchline.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by elusinius » Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:11 pm

I would like to see Howard Dean run again.
At least he knows how to run winning campaigns (re 2008).
The gobshites where frightened when he ran in 2004 because he raised his voice a bit.
Perhaps he could raise it a bit louder in 2016.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Kyle » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:04 pm

I never did understand why Dean's shouting freaked people out so much.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by misterg792000 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:07 pm

> elusinius wrote:I would like to see Howard Dean run again.
> At least he knows how to run winning campaigns (re 2008).
> The gobshites where frightened when he ran in 2004 because he raised his voice a bit.
> Perhaps he could raise it a bit louder in 2016.

Thing is, the crowd was making plenty of noise that just wasn't being picked up by that mic, so it's not even the embarrassing faux-pas people act like it was. Either way, it says something pathetic about this country when something so inconsequential is what sinks a candidacy.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:53 pm

> Kyle wrote:I never did understand why Dean's shouting freaked people out so much.

I never understood that either. I thought it was BS then, and I still think so now.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Scottstud94 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:44 am

Hillary is going to win. Republicans can cry all they want, based on the electoral college there is no way any Republican can win, and thank goodness for that.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:49 am

> Scottstud94 wrote:Hillary is going to win. Republicans can cry all they want, based on the electoral college there is no way any Republican can win, and thank goodness for that.

Which is probably the real reason the Republicans are doing their damnedest to undermine her any way they can. Benghazi didn't work, so now it's the email business - never mind the fact that she was hardly the only politician to use their own email server for official business. I don't know if i care for her being President for various reasons, but the continual Republican sniping at her is absolutely sickening and indeed smacks of desperation.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by jonson000001 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:45 am

American people elected a Black person to be president. But, are the ready to elect a woman?
(p.s. I'm not an American, I'm asking as an outsider)

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:54 am

> jonson000001 wrote:American people elected a Black person to be person. But, are the ready to elect a woman?
> (p.s. I'm not an American, I'm asking as an outsider)

I think we are. There are some I'd happily vote for myself if they were alive and active in politics now instead a couple of generations ago, such as Margaret Chase Smith, a senator (from my own state I might add) who was active in the 1950s and opposed the excesses of McCarthyism. But many of the choices that we've had since would have been utter disasters. I don't even want to think of Sarah Palin as president! My problems with Hillary Clinton aren't that she is a woman but that I don't see her as being much different than many Republicans with her big business interests and evident feelings of entitlement.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Kyle » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:13 pm

> Scottstud94 wrote:Hillary is going to win. Republicans can cry all they want, based on the electoral college there is no way any Republican can win, and thank goodness for that.

The media certainly has anointed her as president.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Kyle » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:14 pm

> jonson000001 wrote:American people elected a Black person to be president. But, are the ready to elect a woman?
> (p.s. I'm not an American, I'm asking as an outsider)

No, we will likely all riot and burn down the country.

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by drawscore » Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:46 pm

> Kyle wrote:

> > Scottstud94 wrote:Hillary is going to win. Republicans can cry all they want, based on the electoral college there is no way any Republican can win, and thank goodness for that.

> The media certainly has anointed her as president.

The electoral college math favors the Democrat candidate. The last I saw, the Democrats had a lock on 220-230 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, while the Republicans have about 180-190. For the Republicans to win, they would have to "run the table." It can be done, but it won''t be easy. But, you never know. I can still see Harry Truman holding up the paper with the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" from the 1948 election.
Drawscore

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:00 pm

> drawscore wrote:I can still see Harry Truman holding up the paper with the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" from the 1948 election.
> Drawscore

If you don't mind my asking, who would you favor running for the GOP nomination this year out of all the possible (if not necessarily likely) candidates?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: 2016 presidential nominees

Post by drawscore » Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:36 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:

> > drawscore wrote:I can still see Harry Truman holding up the paper with the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" from the 1948 election.
> > Drawscore

> If you don't mind my asking, who would you favor running for the GOP nomination this year out of all the possible (if not necessarily likely) candidates?

I think Scott Walker. But then ANY Republican is preferable to Hillary Clinton, even a RINO like Jeb Bush.
Drawscore