Interesting political dynamic developing

[Jack Davenport]

Democrats a bit of advice. Do not nominate Hillary Clinton if you want to keep the White House 20 months from now. You guys need to beg and plead with Elizabeth Warren to jump into the race. I don't know what in the hell Obama is doing or thinking but he is being perceived as weak at a very crucial time and Hillary cannot run with any serious foreign policy credentials considering her performance as Secretary of State

Foreign policy and amnesty are going to be the key issues in 2016 and for the first time during his presidency I am hearing traditional Democrats complain about him. It is almost 2 years before the next election and at this point , I am almost ready to call it for the Republicans. Somebody needs to have a talk with the chosen one before he hands the presidency to the Republicans on a silver platter.

 

[Jagger69]

You could be right but a lot can and will change between now and then so it's way too early to predict where the situation will be 20 months from now. I would argue that, aside from the partisan chest-beating that comes from winning on election night, it really doesn't matter. Whomever gets elected will still preside over the same rotten ineffective gridlock system we have in place now and all who wield political power will still be beholden to the same sinister special interests that trump the well-being of the average American citizen as an action priority. As I have stated before, if the republicans are more motivated to vote than the democrats as a voting bloc (a distinct possibility....maybe even a likelihood) or if they can draw a plurality of independents they will take the White House in 2016. If not, (much more likely if they nominate some far-right nutjob like Ted Cruz), it'll be the dems again. Tweedle-dee or Tweedle-dum, down the river and closer to going over the falls we go no matter who is steering the ship.

 

[xfire]

Democrats a bit of advice. Do not nominate Hillary Clinton if you want to keep the White House 20 months from now. You guys need to beg and plead with Elizabeth Warren to jump into the race. I don't know what in the hell Obama is doing or thinking but he is being perceived as weak at a very crucial time and Hillary cannot run with any serious foreign policy credentials considering her performance as Secretary of State

Foreign policy and amnesty are going to be the key issues in 2016 and for the first time during his presidency I am hearing traditional Democrats complain about him. It is almost 2 years before the next election and at this point , I am almost ready to call it for the Republicans. Somebody needs to have a talk with the chosen one before he hands the presidency to the Republicans on a silver platter.

Good advice, and I think everyone who posts here that leans dem/lib/left agrees with the sentiment that Hillary shouldn't be the Democratic nominee.

 

[sean miguel]

if both of them run, I think Clinton and Bush, ok, Hillary and Jeb (better?) will be the inevitable nominees. Yeah, Hillary was supposedly the lock in 2008 but Obama wasn't entirely an unknown. He burst on the national scene in 2004 giving the keynote address at the Democrat national convention. And face it, he was a brilliant campaigner and everything that went with it.

I don't see an Elizabeth Warren replicating that. She looks like my grandma, except mine probably is more native american and doesn't even know it.

 

[Jack Davenport]

If you guys think we have had some knock down drag out fights on this board you should see some of the ones i have had with blue dog Democrats down at the local watering hole. The difference now is that they are starting to criticize Obama and they hate Hillary

I honestly don't know what he thinks he is doing by bending over backwards to call ISIS anything but radical Muslims. I almost think he wants the Arab world to fuck up. Now Russia are buzzing English airspace flexing their muscles

 

[sean miguel]

the explanation the administration has put forth makes sense to me. In the islamic world, groups such as ISIS are framing this conflict as America waging a war against islam. Obama has wanted to avoid any kind of sound bite that could be used to support that (and Bush did the same). I'm totally ok with them saying "this isn't about islam" <nudge><wink> as long as they keep killing these motherfuckers. That last part being crucial. I would hope the American public doesn't need the president to point out what the threat is.

 

[Jack Davenport]

He is the president
I didn't vote for him but I damn sure am pulling for him to be successful when it comes to killing the bad guys
He was doing it but he is acting like ISIS are nothing but a bunch of street thugs that we can contain. These motherfuckers plan on wreaking havoc on European soil. I am afraid that if that happens all hell will break loose. They want a 911 type event in Berlin Rome Paris or London. We could do serious damage to them if we had the will. They ride around in vehicles flying the white and black ISIS flag for crissakes. A couple of Marine batallions could take them out in Libya alone.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Democrats a bit of advice. Do not nominate Hillary Clinton if you want to keep the White House 20 months from now. You guys need to beg and plead with Elizabeth Warren to jump into the race. I don't know what in the hell Obama is doing or thinking but he is being perceived as weak at a very crucial time and Hillary cannot run with any serious foreign policy credentials considering her performance as Secretary of State

Foreign policy and amnesty are going to be the key issues in 2016 and for the first time during his presidency I am hearing traditional Democrats complain about him. It is almost 2 years before the next election and at this point , I am almost ready to call it for the Republicans. Somebody needs to have a talk with the chosen one before he hands the presidency to the Republicans on a silver platter.

Correct, the Democrats are well aware that it will not be as easy to win the White House in 2016. That's why they have started extra early defining and destroying the character of potential 2016 GOP candidates. They know that character assassination has been much more effective than actually winning debates, so they are starting extra early in order to prop up the Democrats 2016 candidate. They always want to fight a weakened opponent.


As for Hillary being poison because of problems in the Obama administration? Hillary has been gone long enough to distance herself from some of the problems. She is not a crony of Obama either.

It seems like she is disliked by anti-Capitalist Democrats, but they are not as powerful within their own party and will probably be silenced anyway. I think you'll see Hillary paired up with a non-White Democrat, perhaps the mayor of San Antonio in hopes of putting Southwestern red/purple states in play.

Do you hear "traditional" Democrats complain about amnesty?

 

[Deepcover]

He is the president
I didn't vote for him but I damn sure am pulling for him to be successful when it comes to killing the bad guys
He was doing it but he is acting like ISIS are nothing but a bunch of street thugs that we can contain. These motherfuckers plan on wreaking havoc on European soil. I am afraid that if that happens all hell will break loose. They want a 911 type event in Berlin Rome Paris or London. We could do serious damage to them if we had the will. They ride around in vehicles flying the white and black ISIS flag for crissakes. A couple of Marine batallions could take them out in Libya alone.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Hilldebeast or Lieawatha would be destroyed by a truly conservative GOP candidate. I just hope they're dumb enough to nominate either of those hags.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Hilldebeast or Lieawatha would be destroyed by a truly conservative GOP candidate. I just hope they're dumb enough to nominate either of those hags.

What is truly conservative in 2016? Anti-gay rights? A lot of independents and even conservatives are pro-gay marriage. Anti-abortion? Abortion access isn't really going to go anywhere, and it seems to be a net negative at the voting booth.

Fiscal conservatism isn't going to sell well at the voting booth when wages have stagnated under liberals and conservatives.

I think shades of populism will help the GOP nominee defeat Elizabeth Warren.

 

[pool_hustler]

I agree Clinton's a vey vulnerable (and imo deservedly so) candidate...so long as the GOP doesn't lose its mind and nominate somebody who's far right.

the explanation the administration has put forth makes sense to me. In the islamic world, groups such as ISIS are framing this conflict as America waging a war against islam. Obama has wanted to avoid any kind of sound bite that could be used to support that (and Bush did the same). I'm totally ok with them saying "this isn't about islam" <nudge><wink> as long as they keep killing these motherfuckers. That last part being crucial. I would hope the American public doesn't need the president to point out what the threat is.

^^^
Spot on, imo :hatsoff:

They know that character assassination has been much more effective than actually winning debates, so they are starting extra early in order to prop up the Democrats 2016 candidate.

:1orglaugh
Has there ever been a president that's been the target of more disinformation, half truths and flagrant lies than the current one? Not in my experience. Not even close.

 

[xfire]

:1orglaugh
Has there ever been a president that's been the target of more disinformation, half truths and flagrant lies than the current one? Not in my experience. Not even close.

I lol'd too when I read what BDG posted.

 

[Jagger69]

I lol'd too when I read what BDG posted.

So did I but consider the source and it totally fits.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

The only way conservatives are elected to anything anymore is through blatant gerrymandering or a high density of Klan members in that district.
90 percent of this country's population are moderates with 5/5 split between conservatives and liberals the real problem today is most moderates do not take the time to vote therefore the country is run by an overzealous minority.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

I lol'd too when I read what BDG posted.

What did I say defaming President Obama?

 

[xfire]

What did I say defaming President Obama?

You didn't. What was fucking hilarious, I mean laugh-out-loud-snorting kind of funny was that "Democrats know that character assassination has been much more effective than actually winning debates." Character assassination has been the only tactic republicans have used against the current president, to great effect I might add, and to the previous Democratic president as well. I mean fuck, they impeached Bill Clinton after a damn wild goose chase that was so far removed from the actual investigation they were conducting that the entire House Republican Caucus should have been convicted of abuse of power and Kenneth Star should have been disbarred and sent to prison. And that's not even addressing the ludicrous assertion that republicans "win debates". Romney over-performed in the first debate in 2012 and hey, great for him but as far as him actually winning that debate, I said then and still maintain that at best he pulled a draw, and there's no question that in the next two Obama was the clear winner, and that's just three presidential debates. Personally, I have never lost a debate to a right winger simply because I don't make an assertion unless I know it's a fact, keeps things real fucking tidy.

 

[Supafly]

I think that Warren lets the public, especially social media and news media build up the urge for her to step up. I think this is the best way, and not only because she probably isn't massively funded. She earns herself the badge, "Candidate of the People"

Clinton, I don't know. She seems to try to stay away from looking like she is on Obama's team, even though she is his Secretary of State. Weird.

Regarding "true Republican" - sorry, but it has come down to this. To be a true republican, you have to get a badge, saying:

"I love the Kochs"

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

You didn't. What was fucking hilarious, I mean laugh-out-loud-snorting kind of funny was that "Democrats know that character assassination has been much more effective than actually winning debates." Character assassination has been the only tactic republicans have used against the current president, to great effect I might add, and to the previous Democratic president as well. I mean fuck, they impeached Bill Clinton after a damn wild goose chase that was so far removed from the actual investigation they were conducting that the entire House Republican Caucus should have been convicted of abuse of power and Kenneth Star should have been disbarred and sent to prison. And that's not even addressing the ludicrous assertion that republicans "win debates". Romney over-performed in the first debate in 2012 and hey, great for him but as far as him actually winning that debate, I said then and still maintain that at best he pulled a draw, and there's no question that in the next two Obama was the clear winner, and that's just three presidential debates. Personally, I have never lost a debate to a right winger simply because I don't make an assertion unless I know it's a fact, keeps things real fucking tidy.

Democrats do it 24/7 365 days a year, every damn year to non-liberals. They have (or had) a much larger share of the media for fucking decades.

What passes for the center-left in this country needs to be hammered much harder than it gets now. I'm not even a right winger, I'm a socialist actually.

 

[xfire]

Democrats do it 24/7 365 days a year, every damn year to non-liberals. They have (or had) a much larger share of the media for fucking decades.

What passes for the center-left in this country needs to be hammered much harder than it gets now. I'm not even a right winger, I'm a socialist actually.

Yeah, Rush has been saying the same sort of dainty horseshit for years, I know his problem. What's your excuse?