Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on January 22, 2015, 05:37:54 PM
-
Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over potential GOP presidential rivals, poll shows
By Anne Gearan and Peyton M. Craighill January 22 at 7:00 AM
Hillary Rodham Clinton holds double-digit leads over potential Republican challengers Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney as the likely Democratic presidential candidate moves closer to entering the 2016 race, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.
Although Clinton, Bush and Romney are all longtime politicians and members of political dynasties, registered voters are less likely to count that familiarity against Clinton. That is a good sign for Clinton, a failed 2008 presidential candidate and the focus of Republican criticism that her time has come and gone.
Clinton’s potential to make history as the first female U.S. president makes little difference to most voters and is a net positive for others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-has-double-digit-leads-over-potential-gop-presidential-rivals-poll-shows/2015/01/21/a9df44e2-a190-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html
-
*insert attack on poll credibility which will remain in place until said poll attacks obama*
-
Sure she'll win. She's a women. Just like obama is black. Nothing more nothing less. Exept the fact she's an accessory to murder.
-
Sure she'll win. She's a women. Just like obama is black. Nothing more nothing less. Exept the fact she's an accessory to murder.
great observation
I assume you'll be contacting the GOP to insist they run a black woman for a guaranteed LANDSLIDE
-
Look at her GOP competition. A donkey can shit out something that'll be a tougher opponent.
-
Sure she'll win. She's a women. Just like obama is black. Nothing more nothing less. Exept the fact she's an accessory to murder.
Why wouldn't a republican woman or minority run, and win?
And don't give us the tired line "because repubs vote on issues, not skin color". Because if that's the case, explain why in 2012 and 2008, when they voted on the issues, 20% of them didn't bother showing up (but they sure voted for Bush in 00 and 04).
It's because the repub party is divided. The base doesn't bother showing up when a piece-of-shit moderate is on the ticket. True, actual conservatives HATE Romney and don't bother voting. They hated mccain too. But they sure showed up to vote Reagan,Bush1 and Bush2.
Cruz or Lose. and I think yall are starting to realize it too. Romney couldn't beat a HORRIBLE polling obama, even after leading polls after debate #1. You think he can beat a popular Hilary? (and even if he does, their positions are so similar now on amnesty, min wage, the war, the economy), I'm not sure much changes anyway.
Cruz or Lose. Repeat that 10,000 times.
-
It was all laid out for her in 2008 and she managed to fail. After last November, I find it hard to believe that thinking people give any credibility to polls like this.
-
Sure she'll win. She's a women. Just like obama is black. Nothing more nothing less. Exept the fact she's an accessory to murder.
You are an accessory to stupidity. But thanks for showcasing the typical GOP fears and excuses that will become the usual mantra in two more years.
-
It was all laid out for her in 2008 and she managed to fail. After last November, I find it hard to believe that thinking people give any credibility to polls like this.
She already is a tired old bag. To think she will have the energy and initiative not only to run and campaign, etc - but then to be POTUS for 4 years and all that entails? Please - at best she will be shadow president and puppet while others run the show in Sleazefest 2.0
-
She already is a tired old bag. To think she will have the energy and initiative not only to run and campaign, etc - but then to be POTUS for 4 years and all that entails? Please - at best she will be shadow president and puppet while others run the show in Sleazefest 2.0
mccain was in much worse shape and aside from the applesauce attack, he was 'energetic enouogh'.
-
mccain was in much worse shape and aside from the applesauce attack, he was 'energetic enouogh'.
MCCain SUCKED!!!! But - REMEMBER YOU LEFTISTS WHO WORSHIPPED OBAMA TRASHED HIS AGE ENDLESSLY?
-
MCCain SUCKED!!!! But - REMEMBER YOU LEFTISTS WHO WORSHIPPED OBAMA TRASHED HIS AGE ENDLESSLY?
And he's still walking and doing same middle of the aisle song and dance. A ham sandwich would have lied less and done a better job than Nobama.
-
She already is a tired old bag. To think she will have the energy and initiative not only to run and campaign, etc - but then to be POTUS for 4 years and all that entails? Please - at best she will be shadow president and puppet while others run the show in Sleazefest 2.0
Virtually everyone now accepts that Reagan had Alzheimer's in the latter years of his presidency... was he a tired old bag? Did he have energy and initiative? McCain is a fossil and he had his supporters as well. You are not very convincing. Bah!
-
Virtually everyone now accepts that Reagan had Alzheimer's in the latter years of his presidency... was he a tired old bag? Did he have energy and initiative? McCain is a fossil and he had his supporters as well. You are not very convincing. Bah!
Right - so elect Hillary then who will also have the same issues correct? Sounds really FNG smart - to a liberal brain dead fool
-
it will be hilarious to bump this thread in mid-november 2016.
-
Hil is unlikable....she just is. Lets wait and see who the Repub nominee is. If you get Jeb or Mitt they'll let her get away with shit but even a Rino like Christie won't hold back in debates. Cruz will walk across the stage and punch her in the head till it comes off.
-
at this point these polls just reflect name recognition.
now if the GOP decided its going to force another limp-wristed moderate undocumented-democrat like Jeb or Mitt on us again, then i have no doubt Hillary will beat them.
but if they run an actual conservative who can represent, stand for and articulate their ideals, Grandma Hillary is toast.
-
at this point these polls just reflect name recognition.
now if the GOP decided its going to force another limp-wristed moderate undocumented-democrat like Jeb or Mitt on us again, then i have no doubt Hillary will beat them.
but if they run an actual conservative who can represent, stand for and articulate their ideals, Grandma Hillary is toast.
who would that be?
-
I think Rand Paul could...could come out of the pack. I think Cruz is to toxic but he'd atleast tell hill to sucka bag of dicks at every debate.
-
Hil won't even win the nomination (and not that annoying kvnt Warren, either). Some other Dem will come out of the woodwork.
-
Right - so elect Hillary then who will also have the same issues correct? Sounds really FNG smart - to a liberal brain dead fool
Are you going to meltdown like you did in 2008 and disappear like you did in 2012 if she wins?
-
Right - so elect Hillary then who will also have the same issues correct? Sounds really FNG smart - to a liberal brain dead fool
The point is (since you obviously incapable of divining it) conservatives didn't think being tired and old were disqualifying when their candidates evinced those qualities. Bah!
-
MCCain SUCKED!!!! But - REMEMBER YOU LEFTISTS WHO WORSHIPPED OBAMA TRASHED HIS AGE ENDLESSLY?
it was his poor health, lack of medical records made available, 4 bouts with cancer, dozen daily meds, and strange bumps that kept appearing on his head "oops, must have bumped my head again" and overall senility/ battle with applesauce.
I've said all along - anyone wanting that job should submit to brain scan + full MRI for world to see. Also if you did blow in college, fuck you, your judgment and respect for the law suck and you can't be pre.
-
The point is (since you obviously incapable of divining it) conservatives didn't think being tired and old were disqualifying when their candidates evinced those qualities. Bah!
conservatives did not approve of AT LEAST the last 3-4 GOP nominees.
-
Hil is unlikable....she just is. Lets wait and see who the Repub nominee is. If you get Jeb or Mitt they'll let her get away with shit but even a Rino like Christie won't hold back in debates. Cruz will walk across the stage and punch her in the head till it comes off.
We had a "likeable" have-a-beer-with-him candidate before. The result was 9-11, trillions spent on an unnecessary war, and a destroyed US economy. Live and learn.
-
We had a "likeable" have-a-beer-with-him candidate before. The result was 9-11, trillions spent on an unnecessary war, and a destroyed US economy. Live and learn.
W was responsible for 9/11?
-
W was responsible for 9/11?
do a little research. He didn't do it, but he was sure careful to get out of the way so it could happen.
*this is where you say i'm full of shit before you do research on it*
-
We had a "likeable" have-a-beer-with-him candidate before. The result was 9-11, trillions spent on an unnecessary war, and a destroyed US economy. Live and learn.
Booyaaa..
-
W was responsible for 9/11?
9/11 most certainly could have been prevented. So, yes, Bush is responsible. The signs were there for any competent leadership team to read. Remember that memo "bin Laden determined to strike within the United States"? The memo they all ignored? Richard Clarke tried for months to get a meeting to talk about terrorist threats generally and specifically. Condi and company were not the least bit interested... they dismissed him repeatedly telling him that terrorism was not a priority. Under Bush the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council was downgraded from a cabinet level position. After the attacks they pulled a 180 and acted like they were on top of everything. The time to be on top of terrorism is before 9/11 happens.
Clarke advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, and in his book dissects each man's approach to terrorism but levels the harshest criticism at the latter Bush and his advisors who, Clarke asserts, failed to take terrorism and Al-Qaeda seriously... until it was way too late. Bah!
-
9/11 most certainly could have been prevented. So, yes, Bush is responsible. The signs were there for any competent leadership team to read. Remember that memo "bin Laden determined to strike within the United States"? The memo they all ignored? Richard Clarke tried for months to get a meeting to talk about terrorist threats generally and specifically. Condi and company were not the least bit interested... they dismissed him repeatedly telling him that terrorism was not a priority. Under Bush the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council was downgraded from a cabinet level position. After the attacks they pulled a 180 and acted like they were on top of everything. The time to be on top of terrorism is before 9/11 happens.
Clarke advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, and in his book dissects each man's approach to terrorism but levels the harshest criticism at the latter Bush and his advisors who, Clarke asserts, failed to take terrorism and Al-Qaeda seriously... until it was way too late. Bah!
Yeah all Bush's fault..Clinton had multiple chances to take him out. He did not. Clinton bailed in Somalia emboldening Bin laden in the first place. What was the appetite in 2001 for increased surveillance and where was the infrastructure to do what guys like Clarke wanted? People who read one book are fucking idiots if they think this is the whole story.
-
Yeah all Bush's fault..Clinton had multiple chances to take him out. He did not. Clinton bailed in Somalia emboldening Bin laden in the first place. What was the appetite in 2001 for increased surveillance and where was the infrastructure to do what guys like Clarke wanted? People who read one book are fucking idiots if they think this is the whole story.
Deflection does not work: yes, it was Bush's fault. I suppose, like Cheney, you also think going into Iraq was a good move (even though it had nothing to do with 9/11) and that Rumsfeld was the best Secretary of Defense ever. Bah!
-
Deflection does not work: yes, it was Bush's fault. I suppose, like Cheney, you also think going into Iraq was a good move (even though it had nothing to do with 9/11) and that Rumsfeld was the best Secretary of Defense ever. Bah!
How exactly was W's fault alone considering the plan was hatched in 1995?
-
How exactly was W's fault alone considering the plan was hatched in 1995?
You're still here? ::)
-
The Bush apologist always crack me up
If 9-11 had happened the day the Obama was inaugurated the Repubs would have given him 100% of the blame
Shit, they would have probably blamed the very fact that he was elected as the cause
9-11 happened 9 months into Bush's administration and they had plenty of intelligence which they ACTIVELY IGNORED
If you replace Bush Administration with Obama Administration in the narrative below we would never hear the end of it
We have right wing dipshits on this board that think Obama has committed treason by forcing them to have healthcare
Imagine how their heads would explode if the Obama administration had acted like the Bush Administration in the months prior to 9-11
Bush administration
Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condoleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[14] from January 25, 2001, that Clarke had authored and sent to Condoleezza Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush administration.[15]
In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that Condoleezza Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass through a chain of command of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.
Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies.[16]
At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clarke strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."[16]
Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration, most famously writing that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".[16]
At a July 5, 2001, White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon."
-
You're still here? ::)
If you want to blame govt negligence - im all w that. But a CT is pure idiocy
-
How exactly was W's fault alone considering the plan was hatched in 1995?
great point
just because it was executed 9 months into the Bush Administration doesn't mean it was their fault in any way.
isn't there someway you can blame Obama for this while you're at it
Afterall, he was a state senator at that time so surely you must have some insane way to tie him in while absolving Bush
-
Who said the gov., Rep or Dem, wanted to prevent 9/11? - No Homo Conspiracy Theorist.
-
great point
just because it was executed 9 months into the Bush Administration doesn't mean it was their fault in any way.
isn't there someway you can blame Obama for this while you're at it
Afterall, he was a state senator at that time so surely you must have some insane way to tie him in while absolving Bush
I think you are right - Obama is from Kenya and Al Quadea is strong there too - maybe they were working via Obama to deflect attention away from it. Not sure though.
-
I think you are right - Obama is from Kenya and Al Quadea is strong there too - maybe they were working via Obama to deflect attention away from it. Not sure though.
come on since when has being "not sure" ever stopped you from having an utterly insane belief
maybe you can tie Obama's father into it as well
-
LMAO at trying to assign any one person 'fault' for 9/11 ::)