Please run Hillary, it will be great to see her destroyed.

[JoshuaZ]

Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton, who do you dislike the most?

^ The 'choice' in the next election.

How likely do you think it will be that the election will be Hillary v. Jeb?

Quite likely, unless they think he has too much Iraq baggage and go with Rubio, though both are polling well behind Hillary - which shows how much they are disliked.

Is quite likely higher than 50%?

 

[Freewill]

Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton, who do you dislike the most?

^ The 'choice' in the next election.

How likely do you think it will be that the election will be Hillary v. Jeb?

Quite likely, unless they think he has too much Iraq baggage and go with Rubio, though both are polling well behind Hillary - which shows how much they are disliked.

When the choices narrow the margin will also.

 

[Steinlight]

Looking to elect the first woman president? Have you considered the slate of sackless manginas running for the GOP?

 

[JoeB131]

I have noticed some libs have no problem with electing sexual offenders and adulterers POTUS, wow just wow.

Except there's no evidence that Bill Clinton was a sexual offender. Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove he was and couldn't.

But adultery, yeah you got him there.

So let's look at this.

Clinton lies about a blow job. No one died. No one got hurt.

Bush lied about WMDs. 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis died.

Which was worse?

 

[Sidekick]

I have noticed some libs have no problem with electing sexual offenders and adulterers POTUS, wow just wow.

Except there's no evidence that Bill Clinton was a sexual offender. Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove he was and couldn't.

But adultery, yeah you got him there.

So let's look at this.

Clinton lies about a blow job. No one died. No one got hurt.

Bush lied about WMDs. 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis died.

Which was worse?

What difference does it make?

 

[JoeB131]

I have noticed some libs have no problem with electing sexual offenders and adulterers POTUS, wow just wow.

Except there's no evidence that Bill Clinton was a sexual offender. Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove he was and couldn't.

But adultery, yeah you got him there.

So let's look at this.

Clinton lies about a blow job. No one died. No one got hurt.

Bush lied about WMDs. 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis died.

Which was worse?

What difference does it make?

Your inability to address the point is duly noted.

 

[Esmeralda]

I have noticed some libs have no problem with electing sexual offenders and adulterers POTUS, wow just wow.

Except there's no evidence that Bill Clinton was a sexual offender. Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove he was and couldn't.

But adultery, yeah you got him there.

So let's look at this.

Clinton lies about a blow job. No one died. No one got hurt.

Bush lied about WMDs. 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis died.

Which was worse?

What difference does it make?

Are you serious? There is an immeasurable difference between lying about having sex with someone and lying to an entire country and then getting them involved in a war that kills hundreds of thousands. Mass murder versus diddling around with a woman. You don't see that? An immeasurable difference.

4591 Americans died.
151,000 to over one million Iraqis died.

 

[BluesLegend]

I have noticed some libs have no problem with electing sexual offenders and adulterers POTUS, wow just wow.

Except there's no evidence that Bill Clinton was a sexual offender. Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove he was and couldn't.

But adultery, yeah you got him there.

So let's look at this.

Clinton lies about a blow job. No one died. No one got hurt.

Bush lied about WMDs. 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis died.

Which was worse?

What difference does it make?

Are you serious? There is an immeasurable difference between lying about having sex with someone and lying to an entire country and then getting them involved in a war that kills hundreds of thousands. Mass murder versus diddling around with a woman. You don't see that? An immeasurable difference.

4591 Americans died.
151,000 to over one million Iraqis died.

Just one problem with your rationalization, you people made excuses for Clinton the lying adulterer intern sexual predator BEFORE Bush ever became president. Ooops.

 

[Esmeralda]

I have noticed some libs have no problem with electing sexual offenders and adulterers POTUS, wow just wow.

Except there's no evidence that Bill Clinton was a sexual offender. Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove he was and couldn't.

But adultery, yeah you got him there.

So let's look at this.

Clinton lies about a blow job. No one died. No one got hurt.

Bush lied about WMDs. 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis died.

Which was worse?

What difference does it make?

Are you serious? There is an immeasurable difference between lying about having sex with someone and lying to an entire country and then getting them involved in a war that kills hundreds of thousands. Mass murder versus diddling around with a woman. You don't see that? An immeasurable difference.

4591 Americans died.
151,000 to over one million Iraqis died.

Just one problem with your rationalization, you people made excuses for Clinton the lying adulterer intern sexual predator BEFORE Bush ever became president. Ooops.

Man, you just don't git it. Him being a 'sexual predator' is not proven. Those are allegations made after he was rich and famous, the kind of thing certain women do to get notoriety and money. All of those women went on to do talk shows and some even pose for dirty magazines. A woman who has been raped or sexually abused does not do that. Show me where he was arrested, indited or anything like that for any sexual crime. You can make silly accusations until you turn blue: that does not make anything a fact.

But the REAL issue is that there is absolutely no comparison between someone who has sex with women outside of marriage and someone who tells lies so the entire country becomes engaged in a war where hundreds of thosands of people die. George W. Bush is a mass murderer.

 

[007]

Battenfeld How Martin O Malley can beat Hillary Clinton Boston Herald

 

[BluesLegend]

I have noticed some libs have no problem with electing sexual offenders and adulterers POTUS, wow just wow.

Except there's no evidence that Bill Clinton was a sexual offender. Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove he was and couldn't.

But adultery, yeah you got him there.

So let's look at this.

Clinton lies about a blow job. No one died. No one got hurt.

Bush lied about WMDs. 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis died.

Which was worse?

What difference does it make?

Are you serious? There is an immeasurable difference between lying about having sex with someone and lying to an entire country and then getting them involved in a war that kills hundreds of thousands. Mass murder versus diddling around with a woman. You don't see that? An immeasurable difference.

4591 Americans died.
151,000 to over one million Iraqis died.

Just one problem with your rationalization, you people made excuses for Clinton the lying adulterer intern sexual predator BEFORE Bush ever became president. Ooops.

Man, you just don't git it. Him being a 'sexual predator' is not proven. Those are allegations made after he was rich and famous, the kind of thing certain women do to get notoriety and money. All of those women went on to do talk shows and some even pose for dirty magazines. A woman who has been raped or sexually abused does not do that. Show me where he was arrested, indited or anything like that for any sexual crime. You can make silly accusations until you turn blue: that does not make anything a fact.

But the REAL issue is that there is absolutely no comparison between someone who has sex with women outside of marriage and someone who tells lies so the entire country becomes engaged in a war where hundreds of thosands of people die. George W. Bush is a mass murderer.

I suggest you look up the word "denial".

 

[JimH52]

It'll be fascinating to see the effects that her Democrat opponents have on her during the nomination process.

Do they go for it, or do they hold back for the good of the party?

Sanders is the one most likely to really let 'er rip.

.

Does it really matter? No one presently in the clown car can beat her. Maybe one of the former successful GOP presidents will run again......wait.....THERE ARE NONE!

 

[Esmeralda]

Except there's no evidence that Bill Clinton was a sexual offender. Ken Starr spent 70 million trying to prove he was and couldn't.

But adultery, yeah you got him there.

So let's look at this.

Clinton lies about a blow job. No one died. No one got hurt.

Bush lied about WMDs. 5000 Americans and half a million Iraqis died.

Which was worse?

What difference does it make?

Are you serious? There is an immeasurable difference between lying about having sex with someone and lying to an entire country and then getting them involved in a war that kills hundreds of thousands. Mass murder versus diddling around with a woman. You don't see that? An immeasurable difference.

4591 Americans died.
151,000 to over one million Iraqis died.

Just one problem with your rationalization, you people made excuses for Clinton the lying adulterer intern sexual predator BEFORE Bush ever became president. Ooops.

Man, you just don't git it. Him being a 'sexual predator' is not proven. Those are allegations made after he was rich and famous, the kind of thing certain women do to get notoriety and money. All of those women went on to do talk shows and some even pose for dirty magazines. A woman who has been raped or sexually abused does not do that. Show me where he was arrested, indited or anything like that for any sexual crime. You can make silly accusations until you turn blue: that does not make anything a fact.

But the REAL issue is that there is absolutely no comparison between someone who has sex with women outside of marriage and someone who tells lies so the entire country becomes engaged in a war where hundreds of thosands of people die. George W. Bush is a mass murderer.

I suggest you look up the word "denial".

How ironic

 

[Mac1958]

It'll be fascinating to see the effects that her Democrat opponents have on her during the nomination process.

Do they go for it, or do they hold back for the good of the party?

Sanders is the one most likely to really let 'er rip.

.

Does it really matter? No one presently in the clown car can beat her. Maybe one of the former successful GOP presidents will run again......wait.....THERE ARE NONE!

Well, I'm not good at predicting political stuff, and I know she's ahead early on in the polls. But anything can happen, including some damaging shit coming out on her after she gets the nomination.

Then all this stuff could matter.

.

 

[BluesLegend]

What difference does it make?

Are you serious? There is an immeasurable difference between lying about having sex with someone and lying to an entire country and then getting them involved in a war that kills hundreds of thousands. Mass murder versus diddling around with a woman. You don't see that? An immeasurable difference.

4591 Americans died.
151,000 to over one million Iraqis died.

Just one problem with your rationalization, you people made excuses for Clinton the lying adulterer intern sexual predator BEFORE Bush ever became president. Ooops.

Man, you just don't git it. Him being a 'sexual predator' is not proven. Those are allegations made after he was rich and famous, the kind of thing certain women do to get notoriety and money. All of those women went on to do talk shows and some even pose for dirty magazines. A woman who has been raped or sexually abused does not do that. Show me where he was arrested, indited or anything like that for any sexual crime. You can make silly accusations until you turn blue: that does not make anything a fact.

But the REAL issue is that there is absolutely no comparison between someone who has sex with women outside of marriage and someone who tells lies so the entire country becomes engaged in a war where hundreds of thosands of people die. George W. Bush is a mass murderer.

I suggest you look up the word "denial".

How ironic

I give your life meaning.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Battenfeld How Martin O Malley can beat Hillary Clinton Boston Herald

Highly unlikely. If Hillary gets so wounded that O'Malley will have a chance then other candidates will be much more inclined to enter the race. Possible for O'Malley to do some real damage to Hillary in the primary, enough for her to lose in the general, but unlikely to get ahead himself.

Incidentally, I don't know if you saw, but I responded to you here a few days ago.

 

[JoeB131]

Battenfeld How Martin O Malley can beat Hillary Clinton Boston Herald

Highly unlikely. If Hillary gets so wounded that O'Malley will have a chance then other candidates will be much more inclined to enter the race. Possible for O'Malley to do some real damage to Hillary in the primary, enough for her to lose in the general, but unlikely to get ahead himself.

Incidentally, I don't know if you saw, but I responded to you here a few days ago.

Yeah, you see, the problem is, after the Baltimore riots, I don't see O'Malley having an argument to make. He was mayor of Baltimore and then Governor of Maryland, and those riots showed the city to be a mess despite his 'leadership".

Also, O'Malley's argument is that Clinton is too far to the right to repreent the Democrats, but I don't see a hungering to go any further left than her.

 

[JimH52]

Battenfeld How Martin O Malley can beat Hillary Clinton Boston Herald

Highly unlikely. If Hillary gets so wounded that O'Malley will have a chance then other candidates will be much more inclined to enter the race. Possible for O'Malley to do some real damage to Hillary in the primary, enough for her to lose in the general, but unlikely to get ahead himself.

Incidentally, I don't know if you saw, but I responded to you here a few days ago.

Yeah, you see, the problem is, after the Baltimore riots, I don't see O'Malley having an argument to make. He was mayor of Baltimore and then Governor of Maryland, and those riots showed the city to be a mess despite his 'leadership".

Also, O'Malley's argument is that Clinton is too far to the right to repreent the Democrats, but I don't see a hungering to go any further left than her.

But the RW loons can dream, can't they?