The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare

[kaz]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

Actually, Dems have a number of great potential candidates, but there is no sense in them running at this point, because Hillary is going to win the nomination. If she had chosen not to run, Dems would have several strong candidates.

Democrats are interchangeable, so from a policy standpoint it makes no difference who runs. But from a strategy standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put all your eggs in one basket this far from the election? Particularly someone with the arrogance and trail of corruption as a Clinton?

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

Currently, your field has 2 white senior citizens, one male, one female, and a younger white male.

The pub field has 2 Hispanics, one woman, and a variety of white males, none of whom are near the age of applying for Social Security.

Yes, "who has diversity" is VERY clear.

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

It's the beauty of every Democrat agreeing on every issue for the same reason. You can go with the black or the woman or whatever you want since you don't expect candidates to think for themselves. In fact you demand they don't

Why is it you hate white people again?

 

[pwjohn]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

If and or when democrats perceive Hillary as being weak, they'll advance more candidates for the party's consideration.

As for your claiming repubs are loaded up with winners, that remains to be seen. I see only one repub worthy of my consideration at this point in time. Excepting the recently announced ex gov of New York, I don't know anything about him at this point in time.

 

[Silhouette]

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

The problem with diversity is that it's hard to herd.

The democrats have made this mistake and spooked a great quantity of their middle-leaning (the majority of that party) demographic away. Which is why elections are often a crap-shoot for them. The same goes for the very far right as well. The most extreme presonalities will always sieze the reins of any party and then steer it off a cliff. And that's because insane people never see compromise and believe they are grandiose enough to influence people as deeply down in privacy as behind the voting curtain. Most people, the overwhelming majority, will use their head when they vote. It isn't always the case in good times. Then they vote herd-think. But in rocky times you will get wide wide unpredictable swings and you'd best note what priorities your voters are holding dear at that time. Hint: banning abortion and forcing gay marriage ain't it.

Since people spend little time reading words and like to see pictures instead. Here's a picture that describes perfectly what's going on with Hillary's challenges and what's destroying the democratic party: In a word, it's trying to force society to normalize insanity. People are D-O-N-E with it.

Ahhh GLAAD, what a gift to the democratic party you've been....

...NOT...

An Evanston teenager who watched his dad slowly transition from being a man named Charlie into a woman named Carly said he spent his first year of high school confused and "in a fog."...."beneath this progress lies a layer of uneasiness and discomfort" over issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, according to the advocacy group GLAAD....The show, formerly known as "My Transparent Life," will follow the family as Carly undergoes surgery Chicago Tribune

If I was wearing a tin foil hat, I'd even say that the GOP would do well producing "My Transparent Life". The only thing the show is going to accomplish is to drive home the insidious/hidden mental illness present and growing in this family (as most relaity TV shows do) and drive people further away from the democratic party who viewers will all associate this format with.. But that's crazy, right?.....The GOP would never do such a thing..

I can even see a GOP media mole infiltrating GLAAD and suggesting this format "in order to sway more reasonable people, you need to be transparent about the whole process of transitioning surgery"...knowing all the while its insurmountable hurdle of being viscerally-repugnant in any wrapping or presentation. The net result would be the insane/grandiose management at GLAAD saying "yes! this is a great idea!!" while being completely oblivious to the manipulation going on to the democratic party's demise.

They want their insanity whitewashed so very very badly that it's predictably clouding their ability to see reason: which is the nature of the beast to begin with so...yeah...easy-peasy for my tin foil hat theory.

If the democratic party wants to win 2016, mandatory reading for each and every member of the DNC, along with a 3.0 grade or better on a paper written after that, is "The Emperor's New Clothes".

I want a 10-page paper on the allegorical application of that story as applies to different factions grappling within the democratic party today. Extra credit if you can extrapolate its impact on dem's chances in 2016..

 

[daws101]

Certainly a lot less than the repubs.

Considering there are 20 Republican candidates to one, you may have a point.

Which of Hillary's lies do you believe? Benghazi? She has only one cell phone? She didn't know she need to use government e-mails? What about under fire in Bosnia, that was compelling.

Which ones do you believe?

Bengazi is/ was no lie.
as for the others there is no credible evidence proving them to be lies .
I will make my decision on the evidence, not bigoted rumors.

Okay, then I know how gullible you are thank you.

Nope thats you guys , anybody who voted for Reagan or Gw bush has proven beyond any doubt that they are without question suckers!

And those who vote for a Community Organizer are not? One that can't even produce birth records to prove his status? One that will not open information or talk about his school career?

One that exclaims his mentor is none other than a racist, come on now...

oh ****! not the birther ploy!
you must be a friend of Orly Taitz

She is delusional, a failure at life in spite of many different forays in different fields as a lawyer, dentist, and real estate agent, is unable or unwilling to accept reality, and just batshit crazy.

 

[daws101]

Oh no! Not the cover up ploy!
sure sign of makin' shit up!
And The repubs picked a ptsd ridden vet and an a incredible stupid evangelical
it's not the dems judgment that's questionable.

Oh, you were doing so well until that last statement. Before the angry black man who's an empty suit in the white house, John Kerry? Are you kidding me? He was a gag candidate. Al Gore is a lunatic who says more stupid things than Dan Quayle did. Before that was your two election love of the sexual predator who caught a break by being on the good side of the internet bubble which had zero to do with him. Tsongas? Mondale? Carter? LOL, that's picking well? yeah

You'll get an anurisim yammering like that.

I know Obama is a deity, I was just kidding saying he wasn't

Tragic failed attempt at sarcasm.

I'll let you in on the trick to effective sarcasm. You have to say something you don't normally say. Cool, huh? Now go give it a shot

you first since you haven't yet ...

 

[daws101]

You'll get an anurisim yammering like that.

I know Obama is a deity, I was just kidding saying he wasn't

Tragic failed attempt at sarcasm.

I'll let you in on the trick to effective sarcasm. You have to say something you don't normally say. Cool, huh? Now go give it a shot

As usual, you are right

See daws, that's how you do it!

that's how rightwinger does it.

 

[daws101]

when there is only one old sow in any race, she usually is ahead.

So Cruz isn't running? Walker isn't running? No one from the GOP is running? Because she beats them all in the poll.

Oh, and fellas.....you're gonna need women voters. Calling Hillary an 'old sow' doesn't endear you to women in general.

People are going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman?

Wow. That's your paraphrase?

Try again. This time reading for comprehension.

Yep, that's the dem mindset.

Nope. that's your hapless paraphrase. Back in reality, if your ilk keep making sexist attacks on Hillary, you're going to alienate women voters who might have otherwise supported you. You guys might want to consider dialing back the 'old sow' like comments.

Republicans got pounded in 2012 because of their poor showing with women and Hispanics

They have done nothing in four years to improve their standing

then how do you explain how the dems got pounded in 2014? Did the women and hispanics see the light?

they didn't, it was at best a temporary small victory by the right, as they are so few it's understandable that you guys would try to get as much mileage out of it as you can.

 

[daws101]

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

The problem with diversity is that it's hard to herd.

The democrats have made this mistake and spooked a great quantity of their middle-leaning (the majority of that party) demographic away. Which is why elections are often a crap-shoot for them. The same goes for the very far right as well. The most extreme presonalities will always sieze the reins of any party and then steer it off a cliff. And that's because insane people never see compromise and believe they are grandiose enough to influence people as deeply down in privacy as behind the voting curtain. Most people, the overwhelming majority, will use their head when they vote. It isn't always the case in good times. Then they vote herd-think. But in rocky times you will get wide wide unpredictable swings and you'd best note what priorities your voters are holding dear at that time. Hint: banning abortion and forcing gay marriage ain't it.

Since people spend little time reading words and like to see pictures instead. Here's a picture that describes perfectly what's going on with Hillary's challenges and what's destroying the democratic party: In a word, it's trying to force society to normalize insanity. People are D-O-N-E with it.

Ahhh GLAAD, what a gift to the democratic party you've been....

...NOT...

An Evanston teenager who watched his dad slowly transition from being a man named Charlie into a woman named Carly said he spent his first year of high school confused and "in a fog."...."beneath this progress lies a layer of uneasiness and discomfort" over issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, according to the advocacy group GLAAD....The show, formerly known as "My Transparent Life," will follow the family as Carly undergoes surgery Chicago Tribune

If I was wearing a tin foil hat, I'd even say that the GOP would do well producing "My Transparent Life". The only thing the show is going to accomplish is to drive home the insidious/hidden mental illness present and growing in this family (as most relaity TV shows do) and drive people further away from the democratic party who viewers will all associate this format with.. But that's crazy, right?.....The GOP would never do such a thing..

I can even see a GOP media mole infiltrating GLAAD and suggesting this format "in order to sway more reasonable people, you need to be transparent about the whole process of transitioning surgery"...knowing all the while its insurmountable hurdle of being viscerally-repugnant in any wrapping or presentation. The net result would be the insane/grandiose management at GLAAD saying "yes! this is a great idea!!" while being completely oblivious to the manipulation going on to the democratic party's demise.

They want their insanity whitewashed so very very badly that it's predictably clouding their ability to see reason: which is the nature of the beast to begin with so...yeah...easy-peasy for my tin foil hat theory.

If the democratic party wants to win 2016, mandatory reading for each and every member of the DNC, along with a 3.0 grade or better on a paper written after that, is "The Emperor's New Clothes".

I want a 10-page paper on the allegorical application of that story as applies to different factions grappling within the democratic party today. Extra credit if you can extrapolate its impact on dem's chances in 2016..

another GOTTA BASH THE GAYS OFF TOPIC THREAD BY SILLY WET!

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, Dems have a number of great potential candidates, but there is no sense in them running at this point, because Hillary is going to win the nomination. If she had chosen not to run, Dems would have several strong candidates.

Democrats are interchangeable, so from a policy standpoint it makes no difference who runs. But from a strategy standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put all your eggs in one basket this far from the election? Particularly someone with the arrogance and trail of corruption as a Clinton?

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

Currently, your field has 2 white senior citizens, one male, one female, and a younger white male.

The pub field has 2 Hispanics, one woman, and a variety of white males, none of whom are near the age of applying for Social Security.

Yes, "who has diversity" is VERY clear.

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

It's the beauty of every Democrat agreeing on every issue for the same reason. You can go with the black or the woman or whatever you want since you don't expect candidates to think for themselves. In fact you demand they don't

Why is it you hate white people again?

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

 

[Skylar]

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

The problem with diversity is that it's hard to herd.

Racial diversity is what is being addressed.....and minorities make for some pretty consistent voting blocks. Republicans on the other hand have a hard time keeping their people in line as there are too many conflicting ideas, too many conflicting power bases. Its how the democrats in congress have been able to nullify a republican majority in the house and senate. The democrats are overwhelmingly unified. The Republicans aren't.

There's a reason that the people have voted for Democratic presidential candidates in 5 of the last 6 elections. And its not because democrats had a 'diversity' problem'. But because Republicans couldn't convince even their base to support them fully. Let alone the rest of the electorate.

The democrats have made this mistake and spooked a great quantity of their middle-leaning (the majority of that party) demographic away.

Actually, no. They haven't. On major issues of our day democrats are more in line with moderates than republicans are. Gay marriage, tax levels for the middle class and wealthy, social security, immigration reform, abortion, medicare, etc......moderates support democrats more than they do republicans.

Republicans on the other hand have been getting increasingly extreme. Pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy, sandbagging immigration reform, opposing gay marriage, rejecting medicare, and generally following the evangelical wing of their party. A wing that doesn't represent most moderates.

In fact, liberals have been convincing moderates to join them. Self identified liberals are now at an all time high. Up 10 points in the last 10 years. And virtually every bit of that gain has been from moderates. Conservatives on the other hand are 1 point off an all time low.

As usual, Sil.....you've got it exactly backward.

 

[Skylar]

Democrats are interchangeable, so from a policy standpoint it makes no difference who runs. But from a strategy standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put all your eggs in one basket this far from the election? Particularly someone with the arrogance and trail of corruption as a Clinton?

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

Currently, your field has 2 white senior citizens, one male, one female, and a younger white male.

The pub field has 2 Hispanics, one woman, and a variety of white males, none of whom are near the age of applying for Social Security.

Yes, "who has diversity" is VERY clear.

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

It's the beauty of every Democrat agreeing on every issue for the same reason. You can go with the black or the woman or whatever you want since you don't expect candidates to think for themselves. In fact you demand they don't

Why is it you hate white people again?

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

Nothing says 'thinking for yourself' like screaming RINO!

 

[kaz]

Democrats are interchangeable, so from a policy standpoint it makes no difference who runs. But from a strategy standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put all your eggs in one basket this far from the election? Particularly someone with the arrogance and trail of corruption as a Clinton?

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

Currently, your field has 2 white senior citizens, one male, one female, and a younger white male.

The pub field has 2 Hispanics, one woman, and a variety of white males, none of whom are near the age of applying for Social Security.

Yes, "who has diversity" is VERY clear.

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

It's the beauty of every Democrat agreeing on every issue for the same reason. You can go with the black or the woman or whatever you want since you don't expect candidates to think for themselves. In fact you demand they don't

Why is it you hate white people again?

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

And how do they differ from every other Democrat in those views? How do they differ from each other?

 

[kaz]

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

Currently, your field has 2 white senior citizens, one male, one female, and a younger white male.

The pub field has 2 Hispanics, one woman, and a variety of white males, none of whom are near the age of applying for Social Security.

Yes, "who has diversity" is VERY clear.

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

It's the beauty of every Democrat agreeing on every issue for the same reason. You can go with the black or the woman or whatever you want since you don't expect candidates to think for themselves. In fact you demand they don't

Why is it you hate white people again?

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

Nothing says 'thinking for yourself' like screaming RINO!

What does that have to do with anything anyone said?

 

[Skylar]

Currently, your field has 2 white senior citizens, one male, one female, and a younger white male.

The pub field has 2 Hispanics, one woman, and a variety of white males, none of whom are near the age of applying for Social Security.

Yes, "who has diversity" is VERY clear.

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

It's the beauty of every Democrat agreeing on every issue for the same reason. You can go with the black or the woman or whatever you want since you don't expect candidates to think for themselves. In fact you demand they don't

Why is it you hate white people again?

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

Nothing says 'thinking for yourself' like screaming RINO!

What does that have to do with anything anyone said?

Simple: the big tent party's tent is getting ideologically small. 'Purity tests' and thinking for yourself have very little to do with each other.

 

[kaz]

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

It's the beauty of every Democrat agreeing on every issue for the same reason. You can go with the black or the woman or whatever you want since you don't expect candidates to think for themselves. In fact you demand they don't

Why is it you hate white people again?

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

Nothing says 'thinking for yourself' like screaming RINO!

What does that have to do with anything anyone said?

Simple: the big tent party's tent is getting ideologically small. 'Purity tests' and thinking for yourself have very little to do with each other.

Says the guy from the party who agree on every position for the same reasons. Diversity of thought is far more valuable than diversity of skin color

 

[Skylar]

It's the beauty of every Democrat agreeing on every issue for the same reason. You can go with the black or the woman or whatever you want since you don't expect candidates to think for themselves. In fact you demand they don't

Why is it you hate white people again?

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

Nothing says 'thinking for yourself' like screaming RINO!

What does that have to do with anything anyone said?

Simple: the big tent party's tent is getting ideologically small. 'Purity tests' and thinking for yourself have very little to do with each other.

Says the guy from the party who agree on every position for the same reasons. Diversity of thought is far more valuable than diversity of skin color

Laughing...oh, obviously. As demonstrated by Warren's opposition to Obama on the trade deal. Because they agree on every issue. I don't think 'every' means what you think it means.

RINO typifies the 'purity tests' that is emblematic of the shrinking ideological tent of what used to be the 'big tent party'. And such purges don't speak to much free thinking.

 

[kaz]

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

Nothing says 'thinking for yourself' like screaming RINO!

What does that have to do with anything anyone said?

Simple: the big tent party's tent is getting ideologically small. 'Purity tests' and thinking for yourself have very little to do with each other.

Says the guy from the party who agree on every position for the same reasons. Diversity of thought is far more valuable than diversity of skin color

Laughing...oh, obviously. As demonstrated by Warren's opposition to Obama on the trade deal. Because they agree on every issue. I don't think 'every' means what you think it means.

RINO typifies the 'purity tests' that is emblematic of the shrinking ideological tent of what used to be the 'big tent party'. And such purges don't speak to much free thinking.

And what price is any Democrat paying for that?

 

[rightwinger]

Both Obama and Clinton have been very clear on their agenda. Just because you don't agree with that agenda does not mean they do not think for themselves

Now, for Republicans.....thinking for yourself means channelling Reagan from 35 years ago

Nothing says 'thinking for yourself' like screaming RINO!

What does that have to do with anything anyone said?

Simple: the big tent party's tent is getting ideologically small. 'Purity tests' and thinking for yourself have very little to do with each other.

Says the guy from the party who agree on every position for the same reasons. Diversity of thought is far more valuable than diversity of skin color

Laughing...oh, obviously. As demonstrated by Warren's opposition to Obama on the trade deal. Because they agree on every issue. I don't think 'every' means what you think it means.

RINO typifies the 'purity tests' that is emblematic of the shrinking ideological tent of what used to be the 'big tent party'. And such purges don't speak to much free thinking.

The true RINOs are the arch conservatives who are unable to even win their parties nomination

 

[Care4all]

Old and wise,
or young and foolish,
tis the question of the hour......

 

[Skylar]

Nothing says 'thinking for yourself' like screaming RINO!

What does that have to do with anything anyone said?

Simple: the big tent party's tent is getting ideologically small. 'Purity tests' and thinking for yourself have very little to do with each other.

Says the guy from the party who agree on every position for the same reasons. Diversity of thought is far more valuable than diversity of skin color

Laughing...oh, obviously. As demonstrated by Warren's opposition to Obama on the trade deal. Because they agree on every issue. I don't think 'every' means what you think it means.

RINO typifies the 'purity tests' that is emblematic of the shrinking ideological tent of what used to be the 'big tent party'. And such purges don't speak to much free thinking.

The true RINOs are the arch conservatives who are unable to even win their parties nomination

Of course. Purity tests demonstrate an increasingly narrow minded set of requirements one must walk lock step in order to be a 'real conservative'. RINO is a 4 letter indictment of the concept of the 'big tent party'. And an elegant demonstration of how small a demographic they actually represent.

When you have to purge even fellow conservatives from your party.....you're not going to find more fertile ground among moderates or liberals.