DescentBB

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:hmmmmm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1537418

Fox News' parent corporation.....

Ought to spark interesting discussions in liberal circles.

or, bring a Clintonista into the NewsCorp fold. Murdoch is damned good at facing the inevitable.

Fer gawds sake Slick, we don't NEED another Clinton in office. The name stands for MOSS, more of the same s**t. We NEED someone who knows the inside, but who is also NOT a player, one who is NOT a fundamentalist nutcase and one who IS someone will actively work against the plutocrats, theocrats and lobbyists in Washington. We need someone for the people.

tunnelcat wrote:Fer gawds sake Slick, we don't NEED another Clinton in office. The name stands for MOSS, more of the same s**t. We NEED someone who knows the inside, but who is also NOT a player, one who is NOT a fundamentalist nutcase and one who IS someone will actively work against the plutocrats, theocrats and lobbyists in Washington. We need someone for the people.

well, guess what, I'm not saying she's perfect by any means, but I'll GUARANTEE she's the closest you're going to see to your wish list in 2016.

She knows the inside, has a partner who really knows people, is not a fundamentalist nutcase(more like overly pragmatic, if you ask me), and the Clintons, say what you will, keep the people in mind. Do they rub shoulders with business players too much for my tastes? Yes. Are they both consummate politicians? You betcha. But, look at the potential opposition and find me someone better. Further, if you understand how electoral politics in this country works, and understand the demographic trends of national elections, you ought to KNOW she is odds-on to win if she runs. To that last bit, it is worth noting that her mailing list(hence, potential small donors, and more importantly, field rank and file workers) already numbers over 1.3 million and she hasn't even declared, yet.

If we have to sink the ship to win, that's not winning. She's tainted by her husband's name, no one's forgotten on the conservative side. I haven't even forgotten on the liberal side. If Obamacare ends up in the toilet, which might just happen, she and the Dems go down no matter what.

tunnelcat wrote:If we have to sink the ship to win, that's not winning. She's tainted by her husband's name, no one's forgotten on the conservative side.

seriously, does it matter what the conservatives feel or remember insofar as winning an election goes? Bottom line is that both she and Bill are more popular in the public mind than anyone currently holding office. Further, if you ever had the good fortune and pleasure to attend a discussion on world and national affairs in which Pres. Clinton was participating, you would feel(as I do) that few people in American public office EVER could hold a candle to both his intellect and ability to see every nuance of a problem. The man is flat-out brilliant. A pig at times in his personal conduct? Sure, but, historically speaking, that never held back some of our best Presidents.

I haven't even forgotten on the liberal side. If Obamacare ends up in the toilet, which might just happen, she and the Dems go down no matter what.

by 2016, Obamacare will be fairly functional, if imperfect. What I suspect you'll hear from Hillary is that the best long-term fix is single payer(which she said back in 1993).

Take off your rose colored glasses Slick. Bill may be a genius politically, but he's a self-serving, prevaricating a$$hole. If Hillary won, we'd have him mucking around in the office far more than we'd like, because he couldn't help himself.

tunnelcat wrote:Take off your rose colored glasses Slick. Bill may be a genius politically, but he's a self-serving, prevaricating a$$hole. If Hillary won, we'd have him mucking around in the office far more than we'd like, because he couldn't help himself.

no Rose colored glasses, TC.....I've met the man, and if you have also, and came away with the notion he is anything short of both brilliant and analytical as well as EXTREMELY knowledgable, I can't believe it. Now, to my mind, no one in public office, especially anyone the ego to run for President, is going to be perfect, but Clinton may have been the most intelligent President of my lifetime, and was fairly effective(I'd rank him third behind Eisenhower and LBJ there) to boot. He balanced the budget, kept us out of any major wars, simplified aspects of welfare and the tax code. And, he did this by working with pols from both sides of the aisles in Congress, despite a small number out to crucify him from day one. In the latter respect, Obama could have taken some lessons from him, although, admittedly, the vitriol versus Obama was far stronger.

Rose colored glasses....

I think even John Dean would be better. Too bad he screamed and someone selectively amped it up.

Oh, Gawd, Dean? The heck with the scream, the man represents a part of the Dem party that is entirely too, impractically, liberal for me(and, to think, some here scream 'leftist' at me?). Dean has no clue on foreign policy, is a relative dimwit compared to Bill Clinton(likely on a par with Hillary, but haven't had all that much contact with either), cannot control his emotions(important for a President) and has nothing to suggest he could draw independant voters, and thus be close to electable.

So by slicks analysis, voting Hillary in gives us Bill as De facto president. Just why we vote for a candidate...to get their spouse to run things.

woodchip wrote:So by slicks analysis, voting Hillary in gives us Bill as De facto president. Just why we vote for a candidate...to get their spouse to run things.

not my point, but let's face it, the American people would get a two-fer deal........or at least a better mentor than either of the last two went into office with. Really, who understands the office better? This is a multiple choice question:

a) Bill Clinton
b) Rahm Emmanual
c) Karl Rove


seriously, now.....

Trying to get around the 2 term limitation?

no, it would be Hillary's show, and Hillary's priorities. If she doesn't get that part clearly defined before her campaign gets well underway, she will have a real issue to overcome. However, they ARE married.

Well it will be interesting to see how she responds to little things like Whitewater and Travelgate. Probably won't be a problem as the mainstream media will never press her on it.

woodchip wrote:Well it will be interesting to see how she responds to little things like Whitewater and Travelgate.

both should be easy. She had no involvement in either.

Probably won't be a problem as the mainstream media will never press her on it.

leaving it to the likes of that loon at Citizens United to simply make stuff up. As usual.

I'd vote for Hillary. Despite both of their shortcomings, Clinton was the last successful president we had. I'm betting his approval ratings when he left office will be higher than when Obama leaves. I'm not sure that Obama has the deep seated love for this country that Bill had.

I'll raise a glass to that, Flip!
https://www.readyforhillary.com/store/i ... ce=e122213

flip wrote:I'd vote for Hillary. Despite both of their shortcomings, Clinton was the last successful president we had. I'm betting his approval ratings when he left office will be higher than when Obama leaves. I'm not sure that Obama has the deep seated love for this country that Bill had.

Was it that same deep seated love that made him go to England to avoid the draft?

Eh, no, it was the fact that at the same time I saw the world pitching in together, he was trying like hell to make us strong going in. Also, his executive order protecting Indian beliefs also completely fortified the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that was passed at the same time. A great deal of other things I can't be bothered to put down right now, but all put together proves to me that when a New World Order was possible and then moved on, he tried to make us the head and not the tail. In contrast to people like say Henry Kissinger, who publicly advocates submitting to Chinese dominance. I think given the current pool, the Clinton's are probably the best pick. They have been around awhile and were there before and after.

woodchip wrote:So by slicks analysis, voting Hillary in gives us Bill as De facto president. Just why we vote for a candidate...to get their spouse to run things.

That was my analysis.

tunnelcat wrote:Take off your rose colored glasses Slick. Bill may be a genius politically, but he's a self-serving, prevaricating a$$hole. If Hillary won, we'd have him mucking around in the office far more than we'd like, because he couldn't help himself.

And you just know Bill couldn't resist keeping his meathooks out of things.

Slick, you're right about Dean, but the no clue on foreign policy part never stopped Obama getting elected. And Obama has to control his emotions, or white people will accuse him of being the stereotypical angry black man.

I'd vote for Bill Clinton right now in a New York minute.

EDIT:For lots of fackin reasons

Why, just to rile the Republicans even MORE than they've been since we elected Obama? Hmmm, come to think of it, that's a pretty good reason.

I'd vote for the ghost of Reagan before anything with Clinton in it.

I've seen Reagan put on time after time. One time verbatim to an old movie, same damn circumstances. I'm not saying that's a bad thing because I feel that's exactly what a president should do. Set the morale and tone. It's easy enough really. Plus, Reagan was hand in hand at the time this all turned over and I'm not sure if it was just his acting ability or outright intent on his part. He was good for that era at any rate. Bill Clinton is much more adept in our current atmosphere.

What we need is someone who's adept and smart like Clinton, with the personality and communication skills of Reagan, who's not an extremist with an agenda, and who's not bought by the system. Haven't seen anyone that fits the bill yet.

tunnelcat wrote:What we need is someone who's adept and smart like Clinton, with the personality and communication skills of Reagan, who's not an extremist with an agenda, and who's not bought by the system. Haven't seen anyone that fits the bill yet.

well, I'm here....but really don't want to go to the bother, TC!


and, on that note, let me wish one and all in this crazy place a VERY Merry Christmas!(no PC for 'slick).

Heh, and you won't until the landscape changes. I'd vote any reasonable independent but face it, only a repub or dem is gonna get the bill for president. In that case, I vote for a clever independent, although those are not as easily discerned.

tunnelcat wrote:who's not an extremist with an agenda, and who's not bought by the system. Haven't seen anyone that fits the bill yet.

That will never happen. who ever is nominated will just be labeled as an extremist and in league with the demons of the other side

Since Palin won't run, I'll go with Cruz. If I could force someone to run, that would be Condleeza Rice.

Extremist nutcase, extremist and turncoat, in that order.

Rice is a turncoat? Care to explain that one?

You'll figure it out.