Meh, it’s a joke.
She apparently has the best chance? She has a lot of Washington persons endorsing her; but unfortunately for the Beltway crowd, other parts of the country vote too.
Bullshit. Bush’s people were talking about war with Iraq constantly in the meetings with the Clinton White House during the transition period. War was the only option ever considered.
What war did Obama start? Bombing of ISIS targets? Backing Syrian rebels? All without ground troops and multi-trillion dollar holes in the budget. Not sure what you’re talking about here.
So if there aren’t many ground troops, it’s not a war?
With or without ground troops, which war did he start?
The war against ISIS. Libya too. I guess he doesn’t need us to make decisions like that. Which makes sense, he’s a Democrat after all. Democrats don’t need to sell wars. Republicans are fine with it and Democrats don’t care when it’s their guy.
The war with ISIS is the same war against Sunni insurgents that started in Iraq. It is literally the same people, with a Twitter account.George W. Bush’s war.
That was hardly a war, unless your definition is so broad as to include any military action at all, such as the Grenada War.
Call it an intervention in other wars then.
Bullshit. Democratic voters see the alternative and decide that, even flawed, the Democratic candidate is better (or less bad) for the country than the Republican.
Even if what you say is true, Hillary is still a million times better than all the Republican candidates.
An interventionist that doesn’t waste hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of thousands of Americans for nothing is infinitely better than the Republican version.
Lying is the same as giving war plans to our enemies and thousands of dead and more than a decade of occupation based on lies is the same as dropping bombs for a couple weeks. adaher, do you have a learning disability?
“Democratic voters”? What about the swing voters who put W. Bush in office? Are you playing only to the reliable part of your base? Then you’re losing those you need to turn out for you.
Oh, good lord, the Democrats really are going to lose everything, aren’t you?
No, I’m just pointing out the falseness of your assertion about the Democratic party and its supporters.
Fine adaher, I’ll take that as a no. Sucks when reality doesn’t match your coocoo ideas, huh?
Sorry dude, when it’s 10-1 you aren’t going to be able to answer every question. What did you want to know again?
And maybe you can answer one for me. Why would the liberal party, especially with the focus on issues like sexual harassment and rape on the left these days, put an old style pig into the White House? Why would you send a woman who is blind to her husband’s faults and trust her to defend the rights of women? I guess she will, as long as they aren’t women with complaints about her husband. Or her political allies. She wasn’t particularly interested in condemning Anthony Weiner’s behavior either. Some defender of women she is.
Even if all this is true (and it’s not), the alternative is far, far worse.
Hillary has a very good record of treating women with respect. She is not her husband, and not responsible for any of his mistakes. No idea what Weiner has to do with this - there are no accusations against him that I’m aware of of harassment or assault or anything like that.
Of course you can always argue that the alternative is worse, but it’s kinda like Romney and Romneycare: hard to argue that you’re a champion of an issue when your own house is in such disorder.
Not that I think there’s actually a problem here. Clinton is not the women’s rights candidate. She’s the national security candidate. But it doesn’t hurt to push back when she gets self righteous in a rank attempt to win over low information female voters.
Keep telling yourself all the comforting falsehoods you need to.
We’ll rip her apart if she tries to claim that mantle. She is knee deep in chauvinist pig shit and likes it.
Bullshit. She has a long history of support for women.
Consider the source. 