Well given the last 2 elections you have many more of them to slap. But it’s telling that you seem to share the same opinion of voters as Hilary does.
I should mention that GOP voters are the ones who elected the imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran.
The voters in the last two elections made some bad chocies, but that doesn’t mean Americans are stupid. It means that the people that were motivated to vote were more likely to be people pissed off by RW media misinformation.
Like people, who until this day, think that Benghazi was a scandal.
I cited what she said while in office and again just recently. She clearly doesn’t listen to herself talk and/or she has an incredibly short memory.
Imagine all the undecided voters who were never in love with her in the first place who think it was a stupid thing to do. And then lie about it. 6 years ago people were saying she was a shoo in and up pops a complete unknown and steals her thunder.
The fact that she held a press conference indicates she’s running (or was). Otherwise she’d sit at home spraying cheeze wiz on her crackers and laugh about it.
She already ran once. She didn’t make it through the primaries.
There are more Democrats than Republicans. the houses flipped on the votes of Democrats.
The houses flipped on the non-votes of Democrats. Because we have terrible voter participation in America in general. And among Democrats in particular.
The GOP gets asses in voting booths by pissing people off with misinformation. It’s shitty, but it works. Pissed off people make time to vote.
Is that correct? She went to the convention with a good many delegates. She didn’t win in the primary season, but I thought she did make it through the primary season.
You’d think it would be fun watching people try to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear. It’s not.
I would read “make it through the primaries” the same as “made it through the playoffs.” That it requires that you be the winner at the end.
Ah! Okay; I, personally, would have interpreted it as “participated throughout the primary season.” (She might not have run in every state holding a Democratic primary or caucus…although I actually thought she did. Did she actually drop out at a time there were still primaries to be held?)
Do you genuinely think your argument against Hillary here rises to the level of a sow’s ear? It looks a lot flimsier to me.
I don’t remember, but I don’t think she dropped out. She just didn’t win.
But she put up a good showing. Obama just had a huge lead after the caucus states and Clinton didn’t have enough states to make it up.
Yeah–Obama was the strongest candidate Democrats have had in yonks. I’d argue that he was stronger even than Bill Clinton, who during the primaries came across like a real sleazebag (I remember reading about Slick Willie during that season and was horrified that he pulled ahead). 2008 was the only time I remember when the Democratic primary had two candidates that I actually thought could do a decent job. Hillary’s bad luck was to be running against Obama.
On the one hand, I figure that’s true. On the other hand, the best thing Republicans can do, from my perspective, is to spend all their time trying to make some dumbass scandal stick to Hillary (she’s had a quarter century to figure out how to make them go away, ferchrissakes, and she no longer even has to fake their suicides) instead of trying to get themselves a smart, savvy, charismatic candidate of their own.
It reminds me of a baseball play. 1998, Indians vs. Yankees. Chuck Knoblauch was the 2nd baseman for the Yankees. Indians batter bunts, the pitcher picks up the ball and flings it toward 1st, but it hits the runner in the back and rolls away.
Chuck Knoblauch decides that the time is right to get into an argument with the umpire about whether the runner was running inside the line. Meanwhile, the Indians scored.
Two lessons:
- It’s not enough to argue about the play. Ya gotta go after the ball.
- The Yankees lost that game, but they did win the series. The Democrats can’t just count on the Republicans self-destructing the way they did in 2008 and 2012.
To paraphrase Secretary Clinton, what difference does it make?
She should have known better. And the President knew she was using a personal email address, because he corresponded with her using said address. He didn’t just find out on the news, which was Earnest’s claim.
I don’t think that necessarily follows… Maybe back in 1998, but not now. I doubt he had to type in hilary@clintonemail.com to send her a message. I bet he can start typing “hil” into his To field and “Hilary Clinton” or something shows up and then he just tabs until he gets to the message field and types “yo hildawg show me them tits” or something and hits send. No knowledge of her actual e-mail address is needed.
I disagree that merely because we know he corresponded with her, we can conclude he knew. The flaw in that inference is that e-mail clients often don’t show the underlying SMTP address, and you have simply declared away this flaw.
Why should we accept lower standards for the SOS and the POTUS than businesses routinely use?
You don’t email anyone unless you know to whom you are sending the message.
In my office, it’s almost a monthly occurrence to learn that someone replied to a phishing mail. We don’t “accept” that, in that we seek to retrain, but we don’t fire people for it.
And the standard was even more forgiving in 2008.
“We,” are clearly willing to accept this. Do you honestly believe that if voters in 2012 had known Obama had sent e-mail to Clinton without noticing the SMTP header, they would have rejected his bid for a second term?
Of course you don’t. So shut up about “we” are willing to accept, ok?
You keep saying this and it makes no more sense now than it did the first time.
To paraphrase something I said up thread, if you emailed the President from Hillary.Clinton@bricker.com, do you think you’d just start talking about the crisis in Iraq and what the U.S. policy should be in Eastern Europe? You don’t think there would be any discussion about who that is and where it’s coming from? There would be no verification? Why do you think that cyber security is so lax in the White House that they don’t know who they are talking with? Arguing that the Oval Office had no idea where an email is coming from because of an SMTP address issue is mindboggling. And I don’t believe you’d accept this argument if someone else was making it.
I think that the President knew, but if he didn’t I can see no way that his immediate staff didn’t. And if they didn’t tell him, it’s his responsibility that they didn’t.
The investigations are still on going. Plus, you, and others, keep mentioning Benghazi. Maybe people don’t understand how advertising, or how the Streisand effect, works?