If Hillary is picked as running mate (VP)

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think that Clinton would be doused in gasoline and set on fire if she tried to get anywhere near the ticket.

Wouldn't work. She's so cold that if you poured boiling water down her throat she'd piss ice cubes.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hillary would be a logical selection for many positions but not for VP. Too close to the seat of power.

Someone pointed out that Secretary of State was close to the seat of power, so I responded with "President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Secretary of State".

 

[Derec]

Hillary would be a logical selection for many positions but not for VP. Too close to the seat of power.

Ambassador to Antactica far enough?

 

[Derec]

Yeah, repeating the same fallacy doesn't make it true. She not only won,

Hey, fanboy, it's a fallacy to say she won when she clearly lost. Get over it already. 2016 was 4 years ago!

And she beat him by almost three million votes. You literally cannot expect anything more in an ELECTION than for the largest number of voters to vote for you.

In a US presidential election you need 270 electoral votes. Them's the rules. You may not like it but it is what it is.
And besides, she only won 48.2% of the popular vote. Even in a popular vote system like in France that means you have to go to the runoff election.

Lastly, we do not know what the votes would have been had the popular vote rule been in place as both would have campaigned and strategized differently. Or at least Trump - there was not much evidence of strategy in the Hillary camp. More like complacency and measuring the drapes.

He is a big asshole. She beat him.

Except she didn't.

The fact that he is POTUS is a completely different matter.

It is not. It is a direct consequence of him winning the presidential election, according to rules written in the Constitution. You should read it sometime.

 

[Mumbles]

How do you think it would effect the general election of the Democrat nominee picks Hillary Clinton as running mate for the VP spot.

Will she hurt the ticket or will she help it, in bringing out people to vote who failed to in 2016 as an act of repentance?

Oh, for the love of basketball...

Y'all really need to stop screaming and raging out every time she shows up with some exercise video for seniors or whatever. She's nowhere near as bad as many people insist she is, she's not interested in being VP, she likely quit for good after Comey spiked her campaign at the last second, she's likely having a wonderful time being a grandma who occasionally gets interviewed or writing books.

She's like Oprah and Michelle Obama - they keep saying "I'm not interested, I'm not running", and everyone else simply refuses to listen. She's not even working on election integrity like, say, Abrams, Schwartzenegger, and Holder are.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that Clinton would be doused in gasoline and set on fire if she tried to get anywhere near the ticket.

Wouldn't work. She's so cold that if you poured boiling water down her throat she'd piss ice cubes.

I voted for Clinton because I'm a democrat and her platform was - and is - my platform. But I wanted her to start showing some emotion at some point, be sincere and not political. I admire self control in a person and I also admire the ability to emotionally express yourself. She was completely unable to do this and it cost her in the battleground states like Pennsylvania. It's why she lost, because of her lack of emotion, empathy, whatever you want to call it. Bill had it but she didn't. Trumpo had it and is why he's POTUS.

I didn't want her to become another Trumpo asshole, but she lost for the same reason Trumpo beat the rest of the GOP contenders. Maybe the next democratic candidate will have learned something from this. Let's hope so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Clinton name is a rallying cry to bring out the Republican vote.

And about ten million more Democrats than Republicans can muster, even with cheating.

No one is gonna touch Clinton unless they're trying to lose again. She showed us how to not debate and run a campaign against Trump.

I disagree on the debate. Had Clinton allowed herself to be trolled, she'd have come off as 'a woman being a woman'. I thought she came out very well in the debates.

 

[Toni]

I think that Clinton would be doused in gasoline and set on fire if she tried to get anywhere near the ticket.

Wouldn't work. She's so cold that if you poured boiling water down her throat she'd piss ice cubes.

I voted for Clinton because I'm a democrat and her platform was - and is - my platform. But I wanted her to start showing some emotion at some point, be sincere and not political. I admire self control in a person and I also admire the ability to emotionally express yourself. She was completely unable to do this and it cost her in the battleground states like Pennsylvania. It's why she lost, because of her lack of emotion, empathy, whatever you want to call it. Bill had it but she didn't. Trumpo had it and is why he's POTUS.

I didn't want her to become another Trumpo asshole, but she lost for the same reason Trumpo beat the rest of the GOP contenders. Maybe the next democratic candidate will have learned something from this. Let's hope so.

The thing is, if Clinton had shown emotion, if she had allowed herself to show anger or to have a single tear glisten in her eyes, she would have been derided even more endlessly as an overly emotional out of control WOMAN,the worst thing anyone can possibly be in some people's eyes. Not overly emotional--a bunch of them voted for Trump. I meant an overly emotional woman--the kind who isn't allowed to get angry, much less spew spittle like Bernie, or shed a tear like Boehner

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I voted for Clinton because I'm a democrat and her platform was - and is - my platform. But I wanted her to start showing some emotion at some point, be sincere and not political. I admire self control in a person and I also admire the ability to emotionally express yourself. She was completely unable to do this and it cost her in the battleground states like Pennsylvania. It's why she lost, because of her lack of emotion, empathy, whatever you want to call it. Bill had it but she didn't. Trumpo had it and is why he's POTUS.

I didn't want her to become another Trumpo asshole, but she lost for the same reason Trumpo beat the rest of the GOP contenders. Maybe the next democratic candidate will have learned something from this. Let's hope so.

The thing is, if Clinton had shown emotion, if she had allowed herself to show anger or to have a single tear glisten in her eyes, she would have been derided even more endlessly as an overly emotional out of control WOMAN,the worst thing anyone can possibly be in some people's eyes. Not overly emotional--a bunch of them voted for Trump. I meant an overly emotional woman--the kind who isn't allowed to get angry, much less spew spittle like Bernie, or shed a tear like Boehner

...or whine during a Presidential debate about how unfair those campaign ads were. Had Clinton said that, it'd been the end, and hardly just on right-wing media. CNN would have headlines "Can Clinton Remain Professional Enough for the Presidency". "I love my wife and daughter clearly, and I'm not saying all women are emotional and can't be professional... But when Clinton complained about how campaign ads impacted her emotionally, it exposed a weakness that can indicate she doesn't have what is required to be President... After all, if she can't handle campaign ads, how will she handle national emergencies or sending the military to war?"

 

[Bronzeage]

This all reads like a Republican wet dream. The GOP Half Truth All Lie committee would have to go back to work, crafting new memes which half the party knows are false, but pass them on because they believe the other half will believe without question. Truth is of no importance, if it solidifies the base. I've seen this in action, too many times.

This didn't start when Trump appeared. The conservative willingness to accept lying for the good of the cause is the chief reason they have been saddled with Trump, and like any animal wearing a saddle, they can either go where the rider goads them to go, or buck him off.

I suspect all the Hillary for Anything 2020 talk is coming directly out of the GOP. They need a bugaboo to distract from their own boogeyman who inhabits the White House.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I voted for Clinton because I'm a democrat and her platform was - and is - my platform. But I wanted her to start showing some emotion at some point, be sincere and not political. I admire self control in a person and I also admire the ability to emotionally express yourself. She was completely unable to do this and it cost her in the battleground states like Pennsylvania. It's why she lost, because of her lack of emotion, empathy, whatever you want to call it. Bill had it but she didn't. Trumpo had it and is why he's POTUS.

I didn't want her to become another Trumpo asshole, but she lost for the same reason Trumpo beat the rest of the GOP contenders. Maybe the next democratic candidate will have learned something from this. Let's hope so.

The thing is, if Clinton had shown emotion, if she had allowed herself to show anger or to have a single tear glisten in her eyes, she would have been derided even more endlessly as an overly emotional out of control WOMAN,the worst thing anyone can possibly be in some people's eyes. Not overly emotional--a bunch of them voted for Trump. I meant an overly emotional woman--the kind who isn't allowed to get angry, much less spew spittle like Bernie, or shed a tear like Boehner

You're not understanding what I mean. I didn't want her to cry, I wanted here to grow a pair of balls and become forceful. Maybe she needs coaching, lessons, stand in front of a mirror, practice delivery, hell, quit with the emotionless stuffed blouse.

I have not heard a single thing from any GOP or Dem source about this subject, I perceived it on my own. She reminded me of John Kerry's inability to project emotion. People have to do that, not to excess but it is a necessary part of attracting supporters. It's what we are for fuck's sake. Do it!

She wasn't going after people like myself who are going to support her pretty much no matter what, she's after a slice of the electorate that is drawn to this, which unfortunately are all in the GOP camp right now. She needed those votes and so will the next Dem candidate.

 

[southernhybrid]

Hillary won't be anyone's VP pick, so whether one likes her or not, she's not going to be VP. I doubt she'd even want to be VP at this point.

If one of the old guys becomes the nominee, I think they will choose a much younger candidate for VP. I agree that Stacey Abrams would be one of the best choices. I don't care that she doesn't have experience in a federal position. She is the most dynamic, intelligent, thoughtful, pragmatic progressive I've ever known. She knows that one must compromise to achieve anything. She has leadership qualities that I don't really see in most of the presidential candidates. She would also bring out the African American voters in great numbers, and they are one of, if not the most important base of the Democratic Party. She has said she will run if asked, but I don't know if she will run with just anybody. Time will tell. I think whoever becomes the nominee needs a woman of color to run with them if they want to beat Trump. Perhaps Cory Booker could be an alternative, but I think women are getting really tired of being excluded from the top two positions. IF we can't have a female president yet, at least we should have a female VP. Most women will still vote for two men, but it might actually bring out more female voters if the VP was a female. I remember some conservative women who never voted before, getting all giddy over Palin, so I think young progressive female voters would also be excited at the chance to vote for a female.

I can't imagine who would be a good match for Bernie. It would be stupid imo, to choose Liz since she will also be over 70 by election time. Bernie has a long history of being difficult to get along with, despite what the Bernie bots seems to think. It would have to be someone who is over 35, but under 70, imo. Who would that be? Maybe someone younger would run with him, in the hopes of being groomed to be the nominee in 2020. On the other hand, I think it would be risky to run with Bernie because he is so far out of the mainstream. Of course, everyone of us could be wrong, since we are pretending to be TFT's pundits.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I voted for Clinton because I'm a democrat and her platform was - and is - my platform. But I wanted her to start showing some emotion at some point, be sincere and not political. I admire self control in a person and I also admire the ability to emotionally express yourself. She was completely unable to do this and it cost her in the battleground states like Pennsylvania. It's why she lost, because of her lack of emotion, empathy, whatever you want to call it. Bill had it but she didn't. Trumpo had it and is why he's POTUS.

I didn't want her to become another Trumpo asshole, but she lost for the same reason Trumpo beat the rest of the GOP contenders. Maybe the next democratic candidate will have learned something from this. Let's hope so.

The thing is, if Clinton had shown emotion, if she had allowed herself to show anger or to have a single tear glisten in her eyes, she would have been derided even more endlessly as an overly emotional out of control WOMAN,the worst thing anyone can possibly be in some people's eyes. Not overly emotional--a bunch of them voted for Trump. I meant an overly emotional woman--the kind who isn't allowed to get angry, much less spew spittle like Bernie, or shed a tear like Boehner

You're not understanding what I mean. I didn't want her to cry, I wanted here to grow a pair of balls and become forceful.

You mean uppity and unable to control her emotions?

"Sec. Clinton's reaction to Trump after being called a 'vile woman' indicated that she was incapable of slights, a sign that she wouldn't be able to handle such remarks from our adversaries. We need a President to have thicker skin..."

I have not heard a single thing from any GOP or Dem source about this subject, I perceived it on my own. She reminded me of John Kerry's inability to project emotion.

Clinton doesn't have a soul, she has no emotions. That comes with the package.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I voted for Clinton because I'm a democrat and her platform was - and is - my platform. But I wanted her to start showing some emotion at some point, be sincere and not political. I admire self control in a person and I also admire the ability to emotionally express yourself. She was completely unable to do this and it cost her in the battleground states like Pennsylvania. It's why she lost, because of her lack of emotion, empathy, whatever you want to call it. Bill had it but she didn't. Trumpo had it and is why he's POTUS.

I didn't want her to become another Trumpo asshole, but she lost for the same reason Trumpo beat the rest of the GOP contenders. Maybe the next democratic candidate will have learned something from this. Let's hope so.

The thing is, if Clinton had shown emotion, if she had allowed herself to show anger or to have a single tear glisten in her eyes, she would have been derided even more endlessly as an overly emotional out of control WOMAN,the worst thing anyone can possibly be in some people's eyes. Not overly emotional--a bunch of them voted for Trump. I meant an overly emotional woman--the kind who isn't allowed to get angry, much less spew spittle like Bernie, or shed a tear like Boehner

You're not understanding what I mean. I didn't want her to cry, I wanted here to grow a pair of balls and become forceful. Maybe she needs coaching, lessons, stand in front of a mirror, practice delivery, hell, quit with the emotionless stuffed blouse.

I have not heard a single thing from any GOP or Dem source about this subject, I perceived it on my own. She reminded me of John Kerry's inability to project emotion. People have to do that, not to excess but it is a necessary part of attracting supporters. It's what we are for fuck's sake. Do it!

She wasn't going after people like myself who are going to support her pretty much no matter what, she's after a slice of the electorate that is drawn to this, which unfortunately are all in the GOP camp right now. She needed those votes and so will the next Dem candidate.

So you wanted her to put on a superficial performance and judged her not on her policies, but on the fact that she's not a very good actress? Make no mistake, that is exactly what you're talking about; being able to act a certain way onstage.

That is unique, btw, to being onstage and has ZERO to do with one's actual abilities to govern or lead. It's why Nixon lost to Kennedy in spite of everyone who heard the debate on the radio said Nixon was by far and away the winner.

Yes, it's a reality that a President has to put on periodic stage shows, but it is literally 5% of their time. What matters is how she would comport herself in her actual job not in the arena of twenty second sound-bites.

 

[Mumbles]

No one is gonna touch Clinton unless they're trying to lose again. She showed us how to not debate and run a campaign against Trump.

I disagree on the debate. Had Clinton allowed herself to be trolled, she'd have come off as 'a woman being a woman'. I thought she came out very well in the debates.

So did people who watched the debates. It was very clear that, as much as that orange buffoon was stalking her around the stage like some creep, at the end of every debate she always had him completely off-message, flailing around at some random military family or Miss Universe winner for days on end while she went straight back to discussing how she'd shore up Social Security or the ACA, or her plan to increase rural access to internet or health care. And she looked presidential, while he looked like the drunken bigoted uncle white folks keep telling me about . And after every debate, her approval ratings went up, while his went down, so it wasn't just Jimmy and I. Same with the conventions, as well.

Anyone who seriously thinks that Hillary showed "how not to debate Trump" has it exactly backwards - anyone debating him one on one should follow her guide - throw in the occasional jab, call him "Donald", and in the end just quickly mention someone some surprise for him to rage at for days while you're discussing actual issues calmly. The man took the bait three times in a row, he'll take it again and again. He's just too much of a white supremacist dimwit to resist taking the bait.

What *really* killed her was garbage media coverage - there's a reason why people still say "but her emails!" when he does something catastrophic - and Comey's last-minute surprise, and the polls show both of these to be true. The former is what they have to seriously need to contend with, and Guiliani bungled this Ukraine matter so badly (what, you think Trump was smart enough to put together even that level of stupid conspiracy? He's spent the entire investigation snitching on himself!) that nobody but the MAGAts will believe it if they try to investigate "corruption" in whoever gets the nomination.

 

[PyramidHead]

Amazing how someone with a legacy of writing a bill to ban flag burning, hanging out with at least three sexual predators while somehow oblivious to their behavior, and losing the easiest presidential election in modern history to the host of NBC's The Apprentice is still being talked about as if her opinion about anything matters.

Note: JP is not from the US, doesn't really understand US politics, and is generally full of shit, so take the OP with a salt lick.

And yet he still has better takes than 99 percent of the American liberal Democrats on this board despite still hoping Andrew Yang will buy him an Xbox

 

[PyramidHead]

Hillary won't be anyone's VP pick, so whether one likes her or not, she's not going to be VP. I doubt she'd even want to be VP at this point.

If one of the old guys becomes the nominee, I think they will choose a much younger candidate for VP. I agree that Stacey Abrams would be one of the best choices. I don't care that she doesn't have experience in a federal position. She is the most dynamic, intelligent, thoughtful, pragmatic progressive I've ever known. She knows that one must compromise to achieve anything. She has leadership qualities that I don't really see in most of the presidential candidates. She would also bring out the African American voters in great numbers, and they are one of, if not the most important base of the Democratic Party. She has said she will run if asked, but I don't know if she will run with just anybody. Time will tell. I think whoever becomes the nominee needs a woman of color to run with them if they want to beat Trump. Perhaps Cory Booker could be an alternative, but I think women are getting really tired of being excluded from the top two positions. IF we can't have a female president yet, at least we should have a female VP. Most women will still vote for two men, but it might actually bring out more female voters if the VP was a female. I remember some conservative women who never voted before, getting all giddy over Palin, so I think young progressive female voters would also be excited at the chance to vote for a female.

I can't imagine who would be a good match for Bernie. It would be stupid imo, to choose Liz since she will also be over 70 by election time. Bernie has a long history of being difficult to get along with, despite what the Bernie bots seems to think. It would have to be someone who is over 35, but under 70, imo. Who would that be? Maybe someone younger would run with him, in the hopes of being groomed to be the nominee in 2020. On the other hand, I think it would be risky to run with Bernie because he is so far out of the mainstream. Of course, everyone of us could be wrong, since we are pretending to be TFT's pundits.

Rashida Tlaib should be Bernie's running mate

 

[Mumbles]

You're not understanding what I mean. I didn't want her to cry, I wanted here to grow a pair of balls and become forceful.

You mean uppity and unable to control her emotions?

"Sec. Clinton's reaction to Trump after being called a 'vile woman' indicated that she was incapable of slights, a sign that she wouldn't be able to handle such remarks from our adversaries. We need a President to have thicker skin..."

I have not heard a single thing from any GOP or Dem source about this subject, I perceived it on my own. She reminded me of John Kerry's inability to project emotion.

Clinton doesn't have a soul, she has no emotions. That comes with the package.

Funny part, she did react with an emotion after one of his ridiculous attacks:



The funny part is that the clip demonstrate that he's projecting as always.

(ETA: I'll let y'all in on something: in the 2016 primary, I didn't even vote for the presidential candidate, since in didn't like either one - I went to vote for other races. And if it had been her versus, say, Jeb Bush, I may have left it blank in November as well - I mainly voted because I knew that that orange dolt would be a disaster. But what's gotten me to see her in a more favorable light is seeing people who should know better behave like absolute sexist jackasses. When she outright says "I'm not running, I'm out of politics" and people are practically snarling "She's gonna run! Mark my words! She needs to go away and never be seen again!!" Yeah, I'm not with y'all, and if that's what she faced since before I was even in high school, then I'm much more sympathetic to her.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hillary won't be anyone's VP pick, so whether one likes her or not, she's not going to be VP. I doubt she'd even want to be VP at this point.

If one of the old guys becomes the nominee, I think they will choose a much younger candidate for VP. I agree that Stacey Abrams would be one of the best choices. I don't care that she doesn't have experience in a federal position. She is the most dynamic, intelligent, thoughtful, pragmatic progressive I've ever known. She knows that one must compromise to achieve anything. She has leadership qualities that I don't really see in most of the presidential candidates. She would also bring out the African American voters in great numbers, and they are one of, if not the most important base of the Democratic Party. She has said she will run if asked, but I don't know if she will run with just anybody. Time will tell. I think whoever becomes the nominee needs a woman of color to run with them if they want to beat Trump. Perhaps Cory Booker could be an alternative, but I think women are getting really tired of being excluded from the top two positions. IF we can't have a female president yet, at least we should have a female VP. Most women will still vote for two men, but it might actually bring out more female voters if the VP was a female. I remember some conservative women who never voted before, getting all giddy over Palin, so I think young progressive female voters would also be excited at the chance to vote for a female.

I can't imagine who would be a good match for Bernie. It would be stupid imo, to choose Liz since she will also be over 70 by election time. Bernie has a long history of being difficult to get along with, despite what the Bernie bots seems to think. It would have to be someone who is over 35, but under 70, imo. Who would that be? Maybe someone younger would run with him, in the hopes of being groomed to be the nominee in 2020. On the other hand, I think it would be risky to run with Bernie because he is so far out of the mainstream. Of course, everyone of us could be wrong, since we are pretending to be TFT's pundits.

Rashida Tlaib should be Bernie's running mate

What? You don't want to dig up Norman Thomas's body?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Amazing how someone with a legacy of writing a bill to ban flag burning, hanging out with at least three sexual predators while somehow oblivious to their behavior, and losing the easiest presidential election in modern history to the host of NBC's The Apprentice is still being talked about as if her opinion about anything matters.

Note: JP is not from the US, doesn't really understand US politics, and is generally full of shit, so take the OP with a salt lick.

And yet he still has better takes than 99 percent of the American liberal Democrats on this board despite still hoping Andrew Yang will buy him an Xbox

Dudes, I live and work in Pennsyltucky. It's a part of town where voters still want to see their favorite stock car driver be able to get out of his car after the race and have a go at fisticuffs with the driver that cut him off or caused the crash. They like those old days. This is reality! I'm sorry if it disappoints you but it's the way the world is in the U.S. Until the Dems belly up to the reality bar it's going to be one disappointment after another. I honestly wish it was not so.

Hillary could have taken Pennsylvania if she had just been the person she was when she was fifteen years old. Is that too much to ask, to ask her to just connect to the intellectually arrested? Seriously? Get elected, for christ's sake! Then enact policy. What am I missing? That's exactly what Trumpo did. It sounds like someone doesn't know their audience or maybe has a political stick up their ass. Be pragmatic!