• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

Ford said:
Or to put it another way, likely nominee, liberal Ron Paul, some guy, and a couple former Republicans.
Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the only reason the "likely nominee" is the "likely nominee" is because she's married to a former president. Also, "some guy" is one of the very few Democratic candidates below retirement age so you could have given him a better nickname, like 'whippersnapper' or something.
 
How in the world do you hold a debate with about 16 people? It was bad enough in '12.
Loren Pechtel said:
Can we rename this the Great Elephant Stampede?
Click to expand...
Great? No way. Better as the Aynrandephant Stampede. There are a number of people here who have been sucking on Limbaugh's teat since they were toddler Republicans.

- - - Updated - - -

Derec said:
Ford said:
Or to put it another way, likely nominee, liberal Ron Paul, some guy, and a couple former Republicans.
Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the only reason the "likely nominee" is the "likely nominee" is because she's married to a former president.
Click to expand...
Really? How many people are saying "I like Hillary. Bill Clinton is her husband."
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Really? How many people are saying "I like Hillary. Bill Clinton is her husband."
Click to expand...

Well, if Hillary's sole source of votes is people who've had sex with Bill, that should be enough to get her into the White House.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
How in the world do you hold a debate with about 16 people? It was bad enough in '12.
Great? No way. Better as the Aynrandephant Stampede. There are a number of people here who have been sucking on Limbaugh's teat since they were toddler Republicans.

- - - Updated - - -

Derec said:
Ford said:
Or to put it another way, likely nominee, liberal Ron Paul, some guy, and a couple former Republicans.
Am I missing anything?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the only reason the "likely nominee" is the "likely nominee" is because she's married to a former president.
Click to expand...
Really? How many people are saying "I like Hillary. Bill Clinton is her husband."
Click to expand...


No, see, it's like this...she's a woman. Therefore the only way she can have worth is through her man. The fact that she's been a Senator and Secretary of State is irrelevant to the He-Man Woman Haters Club.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
How in the world do you hold a debate with about 16 people? It was bad enough in '12.
Great? No way. Better as the Aynrandephant Stampede. There are a number of people here who have been sucking on Limbaugh's teat since they were toddler Republicans.
Click to expand...

1) "Great" as in "big", not "excellent".

2) I don't think Ayn Rand would approve of any of the elephant pack.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
How in the world do you hold a debate with about 16 people? It was bad enough in '12.
Great? No way. Better as the Aynrandephant Stampede. There are a number of people here who have been sucking on Limbaugh's teat since they were toddler Republicans.
Click to expand...

1) "Great" as in "big", not "excellent".
Click to expand...
But it is a bunch of little men up there.

2) I don't think Ayn Rand would approve of any of the elephant pack.
Click to expand...
I think each of them think Fountainhead is spanking material.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
How in the world do you hold a debate with about 16 people? It was bad enough in '12.
Great? No way. Better as the Aynrandephant Stampede. There are a number of people here who have been sucking on Limbaugh's teat since they were toddler Republicans.
Click to expand...

1) "Great" as in "big", not "excellent".

2) I don't think Ayn Rand would approve of any of the elephant pack.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase from The Simpsons:

Two! Four! Six! Eight!
The Republican field is really great!
'Great' meaning large or immense,
We use it in the pejorative sense!
 
There is a problem for Hillary.

Several of the Republicans seem young and energetic. Scott Walker certainly does, and he can brag about his triumph over the Wisconsin Revolt against him.

There doesn't seem to be any young and energetic Democrat among the candidates.
 
lpetrich said:
There is a problem for Hillary.

Several of the Republicans seem young and energetic. Scott Walker certainly does, and he can brag about his triumph over the Wisconsin Revolt against him.

There doesn't seem to be any young and energetic Democrat among the candidates.
Click to expand...

Scott Walker doesn't look like he could cross the street without help.

He's an excellent mindless mouthpiece for great wealth.

But most people can clearly see that.

In Wisconsin a slim majority can't.
 
lpetrich said:
There is a problem for Hillary.

Several of the Republicans seem young and energetic. Scott Walker certainly does, and he can brag about his triumph over the Wisconsin Revolt against him.
Click to expand...
Except he was in a revolt to begin with. That doesn't look squeeky.
 
As much as I dislike the Republicans, I think they have a good point with regards to how FOX news is running their debate. When did FOX receive the power to so blatantly push for certain Republican nominees? This is an upending of democracy. Supposedly, they are going to use the national polls to decide who gets a spot on the big debate stage; without that spot your campaign effectively ends there. But look at these polling numbers. With so many republicans having delusions of grandeur that they're in any way qualified to be president, at least 7 of the nominee's poll numbers actually falls within the poll margin of error! How is FOX to decide who to let on stage? I don't see how this whole idea doesn't unravel before debate time. Also, I don't see why more people aren't up in arms about this.
 
braces_for_impact said:
As much as I dislike the Republicans, I think they have a good point with regards to how FOX news is running their debate. When did FOX receive the power to so blatantly push for certain Republican nominees? This is an upending of democracy. Supposedly, they are going to use the national polls to decide who gets a spot on the big debate stage; without that spot your campaign effectively ends there. But look at these polling numbers. With so many republicans having delusions of grandeur that they're in any way qualified to be president, at least 7 of the nominee's poll numbers actually falls within the poll margin of error! How is FOX to decide who to let on stage? I don't see how this whole idea doesn't unravel before debate time. Also, I don't see why more people aren't up in arms about this.
Click to expand...
You can't have a debate with 15 people in it. It is simply not possible from a logistics standpoint. The best they could do would be to double up the debates for everyone to have a spot.
 
Oh, republicans are complaining about how corporations are influencing the political process. How rich!

Whatever happened to the idea that corporations can do something more efficiently than a bunch of politicians? Especially here, where a bunch of politicians are trying to tell a major network how to host a televised event. FOX legitimately is an expert on these matters. The hypocrisy is just delicious.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
You can't have a debate with 15 people in it. It is simply not possible from a logistics standpoint. The best they could do would be to double up the debates for everyone to have a spot.
Click to expand...
I'd love that game from MXC. Shoot a volleyball from a cannon over a big, grassy field. The candidates are all running around in the field trying to catch it. Whoever survives the impact gets to answer the shooter's question.
 
Ford said:
No, see, it's like this...she's a woman. Therefore the only way she can have worth is through her man.
Click to expand...
BS. In her case it applies, but that doesn't mean it applies to all women.

For example, Condoleeza Rice was Secretary of State as well but she didn't get the job because she was married to the former president.

The fact that she's been a Senator and Secretary of State is irrelevant to the He-Man Woman Haters Club.
Click to expand...

She never would have gotten either job had she not been married to Bill. Claiming every criticism of the Hildebeest as sexist is getting old - we've seen enough bullshit like that in the 2008 campaign.
If you say anything bad about Hillary's appearance, you are "sexist". Never mind that male candidates are exposed to criticism of their appearance all the time as well, like weight (Christie, Huckabee), expensive (Edwards, Kerry) or wild (Sanders) hair etc. Talking about male candidates' appearance is ok, talking about female candidates' appearance is "sexist". Same with nepotism. Mentioning Bush being related to former presidents is ok, mentioning Hillary is married to a former president is "sexist". Typical of the Left wing hypocrisy.
 
Sarpedon said:
Oh, republicans are complaining about how corporations are influencing the political process. How rich!
Click to expand...
It is a corporation's religious right to be allowed to influence politics!

- - - Updated - - -

Derec said:
BS. In her case it applies, but that doesn't mean it applies to all women.

For example, Condoleeza Rice was Secretary of State as well but she didn't get the job because she was married to the former president.
Click to expand...
You seem to imply that the only reason she did was because her hubby gave Obama a phone call.

Or the only reason she became a senator was because her hubby called every New Yorker and told them they had to vote for Hillary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom