14
   

Mitch McConnell's Statement About Hillary

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2014 10:52 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

To be perfectly honest, I haven't been too impressed with her since 2008, I guess she did ok as secretary of state, but I wasn't exactly impressed with her performance at the Benghazi hearings though I thought the whole thing a witch hunt, no pun intended. I mean her line most democrats (of which obviously I am) was impressed with, I thought did more damage than anything Susan Rice or Obama said put together, but that's just my own personal opinion. It was just too flippant when they were dealing with the deaths of four people regardless of witch hunt the republicans were on.

I hope Biden runs and Hillary does not, but I doubt I will get that lucky.


I liked your statement until it got to Biden (he of the phony hair and teeth). While he is a good lib, he is much too garrulous and foolish. The GOP would slaughter him.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2014 12:29 pm
@Advocate,
Your right, he gets silly sometimes, but still, I think he is qualified and would do a good job. Be nice if someone totally new would come along.
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2014 04:20 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
Concerning Mitch McConnell, I despise him, I will be glad when the day comes he is finally forced to retire, as I doubt he will ever loose an election in KY, although it seems like they allow senators to linger even when they have hobble up the isle...


With respect to Mitch McConnell, your sentiments are mine, exactly! On the first night of President Obama's election, McConnell said his first priority was to make sure Obama serve one term only!....He intended Obama to fail; if the president of the American people fail, then the American people will suffer. What manner of creature is the repulsive Mitch McConnell?! The Kentucky race is neck and neck between Alison Lundergan and Minority Senate Leader, McConnell. But this evil crabby politician is almost sure to pull through simply because I so passionately want him to lose.

The people of Kentucky are enjoying "ObamaCare" while McConnell continues to say he's going to repeal it; perhaps McConnell's attitude towards taking away their insurance will incentivize more Kentuckians to come out and vote during this off-year election. We know by 2016 ObamaCare will be like the Third Rail in politics, similar to Medicare and Social Security..... any politician who dares to broach the subject will invariably suffer politically.

revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2014 08:29 am
@Moment-in-Time,
Mitch McConnell talking about repealing Obamacare, is just that, talk, designed to appeal to his base. It may be time to rethink that strategy on republicans part if Obamacare becomes more popular across all parties. I think Obamacare is here to stay, some of the provisions will be probably be changed though. While we are talking of wanting something we don't think will happen, I hope Obamacare eventually becomes universalcare.
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2014 12:44 pm
@Advocate,
Talk about being the "pot". McConnell himself looks like he's from a rerun of "Golden Girls".
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2014 01:29 pm
@coluber2001,
I think he looks like a comedy vicar.
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2013/0802-mitch-mcconnell-sized.jpg/16533507-1-eng-US/0802-MITCH-MCCONNELL-sized.jpg_full_600.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--ImIT1WZ8wM/Tvjaeng0-EI/AAAAAAAAVCc/QzmfOmIdMCc/s1600/DickEmery.jpg
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2014 01:36 pm
bookmarking
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 12:51 am
@izzythepush,
Uh, you knew this was coming. Twisted Evil . . .


http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2638/lettuce.jpg

Looks like I'm guilty of lookism! Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 03:40 pm
@revelette2,
Moment-in-Time wrote:
"The only force spotlighting age as a problem for Hillary is the GOP....and boy have they started their tirade about how "old and tired she looks." Clinton's poll ratings are in the 60s, far ahead of any possible GOP candidates and VP Biden. It seems more Americans want her to run than those who don't."
______

Revelette2 wrote:
"I know she would probably blow Biden out of the water, he usually puts his foot in it some way or another which is why I hope she actually don't run in the end, like I said though, I doubt I get that lucky."
______

Unequivocally, these two politicians are different in temperament and policy, and Hillary has her act more together than Biden, that is, she is more of a professional politician than he is. I like the VP with or without his foot-in-mouth-disease. But like you I do not perceive his ever getting the Dem nomination.
_______
Revelette2 wrote:
"I haven't really kept up with Warren much...."
________

Ah!….. I have.
_____

Revelette2 wrote:
"I know she has a lot to say regarding inequality between the rich and the poor, but that is about the extent of what I know about her. Even knowing as little as I do about her, I would rather her run than Hillary too. "
____

Elizabeth Warren has this extraordinary ability to articulate to others the essence of any subject. She was a Harvard Law School professor and was recently nominated for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a special position to the Treasury Department and to head the effort to get the new federal agency branch standing by President Obama. The Republican congress opposed her for the position by dragging their feet. A native of Massachusetts, she withdrew her name for that nominated position and sought the senate, thereby opposing Scott Brown. Warren won, big time! Since her move to the senate she has made a fantastic name for herself while unnerving the GOP. Republicans will now have two unusually strong Democrats who will be tremendously effective, Clinton and Warren. They know the only way the Pukes can possibly gain victory over Clinton in 2016 is to outright steal the election via voter repression. The American people as a whole are not that familiar with Warren, a relative newcomer on the national scene, but like Barack Obama who came from seemingly out of nowhere, the same could very well occur with Senator Warren if Hillary stumbles or decides NOT to run.

Senator Elizabeth Warren seeks to narrow this widening gap between major business corporations and the American people, and you're right, this is what most concern her. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Warren served as chair of the Congressional Oversight and stated, "I'm really concerned that 'too big to fail' has become 'too big for trial.

I, too, wish Warren were running instead of Clinton; the former seems warmer, softer and more a people person.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 03:58 pm
I backed Hillary over Barack Obama first time around...and have expressed a big desire to vote for her for president.

I think she would make a very fine and competent chief executive.

But although I realize that presidential fever is almost impossible to cure, for some reason I see her as less interested in the office these days.

That may soon prove to be totally wrong.

But the toxic political climate caused by extreme right-wing nut-case warming...may simply have soured her on the idea. If anyone thinks the kind of treatment Barack Obama is getting at the hands of these Philistines is over-the-top...it probably would look like child's play compared with what Hillary would have to endure if she took the office.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 04:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I backed Hillary over Barack Obama first time around...and have expressed a big desire to vote for her for president.

I think she would make a very fine and competent chief executive.

But although I realize that presidential fever is almost impossible to cure, for some reason I see her as less interested in the office these days.

That may soon prove to be totally wrong.


I, too, was cheering for Hillary before realizing Obama was making a credible run and then I changed, like many others, who were previously in her corner.

Like you, I feel there's no doubt whatsoever Clinton would make a fine Commander-in-Chief; its just that I don't have an option and am not actively searching for one, with the exception of Senator Warren who isn't running. When comparing the two persons, Elizabeth and Hillary, I favor the former. I would vote for Hillary Clinton in a heart beat, without any hesitation if she's the Democratic nominee in 2016 and would work on her behalf the way I did initially as well as contribute hundreds of dollars in funds to her campaign.

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
But the toxic political climate caused by extreme right-wing nut-case warming...may simply have soured her on the idea. If anyone thinks the kind of treatment Barack Obama is getting at the hands of these Philistines is over-the-top...it probably would look like child's play compared with what Hillary would have to endure if she took the office.


I think it would take more than a "toxic climate" to frighten Hillary Clinton....she is tough from years of political combat and exposure; she does not frighten easily. Also, Hillary has a stubborn streak in her and her overpowering political ambition will not allow her to sit on the sideline.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 05:24 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:
Also, Hillary has a stubborn streak in her and her overpowering political ambition will not allow her to sit on the sideline.


I hope you are right, MiT.

All I know is...I do not want the presidency to go back into the hands of the Republicans. This retrograde SCOTUS now operating cannot be pushed any further to the right...and the only way to prevent that is for the Democrats to keep the White House.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2014 06:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Moment-in-Time wrote:
Also, Hillary has a stubborn streak her overpowering political ambition will not allow her to sit on the sideline.
_____

Quote:
I hope you are right, MiT.


All I know is...I do not want the presidency to go back into the hands of the Republicans. This retrograde SCOTUS now operating cannot be pushed any further to the right...and the only way to prevent that is for the Democrats to keep the White House.


The realistic possibility that SCOTUS will go even further right resembles an unimaginable horror. We see the restrictiveness of the GOP policies they're trying to implement. With a future majority Republican congress including the senate and the US presidency selecting the next United States Supreme Court jurists, life would not be worth living in America. The US is beginning to represent an Oligarchy.......a government in which all power is vested in the very few super rich. I have watched the obstructionism placed in the path of Obama, but that's only a small measure of it. Give these GOP pure power and America will soon be a country of homeless people. With Republican unadulterated power ObamaCare could be repealed or watered down to a mere shadow of what it is today, the way they are placing obstacles in front of Roe vs Wade in many states. The Republican Party is already discussing vouchers for Medicare and a GOP-controlled Congress would have the necessary votes to privatize Social Security.

The future for America seem depressing. And yet, I have faith that in 2016 more Americans will vote, the GOP will not stand a chance at the presidency, especially with the Older Republican Guard in the rear opposing change and the immigration bill. Why these fu*ks even opposed extending unemployment benefits and have cut food stamps while refusing to close loop holes for the rich.

Have a good evening.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2014 09:50 am
@Moment-in-Time,
Elizabeth Warren wouldn't stand a chance running for President. Her lack of foreign policy credentials would doom her at this point. Being a woman, the lack of foreign policy experience will hurt her more than it would a man. No one can make a foreign policy argument against Hillary after she has been Sec of State. They can try to attack her record at State if they desire but it is a record that few can bring to the table.
stopsexismagainstmen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2014 10:59 am
@Advocate,
In no way are these apples and oranges. That is your narrow minded view taking over again.
This video was a Marks and Spencers advert, banned because it was sexist as the woman was in her underwear. Exactly the same as the adverts that I previously showed you, except the gender is reversed and therefore there are repercussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbwS9kNboM
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2014 01:47 pm
@stopsexismagainstmen,
stopsexismagainstmen wrote:

In no way are these apples and oranges. That is your narrow minded view taking over again.
This video was a Marks and Spencers advert, banned because it was sexist as the woman was in her underwear. Exactly the same as the adverts that I previously showed you, except the gender is reversed and therefore there are repercussions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbwS9kNboM



McConnell's statement implied that Hillary is too old to be president. I haven't seen such negativity in portrayals of men.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2014 02:31 pm
@parados,
Good point.
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2014 03:38 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Elizabeth Warren wouldn't stand a chance running for President. Her lack of foreign policy credentials would doom her at this point. Being a woman, the lack of foreign policy experience will hurt her more than it would a man. No one can make a foreign policy argument against Hillary after she has been Sec of State. They can try to attack her record at State if they desire but it is a record that few can bring to the table.


No doubt you make a credible argument with the exception of this caveat, if the same significant number of people who voted in 2008 and 2012 for Barack Obama voted for Warren, then I think she might be able to overcome that hurdle of lack of foreign policy experience. I'll admit that the deck seems to be stacked against a woman lacking this experience.....Hillary has since added Secretary of State to her resumé, but chances are had Obama not entered the political scene in 2008, conventional wisdom indicates Clinton would be our president today. As First Lady of the Clinton administration, she had foreign exposure, but it was Bill Clinton who was the president. Most Democratic voters, imo, vote with their hearts; they want someone who will empathize with the American people and truth be known, most Americans don't give a fig about foreign affairs and certainly doesn't look forward to another war. President Obama never served in the armed forces, but he has experts to advise him in these matters.

Now the Republicans might try and make "lack of Foreign Policy experience" an issue, but all one has to do is hark back to George W Bush who did not know his rear end from his mouth, yet a partisan SCOTUS stole the election for this incurious presidential candidate and even after he made such a foreign policy blunder invading a sovereign nation, Iraq, he was reelected a second term.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 08:52 am
@Moment-in-Time,
Most Americans may not give a fig about foreign affairs but there is a desire to have someone strong enough to protect us. It isn't the Democratic voters that will swing the election. It's the moderates. Yes, Obama never served but he is a man which gives him testosterone points. Voting is often emotional as you state. Warren doesn't have the emotional appeal that a man would when someone is concerned about protecting the US.

The lack of foreign experience for GW was moderated by 2 things. He did serve in the military, even if it was only in the guard. He had a VP candidate with strong foreign policy credentials that was promoted as making up for Bush's weakness there.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 03:31 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Yes, Obama never served but he is a man which gives him testosterone points.


You're inferring a woman would make less of a good president because she doesn't have male "testosterone" to give her extra points?! Surely you jest? Women can be just as effective a president as men....just as ruthless if that's what it takes; politics/sexism in the US, the traditional stereotype of sexual roles have prevented the American woman's rise; today is a new day! Hold on to your pants!!!!

Quote:

parados wrote:
Voting is often emotional as you state. Warren doesn't have the emotional appeal that a man would when someone is concerned about protecting the US.


That is YOUR personal viewpoint, Pardos....what, pray, do you have to support such an assumption that "Warren doesn't have the emotional appeal that a man would when someone is concerned about protecting the US"?! You write as if you know Elizabeth Warren personally! So far she seems to be holding her own in reaching across to all sexes when referring to the economy and she seem to have a hidden strength which seems invisible at this time but is felt by the frightened GOP. If she were to run I think she would make an excellent candidate; however, at this time, it's wishful thinking because she has said emphatically she will not run and has endorsed wholeheartedly, Hillary Clinton.

<<The lack of foreign experience for GW was moderated by 2 things. He did serve in the military, even if it was only in the guard. He had a VP candidate with strong foreign policy credentials that was promoted as making up for Bush's weakness there.>>>>>

Really? I understand Dick Cheney had held posts in many administrations so in a way he should have developed some experience although he never served in the military, having requested 5 deferments. If Cheney had "strong foreign policy credentials" (he must have kept this talent deliberately hidden) it certainly wasn't manifested throughout the GWB two terms. Realistically, Cheney's influence and leadership were a disaster on the GWB administration and it's hard to see how any vice president could do worse....the GWB administration will be recorded in the chronicles of history as one of the worse in the US; this monumental failure of the GWB administration can be laid at the door of Dick Cheney.

George W Bush was interested in just one thing only, being president in name only! He did not appreciate what damage was being done to his administration because he did not possess the mental ability to judge that Cheney was using his administration for profit for Halliburton, his company. It's fair to say W had taken drugs and alcohol for a large portion of his adult life or at least up until the age of 40, and was used to partying. His graduated with a C+ from Yale University. His father went there so for the right amount of donations by the Bush family W was accepted.

George W Bush had a controversial military career; he was in the National Guard where he showed up for duty SOMETIME! Dan Rather, CBS's former most remarkable reporter, was forced to resign because he was investigating information regarding W's skipping often out of National Guard duty; only showing up when he was sober. There is no defense for George W Bush's lack of qualification or Dick Cheney as far as that goes.

The damage done by the illegal invasion of Iraq with the human cost was just too much and Dick Cheney along with some the Neocons are responsible. Over 4,500 US military deaths, untold number of US military injured mental and physical. Tens of thousands of dead innocent Iraqi citizens not to mention the refugees crowding into neighboring countries.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 11:39:44