Mr. B1ack
10/26/2015 2:23:00 AM
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:03:21 -0500, First Post
<LiberalismIsADisease@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:45:12 -0400, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:49:00 +0000 (UTC), Joe Cooper
>><dragon40@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>
>>>After watching Hillary?s Oscar winning performance last Thursday before
>>>The House Select Committee On Benghazi
>>
>> Nobody who didn''t like HRC before the hearing likes
>> her after the hearing. She was "preaching to the
>> converted", so to speak.
>>
>> However if the GOP field doesn''t get its shit together
>> by xmas then HRC *will* be the next prez.
>>
>> Loudmouth Trump has that populist appeal - but as time
>> goes on enough people will ask "Is this really the kind of
>> guy I''d trust to be the actual president ?" and their answer
>> will be "No. Too risky.". Certainly not ALL will ask this
>> question, but *enough* will - in an age of near 50/50
>> elections - to skew things in HRCs favor.
>>
>> Carson intrigues, but he''s very low-key and I''m not sure
>> how well he could fence with HRC in debates. She''d
>> probably overwhelm him both in volume of rhetoric and
>> in size-o-personality.
>>
>> Bush is probably the actual best choice for future prez,
>> a lot better suited than his brother. I don''t think the "anti-
>> establishment" thing will count nearly as much as some
>> think it will once we''re down to the wire. Alas, Bush
>> is just BORING - almost TOO sane and stable - and
>> that doesn''t play well on TV.
>>
>> Which leaves the GOP with *who* exactly ? A handful
>> of unimpressive bit-players for the most part. Fiorina
>> *might* be able to do something - and she''d be the
>> antidote for the "Time for a female president" thing -
>> but at present she''s eclipsed by Trump and Carson
>> and may not be able to escape their penumbra in time.
>>
>> Convention "wild card" ? MAYbe, but I very much doubt
>> that''d happen unless Reagan came back from the dead.
>>
>> So, for worse or for worse, HRC really has a pretty
>> good chance of winning, at least given todays realities.
>> She''s a vindictive micro-managing control-freak and
>> would NOT be a good president ... more divisive than
>> any of the last few ... and would kick the Land Of The
>> Free in the balls too.
>>
>> However, if she wins, it''s the GOPs fault for piss-poor
>> organization. Party Central should have VERY quickly
>> taken close control and it didn''t - so now the impression
>> is "anarchy" ... nutters and more nutters. They took a
>> nearly sure win and screwed it up. If they plan to do
>> anything, they''ve gotta get that freak Trump OUT of the
>> picture entirely somehow. I''m sure there are surplus
>> skeletons in his closets ... find and USE them. The
>> guy reminds me of Mussolini somehow ... all ego
>> and strut.
>
>Maybe America really does deserve a "President Hillary".
"Deserve" ... maybe ... a whipping with a hickory
stick just might wake ''em up.
But I fear that the damage she''d do would prove
impossible to repair, so as much as America might
"deserve" her I''m afraid it''s too much of a risk for
the sake of an object lesson.
>If our electoral process has degraded into being about who puts on the
>best show and is the "coolest" then "Idiocracy" truly has arrived.
Yes, I think it has.
So let''s lead the idiots AWAY from people like HRC.
>I''ve already witnessed two elections in a row where people had the
>mentality that if they couldn''t have the perfect GOP candidate then
>they just didn''t vote and let the opposition win.
Nose, sharp object, face, spite ....
>And the same jerks then want to bitch about all the crap Obama and
>company have pulled and continue to pull.
>Yeah yeah, sure sure, real logical that is.
People have a long history of rejecting "perfectly good"
for lack of "perfection". Must be something in our wiring.
In a world with 237 flavors of ice-cream people expect
to get something "perfect" (from their POV) yet choices
in viable leader-types are relatively few.
>Meanwhile you could put a diaper on a chimpanzee and put it on the
>democrat ballot and the democrat base will faithfully show up at the
>polls to vote for THEIR candidate.
>The democrats would rather have an incompetent democrat in the
>whitehouse and bitch about how they aren''t "left wing" enough but at
>least it is their guy running the show.
>Republicans have shown that if they don''t have a true blue, walk on
>water conservative that they agree on every issue with that
>apparently, they don''t have much of a problem with giving it to a hard
>core liberal socialist that stands for everything they don''t agree
>with. And even if they did find a Reagan reincarnation, all it would
>take would be for the media to start their attacks and the voters
>would begin to doubt their candidate.
>If the conservative Americans that keep ranting and raving about how
>destructive Obama and the democrats are don''t get their collective
>heads out of their asses and stop being so completely anal when it
>comes to picking apart their own candidates and looking for a reason
>not to vote then look for this country to just keep rolling down the
>same path that we''ve been on for nearly 10 years now.
Now how do we get the idiots on the left side to
be as stupid about THEIR prospective candidates ?
How to inject a "Free-Money Bernie or NOBODY"
mentality ? At least we''d have a balance of idiocy
then ...