U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/us-presidential-election-2016-because-its-never-too-early-218216.html)

trojanchick99 03-24-2015 07:40 PM

US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early
 
So, we have our first official candidate.

Ted Cruz.

In 24 hours he's made more gaffes than Romney in a month. My favorite is the irony of him signing up for Obamacare after losing his wife's insurance. :lol:

Ted Cruz says he's going on Obamacare - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

But the weirdest may be the story he told about how he stopped listening to Rock music after 9/11. The hell?

Ted Cruz: I stopped listening to rock music after 9/11 - Kendall Breitman - POLITICO

The Daily Show's coverage of his announcement makes me sad that Jon Stewart won't be around next year to cover this clusterfuck of an election.

Democalypse 2016 - Ted Cruz Is In - The Daily Show - Video Clip | Comedy Central

MrPryck2U 03-24-2015 07:47 PM

Yeah, I wonder what the birthers are gonna say about him being born in Canada?

Mrs. Garrison 03-24-2015 07:51 PM

I work for the Fed. Don't get me started on this guy, and the horse he rode in on. He is the worst possible candidate the GOP could nominate. He would be a fucking disaster for this country. Of course, the other board i frequent (car forum) is chock full of middle aged, middle class white dudes, and they all love him. Texas Quit giving us these idiotic moronic dumbfucks for candidates. Just stop it. If he wants to be President, then let texas secede and he can be their goddamned president. (sorry for anyone here who is from texas)

Even some of his own party cannot stand him:

GOP Peter King dismisses Ted Cruz as 'carnival barker' - CNN.com

Quote:

GOP Rep. Peter King dismisses Ted Cruz as 'carnival barker'
By Deirdre Walsh and Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated 9:16 AM ET, Tue March 24, 2015

Washington (CNN)Rep. Peter King called Sen. Ted Cruz a "big mouth" who "basically led the Republican Party over the cliff" and dismissed Sen. Rand Paul as an "isolationist" on Monday as he said their party should ignore those two candidates for its 2016 presidential nomination.

King's sharpest comments were directed at Cruz.

"To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results," the New York Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify," King said of Cruz. "Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn't carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience."

King, who is considering his own campaign for the White House, also took aim at another freshman senator who's likely to enter the 2016 race -- Kentucky's Rand Paul.

He said Paul is a "nice guy" but far too much of an "isolationist" for his liking.

"His views would basically remove the U.S. from having a real role to play in the world, and his mindset -- when you look at things he's said over the years, in effect blaming the United States for problems around the world, somehow that it's our fault," King said. "To me that's a bad mindset for the commander-in-chief of the United States to be going into office with."

He said there are several Republican presidential candidates he could support. Among them, King said, are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

"We have a lot of talent out there," he said. "I just don't see Ted Cruz and Rand Paul being part of that talent pool."

King's doing little to hide his frustrations with freshman senators who are courting the GOP's most conservative and libertarian factions.

Earlier Monday, King had issued a written statement criticizing Cruz's announcement that he was running in 2016 and said the Texas Republican isn't qualified to serve as president.

"Shutting down the federal government and reading Dr. Seuss on the Senate floor are the marks of a carnival barker not the leader of the free world," King said in a written statement on Monday.

King's statement references a Cruz speech on the Senate floor that last more than 20 hours, railing against Obamacare in 2013.

King has been a vocal Cruz critic since the government shutdown that fall, blaming him for the standoff and calling him a "fraud."

Cruz and other conservatives pressed House Republican leaders to push a strategy to defund Obamacare as part of the annual legislation to fund federal agencies. The fight over the issue triggered a closure of the government for more than two weeks. House GOP leaders ultimately relented and passed a spending bill without the health care provision, and later acknowledged the strategy damaged their standing in public opinion polls.

King, a senior member of both the Homeland Security and Intelligence committees, has traveled to some early primary states and said he's mulling a potential 2016 bid because he believes the Republican party needs to nominate someone who will press a strong national security agenda.

Another potential GOP presidential contender took aim at Cruz on Monday. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, scoffed when asked how a President Cruz would handle a nuclear crisis.

"Ted with nukes, Ted with nukes, let's see ..." he joked, drawing laughter from the crowd. "I dunno what Ted would do, but he should come up here and answer these questions, don't you think?"

Graham is openly contemplating a presidential bid and has also been trying to establish himself as the national security candidate in the soon-to-be crowded field.

Im ready for Hillary, or Warren, hell, anyone who can defeat the tea party. If you know me you would know what a thing this is for me to say. (sorry for the rant) :angry:

Mrs. Garrison 03-24-2015 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPryck2U (Post 7925439)
Yeah, I wonder what the birthers are gonna say about him being born in Canada?

https://therealwithdarylanddevon.file...95_n.jpg?w=705

BVS 03-24-2015 08:00 PM

Cruz makes W look like an intellectual.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

nbelcik 03-24-2015 08:07 PM

https://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx_mobile.html

Here's a great article from Forbes about who Cruz is really running for. If he's elected he'll only represent white, evangelical Christians, he doesn't give a shit about anyone else. Choosing to have his announcement at Liberty University (which has a center for "Creation Studies") and the explicitly religious language that made up most of his announcement show that. Luckily, (and I say this with 100% confidence) he will not be president.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

bobsaget77 03-24-2015 08:12 PM

Karl Rove-Ted Cruz 2016!
That's a winner for sure!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

trojanchick99 03-24-2015 08:15 PM

The irony of requiring students to attend the announcement at a school named Liberty will always make me smile.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using U2 Interference mobile app

prbiker15 03-24-2015 08:18 PM

US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trojanchick99 (Post 7925452)
The irony of requiring students to attend the announcement at a school named Liberty

I was thinking the same thing. Not a fan of Ted Cruz, but we shall see how far he gets.

Mrs. Garrison 03-24-2015 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbelcik (Post 7925448)
Welcome to Forbes

Here's a great article from Forbes about who Cruz is really running for. If he's elected he'll only represent white, evangelical Christians, he doesn't give a shit about anyone else. Choosing to have his announcement at Liberty University (which has a center for "Creation Studies") and the explicitly religious language that made up most of his announcement show that. Luckily, (and I say this with 100% confidence) he will not be president.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Cruz probably doesn't get the nomination because he is just too divisive. He might be somebody's (Jeb) VP pick though. Assuming of course, he doesn't pull too many stunts in the primaries and debates and completely piss off the rest of the GOP field.

He might be 2016's version of ass juice Santorum, which is a great thing for Democrats, because he will look down upon anyone who isn't white, christian, and heterosexual. And of course this would be well documented by everyone (except Faux news).

As we learned last time around, nothing gets people to the polls like voting against an endless display of bigotry, real or manufactured.

Vlad n U 2 03-24-2015 08:31 PM

Ted Cruz looks like a wax figure.

corianderstem 03-24-2015 09:31 PM

Keep on bringing on the most divisive candidates, GOP! The more wackadoo, the better.

Ted Cruz is a good start.

A lot of my fellow Wisconsinite Facebook friends are freaking out about Scott Walker. I'd like to think he is also too divisive or "far right" to be a serious contender, but I feel like I don't know enough about it to know for sure.

Diemen 03-24-2015 09:38 PM

Ted Cruz is well aware he's not going to win the nomination. This isn't about actually becoming president. This is about Ted Cruz getting attention and building his brand.

nbelcik 03-24-2015 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison (Post 7925454)
Cruz probably doesn't get the nomination because he is just too divisive. He might be somebody's (Jeb) VP pick though. Assuming of course, he doesn't pull too many stunts in the primaries and debates and completely piss off the rest of the GOP field.



He might be 2016's version of ass juice Santorum, which is a great thing for Democrats, because he will look down upon anyone who isn't white, christian, and heterosexual. And of course this would be well documented by everyone (except Faux news).



As we learned last time around, nothing gets people to the polls like voting against an endless display of bigotry, real or manufactured.


My guess is that Scott Walker is gonna get the nomination; Bush's name will prevent him from getting the nomination, but I could be wrong. You're right that Cruz is too divisive, today Peter King called him a "carnival barker" and my best guess is that a quarter to a third of Republicans share that sentiment.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

corianderstem 03-24-2015 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbelcik (Post 7925481)
My guess is that Scott Walker is gonna get the nomination

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ps696fc205.gif

MrPryck2U 03-24-2015 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbelcik (Post 7925481)
My guess is that Scott Walker is gonna get the nomination; Bush's name will prevent him from getting the nomination, but I could be wrong. You're right that Cruz is too divisive, today Peter King called him a "carnival barker" and my best guess is that a quarter to a third of Republicans share that sentiment.

Whenever a Bush's name is involved, you can never count them out. I never thought W would get elected in 2000, but thanks to Jeb, he was able to.

PhilsFan 03-24-2015 10:42 PM

I'd much rather take McCain or Romney over any of the numbskulls the GOP is floating out there this go-around. Scott Walker and Ted Cruz are legitimate disasters.

Irvine511 03-24-2015 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 7925444)
Cruz makes W look like an intellectual.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference



Actually, Cruz is supposed to be quite brilliant. In a totally wrong sort of way, but he's eons beyond W when it comes to raw brainpower.

He's a vanity candidate, and a grifter. He ran for office to make money, and to sell shit like dumb books to Tea Party dupes.

He's Palin with self-awareness.

Irvine511 03-24-2015 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trojanchick99 (Post 7925452)
The irony of requiring students to attend the announcement at a school named Liberty will always make me smile.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using U2 Interference mobile app



Like requiring people to have health care?

bono_212 03-25-2015 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corianderstem (Post 7925474)
Keep on bringing on the most divisive candidates, GOP! The more wackadoo, the better.

Ted Cruz is a good start.

A lot of my fellow Wisconsinite Facebook friends are freaking out about Scott Walker. I'd like to think he is also too divisive or "far right" to be a serious contender, but I feel like I don't know enough about it to know for sure.

Scott Walker legit frightens me, especially because I really feel like he's going to get the nomination.

nbelcik 03-25-2015 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bono_212 (Post 7925514)
Scott Walker legit frightens me, especially because I really feel like he's going to get the nomination.


Yeah, I believe that he's the only Republican candidate who might have a chance against Hillary and that's why he scares me.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

anitram 03-25-2015 07:55 AM

Have any of you read anything about Ted Cruz' father?

Batshit crazy doesn't even begin to cover it.

I also agree about Scott Walker being scary. The problem is that there is actually a real issue re: private vs. public sector pay, allocation of benefits (and the fact many states actually cannot afford to stand behind them), etc which resonates with a LOT of people. Plus it's an issue that is more of a pure economic/conservative one, albeit with social undertones, so it is easier to cling to it and push it in the media without looking insane. It just does not have the revulsion of the "let's make sure all women have transvaginal ultrasounds forced on them before they can have an abortion" or "gays are icky."

nbelcik 03-25-2015 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram (Post 7925571)
Have any of you read anything about Ted Cruz' father?

Batshit crazy doesn't even begin to cover it.

I also agree about Scott Walker being scary. The problem is that there is actually a real issue re: private vs. public sector pay, allocation of benefits (and the fact many states actually cannot afford to stand behind them), etc which resonates with a LOT of people. Plus it's an issue that is more of a pure economic/conservative one, albeit with social undertones, so it is easier to cling to it and push it in the media without looking insane. It just does not have the revulsion of the "let's make sure all women have transvaginal ultrasounds forced on them before they can have an abortion" or "gays are icky."


Rafael Cruz is insane. Go to Right Wing Watch if you're interested in reading more about him. It's funny because the right is always talking about how Obama's (absent) father supposedly influenced him into becoming a socialist, communist, freedom-hating Muslim, but they don't give a shit about Cruz's dad because they agree with him.

I hope that Democrats will attack Walker's economic record because it isn't good. Wisconsin (which is Republican) is doing pretty bad compared to Minnesota (which is Democratic).


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

PhilsFan 03-25-2015 03:53 PM

The problem with Walker is that he's "accomplished" things and will point to that over and over again. What he's accomplished is dreadful, but like Anitram said, it's not considered insane in the mainstream.

iron yuppie 03-25-2015 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corianderstem (Post 7925474)
A lot of my fellow Wisconsinite Facebook friends are freaking out about Scott Walker. I'd like to think he is also too divisive or "far right" to be a serious contender, but I feel like I don't know enough about it to know for sure.

Yeah I've heard the Walker predictions as well; he's too polarizing even in his own right-leaning state to be a serious contender on the national stage. Plus he has even less charisma than Romney, as if that were even possible.

deep 03-25-2015 04:51 PM

it's a two stage process

1. who can get the GOP nomination
2. can that GOP nominee win a few toss up states to get 271 electoral votes


answer to both of those questions is that Walker is capable of doing both
Cruz is not.

Mrs. Garrison 03-25-2015 05:44 PM

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corv...ea955360b1.png

This is kind of the dream ticket
 
especially for Democrats

corianderstem 03-25-2015 06:45 PM

I think Scott Walker shouldn't run, because we all know that none of us are really ready for Scott Walker.




#oldinterferencejokesdiehard

BVS 03-25-2015 08:24 PM

:lol:


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

the iron horse 03-25-2015 10:43 PM

Dershowitz: Ted Cruz one of Harvard Law's smartest students | The Daily Caller

nbelcik 03-25-2015 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 7925732)


Doesn't matter how much brainpower he has if he does things like deny that climate change exists. It's possible to be incredibly intelligent but still be really dumb. Ted Cruz falls into this category.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

deep 03-26-2015 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corianderstem (Post 7925685)
I think Scott Walker shouldn't run, because we all know that none of us are really ready for Scott Walker.




#oldinterferencejokesdiehard

Probably one of the best qualified to run
because we all know before one runs they must know how to walk

tapatalk, it works

LuckyNumber7 03-26-2015 01:59 AM

For anyone who thinks Jeb's Bushiness will prevent him from winning an election, you're wrong.

Jeb is much more of a centrist than W. That's why he's currently fighting that label in his own party. He's also a lot more well spoken than W. He might struggle more with winning a primary, but in my opinion he's Hilary's only threat. Don't forget, Florida is increasingly becoming a blue state, and Jeb is idealized for being able to steal the state. He's essentially the last... good governor this state has had.

He's pretty much the only republican Id be willing to listen to, albeit I probably wouldn't vote for any of them.

For whoever said Ted Cruz would be on a ticket with Jeb though... absurd thought. Jeb is level-headed. Then again... McCain did choose Palin as a running mate.

Headache in a Suitcase 03-26-2015 12:46 PM

Ted Cruz has just a hair less electability than Donald Trump. But it's close, so he's got that going for him.

Irvine511 03-26-2015 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbelcik (Post 7925740)
Doesn't matter how much brainpower he has if he does things like deny that climate change exists. It's possible to be incredibly intelligent but still be really dumb. Ted Cruz falls into this category.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference



he's just really cynical and wants money and influence. people don't want to believe in climate change because it's inconvenient and it may require a change of behavior. Cruz exploits this.

U2DMfan 03-26-2015 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 (Post 7925752)
For anyone who thinks Jeb's Bushiness will prevent him from winning an election, you're wrong.

I agree. He can win the GOP pretty damn easily. People writing off Jeb so easily are in for a surprise. What do the Republicans normally do?

1. Big money controls everything in government and politics...and the GOP has plenty of it...nearly all on the side of the establishment.

2. In the 50+ years since the Goldwater mistake, they support the most electable establishment candidate. Always. No matter the rhetoric of Reagan pretending to be an outsider (etc.) none of them were outsiders. They all had big money behind them.

3. Over that same period (since '64), in all but one instance they have nominated a candidate that had been through the fire before. (McCain, Reagan, Dole, Romney...all of them). The one instance where that didn't apply? George W Bush. The legacy vote.

4. George HW Bush is just as much Jeb's father as W is his brother. The establishment (the smart guy business conservatives, not the Reagan-worshippers) respects Bush 41 more than any living Republican. And Jeb is seen as "the smart son" to these people.

5. His stances on immigration and potentially other areas are far more electable than the vast majority of these GOP candidates.

I'm not saying the Bush legacy won't be a drag on him...it certainly will...but people get too narrow minded on this shit. Clinton has as much drag on her too but it doesn't matter in either case.

80% of the people already will vote for the D or the R and it's that simple. Of the 20% in the middle that can be swayed, issues like equal rights (women, gays) and immigration are quite important. Jeb fits that bill. Will he get out of the bloody GOP primary without needing to pander too much? I don't know but if he can show signs of life early on, I think he rolls to the nomination.

And I also agree, he's the only one that could remotely beat HRC. But he won't. The demographics, the electoral college...the basic GOP platform...it's all going against them.

If I had to bet right now, I'd say Walker-Bush or Bush-Walker and that's entirely dependent on whether Walker is a legit national candidate or another Rick Perry/Tim Pawlenty, both wilted like a flower in the national spotlight.

U2DMfan 03-26-2015 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7925865)
he's just really cynical and wants money and influence.

That's accurate. People should think: Rush Limbaugh. It's not that they don't hold core conservative principles, it's that they pretend to be loons to appeal to the loons that buy into this shit...for money.

Some of them accrue that money through books sales (etc.) and some of them amass wealth through becoming elected to high office. I suspect the main difference between these two types of cynical individuals actually is intelligence.

The sad thing is, you really have to be a fair amount of cynical to get anything done in government. Because of the nature of how elections are won - by creating simple, easily digested fantasies. But here is the PARADOX that people need to understand. The cynical smart guys will get real behind closed doors. The genuine True Believers won't.

So in a lot of cases, it pays more to be cynical...and it's harmful to be sincere. I don't mean "pays more" in terms of $$$, though that too, I mean in terms of doing the work of the people. Like Obama had to drop his fantastical rhetoric ("most transparent administration ever") and go behind closed doors and let the health insurance corporation write the Affordable Care Act. I don't blame him for that for one moment. He got the shit done. Clinton did it all the time too...all the smart guys do. Only to be attacked by the fantasists that believe the crap they were told in order to vote for (whoever).

And the one major roadblock in the way of ANYTHING getting done in Washington? Those True Believers. The folks who are actually sincere and actually believe in what got them elected. The dueling ideologies are fantasies that can't work in the real world. The Left sells a fantasy to aspire to - an ideal that can never be reached. The Right sells a fantasy of selected reality - everyone that doesn't adhere is simply wrong, or biased against them.

Such is the paradox of our government...

Irvine511 03-26-2015 03:56 PM

would there be anything more depressing than Bush vs. Clinton?

talk about dynasties.

that's what was so great about Obama -- he felt like we were finally turning the page on the Baby Boom and moving into the future, getting us out of the culture wars of the 60s and the scars of Vietnam.

and yet here we are.

MrPryck2U 03-26-2015 07:06 PM

Don't forget Irvine, 1992 was a 3 way dance. If Perot isn't in the mix taking votes from Bush, Slick Willie doesn't win.

When Obama was elected, it felt like a new beginning. Unfortunately, the GOP just did their absolute best to sabotage his presidency, fucking the entire country in the process.

deep 03-26-2015 09:58 PM

The 92 election was about the economy, Perot did not spoil Bush at all. Bush was a very well know quantity, a vote for Perot was a vote against Bush.

bono_212 03-26-2015 10:39 PM

I really wanted to believe that this time around there would be a stronger push for someone not from the two parties to legitimately run,but it seems that not much has changed, there.

Sent from my SM-G900T using U2 Interference mobile app

nbelcik 03-26-2015 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bono_212 (Post 7925943)
I really wanted to believe that this time around there would be a stronger push for someone not from the two parties to legitimately run,but it seems that not much has changed, there.

Sent from my SM-G900T using U2 Interference mobile app


https://youtu.be/rAT_BuJAI70


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

bono_212 03-26-2015 10:51 PM

I threw it away in the past election, too. :sad:

Sent from my SM-G900T using U2 Interference mobile app

deep 03-26-2015 11:18 PM

That suggest that you would.have.preferred to.have.Romney.

LuckyNumber7 03-26-2015 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7925873)
would there be anything more depressing than Bush vs. Clinton?

talk about dynasties.

that's what was so great about Obama -- he felt like we were finally turning the page on the Baby Boom and moving into the future, getting us out of the culture wars of the 60s and the scars of Vietnam.

and yet here we are.


In a sense, yeah. But still, there's a lot that both of them represent that's noticeably different from their predecessors. Hillary being a woman... which in today's time is a much bigger deal for the progression of women than in Bill's time... and Jeb well... Jeb really isn't like his brother at all. That's more just from experience of him as governor of my state. He's aaaaalmost the progressive that the Republican Party needs to survive. Dick Cheney aught to give him a talking about how Dicks that love Dicks are a good thing. And perhaps foreign policy accepting the Lesbenese.

Irvine511 03-27-2015 12:47 AM

I agree that Jeb is vastly preferable to his idiot brother and most of the rest of the protest movement we now call the GOP, but how is Mrs Clinton a step forward, beyond her gender?

I'm sure she's competent. But beyond that? Is that enough?

bono_212 03-27-2015 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deep (Post 7925951)
That suggest that you would.have.preferred to.have.Romney.

That suggest I would have preferred neither.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7925973)
I agree that Jeb is vastly preferable to his idiot brother and most of the rest of the protest movement we now call the GOP, but how is Mrs Clinton a step forward, beyond her gender?

I'm sure she's competent. But beyond that? Is that enough?

Well, thus the problem of a two party system. There's no other option.

LuckyNumber7 03-27-2015 01:00 AM

Well, I don't know. She has a history of politics, so in that sense, she holds a politician's record of back-and-forth. But in my opinion, she's just as much an Obama product as she is a Bill product. In fact, she's just as much of an in between as Jeb is. Half of more of the same, half of something fresh.

I wouldn't say that her gender is what makes her qualified or desirable, but at the same time I wouldn't discount the nature of where she's coming from. She's not as much of a legacy as another Bush... after all... she's the wife of, not the son of. Certainly an interesting dynamic, gender aside (I mean that in the sense of... if every president was a woman, is the husband really a legacy then?)

I'm certainly not in favor of the dynastic presidencies, but at the same time a Hilary/Bush head to head does offer just as much difference as it does similarity.

Strange thought, how would a Dem/Repube ticket like Clinton/Bush fare in a general election?

Irvine511 03-27-2015 09:22 AM

I suppose her other argument is deep experience -- 8 years in the White House as an active creator of policy, 8 years as a Senator, 4 years as Sec of State. That's a considerable resume.

I think that nepotism is still an issue here, though she's always been wildly accomplished. But that's me objecting to the principle, not the person.

And at this point, the 1990s seems like an idyllic time when all we really worried about were Oval Office BJs and shark attacks. It will be interesting if a Democrat appeals to nostalgia for a better, bygone era

LuckyNumber7 03-27-2015 12:02 PM

Hilary will mention how Jeb was responsible for giving Florida to George W.! Then all hell broke loose.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com