A Very Important Announcement
-
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the President of the United States. She never will be. She is not a threat to you any longer. You don't have to be afraid of her anymore. That is all.
-
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the President of the United States. She never will be. She is not a threat to you any longer. You don't have to be afraid of her anymore. That is all.
YES! Celebrate! (although.. she has set up a massive PAC.. and is funding all sorts of anti-trump groups.. and vows to resist and obstruct as long as Trump is in office.. she is like a hemorrhoid that won't go away.
-
I wish she would go away too. Ignore her and maybe she will.
-
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the President of the United States. She never will be. She is not a threat to you any longer. You don't have to be afraid of her anymore. That is all.
The problem is the Republicans and others of their ilk, do not know how to lead, but only resist. They are such a disparate party, that they need a foil to stay together. Apparently Nancy Pelosi is not a big enough witch for them. That's why they continue to rehash the election.
-
But liberals worshipped Hillary.
-
Even if that were true(which in my opinion it is not. I think the enthusiasm has more to do with the possibility of a female president, rather than the person herself.) does that justify the continual attacks. The election is over, as is her political career. Ding Doing the Hillary witch is dead! (at least in politics–Super PAC or not)
-
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the President of the United States. She never will be. She is not a threat to you any longer. You don't have to be afraid of her anymore. That is all.
By any chance, aadam101, did you take the "That is all" closing from the TV comedy, Childrens Hospital? Such a funny show.
To have a political comment as well, HRC seems to be less present these last few weeks, save the moment when "GOP Twitter" asked if she had a prescription for health care:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gop-asked-hillary-clinton-for-a-health-care-planand-got-burned
Of all the questions you might pick to catch her off-guard, THAT was certainly not the one, lol.
And among Democrats, it's pretty established that generally, liberals worshipped Sanders, while moderates worshipped Clinton. On the Republican side, the old guard worshipped the baker's dozen of also-rans, while the flat-earthers continue to worship Trump.
-
Even if that were true(which in my opinion it is not. I think the enthusiasm has more to do with the possibility of a female president, rather than the person herself.) does that justify the continual attacks. The election is over, as is her political career. Ding Doing the Hillary witch is dead! (at least in politics–Super PAC or not)
Why should there be enthusiasm for having a female president? That is a nightmare.
-
I wish she would go away too. Ignore her and maybe she will.
Not a bad idea, but it didn't work with Lord Voldemort
-
Even if that were true(which in my opinion it is not. I think the enthusiasm has more to do with the possibility of a female president, rather than the person herself.) does that justify the continual attacks. The election is over, as is her political career. Ding Doing the Hillary witch is dead! (at least in politics–Super PAC or not)
Why should there be enthusiasm for having a female president? That is a nightmare.
But it would be a first–another barrier torn down, just like having the first black president. Democrats should have realized that change comes in short spurts , not waves. In retrospect, the expectation that the first black president would be succeeded by the first woman president overestimated the nation's ability to embrace change.
There were great blocs of voters who felt their president should be a white male. That is a big part of MAGA. Let's get back to the 50's.
That's why liberals and progressives are synonyms. We are looking to change the future. Conservatives are trying to preserve the past. The names of the movements are very telling. -
If women wanted a woman President, then there would be a woman president.
Also, if we didn't vote for 50% of Obama, we were racist. If we didn't vote for Hillary's vag, we were sexist.
Social engineering never works.
-
If women wanted a woman President, then there would be a woman president.
Also, if we didn't vote for 50% of Obama, we were racist. If we didn't vote for Hillary's vag, we were sexist.
Social engineering never works.
In the election between Richard Nixon and JFK, Nixon would have won if the mafia had not arranged to have dead people voting. Just a one state difference would have inserted Dick into the Oval Orifice. But then, when JFK put RFK in as Attorney General (massive nepotism), RFK proceeded to destroy the mafia. Then for some reason, both JFK and RFK got assassinated. Anyway… getting back on topic.. JFK would have won easily if he were not Catholic. But, even with that problem, he did get elected. Forget about Obama being black. I don't have a problem with black. However, it is inconceivable to me that a man with the name Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) who was raised in Indonesia as a muslim until the age of 13 could ever become president.
The thing that terrifies me about Hillary is that it is obvious that a large number of people voted for her simply because they want their precious god given right to have a subsidized, guilt-free, no questions asked, abortion on demand, even up until the day of delivery. That is disgusting.
The moonbats try to stigmatize anybody that votes for a white man as being racist. That is ironic, because THEY are the one's being racist! People forget that the democrats are the party of the KKK during it's darkest days of lynchings, etc. Go find a native American Indian and ask them about President Andrew Jackson - who created the Democratic Party in 1828. Who created the Republican Party? Abraham Lincoln in 1854.
-
I never said those who wanted a white male president were racist, but looking to return to a more socially secure past.
They do not hate blacks or women, but simply want to return to a social structure that seems more stable. -
Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the President of the United States. She never will be. She is not a threat to you any longer. You don't have to be afraid of her anymore. That is all.
:true: Bringing her up in an argument to justify the current president's actions severely weakens the argument. How can someone justify a president's actions by asking, "But what about the candidate who lost during the election that has now been over for 8 months?" It's ridiculous and is not a valid argument at this point. Super PAC does not equal presidential power and influence. In my opinion, we have a corrupt president and his name is not Hillary Clinton.
-
This says it all…
-
Forget about Obama being black. I don't have a problem with black. However, it is inconceivable to me that a man with the name Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) who was raised in Indonesia as a muslim until the age of 13 could ever become president.
I was just pointing out that liberals played the race card to guilt people into voting for Obama.
They did the same thing with the sex card for Hillary.
We can't vote for the best candidate, we have to vote based on their oppression status. According to liberals, that is.
-
What you say may be true, but the converse is also true. How many people did not vote for Obama because he was black? How many people chose to "otherize" him and claim he was not a citizen because he was black? How many could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary, no matter how moderate they were or how much they hated Trump simply because she was a woman? The voting for the best candidate argument runs both ways.
-
I couldn't vote for Hillary due to her femi-stasi bullshit.
It's the same reason I didn't vote for Obama the 2nd time. Well, that and all the lies he told.
-
I never meant to cast aspersions at you.
Of the people who voted for Obama because he was black, not all did so to promote "black power," but to see a barrier come down. Similarly, the ones who voted for Hillary because she was a woman, were not all staunch feminists, but wanted to make history.
-
That's still voting for their "oppression" status, not their ability.
