Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by fonzob1, Jun 18, 2017.
Didn't read the thread -
Something tells me Trump won't be up for a 2nd term.
Yeah, if she were like a general or something, that would be experience that's relevant to the job and would be evidence of some qualities that would be useful to a president. I mean, there are many generals who you wouldn't want in the WH, but you could say the same about governors, and that's still something that looks really good on the resume of a presidential candidate. But just having enlisted and done some work doesn't mean anything.
The fact that she has such an unimpressive background and is so morally questionable and unimpressive and is still seen as a potential presidential candidate does suggest that she plays the game really well, though, and that is important (though, frankly, it makes me distrust her more).
Do you think you're missing the point though. I specifically said the polls weren't far off.
Perhaps you missed that point
I smell a Warren-Booker ticket..
All the overly aggressive far leftie "We are the ones allowed to talk rudely and yell" people on social media will be surprised to learn they are still not the majority of America in most places. Warren-Booker wins California biiiiiiiiiiiiiig.
Would be that Trump doesn't run again.
Generals will not make good Presidents. Civilian oversight of the military is very, very important. The military is trained to want war, and to think that money for the military comes out of thin air.
right....but he never ran against anyone with a decent approval rating.
the republicans that he ran against in the primaries all had their votes split among several different candidates. even dems didnt like clinton. hes never gone head to head with someone who is liked.
Trump didn't win New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada or Virginia. Your gif is fake news. Sad.
If he doesn't get done everything he promised in his first term, he might feel an obligation to run again. He is not the type to give up easily.
It was a difference of about 400 hundred thousand votes (not millions).
Biden would be 77 and Trump would be 74 for a 2020 election. That's a lot of miles. I'm not sure Biden would make a run at it again. He should've jumped in last go around but the guy lost his second child. That takes a toll.
I still believe a male should be on top of the ticket. A like Franken but he's kinda soft. Bernie would be older than Biden in 2020. Booker has a few years to unite support around him. Lets see if he does. Brown is old, Cuomo doesn't excite anyone. The celeb thing I don't see working. The Amazon CEO will basically run the country by 2020 so I don't see him wasting a year running.
Dark horses IMO: Washington governor, Jay Inslee, New Orleans mayor, Mitch Landrieu, Congressman Seth Moulton from Massachusetts.
I am aware of the Syria visit. What is wrong with it . I think it was right of her to go. If McCain and Hillary can go an pal around with Islamist rebels, why shouldn't Gabbard go and see what the other side says.
Our interventionist Dems like Hillary , Albright and Co. along with the NeoConservartive GOP are intent on getting us into more MidEast wars to push the PNAC agenda and the agenda of the Gulf Arabs and Israelis, so any politician , like Gabbard or Ron Paul, who goes against this scheming is good for us.
Gabbard says she is studying the Russia issue. She also mentions that Pence is very Hawkish on foreign policy. So we are likely to see a very anti Russian , anti Iranian , anti Shia foreign policy . One that favors the worst elements in the MidEast.
results are in. He won...
I get your point. Trump can have 0 votes in California and still win.
So you're aware that she's not ethical and that she has used her office to benefit personally but you don't mind because you like the way she markets herself.
That's a separate issue. My point was that I don't think she's a good candidate because of her ethical issues and lack of education, experience, and intelligence. You're not disputing what I'm saying; you're just saying that you think she's going against a big conspiracy that you're imagining, and you think that it's OK to elect someone who is unethical and unqualified if they're playing the right role in that fake drama.
Anyway, we'll see, but my guess is that Democrats will not as easily get conned or be as willing to defend an unqualified and corrupt politician as Republicans were in 2016.
Perhaps you understand that now after the fact
No I do not agree that going to Syria was unethical.
How has she personally enriched herself? Having someone else pay for the trip is not personally benefitting her, unlike a campaign donation or a cruise or vacation to a tourist hotspot. She went to Syria on a fact-finding mission and to let Americans know about the other side. The Syria trip wasn't a touristy jaunt.
I disagree that she is not smart. I much prefer a principled and relatively honest politician to a smart self serving calculating politician.
It's not an imagined conspiracy, there really is a War party, composed of Dems and Repubs. Obama thankfully wasn't part of this.
Going back to her supposed unethical behavior: to the contrary I think she is far more ethical than the Clinton camp and many other politicians. If she was a duplicitious calculating politician, she would have backed the winning horse (Hillary) and kept her positiion as Vice Chair of the DNC. She may very likely have even secured the Chair by now. Now compare her to Hillary and her support for the NeoConservative Iraq war.
I voted for Obama twice, so I am hoping the Dem grass-roots learn from the disastoruous 2016 election and mimic the GOP grass-roots in picking an outsider .
"Going to Syria" on its own is not unethical. Did you check out the whole story?
No, she's nothing though. Why was she even invited? The point was to wine and dine her and persuade her, and she does indeed appear to be compromised.
So why would you like her? She isn't principled or honest, and she is very self-serving (witness her rise in politics and the Syria trip or her lies about her past positions).
Oh, that's silly.
It's insane to compare her to Clinton, but, sure, I'd agree that there are likely other politicians who are even less ethical than she is.
No, her calculation was just different, likely because of the circles she's already found herself in.
That's not the right lesson to learn. And even if it were, if you have to abandon your principles and general sense of right and wrong in order to win elections, what's the point? If Trump weren't the alternative, I'd rather lose with a decent candidate than win with Gabbard.
Voted for The Rock because Terry Crews wasn't an option. Shame on you TS.
the Rock would lay the smackdown on his candy ass.