The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Op-Ed Hillary Clinton Is Running Again

TickTockMan

TickTockMan

"Repent, Harlequin!"
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Posts
15,038
Reaction score
715
Points
113
Location
Salem
Hillary Clinton will run for president. Again.

No inside information informs this prediction. No argument is advanced as to whether her run is a good or a bad idea—there are many ways to make a case either way. Instead this is just a statement of simple facts (if facts mean anything anymore, that is). And the facts are clear that the former secretary of state is doing everything she needs to do to run for the White House one more time. If she finds a path to do so, she will take it. And I can prove it.
Click to expand...



http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/hillary-clinton-is-running-for-president-again-214766





If this happens the Democrats will get crushed again if they nominate her. Progressives will not forget that she cheated and cost us the election.
 
I really doubt it, the caravan has moved on.
 
I think Clinton/Democratic operative are floating the name—Chelsea here, Hillary there—for possible money. The Clintons don’t seem to ever pass up a money-making opportunity.

The notion of seriously pulling that shit, and succeeding in getting Hillary nominated, would be like the 1952/1956 matchups of Ike and Adlai with the same result—with an even bigger victory. With 20 states and District of Columbia in her column, a 2016 Hillary barely held New Hampshire, carried Minnesota with less margin support than her national result, and held Nevada and the statewide of Maine by less than +3 points. Colorado and Virginia were carried by +4.91 and +5.32, respectively, but for a 2020 Trump re-election which yields +3 to +5 more national support would create the potential of flipping those states as well.

The Clintons need to get off the stage. They are very much past their sell date.
 
Hillary isn't going to run again. End of story.
 
If Hillary took the Rust Belt seriously (where Barack Obama won twice) she would have won. All she needed to do was close the deal, but she paid states like Wisconsin and Michigan precious little mind when she and her campaign just couldn't be bothered... even Bill Clinton was said in the days running to the election to strongly urge Hillary to visit those states and shore up her strength. I don't care what her defenders here believe, she's overrated, entitled, self-centered and too co-opted by appealing to the powerful and connected and that won't change in 2020. Time to move on from anything Clinton, starting now. The focus now should be to bring a powerful message to the American people that the Democrats will be fighting for a strong and prosperous America for ALL Americans, not mainly for the most connected and wealthy. Goldman Sachs would have found their place at the head of the table under Hillary Clinton, or at least some big financial institution. They certainly did under Bill. They have one now in Trump's Washington. He didn't drain the swamp (surprise, surprise)but what incentive do those living in the Rust Belt states essential for the Democrats to retake the Presidency would giving Hillary another chance to do so? They may feel there is no one out there who really does get their pain and frustration. Trump doesn't, not really. Only pain and frustration that matters to him is his own.. and he finds it everywhere these days as he never ceases to tweet about. But Hillary's ship has sailed and the Democrats have to get their act together and decide if they want a political leadership dedicated first and foremost to the haves, while making us settle for the scraps(which are nicer than Republican "crumbs" but still not much better) or are they a party for all Americans, primarily fighting for the struggling, working and middle classes?
 
Trump didn't get the most votes. He got the rust belt because he made racists and bigots feel vindicated.
 
If indeed she is responding to Trump on his tweets, not only is she a loser but she's a stalker. Time to move on, Hilly.
 
It is such a great way for people to ignore the actual reality of the clusterfuck happening in the White House.

Spend time focusing on some hypothetical run by Hillary so that people still have her to blame for everything.

Really.
 
No, Hillary Clinton is not running for President again. End of story.
 
TX-Beau said:
Trump didn't get the most votes. He got the rust belt because he made racists and bigots feel vindicated.
Click to expand...

I explained it elsewhere.

2012 Barack Obama won the U.S. Popular Vote by +4,984,100.

2016 Hillary Clinton, in a Democratic hold, won the U.S. Popular Vote by +2,868,519.

More than 2.1 million shifted away from the incumbent Democratic Party toward the opposition Republican Party.

Among that +2.1 Republican/Donald Trump national shift were more than +1.6 million shifted from Trump’s Republican pickup states Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Those four pickup states comprise +64 electoral votes. Added to a 2012 Mitt Romney’s electoral-vote score of 206, they were enough to deliver the presidency to Donald Trump. This is before also counting his Republican pickups with Florida, Iowa, and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine.
 
Whatever.

It still doesn't change the outcome.

But the fixation with Hillary at this point is just weird.
 
rareboy said:
It is such a great way for people to ignore the actual reality of the clusterfuck happening in the White House.

Spend time focusing on some hypothetical run by Hillary so that people still have her to blame for everything.

Really.
Click to expand...



Some of us can handle thinking about more that one thing at a time.
 
No.

Some people find it more convenient to blame Hillary and fret about her running again than working to prevent TrumpCo. from trashing the country.

You all want a grass roots liberal revolution?

Then get out there and start in your own back yards and at the same time, start building a strong party around the leader you all think will win instead of blaming Hillary for getting nearly 3 million more votes than Trump.
 
Hillary Clinton was the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

It is not convenient to blame her for losing to Donald Trump. It is mandatory.
 
CoolBlue71 said:
Hillary Clinton was the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

It is not convenient to blame her for losing to Donald Trump. It is mandatory.
Click to expand...

You just cling to that then.

Far easier than figuring out and working toward a winning strategy isn't it?
 
CoolBlue71 said:
I explained it elsewhere.

2012 Barack Obama won the U.S. Popular Vote by +4,984,100.

2016 Hillary Clinton, in a Democratic hold, won the U.S. Popular Vote by +2,868,519.

More than 2.1 million shifted away from the incumbent Democratic Party toward the opposition Republican Party.

Among that +2.1 Republican/Donald Trump national shift were more than +1.6 million shifted from Trump’s Republican pickup states Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Those four pickup states comprise +64 electoral votes. Added to a 2012 Mitt Romney’s electoral-vote score of 206, they were enough to deliver the presidency to Donald Trump. This is before also counting his Republican pickups with Florida, Iowa, and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine.
Click to expand...


CoolBlue71 said:
Hillary Clinton was the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

It is not convenient to blame her for losing to Donald Trump. It is mandatory.
Click to expand...

What the fuck ever. Trump got the rust belt by by playing bigotry and fear. I can absolutely blame the people who fucked us over by not supporting the other candidate because they had some kind of stupid irrational hatred of her snatch.

And let's not forget that she won then election. You want to talk about results, what was the margin of victory in the rust belt states for Trump? Was it three million votes?

No, I didn't think so.
 
I forgot, Rareboy's point is that if one is in here pretending that Hillary is going to run again and that fantasy is somehow relevant to anything whatsoever at all, one is fucking delusional.
 
CoolBlue71 said:
Hillary Clinton was the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

It is not convenient to blame her for losing to Donald Trump. It is mandatory.
Click to expand...

In view of the growing crisis in The White House I'd blame Trump for winning the 2016 general election, despite losing the popular vote.

What a farce....a situation comedy that television can never replicate, there being no end in sight to the lying, deception, misrepresentation, and bullying that daily pours its venomous stream of insults from Trumps White Palace.

I've heard that there's a petition under construction that recommends forgiving King George 111. Queen Elizabeth 11 has indicated that she is not particularly enamoured by Trump's forthcoming visit to the UK, there being no way she can escape from shaking his small hand.

:D
 
rareboy said:
You just cling to that then.

Far easier than figuring out and working toward a winning strategy isn't it?
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand. If you want to hold Hillary and DNC accountable fine, but these same people are not actually talking about any solutions. They are just hammering the same nail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top