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.

Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats [MERGED]

Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

People lie about all sorts of stuff and for very dumb reasons. And I didn't say this was the fault of Hillary supporters or they are more guilty.

Oh fucking please, you insinuated that very thing which was why eastofeden and I took exception. Perhaps you are not being quite honest with yourself.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

No, socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Ownership by workers would be a form of capitalism.

Any system where workers collectively govern their own productivity.

I am currently an agent for a mutual insurance company and I consider it a socialist scheme. The company may not direct the manner in which I conduct my business and the corporate government derives its power from policyholders.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

Any system where workers collectively govern their own productivity.

I am currently an agent for a mutual insurance company and I consider it a socialist scheme. The company may not direct the manner in which I conduct my business and the corporate government derives its power from policyholders.

A mutual company is not socialism it is a corporation. Each policy holder is a stockholder. The definition of socialism is "government ownership or control of the means of production.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

A mutual company is not socialism it is a corporation. Each policy holder is a stockholder. The definition of socialism is "government ownership or control of the means of production.

It fits the definition of socialism, which is social ownership of the economy. There are many forms of social ownership. State control is but one of them.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

Oh fucking please, you insinuated that very thing which was why eastofeden and I took exception. Perhaps you are not being quite honest with yourself.

No I didn't. I was specifically responding to his comment that his Hillary supporter friends "will say they will vote for him." Which is where my comment comes in.

I didn't say Hillary supporters were the only ones with this problem.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

No I didn't. I was specifically responding to his comment that his Hillary supporter friends "will say they will vote for him." Which is where my comment comes in.

I didn't say Hillary supporters were the only ones with this problem.

Of course they will. They are Liberal Democrats..to the core. They have no reason to lie about it....neither do I. The my way or the highway bullshit is not coming from people like them. If I didn't want to vote for him..I would say I won't...or I would have to plug my nose..and I don't even have to plug my nose to vote for Bernie. He just isn't my first choice for very good reasons...PERIOD. If you need to think some of us are lying..that is your choice. I am not going to address it again.

BTW...I tried to point this out at the beginning but I realize it is kinda a waste of time....as it is every election....but once again just in case....

There are right wing shills that pretend they are a supporter of one of the other that intentionally start fires and watch them burn. They pit people against each other....parroting the bullshit...

I finally had to turn off talk radio years ago because if you are paying attention..it is easy to recognize. I see it all the time on the mainstream news sites on the Internet. If you follow the names on some of them..you can find out for yourself with their history of "comments".

Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are especially hated by them..BECAUSE they successfully survived and thrived...and they have tried to take Hillary down since she wanted to implement health care. They didn't just "stop" because they decided to play nice. They are pretending to be Bernie Supporters now..and when the fight gets real bad..they will pretend to be Hillary supporters...

They are the reason I swore off politics finally on the Internet in 2007-2008. I didn't like any of them very much except for Kucinich and so when I was making my case about Barack Obama and why I didn't want to vote for him..which were my own thoughts and authentic...I found out I was just giving these idiots a script....and my skin started to crawl...so I just became silent about it... on the internet anyway.

I categorically ignore the firestarters...in the 3-D world..and the cyber world..because it is a colossal waste of time and energy when you don't.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

Oh, bullshit. She just won against Sanders 73-to-26 in SC -- Trump only got 32.5 --, and she's way ahead in most Southern states, too.

I'd be very surprised if she won every state, but she's doing WAY better than some people would like to admit. The odds for Super Tuesday are definitely in her favor.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

There are right wing shills that pretend they are a supporter of one of the other that intentionally start fires and watch them burn. They pit people against each other....parroting the bullshit...

True.

Deception is a well tailored talent, for those with an agenda.....well noted here...
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

Hillary is the weakest candidate to run against the republicans.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

Hillary is the weakest candidate to run against the republicans.

Source please? Or is the source "in my mind"? Facts please. Thank you.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

Source please? Or is the source "in my mind"? Facts please. Thank you.

gotta get over the arrogance sir. denial of fact is a classic neo-con position.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — US Senators Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders are the strongest presidential candidates in 2016 election face-offs, according to a new poll released on Friday. "Sanders and Rubio are the strongest candidates in general election matchups," a new Quinnipiac University poll stated.Feb 5, 2016

Source: Google; who are the strongest general election candidates.

CNN did their own poll YESTERDAY showing Hillary LOSING vs Cruz and Rubio.
 
gotta get over the arrogance sir. denial of fact is a classic neo-con position.

Source: Google; who are the strongest general election candidates.

CNN did their own poll YESTERDAY showing Hillary LOSING vs Cruz and Rubio.

Did a Google, didn't come up with anything much that said anything. If you Google for the same things often enough, eventually Google will begin to tailor your results. Can create an echo chamber.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

gotta get over the arrogance sir. denial of fact is a classic neo-con position.



Source: Google; who are the strongest general election candidates.

CNN did their own poll YESTERDAY showing Hillary LOSING vs Cruz and Rubio.

I assure no arrogance on my part, thank you.

As to your next "label", do not know from which you speak.

Now, one more question to add to those already asked unanswered questions--just who does Hillary have to beat in the National election? I'm not following your "losing vs. Cruz and Rubio." Still would like to see your reputable source. Sorry I did not specify reputable in the earlier post. My bad.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

Anyways.

So CNN just backed up everything i have been saying. Trump will unite the republicans and even tear away reagan democrats and disaffected democrats. Hillary cannot unite democrats. David Axelrod, Obama's chief advisor said not so fast, however he forgets to mention that Hillary will have none of the benefits that Obama did in 2008 because republicans at the time were incredibly unpopular and Obama had ran that primary with Hillary. Hillary is for sure the riskier bet for democrats, but i say that as an outside not just a sanders person.
 
Anyways. So CNN just backed up everything i have been saying. Trump will unite the republicans and even tear away reagan democrats and disaffected democrats. Hillary cannot unite democrats. David Axelrod, Obama's chief advisor said not so fast, however he forgets to mention that Hillary will have none of the benefits that Obama did in 2008 because republicans at the time were incredibly unpopular and Obama had ran that primary with Hillary. Hillary is for sure the riskier bet for democrats, but i say that as an outside not just a sanders person.
That's laughable. The republicans are already running away from him. This alternate universe you inhabit is dark and dystopian.
 
Proof Positive: Clinton is not just less electable than Sanders, shes far less electable

Sanders people (and countless polls) have been saying for days, weeks if not months that Bernie is more electable than Hillary. But for reasons such as Clinton's supporters denial their candidate is flawed has allowed the narrative to be the opposite of what voters know, that is because voters for Clinton see her as more experienced. They assert the electability argument only applies to Bernie and not Hillary? They don't see the huge trap they are setting for themselves, which is unfortunate, but comes with the blind adoration Hillary gets that Sanders people simply cannot conceive. Why? Its irrationality that dominates in Hillary-land.

Experience doesn't mean jack shit to anybody but Clinton people, do they not see experience is her Achilles heel? Hillary is a war monger and a candidate of wall street in a political environment that is toxic to establishment pro-war candidates IN BOTH PARTIES!

Hillary Clinton is the only pro-war candidate that has any chance of winning their respective parties nomination, we know Trump is hugely anti-war but Clinton people don't care about that. They don't care what the facts bare out that pro-war voters are but a fraction of the majority who are against the idea of Iraq, see it as a bad decision along with perpetual war in the middle east. That anti-war anti-establishment candidates are the only people increasing turnout in actual voting.

Clinton people will gladly make excuses for Hillary until they are blue in the face, and they simply don't care how many elections democrats will lose in the process.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11158110/bernie-sanders-electability-clinton
 
Re: Proof Positive: Clinton is not just less electable than Sanders, shes far less electable

tumblr_mww5k1aBHg1ss4zboo1_500.gif
 
Sanders people (and countless polls) have been saying for days, weeks if not months that Bernie is more electable than Hillary. But for reasons such as Clinton's supporters denial their candidate is flawed has allowed the narrative to be the opposite of what voters know, that is because voters for Clinton see her as more experienced. They assert the electability argument only applies to Bernie and not Hillary? They don't see the huge trap they are setting for themselves, which is unfortunate, but comes with the blind adoration Hillary gets that Sanders people simply cannot conceive. Why? Its irrationality that dominates in Hillary-land.

Experience doesn't mean jack shit to anybody but Clinton people, do they not see experience is her Achilles heel? Hillary is a war monger and a candidate of wall street in a political environment that is toxic to establishment pro-war candidates IN BOTH PARTIES!

Hillary Clinton is the only pro-war candidate that has any chance of winning their respective parties nomination, we know Trump is hugely anti-war but Clinton people don't care about that. They don't care what the facts bare out that pro-war voters are but a fraction of the majority who are against the idea of Iraq, see it as a bad decision along with perpetual war in the middle east. That anti-war anti-establishment candidates are the only people increasing turnout in actual voting.

Clinton people will gladly make excuses for Hillary until they are blue in the face, and they simply don't care how many elections democrats will lose in the process.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11158110/bernie-sanders-electability-clinton

By that logic I could run for president.
I have zero political back story and absolutely no track record, good or bad.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton now seen as 'Risky Gamble' for Democrats

Hillary is a liar, & Sanders is a loon. Either one of them elected would be a bigger disaster then Obama. The Democrats need someone like JFK (GOOD LUCK IN FINDING ONE)
 
Back
Top