Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Fucking Thread About the 2016 Elections, Seriously, What the Hell, I Don't Even

24567103

Posts

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 regular Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Oh good, that bullshit again.

    i like how there's multiple different things this could be referring to, just in the context of this thread.

    Harry DresdenMrVyngaardSquigieSageinaRageEthan SmithEdith UpwardsShadowenZilla360cB557CaptainNemo
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Happiest Goomba! Registered User regular
    Wraith260 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I DON'T REALLY WANT HILLARY BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE IS BETTER/CAN WIN

    ok there I said it

    weren't people saying this exact same thing (not even)8 years ago? i doubt we're going to get another (relatively)unknown breaking ranks and sweeping the nomination, but until we see who is actually running i think it's a bit early to call it for Hillary just yet.

    Back then she had a much smaller lead, and a larger field of opponents. Right now she gets majority support, and nobody else is even in the teens.

    but no one else is actively running at this point. sure Hillary hasn't officially announced, but she's clearly on the campaign trail already and she can afford to be. she has the recognition and the financial backing, so she doesn't need to worry about running out of steam.

    i can't think of anyone else that would be in that situation. anyone else that's even thinking about running is going to have to wait till closer to the primaries before they even start to make their intentions known or else they'll risk spending what ever money and political capital they have.

    again, i'm not expecting another Obama situation, but until we know who's running its hardly a foregone conclusion. its easy to be the front runner when you're the only person in the race.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Hillary is adorable on Colbert.

    But she's opening up with "OH Gee religion sure is great!"

    Yes, religion in politics is what the world needs more of right now.

    Mr RayGreat Scott
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    Wraith260 wrote: »
    Wraith260 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I DON'T REALLY WANT HILLARY BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE IS BETTER/CAN WIN

    ok there I said it

    weren't people saying this exact same thing (not even)8 years ago? i doubt we're going to get another (relatively)unknown breaking ranks and sweeping the nomination, but until we see who is actually running i think it's a bit early to call it for Hillary just yet.

    Back then she had a much smaller lead, and a larger field of opponents. Right now she gets majority support, and nobody else is even in the teens.

    but no one else is actively running at this point. sure Hillary hasn't officially announced, but she's clearly on the campaign trail already and she can afford to be. she has the recognition and the financial backing, so she doesn't need to worry about running out of steam.

    i can't think of anyone else that would be in that situation. anyone else that's even thinking about running is going to have to wait till closer to the primaries before they even start to make their intentions known or else they'll risk spending what ever money and political capital they have.

    again, i'm not expecting another Obama situation, but until we know who's running its hardly a foregone conclusion. its easy to be the front runner when you're the only person in the race.

    This is perfect for her. She's get to unofficially run unopposed before the primary begins and she's been working on funding, which has got to be for the upcoming primary, before anybody that does want to run is in the game.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    Trace on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    DoodmannSo It GoesIncenjucarEthan SmithCorehealershrykeEdith UpwardsTOGSolidThe Hanged Man
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler regular Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I thought you were stronger than this Jeffe.

    It's all part of his plan to destroy the world.

    While we're here discussing 2016, he'll be there, plotting, scheming...

    Waiting...

    Jeffe wanted a 2024 thread instead

    ElJeffeEthan SmithGreat Scott
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

  • PantsBPantsB regular Registered User regular
    Most boring election since 88?

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Ethan Smith
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Most boring election since 88?

    Boring on the Democrat side for sure.

    I'm sure the Republican side will be a bit of a circus act.

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    Harry Dresden on
    Spoit
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    She was a senator for -eight years- people like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have been in the US Congress since the 1980's.

    She got quite abit done those eight years considering the administration and congressional make up.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    She was a senator for -eight years- people like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have been in the US Congress since the 1980's.

    She got quite abit done those eight years considering the administration and congressional make up.

    And she's fucked up* and been missing in action long enough in politics that her tenure in the senate isn't the cover it would be had she been truly impressive. Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient. That's not a winning combination when her opposition is the Tea Party dominated GOP, hell it wasn't good enough when the neocons ran the GOP. She relies too much on fantasy!Hillary for credibility.

    * Iraq War: Saddam Harder

    Harry Dresden on
    Spoit
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    She was a senator for -eight years- people like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have been in the US Congress since the 1980's.

    She got quite abit done those eight years considering the administration and congressional make up.

    And she's fucked up* and been missing in action long enough in politics that her tenure in the senate isn't the cover it would be had she been truly impressive. Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient. That's not a winning combination when her opposition is the Tea Party dominated GOP, hell it wasn't good enough when the neocons ran the GOP. She relies too much on fantasy!Hillary for credibility.

    * Iraq War: Saddam Harder

    Oh yeah, she's fucked up. I never said she hasn't.

    But ever since leaving the senate she's had to deal with shit like this



    Is she my progressive liberal wet dream, no.

    But at least she won't dismantle the ACA the moment her ass sits in that nice leather chair in the Oval Office.

    TheBlackWindJaysonFourShadowen
  • PhillisherePhillishere regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    She was a senator for -eight years- people like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have been in the US Congress since the 1980's.

    She got quite abit done those eight years considering the administration and congressional make up.

    And she's fucked up* and been missing in action long enough in politics that her tenure in the senate isn't the cover it would be had she been truly impressive. Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient. That's not a winning combination when her opposition is the Tea Party dominated GOP, hell it wasn't good enough when the neocons ran the GOP. She relies too much on fantasy!Hillary for credibility.

    * Iraq War: Saddam Harder

    Hillary is the status quo safe choice. As a Clinton, she is guaranteed to make some lukewarm moves on social issues (almost always paired with concern trolling at the liberals who care about the issue), get into some genuine personal battles with the conservatives because the hate there is real and support a ton of business friendly legislation, because corporate donors and their connections are where the Clintons' hearts truly lie.

    Her presidency is guaranteed to be a disappointing four-to-eight year stretch.

    GethHarry DresdenTheCanManEthan SmithBloodySlothEdith UpwardsTOGSolidSpoitHachface
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    She was a senator for -eight years- people like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have been in the US Congress since the 1980's.

    She got quite abit done those eight years considering the administration and congressional make up.

    And she's fucked up* and been missing in action long enough in politics that her tenure in the senate isn't the cover it would be had she been truly impressive. Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient. That's not a winning combination when her opposition is the Tea Party dominated GOP, hell it wasn't good enough when the neocons ran the GOP. She relies too much on fantasy!Hillary for credibility.

    * Iraq War: Saddam Harder

    Oh yeah, she's fucked up. I never said she hasn't.

    But ever since leaving the senate she's had to deal with shit like this



    Is she my progressive liberal wet dream, no.

    But at least she won't dismantle the ACA the moment her ass sits in that nice leather chair in the Oval Office.

    No, but the chances that we'll get into a hot war with Iran are higher. I'm not going to get her a medal for not shuttering the ACA. With her it's turtles all the way down.

    Geth
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    She was a senator for -eight years- people like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have been in the US Congress since the 1980's.

    She got quite abit done those eight years considering the administration and congressional make up.

    And she's fucked up* and been missing in action long enough in politics that her tenure in the senate isn't the cover it would be had she been truly impressive. Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient. That's not a winning combination when her opposition is the Tea Party dominated GOP, hell it wasn't good enough when the neocons ran the GOP. She relies too much on fantasy!Hillary for credibility.

    * Iraq War: Saddam Harder

    Oh yeah, she's fucked up. I never said she hasn't.

    But ever since leaving the senate she's had to deal with shit like this



    Is she my progressive liberal wet dream, no.

    But at least she won't dismantle the ACA the moment her ass sits in that nice leather chair in the Oval Office.

    No, but the chances that we'll get into a hot war with Iran are higher. I'm not going to get her a medal for not shuttering the ACA. With her it's turtles all the way down.

    what the?

    Where does that come from?

  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    She was a senator for -eight years- people like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have been in the US Congress since the 1980's.

    She got quite abit done those eight years considering the administration and congressional make up.

    And she's fucked up* and been missing in action long enough in politics that her tenure in the senate isn't the cover it would be had she been truly impressive. Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient. That's not a winning combination when her opposition is the Tea Party dominated GOP, hell it wasn't good enough when the neocons ran the GOP. She relies too much on fantasy!Hillary for credibility.

    * Iraq War: Saddam Harder

    Oh yeah, she's fucked up. I never said she hasn't.

    But ever since leaving the senate she's had to deal with shit like this



    Is she my progressive liberal wet dream, no.

    But at least she won't dismantle the ACA the moment her ass sits in that nice leather chair in the Oval Office.

    No, but the chances that we'll get into a hot war with Iran are higher. I'm not going to get her a medal for not shuttering the ACA. With her it's turtles all the way down.

    what the?

    Where does that come from?

    she's more of a war hawk than obama

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    Harry DresdenTOGSolidHachface
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    what the?

    Where does that come from?

    She's a hawk. It's no secret the centrists would love to have a war with Iran. It's a goal they have in common with the Republicans.

  • PhillisherePhillishere regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    The one thing I'm going to like about Hillary is she'll send the Republicans cowering every time they mess with her.

    I do -not- see her letting them get away with the bullshit Pres. Obama has let them get away with.

    edit: I'll probably actually like a lot about her once she gets in the White House.

    I keep hearing this, never seen her do anything like that. When Bush was in office, crickets from the Clintons - that was damning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    Not impressed. She did a few good things here and there, she's not a monster. She is a middle of the road politician that trends right wing and supports the status quo unless she's absolutely sure it's safe to do so. Her getting the nomination or presidency comes with a price, a divided Democratic party. Obama's term has been mixed with the party, that's going to nothing when she's in the Oval Office.

    She was a senator for -eight years- people like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have been in the US Congress since the 1980's.

    She got quite abit done those eight years considering the administration and congressional make up.

    And she's fucked up* and been missing in action long enough in politics that her tenure in the senate isn't the cover it would be had she been truly impressive. Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient. That's not a winning combination when her opposition is the Tea Party dominated GOP, hell it wasn't good enough when the neocons ran the GOP. She relies too much on fantasy!Hillary for credibility.

    * Iraq War: Saddam Harder

    Oh yeah, she's fucked up. I never said she hasn't.

    But ever since leaving the senate she's had to deal with shit like this



    Is she my progressive liberal wet dream, no.

    But at least she won't dismantle the ACA the moment her ass sits in that nice leather chair in the Oval Office.

    No, but the chances that we'll get into a hot war with Iran are higher. I'm not going to get her a medal for not shuttering the ACA. With her it's turtles all the way down.

    what the?

    Where does that come from?

    Clinton is a reliable hawk. She's long been an advocate of bombing Iran.

    That's probably the best line of attack for Clinton from the left or right. She's been gung-ho about so many wars for so long that it would be easy to make the case that a vote for Hillary is a vote for war with someone.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    I don't think -anyone- but the most die hard warhawk assholes would want an actual war with Iran.
    Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient.

    So which is it, is she the "politically safe status quo" Hillary or the "Gonna start a war with Iran because reasons" Hillary?

    Ethan Smith
  • Dark_SideDark_Side regular Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Most boring election since 88?

    Boring on the Democrat side for sure.

    I'm sure the Republican side will be a bit of a circus act.

    People are crazy if they think Hillary is just going to walk into an easy primary victory. She's probably going to get chumped again by a relative newcomer.

    I've never liked her much, I think she's a calculating opportunist. But frankly her hawkish views on arming the syrian rebels should give even the libbiest of libs serious pause about her upcoming whitehouse run.

    Ethan Smith
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    I don't think -anyone- but the most die hard warhawk assholes would want an actual war with Iran.
    Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient.

    So which is it, is she the "politically safe status quo" Hillary or the "Gonna start a war with Iran because reasons" Hillary?

    explain how it would be politically convenient to stay in the shadows regarding iran?

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    Harry Dresden
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Most boring election since 88?

    Boring on the Democrat side for sure.

    I'm sure the Republican side will be a bit of a circus act.

    People are crazy if they think Hillary is just going to walk into an easy primary victory. She's probably going to get chumped again by a relative newcomer.

    I've never liked her much, I think she's a calculating opportunist. But frankly her hawkish views on arming the syrian rebels should give even the libbiest of libs serious pause about her upcoming whitehouse run.

    Lemme put it this way.

    I'm alright with a Hillary Clinton presidency. Because we don't really know what people are going to do as President until they do it.

    I wouldn't be sad if she doesn't win the primary though.

  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Most boring election since 88?

    Boring on the Democrat side for sure.

    I'm sure the Republican side will be a bit of a circus act.

    People are crazy if they think Hillary is just going to walk into an easy primary victory. She's probably going to get chumped again by a relative newcomer.

    I've never liked her much, I think she's a calculating opportunist. But frankly her hawkish views on arming the syrian rebels should give even the libbiest of libs serious pause about her upcoming whitehouse run.

    oh, i really don't like her

    but we had heard about Obama in 2006. he was clearly being groomed for a run.

    who would that be today? the only people Democrats actually like either don't want to run or have no chance

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    i mean, i don't think wendy davis is going to be presidential candidate material in two years

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    I don't think -anyone- but the most die hard warhawk assholes would want an actual war with Iran.

    Unfortunately Hillary isn't one of them.
    So which is it, is she the "politically safe status quo" Hillary or the "Gonna start a war with Iran because reasons" Hillary?

    Going to war with Iran is a safe political choice for Hillary.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    I don't think -anyone- but the most die hard warhawk assholes would want an actual war with Iran.
    Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient.

    So which is it, is she the "politically safe status quo" Hillary or the "Gonna start a war with Iran because reasons" Hillary?

    explain how it would be politically convenient to stay in the shadows regarding iran?

    She's a calculating political opponent.

    Do you think it's a good idea for a President to go an bomb Iran? No

    Then I bet she came to the same answer too.

    AngelHedgieshryke
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    I don't think -anyone- but the most die hard warhawk assholes would want an actual war with Iran.
    Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient.

    So which is it, is she the "politically safe status quo" Hillary or the "Gonna start a war with Iran because reasons" Hillary?

    explain how it would be politically convenient to stay in the shadows regarding iran?

    She's a calculating political opponent.

    Do you think it's a good idea for a President to go an bomb Iran? No

    Then I bet she came to the same answer too.

    She's further to the right then you're giving her credit for. Her default political stances aren't in the liberal camp.

    ChanusTheCanManIncenjucarCorehealerEdith UpwardsRoz
  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    I'm not sure she's all that calculating of a political opponent either.

    I can't remember her ever taking a risky political position.

    Blowing with the wind isn't the same thing as calculating.

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    Harry DresdenEdith Upwards
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    But you know it's not like the American Government is already working with Iran concerning ISIS.

    also

    http://www.cfr.org/elections/candidates-iran/p14764
    Clinton has offered a balance of revived diplomatic efforts with Iran as well as tough talk on the consequences of Iran's pursuing a weapons program. Clinton said that if she was elected, she would have immediately opened "a diplomatic track" with Iran, and says "no option can be taken off the table" with regard to U.S. policy toward Iran. "We need to use every tool (AP) at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said at a February 2007 dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    In September 2007, Clinton came under fire from some of her Democratic counterparts for her vote in favor of a resolution labeling the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

    In October 2007, Clinton cosponsored a bill prohibiting the use of funds for military action in Iran without "explicit Congressional authorization." That bill has not yet been voted on. But criticism of her Iran stance intensified after the December 3, 2007 release of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which said Iran appeared to have halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Clinton said during a subsequent debate that she continues to support vigorous diplomacy with Iran and defended her vote against the Revolutionary Guard, saying Iranian arms shipments to Iraq have slowed down since the Senate resolution passed. But her Democratic opponents criticized her for contributing to what they said was Bush administration saber rattling on Iran.

    In an April 2008 Democratic debate, Clinton said the United States should try to create an "umbrella of deterrence" consisting of other countries in the region willing to "forswear their own nuclear ambitions." Clinton said in an April 2008 interview that if Iran were to "foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel" under her presidency, the United States could "totally obliterate them."

    I'll grant that her stance regarding Israel fucking -sucks-

    But she's also using the word Diplomacy quite abit in there too.
    President Obama has expressed support for "opening dialogue" with Iran, in part to ask for its assistance in "playing a more constructive role in Iraq." He says the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran's influence in the region. He has also said Iran's nuclear ambitions represent a "serious threat to the United States, to our ally Israel and to international security." A nuclear Iran would be "a game changer," he said in a September 2008 presidential debate. "Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East."

    Obama said in a March 2007 speech before AIPAC that he supports "tough sanctions" on Iran to compel it to stop its uranium enrichment program. In the same speech, he said that he "does not believe that the use of military force towards Iran should be ruled out (Chicago Sun-Times). Still, in an April 2007 presidential debate, Obama said, "I think it would be a profound mistake (NYT) for us to initiate a war with Iran." Obama hardened his position on this point following the NIE release. During a debate in Iowa in December 2007, Obama accused President Bush of not letting "facts get in the way of his ideology" in dealing with Iran, and said the Bush administration's saber-rattling and threats of war "should have never started" (NPR).

    Obama has repeatedly said he will engage Iran in "tough, direct presidential diplomacy" without preconditions. "I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe," he said in September 2008. In a February 2008 Democratic debate, Obama said it is "important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies," including Iran. This would not necessarily mean direct talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Obama says "is not the most powerful person in Iran" and therefore "may not be the right person to talk to." Obama has also said the United States should consider offering the incentive of World Trade Organization membership for Iran if it abandons its nuclear program.

    In March 2008, Obama praised the UN Security Council's resolution to up pressure on Iran for its nuclear program. Still, Obama said, the resolution "represents a lowest common denominator because Russia and China did not agree to tougher sanctions."

    In May 2007, Obama sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would authorize state and local governments to divest from Iran's petroleum sector, protecting fund managers who divest from lawsuits. That bill has not reached a vote.

    Obama did not vote on the September 2007 legislation labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, but he criticized the bill and said he would have voted against it. Still, in a September 2008 presidential debate, Obama said he does believe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization.

    Even Pres. Obama didn't completely rule out military action against Iran.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    And I think you guys think she's too far right.

    When was the last time she openly advocated attacking Iran? Or bombing it?

  • PhillisherePhillishere regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    I don't think -anyone- but the most die hard warhawk assholes would want an actual war with Iran.
    Hillary's not a game changer, she's pro-status quo and gladly stays in the shadows when politically convenient.

    So which is it, is she the "politically safe status quo" Hillary or the "Gonna start a war with Iran because reasons" Hillary?

    The thing is, bombing countries over stuff is currently the U.S. status quo. One of the reasons so many people supported Obama was they thought he might break that habit.

  • Dark_SideDark_Side regular Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Most boring election since 88?

    Boring on the Democrat side for sure.

    I'm sure the Republican side will be a bit of a circus act.

    People are crazy if they think Hillary is just going to walk into an easy primary victory. She's probably going to get chumped again by a relative newcomer.

    I've never liked her much, I think she's a calculating opportunist. But frankly her hawkish views on arming the syrian rebels should give even the libbiest of libs serious pause about her upcoming whitehouse run.

    oh, i really don't like her

    but we had heard about Obama in 2006. he was clearly being groomed for a run.

    who would that be today? the only people Democrats actually like either don't want to run or have no chance

    Yeah, to be honest I have no idea, but we're so far away from the actual election that damn near anything could happen. I think Hillary has serious political baggage to contend with; baggage that makes her a target of opportunity for anyone throwing their hat in the ring.

    ChanusHarry Dresden
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden regular Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Trace wrote: »
    But you know it's not like the American Government is already working with Iran concerning ISIS.

    also

    http://www.cfr.org/elections/candidates-iran/p14764
    Clinton has offered a balance of revived diplomatic efforts with Iran as well as tough talk on the consequences of Iran's pursuing a weapons program. Clinton said that if she was elected, she would have immediately opened "a diplomatic track" with Iran, and says "no option can be taken off the table" with regard to U.S. policy toward Iran. "We need to use every tool (AP) at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said at a February 2007 dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    In September 2007, Clinton came under fire from some of her Democratic counterparts for her vote in favor of a resolution labeling the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

    In October 2007, Clinton cosponsored a bill prohibiting the use of funds for military action in Iran without "explicit Congressional authorization." That bill has not yet been voted on. But criticism of her Iran stance intensified after the December 3, 2007 release of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which said Iran appeared to have halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Clinton said during a subsequent debate that she continues to support vigorous diplomacy with Iran and defended her vote against the Revolutionary Guard, saying Iranian arms shipments to Iraq have slowed down since the Senate resolution passed. But her Democratic opponents criticized her for contributing to what they said was Bush administration saber rattling on Iran.

    In an April 2008 Democratic debate, Clinton said the United States should try to create an "umbrella of deterrence" consisting of other countries in the region willing to "forswear their own nuclear ambitions." Clinton said in an April 2008 interview that if Iran were to "foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel" under her presidency, the United States could "totally obliterate them."

    I'll grant that her stance regarding Israel fucking -sucks-

    But she's also using the word Diplomacy quite abit in there too.
    President Obama has expressed support for "opening dialogue" with Iran, in part to ask for its assistance in "playing a more constructive role in Iraq." He says the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran's influence in the region. He has also said Iran's nuclear ambitions represent a "serious threat to the United States, to our ally Israel and to international security." A nuclear Iran would be "a game changer," he said in a September 2008 presidential debate. "Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East."

    Obama said in a March 2007 speech before AIPAC that he supports "tough sanctions" on Iran to compel it to stop its uranium enrichment program. In the same speech, he said that he "does not believe that the use of military force towards Iran should be ruled out (Chicago Sun-Times). Still, in an April 2007 presidential debate, Obama said, "I think it would be a profound mistake (NYT) for us to initiate a war with Iran." Obama hardened his position on this point following the NIE release. During a debate in Iowa in December 2007, Obama accused President Bush of not letting "facts get in the way of his ideology" in dealing with Iran, and said the Bush administration's saber-rattling and threats of war "should have never started" (NPR).

    Obama has repeatedly said he will engage Iran in "tough, direct presidential diplomacy" without preconditions. "I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe," he said in September 2008. In a February 2008 Democratic debate, Obama said it is "important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies," including Iran. This would not necessarily mean direct talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Obama says "is not the most powerful person in Iran" and therefore "may not be the right person to talk to." Obama has also said the United States should consider offering the incentive of World Trade Organization membership for Iran if it abandons its nuclear program.

    In March 2008, Obama praised the UN Security Council's resolution to up pressure on Iran for its nuclear program. Still, Obama said, the resolution "represents a lowest common denominator because Russia and China did not agree to tougher sanctions."

    In May 2007, Obama sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would authorize state and local governments to divest from Iran's petroleum sector, protecting fund managers who divest from lawsuits. That bill has not reached a vote.

    Obama did not vote on the September 2007 legislation labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, but he criticized the bill and said he would have voted against it. Still, in a September 2008 presidential debate, Obama said he does believe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization.

    Even Pres. Obama didn't completely rule out military action against Iran.

    Obama is a master at utilizing the military as a last resort, that's not how Hillary operates she's more aggressive. She wouldn't want to send in drones and surgical strikes/consulting, she'd go for the invasion tactic. She's also been Obama's SOS, that changes what she can do when she's the one calling the shots. With Obama I can believe he'd only do that when it's absolutely necessary, he's to the left of Hillary - especially with wars. That's not how Hillary would confront Iran.

    Harry Dresden on
  • PhillisherePhillishere regular Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    But you know it's not like the American Government is already working with Iran concerning ISIS.

    also

    http://www.cfr.org/elections/candidates-iran/p14764
    Clinton has offered a balance of revived diplomatic efforts with Iran as well as tough talk on the consequences of Iran's pursuing a weapons program. Clinton said that if she was elected, she would have immediately opened "a diplomatic track" with Iran, and says "no option can be taken off the table" with regard to U.S. policy toward Iran. "We need to use every tool (AP) at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said at a February 2007 dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    In September 2007, Clinton came under fire from some of her Democratic counterparts for her vote in favor of a resolution labeling the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

    In October 2007, Clinton cosponsored a bill prohibiting the use of funds for military action in Iran without "explicit Congressional authorization." That bill has not yet been voted on. But criticism of her Iran stance intensified after the December 3, 2007 release of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which said Iran appeared to have halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Clinton said during a subsequent debate that she continues to support vigorous diplomacy with Iran and defended her vote against the Revolutionary Guard, saying Iranian arms shipments to Iraq have slowed down since the Senate resolution passed. But her Democratic opponents criticized her for contributing to what they said was Bush administration saber rattling on Iran.

    In an April 2008 Democratic debate, Clinton said the United States should try to create an "umbrella of deterrence" consisting of other countries in the region willing to "forswear their own nuclear ambitions." Clinton said in an April 2008 interview that if Iran were to "foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel" under her presidency, the United States could "totally obliterate them."

    I'll grant that her stance regarding Israel fucking -sucks-

    But she's also using the word Diplomacy quite abit in there too.
    President Obama has expressed support for "opening dialogue" with Iran, in part to ask for its assistance in "playing a more constructive role in Iraq." He says the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran's influence in the region. He has also said Iran's nuclear ambitions represent a "serious threat to the United States, to our ally Israel and to international security." A nuclear Iran would be "a game changer," he said in a September 2008 presidential debate. "Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East."

    Obama said in a March 2007 speech before AIPAC that he supports "tough sanctions" on Iran to compel it to stop its uranium enrichment program. In the same speech, he said that he "does not believe that the use of military force towards Iran should be ruled out (Chicago Sun-Times). Still, in an April 2007 presidential debate, Obama said, "I think it would be a profound mistake (NYT) for us to initiate a war with Iran." Obama hardened his position on this point following the NIE release. During a debate in Iowa in December 2007, Obama accused President Bush of not letting "facts get in the way of his ideology" in dealing with Iran, and said the Bush administration's saber-rattling and threats of war "should have never started" (NPR).

    Obama has repeatedly said he will engage Iran in "tough, direct presidential diplomacy" without preconditions. "I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe," he said in September 2008. In a February 2008 Democratic debate, Obama said it is "important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies," including Iran. This would not necessarily mean direct talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Obama says "is not the most powerful person in Iran" and therefore "may not be the right person to talk to." Obama has also said the United States should consider offering the incentive of World Trade Organization membership for Iran if it abandons its nuclear program.

    In March 2008, Obama praised the UN Security Council's resolution to up pressure on Iran for its nuclear program. Still, Obama said, the resolution "represents a lowest common denominator because Russia and China did not agree to tougher sanctions."

    In May 2007, Obama sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would authorize state and local governments to divest from Iran's petroleum sector, protecting fund managers who divest from lawsuits. That bill has not reached a vote.

    Obama did not vote on the September 2007 legislation labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, but he criticized the bill and said he would have voted against it. Still, in a September 2008 presidential debate, Obama said he does believe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization.

    Even Pres. Obama didn't completely rule out military action against Iran.

    Obama is a master at utilizing the military as a last resort, that's not how Hillary operates she's more aggressive. She wouldn't want to send in drones and surgical strikes/consulting, she'd go for the invasion tactic. She's also been Obama's SOS, that changes what she can do when she's the one calling the shots. With Obama I can believe he'd only do that when it's absolutely necessary, he's to the left of Hillary - especially with wars. That's not how Hillary would confront Iran.

    We also know that as the SOS, she was a consistent voice advocating military action. We can see in hindsight that Obama was very wise to take her advice with a grain of salt, especially concerning Iran and arming the Syrian rebels.

    Harry DresdenChanusEdith Upwards
  • Wraith260Wraith260 Happiest Goomba! Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Wraith260 wrote: »
    Wraith260 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    I DON'T REALLY WANT HILLARY BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE IS BETTER/CAN WIN

    ok there I said it

    weren't people saying this exact same thing (not even)8 years ago? i doubt we're going to get another (relatively)unknown breaking ranks and sweeping the nomination, but until we see who is actually running i think it's a bit early to call it for Hillary just yet.

    Back then she had a much smaller lead, and a larger field of opponents. Right now she gets majority support, and nobody else is even in the teens.

    but no one else is actively running at this point. sure Hillary hasn't officially announced, but she's clearly on the campaign trail already and she can afford to be. she has the recognition and the financial backing, so she doesn't need to worry about running out of steam.

    i can't think of anyone else that would be in that situation. anyone else that's even thinking about running is going to have to wait till closer to the primaries before they even start to make their intentions known or else they'll risk spending what ever money and political capital they have.

    again, i'm not expecting another Obama situation, but until we know who's running its hardly a foregone conclusion. its easy to be the front runner when you're the only person in the race.

    This is perfect for her. She's get to unofficially run unopposed before the primary begins and she's been working on funding, which has got to be for the upcoming primary, before anybody that does want to run is in the game.

    oh i completely agree. the current situation favours her heavily. anyone else that runs will have to hit the ground running and be ready to clear every hurdle that comes their way. they'll have a ton of work and not much time, and very little margin for error.

    on the other hand, i think the longer Hillary is seen to be unopposed the higher the chances that she'll become complacent which could make it easier for other hopefuls to score some points against her early on.

    but again, we can't call anything until we see just who is willing to challenge her and i think it'll be some time before we find that out for certain.

    Wraith260 on
    GethHarry Dresden
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    But you know it's not like the American Government is already working with Iran concerning ISIS.

    also

    http://www.cfr.org/elections/candidates-iran/p14764
    Clinton has offered a balance of revived diplomatic efforts with Iran as well as tough talk on the consequences of Iran's pursuing a weapons program. Clinton said that if she was elected, she would have immediately opened "a diplomatic track" with Iran, and says "no option can be taken off the table" with regard to U.S. policy toward Iran. "We need to use every tool (AP) at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said at a February 2007 dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    In September 2007, Clinton came under fire from some of her Democratic counterparts for her vote in favor of a resolution labeling the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

    In October 2007, Clinton cosponsored a bill prohibiting the use of funds for military action in Iran without "explicit Congressional authorization." That bill has not yet been voted on. But criticism of her Iran stance intensified after the December 3, 2007 release of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which said Iran appeared to have halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Clinton said during a subsequent debate that she continues to support vigorous diplomacy with Iran and defended her vote against the Revolutionary Guard, saying Iranian arms shipments to Iraq have slowed down since the Senate resolution passed. But her Democratic opponents criticized her for contributing to what they said was Bush administration saber rattling on Iran.

    In an April 2008 Democratic debate, Clinton said the United States should try to create an "umbrella of deterrence" consisting of other countries in the region willing to "forswear their own nuclear ambitions." Clinton said in an April 2008 interview that if Iran were to "foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel" under her presidency, the United States could "totally obliterate them."

    I'll grant that her stance regarding Israel fucking -sucks-

    But she's also using the word Diplomacy quite abit in there too.
    President Obama has expressed support for "opening dialogue" with Iran, in part to ask for its assistance in "playing a more constructive role in Iraq." He says the war in Iraq has strengthened Iran's influence in the region. He has also said Iran's nuclear ambitions represent a "serious threat to the United States, to our ally Israel and to international security." A nuclear Iran would be "a game changer," he said in a September 2008 presidential debate. "Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East."

    Obama said in a March 2007 speech before AIPAC that he supports "tough sanctions" on Iran to compel it to stop its uranium enrichment program. In the same speech, he said that he "does not believe that the use of military force towards Iran should be ruled out (Chicago Sun-Times). Still, in an April 2007 presidential debate, Obama said, "I think it would be a profound mistake (NYT) for us to initiate a war with Iran." Obama hardened his position on this point following the NIE release. During a debate in Iowa in December 2007, Obama accused President Bush of not letting "facts get in the way of his ideology" in dealing with Iran, and said the Bush administration's saber-rattling and threats of war "should have never started" (NPR).

    Obama has repeatedly said he will engage Iran in "tough, direct presidential diplomacy" without preconditions. "I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe," he said in September 2008. In a February 2008 Democratic debate, Obama said it is "important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies," including Iran. This would not necessarily mean direct talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Obama says "is not the most powerful person in Iran" and therefore "may not be the right person to talk to." Obama has also said the United States should consider offering the incentive of World Trade Organization membership for Iran if it abandons its nuclear program.

    In March 2008, Obama praised the UN Security Council's resolution to up pressure on Iran for its nuclear program. Still, Obama said, the resolution "represents a lowest common denominator because Russia and China did not agree to tougher sanctions."

    In May 2007, Obama sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would authorize state and local governments to divest from Iran's petroleum sector, protecting fund managers who divest from lawsuits. That bill has not reached a vote.

    Obama did not vote on the September 2007 legislation labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, but he criticized the bill and said he would have voted against it. Still, in a September 2008 presidential debate, Obama said he does believe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization.

    Even Pres. Obama didn't completely rule out military action against Iran.

    Obama is a master at utilizing the military as a last resort, that's not how Hillary operates she's more aggressive. She wouldn't want to send in drones and surgical strikes/consulting, she'd go for the invasion tactic. She's also been Obama's SOS, that changes what she can do when she's the one calling the shots.

    And you think that after what invading Iraq has done to the Republican party she would try to invade Iran?

    Even if you are completely right regarding her stance against Iran and even if Chanus is completely right regarding her intelligence

    Hindsight is 20/20. The only way we get into ground invasion with Iran is if they decide to suddenly go apeshit and attack Pakistan.

  • ChanusChanus Ribbit! Registered User regular
    i'm not questioning her intelligence

    she's clearly a very intelligent person

    i'm questioning how shrewd a politician she is commonly made out to be

    all i ever see her do is react and often poorly

    i like that she can be assertive at times and give off a "i give no shits about your nonsense" thing

    but i just don't think she's a brilliant tactician politically

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
    Corehealer
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    I mean

    Iran and the USA have essentially an open diplomatic channel now. What possible scenario could this imaginary warhawk Hillary Clinton use to launch a ground invasion of Iran?

Sign In or Register to comment.