Hillary Clinton tells friends she's leaving 2020 door open

[blackangst1]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-at-her-word-that-shes-not-running/ar-BBSVszP

 

[ivwshane]

Its funny how you accuse me of being dishonest and or dense, but, you keep at it.

No, I still stand by my position that telling Hillary to go away come from the fact that her loss to Trump is different than the loss to Bush. The Loss to Trump upset people far more and nobody is willing to chance it again because the stakes are too high.

You also believe she should not run because the stakes are too high, which is why its so weird to see you failing about.

So, do you want Hillary to run again? Why not? <--- Bet you cant answer those without supporting my position.

Oh I thought you must answered the question for me, dumb ass. Or was your straw man in the second paragraph directed to someone else, you dishonest piece of shit?

I don't think she should run because she causes people to act like idiots. As I stated in this thread already, many people from all sides of the isle have fallen victim to decades of propaganda about her. Plus there are some really good candidates so far where as before it was a field of idiots and Hillary. We'll see how it turns out but I've learned to never underestimate the stupidity of American voters.

 

[ivwshane]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-at-her-word-that-shes-not-running/ar-BBSVszP

Yeah, this was covered in post 47.

 

[realibrad]

Oh I thought you must answered the question for me, dumb ass. Or was your straw man in the second paragraph directed to someone else, you dishonest piece of shit?

I don't think she should run because she causes people to act like idiots. As I stated in this thread already, many people from all sides of the isle have fallen victim to decades of propaganda about her. Plus there are some really good candidates so far were as before it was a field of idiots and Hillary. We'll see how it turns out but I've learned to never underestimate the stupidity of American voters.

Again, being dishonest.

You don't want her to run again because you are afraid she might lose. Is that not correct? You believe that no matter who the Dems pick that the Right will go all out and dumb people will eat it all up. So, why do you not want her to run again?

 

[ivwshane]

Again, being dishonest.

You don't want her to run again because you are afraid she might lose. Is that not correct? You believe that no matter who the Dems pick that the Right will go all out and dumb people will eat it all up. So, why do you not want her to run again?

Wow, so I answer the question and this piece of shit has the balls to tell me I'm wrong about my own reasoning?

Lol!

 

[realibrad]

Wow, so I answer the question and this piece of shit has the balls to tell me I'm wrong about my own reasoning?

Lol!

Yep, because your answer is not honest and thus invalid. You do not want her to run again because she might lose. Your answer that people will act like idiots is not honest as you believe that they are going to do that because of propaganda.

So again, why is it that you do not want her to run again? Its super tough to answer I know.

 

[realibrad]

All you do is stamp your feat and downvote eh. Well, its a tough pill to take, but, take it you must.

 

[Jhhnn]

Then, remember the people on the Left in this thread that do not want her to run again. Why do you think that is?

Because she's been wrapped in a right wing distortion field you perpetuate. There is no escape. After decades of effort she finally got irreparably slimed.

I thought it was great how you gave us the right wing version of what Libs think, too.

 

[realibrad]

Because she's been wrapped in a right wing distortion field you perpetuate. There is no escape. After decades of effort she finally got irreparably slimed.

I thought it was great how you gave us the right wing version of what Libs think, too.

That I perpetuate? Saying she was better and that people should vote for her is perpetuating what exactly?

 

[realibrad]

Lol, did you tell your buddies how upset you got and get them to come in and down vote me. lol you guys.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lol, did you tell your buddies how upset you got and get them to come in and down vote me. lol you guys.

Idiot.

 

[blankslate]

Hillary's election loss was different because it was a different election than past elections.

She lost because she ran a sh*@sh0w of a campaign. She seemingly didn't account for the Electoral College skipped a last minute swing through on the cusp states that were lost by a few thousand (a number quite possible to turn around with a visit), and she picked possibly the worst VP candidate she could this side of a #metoo posterboy for who to avoid).


Seriously get over trying to defend it

Stop it.

You need to take your own advice to another poster and just take a step back breath in deeply, let it out slooooooowwwwlllyyyy and....

Seriously, fuck off. No, seriously.

lastly,

As for your use of Bernie Bro at me as an epithet screw off
A Bernie Bro wouldn't have been pulling for a Sen. Warren run in 2016... Which as you would know if you are as knowledgeable about Sen. Sanders as you think you are he would have supported because many of their policy positions overlap especially on economic issues. Her decision not to run is pretty much why Bernie did run, because of the policies
Policies that you still refuse to acknowledge are now the popular ones with a number of the younger representatives who won through this last election.

Reply if you want I just don't think I can bring myself to give a damn about anything you might post further in this thread...



_____________

 

[ivwshane]

LOL. I'm already over Hillary's loss, I'm not the one creating a thread about a bullshit rumor about Hillary running again. I'm not the one getting mad about a bullshit rumor.

The irony of your post is that I was saying the same thing about why Clinton lost from the beginning...oops.

You supporting Bernie even though Warren endorsed Clinton makes total sense. Sorry bernie bro, you aren't fooling anyone with your story.

 

[VRAMdemon]

At this point, there doesn't seem to be any serious apparatus in place, so I'm not seeing any real intention here. Even if she really wants to run again, who's going to bankroll her?

It doesn't matter if she's not ruling it out, because almost everyone else in the country has already ruled it out for her.

 

[realibrad]

At this point, there doesn't seem to be any serious apparatus in place, so I'm not seeing any real intention here. Even if she really wants to run again, who's going to bankroll her?

It doesn't matter if she's not ruling it out, because almost everyone else in the country has already ruled it out for her.

Pretty much. If Trump stays in office, and runs again then nobody will support her campaign enough for her to get off the ground.

Personally, I think that if Trump takes a big enough hit from the investigation and is prevented from running, or, decides not to run, then she might get enough support. Her campaign could be something like "the election was stolen from us, so lets take it back now that the corruption has been caught" type of thing.

 

[glenn1]

Pretty much. If Trump stays in office, and runs again then nobody will support her campaign enough for her to get off the ground.

Personally, I think that if Trump takes a big enough hit from the investigation and is prevented from running, or, decides not to run, then she might get enough support. Her campaign could be something like "the election was stolen from us, so lets take it back now that the corruption has been caught" type of thing.

I just don't see the enthusiasm in the Dem base for her; wasn't really present in 2016 and certainly isn't now and it appears there is zero appetite for running Dukakis 2.0 for a second time. Even the excitement of potentially electing the first woman could be gotten by the primaries including Kamala Harris and Liz Warren. Just because "Hillary is qualified" isn't enough for Dems, they want someone to be really excited about (see Obama) and Hillary isn't exciting. If the country literally only had the choice of her and Trump in 2020 then "isn't exciting" is probably exactly what the electorate would want after the Trump years but compared to the rest of the Dem field she's just not going to move the needle for voters to actually check the box for her.

 

[realibrad]

I just don't see the enthusiasm in the Dem base for her; wasn't really present in 2016 and certainly isn't now and it appears there is zero appetite for running Dukakis 2.0 for a second time. Even the excitement of potentially electing the first woman could be gotten by the primaries including Kamala Harris and Liz Warren. Just because "Hillary is qualified" isn't enough for Dems, they want someone to be really excited about (see Obama) and Hillary isn't exciting. If the country literally only had the choice of her and Trump in 2020 then "isn't exciting" is probably exactly what the electorate would want after the Trump years but compared to the rest of the Dem field she's just not going to move the needle for voters to actually check the box for her.

That's why to me it would depend on what happens to Trump. If the investigation find that he did work with Russia to "steal" the election, then I think that support could quickly build again.

You are right that the appetite for her is not there, but, I think that is largely due to how bitter the loss to Trump was. You take away that, and I think it could come back. Don't forget how many people felt it was her time.

 

[realibrad]

Lol, what was that one for? That was not even a criticism of her.