If she doesn't run, then she's part of the problem. How arrogant can you be?

4/12/2015 9:17:17 PM

Shrike says Democrats don't want her to run.

Embrace Hillary or die,

4/12/2015 9:29:29 PM

well duh because then they'll have to make concessions that will cost them financial support in the general election.

4/12/2015 9:42:52 PM

Warren is the far-left liberal than conservatives pretend Obama is. I just don't see enough people in the middle coming around to her, but what do i know...

I did see her on 2 shows recently, and her main strength/issue is one that does appeal very strongly to the middle class, more so than any other candidate.

4/13/2015 10:11:59 AM

the issue isn't even from the middle, it's from liberals. too many liberals are under the false impression that Hillary is some kind of liberal leader (when really she is an almost right-leaning centrist, saudi-backed war-hawk who has been an insider since Nixon) so there is no reason to look at any other candidates

[Edited on April 13, 2015 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

4/13/2015 10:14:52 AM

Hillary is just too much of the same.

You know, it would be interesting, albeit detrimental, if somehow she ended up getting the democratic nod and Cruz got the republican nod.

3rd party FTW!

4/13/2015 11:00:00 AM

Elizabeth Warren

Hahahaha

4/13/2015 11:11:14 AM

Martin O'Malley is positioning himself pretty well as a populist candidate. He has already thrown multiple zingers at Hillary, and it's looking increasingly likely that he's gonna run. He's polished and seems like he will do well in debates. He's got a pretty damn good record to run on as well.

We don't NEED Warren. Basically any other candidates are going to run to her left. It's strange the way the media is trying to craft this narrative of old guard Hillary vs the "the only liberal left in the Democratic Party Warren"

4/13/2015 11:44:16 AM

Nah, she'll do more good in Congress or eventually as a member of President Clinton's administration. Some people just aren't suited to the role of President and there's nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, what would have done Obama more good in 2009-2010, a more aggressive progressive agenda or one more liberal senator? You just can't ignore the political realities when talking about ideal candidates and what's best for a party, Warren would get less than squat done while facing an even more hostile GOP Congress than Obama.

[Edited on April 13, 2015 at 12:02 PM. Reason : :]

4/13/2015 11:59:19 AM

^ agreed on the first part. It's not her time nor place to run. If she can gain a leadership role in Congress, especially if the Democrats can take back at least one house, she'll be able to have a greater effect on her primary causes than she ever could as POTUS or VP.

She's the liberal that real liberals want. Obama is/was centrist. HRC is right of center on many issues but Republicans have been very effective at shifting what the center appears to be in order to make Obama and other Democrats appear to be on the far left. That makes real liberals almost unelectable on a national scale.

4/13/2015 12:10:31 PM

Quote :

"too many liberals are under the false impression that Hillary is some kind of liberal leader"

:wat"

4/13/2015 1:27:44 PM

Quote :

"she is an almost right-leaning centrist, saudi-backed war-hawk who has been an insider since Nixon"

4/13/2015 1:49:17 PM

lewisje and Shrike are the kind of embarrassing idiots that Democrats need to marginalize / discard.

All that matters to them is the "D" that comes after any given politician's name. They are the "political hobbyist" equivalent of a Duke basketball fan who buys a T-shirt at Wal-Mart and then asks a coworker when the championship game is.

4/13/2015 3:08:31 PM

This is going to be just another Wall Street election.

4/13/2015 3:49:31 PM

Quote :

"lewisje and Shrike are the kind of embarrassing idiots that Democrats need to marginalize / discard."

Meanwhile, your 2016 GOP Presidential candidates,



Enjoy!

4/13/2015 4:29:11 PM

Warren's tone of voice reminds me too much of Bobby Jindal. They both have whiny/plodding ways of speaking. Presidents have to play the role of figurehead too, and this is a big deficit of Warren's.

4/13/2015 5:01:19 PM

Looks like I predicted Shrike's responses in this and the "Hillary 2016" thread perfectly.

...and he calls me a stalker for consistently pointing out his bullshit. Okay.

None of this bothers me in the least when your supposed "allies" here also call you retarded; you're just a Democrat fanboy who tries to justify his positions with the value of hindsight. You probably started "following" politics just so you could argue with your dad / roommate.

4/13/2015 5:14:30 PM

So wait, when you take a position on the internet which others do not, it bothers you? I'm not sure anyone here calls me retarded, or gets called retarded themselves, more than you. In fact, the other people who regularly "called out my bullshit", aaronburro and d357r0y3r, barely post here (and certainly don't address me when they do) anymore so maybe you're one of their alts? A few liberals hate me because I'm generally ok with drone strikes and the NSA having the power to snoop our dick pics, but it really is just you on this little crusade....

4/13/2015 5:53:44 PM

you really can't tell how your last post did nothing but confirm his criticism?

4/13/2015 6:07:20 PM

I'd drive 100 miles to vote for Hillary if I thought one of those assclowns had a decent chance at winning.

4/13/2015 6:15:45 PM

^^Saying I support x candidate just because they have a D next to their name isn't a criticism, nor is it even applicable to Obama or Hillary. I support one for the things he's done and the other because she has the best chance of furthering those things. Am I supposed to not want that? What's his point exactly?

4/13/2015 6:33:31 PM

Just putting Bill Clinton back in the white house is enough reason to vote for Hillary.

4/13/2015 6:47:00 PM

Quote :

"Actually I want Shrike to explain why he's such a fan. It's not enough to simply say "Well look at the alternative!" It's pretty obvious to me based on his posting history he has no principles at all besides "Republicans suck." I agree, but that's not my ethos in its entirety. This is why he's a joke-"

Timestamps here and in the "Hillary 2016" thread are vital to understanding Shrike's tailspin, but I don't want to keep cross-posting.

4/13/2015 9:53:45 PM

^^ for the comedy value?

4/13/2015 9:57:58 PM

Quote :

"who has been an insider since Nixon"

really?

4/13/2015 10:14:37 PM

yeah, staff lawyer for house judiciary committee investigating nixon. rumors exist that she was fired for unethical actions, but i don't know enough about those claims to know if they hold any truth. she does have a long established history of unethical actions that we know about, so it wouldn't be terribly surprising if true.

4/14/2015 8:20:17 AM

^,^^

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

4/14/2015 10:00:15 AM

She did serve in that role though, so she has been an insider since Nixon.

4/14/2015 10:11:15 AM

I appreciate that she's dedicated her life to politics. Unfortunately, it just feels like she and her husband have lived a less murderous version of Frank and Claire Underwood.

4/14/2015 11:14:04 AM

Quote :

"She's the liberal that real liberals want."

She's the liberal who educated progressives want. A significant portion of the Democratic party base is not educated or progressive.

Quote :

"I appreciate that she's dedicated her life to politics."

It's hard for me to appreciate someone who has made a career out of legalized bribery.

[Edited on April 14, 2015 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2015 7:25:42 PM

Quote :

"lewisje and Shrike are the kind of embarrassing idiots that Democrats need to marginalize / discard. All that matters to them is the "D" that comes after any given politician's name"

It's more complicated than that; it's mainly a consequence of the ideological separation of the parties (like if there were liberal Republicans runnning, as in Republicans who are liberal rather than merely "liberal for a Republican" then I wouldn't be so sure I'd end up voting for the Democrat in 2016) and the fact that I live in a swing state (I vote minor-party where the two major parties aren't close, e.g. Badnarik for President '04 when I lived in Indiana...and when I was still a libertarian and didn't know just how extreme Badnarik was).

[Edited on April 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM. Reason : By y0willy0's standards, the Democrats need to discard their ideological base

4/14/2015 9:06:36 PM

I, too, voted for Badnarik.

I probably wouldn't vote for anyone that nutty again, though.

I did vote for Gary Johnson.

[Edited on April 14, 2015 at 9:48 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2015 9:44:54 PM

I voted for jill stein last time.

4/14/2015 10:35:14 PM

Quote :

" By y0willy0's standards, the Democrats need to discard their ideological base "

He's not even being original, that's the standard GOP party line going into the campaign. They know their candidates suck, they know Hillary's credentials are touchable, so their only hope is to try and shame people out of voting for her. It's a pathetically dumb strategy though, considering how long she's been around while maintaining consistently high approval/popularity ratings. They are going to talk themselves into it though, just like they talked themselves into Romney, until it all comes crashing down on election day.

4/15/2015 10:29:43 AM

Romney wasn't a bad choice; he just had to court the full-retard wing too much, and stepped in it a couple of times, too (dead on about 47%, but that didn't play well)

[Edited on April 15, 2015 at 10:48 AM. Reason : Relative to most other candidates]

[Edited on April 15, 2015 at 10:49 AM. Reason : The right Mormon was hidden in plain sight, though]

4/15/2015 10:48:33 AM

Quote :

"they know Hillary's credentials are touchable"

Severe understatement, but that's fine; I don't really think Shrike is the Democratic representative for TSB. Regardless of what he posts (and how much sense it appears to make) I'm still constantly nagged by little things that make me think it won't be Hillary. It will probably be a Democrat sure, but Hillary? ehhh

Even MSNBC had a poll (yesterday)? where 85% of Democrat respondents wanted someone else. Sure it could have been tampered with I suppose, those evil poll-skewing Republicans, but when you see similar results from all kinds of sources it instills doubt.

That being said I actually do read and appreciate Shrike's material that says the opposite; although quite frankly it annoys me when he takes one or two articles to be the gospel. I think a more appropriate attitude would be "let's wait and see." It's also annoying (as I pointed out earlier) that all he cares about is her ability to win. Hillary isn't exactly progressive, so when Shrike ridicules Republicans from the supposed "far left" it makes him look foolish and unprincipled.

Romney got fucked by the very-religious (Baptist) and/or old people. The people who stayed home even though they think Obama is the Muslim Antichrist. It surprised plenty of people that they didn't vote at all (instead of voting against their hated obsession). Maybe they wanted him to win another term so he could bring about the endtimes? Maybe they just wanted another 4 years to blow up our FB with stupid shit, who knows?

Quote :

"It's a pathetically dumb strategy "

Not really. I would suggest the reason so many Democrats are weary of Hillary is because they are (rightfully) worried about her baggage. She has an impressive career, sure, but she also has a lot of skeletons in the closet. So far they have been masterfully handled, but this current crop of Republicans want nothing more than to blow the lid on something (anything) and ruin her. Maybe they wont? Maybe it only serves to make people like Shrike more rabidly support her? Or maybe she steps in it bigtime after shes the nominee and we get stuck with God knows which Republican?

Please err on the side of caution and pick someone else.

Quote :

"The White House has been occupied by a Bush or Clinton for 20 of the past 26 years. A two-term Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush administration could extend that run to 28 of the 36 years between 1989 and 2025."

This should also disturb people, but I guess it really doesnt.

4/15/2015 11:40:16 AM

Quote :

""The White House has been occupied by a Bush or Clinton for 20 of the past 26 years. A two-term Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush administration could extend that run to 28 of the 36 years between 1989 and 2025." This should also disturb people, but I guess it really doesnt. "

I think it disturbs a lot of people, but the powers that be have already decided Hillary is going to be a forerunner, so it doesn't matter. Jeb is out at this point.

4/15/2015 5:49:34 PM

Quote :

"Please err on the side of caution and pick someone else."

Picking Hillary is erring on the side of caution. I mean, what do you think Benghazi was all about? Romney practically crucified himself over it so they could perpetuate it into a scandal aimed at stopping Hillary in 2016. Since then it's been one trumped up scandal after another trying to tear her down. It's pretty clear what the GOP thinks of their own chances against Hillary in the general, so why play into their hands?

[Edited on April 16, 2015 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

4/16/2015 11:34:51 AM

Quote :

"Jeb is out at this point."

Um, what? I think that's very far from a foregone conclusion.

Quote :

"Romney got fucked by the very-religious (Baptist) and/or old people. The people who stayed home even though they think Obama is the Muslim Antichrist. "

You think? I haven't seen the numbers, but my inclination is that Romney got fucked by the right wing alright...but because he had to court them so hard to get the nomination, that he was screwed coming out of the gate in the general election. I think he took his beating from swing voters, not the hardcore GOP types.

4/16/2015 9:25:57 PM

Quote :

"Elizabeth Warren Disappointed After DNA Test Shows Zero Trace Of Presidential Material"

https://politics.theonion.com/elizabeth-warren-disappointed-after-dna-test-shows-zero-1829766407

10/15/2018 5:41:17 PM

10/15/2018 6:47:13 PM

That letter is definitely appropriate, given how political and calculating she's being about the situation. It's painfully obvious she's planning to run, and while I don't think she's a perfect candidate by any means, I would vote for her over pretty much every other Dem that's being mentioned right now. Biden would lose without question, whereas she might stand a chance if she plays her cards right. It's really depressing how few Dems could actually beat Trump though- that's how bad they are politics right now

10/15/2018 7:24:40 PM

Quote :

"It's painfully obvious she's planning to run"

I thought the same thing after hearing about the news today and her games with Trump

10/15/2018 7:39:05 PM

Warren seems like someone I might vote for, maybe, but I'm a little disappointed that she had this done. It's like she took Trump's bait. She should not have given into whatever pressure they were putting her under. Almost feel like it is a sign of weakness.

10/15/2018 8:51:54 PM

She stands zero chance in the current political climate. Seems like she couldn't try harder to not get elected.

10/15/2018 9:03:33 PM

Well, if she's going to run on her anti-Wall Street ideas, then she might have a hard time since the economy is doing well.

We know Wall Street doesn't have much to do with that, but it is how it is perceived by the larger public.

10/15/2018 9:06:01 PM

This doesn’t feel like a recovery strong economy

10/15/2018 11:06:41 PM

This DNA testing was a major mistake

10/16/2018 6:40:06 AM

Was it? I mean, it makes Trump look like a fool (which I know isn't hard), and now she can pick a strategic charity that Trump should be paying $1mil to.

So he either ponies up, and she looks like a hero to whatever group she picks or (more likely) he reneges and she scores points by default.

10/16/2018 7:43:41 AM

no it doesn't, trump will either keep saying the same thing and totally ignore the DNA test or just pretend that he never said anything before - the test won't change anything and his supporters will fall in line with him. they will most likely also use the test to attack her, by showing that she's only a tiny percent native american and twisting history to make it seem like she was making grand claims about her heritage that the test doesn't support. there are lots of way's she still loses and none really that she wins.

there is no accountability in republican politics, only hunger for power -- this won't change anything for republicans

it's also bad for tribal rights because it reinforces a wrong opinion that it is about blood and not tribal national sovereignty (which has already been used against them to diminish sovereignty), so she will probably have tribes angry at her too




also, could she not wait till after midterms?

[Edited on October 16, 2018 at 8:21 AM. Reason : democrats are bad at this]

10/16/2018 8:00:01 AM