I think she'll look at the very issues we are discussing and decide not to run. She's not fit to lead nor is she fit to take the beating of a campaign.
Yeah, she dealt with the pressures of Secretary of State by not doing a damn thing except go with the flow under Obama's directions. My point being that I don't think she handles pressure all that well from a stamina perspective. I recall toward the end of the 2008 primaries when she looked as physically beaten as she was by that time politically. Then last year we all recall her "What difference does it make," response over the Benghazi questions, which is not the agitated and off the cuff remark one expects coming from the mouth of a future president when -- if nothing else -- it is a politically STUPID thing to say. So I rather doubt that she would hold up all that well to another year long and grueling presidential campaign cycle.
Shrillary is actually Mensa material next to the other possible dem candidates. In my forty years of following politics, this admin is the most inept and embarrassing ever. Obama has surrounded himself with bobble-heads and no one really gives a damn in the WH. Yet the Obamites follow him like the Pied Piper. There should be an IQ test prior to voting.
Well . . . seriously, I think that the Carter Administration was almost as bad. There were one or two better than average people working for Carter, but on the whole his was a real dud of an administration. The main differences between the two administrations were the presidents themselves and the MSM. Carter really and truly believed in everything he said and did. It was all from his heart -- whereas it would have been better had it come from his head. In contrast I seriously doubt that Barack Obama has either an honest or sincere bone in his body. Then the MSM. It wasn't all that happy with Carter and it definitely did not have his back whereas with Barack Obama basically the MSM is his co-wife.
I think Carter was genuinely clueless whereas Obama pushed himself as a savior as it were. Obama was going to fix everything. Carter was just happy to be there and really never seemed comfortable in the job. Obama came in with a mouthful of promises and attitude then defaulted to 'blame Bush' when he realized what the job was about. Obama likes to think of himself as the smartest person in the room. His record suggests otherwise as he blissfully heads to the next golf course.
Carter was a good man at a bad time. On top of that; besides having an adversarial Republican Party in Congress He also had an adversarial Democratic Party in Congress pissed off he came out of no where and Sir Teddy Kennedy was their leader. Remember the "Malaise" speech. He never used the word, malaise. Who did? And echoed and parroted. Pulling off the Camp David Peace Accords has not been matched by any national leader since. Jimmy Carter is a good man who was President at a bad time. Arab Oil Embargo, The military's failure to manage those helicopters for the Iran hostage rescue. Feeling the debt of Vietnam. Post war depression. And he had no support in Congress by either Party. Was any President so alone since Andrew Johnson ? Moi Edited in respecting this is the Hillary Brain Damage thread. View attachment 27433 No
When you get to age 60 or 65, you'll know the answer to why boomers don't appreciate calling a 68 year old, too old.
Boomers also do not want unqualified people in the WH. Since I am 58, I think I am close enough in age to speak for the group you're leaning on to make your point.
Carter may have been a good man but he sucked as a POTUS. BTW, Carter had dems in both houses for four years. Carter had Camp David and Nixon had China. Both were great diplomatic attempts that bore little long term fruit. The oil embargo was a contrivance by big oil in 73-74. Carter was not POTUS at the time. Post Nam was irrelevant to Carter's presidency. His legacy will be the following........... No president in the history of the country had a Misery Index as high as Jimmy Carters. Carter had an average Index of 16.27 percent during his term (1977-80). When he finally left Washington in 1980 is was at an all-time high of 21.98 percent. Not a record I would be proud of if I were you Jimmy. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/08/37555/#Zy9gLdxDmwzhBfwX.99. And Carter has become an old, America bashing liberal as they all do. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1234280/posts Oh, Jimmy: There He Goes Again (Jimmy Carter, America-bashing hypocrit) The Orange County Register ^ | October 1, 2004 | Steven F. Hayward Posted on 10/3/2004 4:47:09 PM by quidnunc Our worst ex-president, who turns 80 today, relishes role as America-basher Congratulations to former President Jimmy Carter, who turns 80 years old on Friday, proving that age does not always bring wisdom and maturity. Ever since being booted from office in a landslide 24 years ago, Carter has been bent on exacting revenge on the ungrateful American electorate by playing to the cheap seats overseas, where he instinctively sides with anti-American sentiment and coddles the most vile dictators and human rights abusers on the planet. It is not an accident that Carter's popularity overseas is highest in the nations that hate the United States the most. Think I exaggerate? Just keep in mind, to pick only one example, his hugs for North Korea's Kim Il Sung 10 years ago. Carter compared Kim Il Sung, the last Stalinist-era dictator with the blood of 3 million North Koreans on his hands, according to human rights groups, to George Washington and Patrick Henry. When North Korea admitted last year that it had proudly violated the 1994 agreement to end its nuclear weapons program, Carter took to the pages of the New York Times to declare that it was our fault. This week, Carter warned in the Washington Post against election fraud in Florida on Nov. 2. It takes a load of chutzpah for a Democrat, the party of perennial voting chicanery in Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis and elsewhere, to protest about election fraud, but Carter has long shown himself immune to the ordinary shame of hypocrisy.
I am expressing my opinion. I think we can agree its not just boomers that don't want unqualified people in the WH, unless there is a faction of the voting public that thinks its a good idea.
Brain trauma is a very serious problem and I don't think this is the correct forum to discuss this problem . I recall a great motion picture , ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST and the great Jack Nicholson gave us the presentation where the patients were actually in control and they were the sane citizens ---- Wait a minute , I JUST HAD A FLASHBACK OF DEAN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ! IT'S BECOME A REALITY!
Oh,so now you have a problem with a "Native American"? One would think the GOP & the Baggers would love Warren-but nah,she's a Democrat,even though she is as smart as they come & is one of the one's actually working in Washington,finding the problems,then finding a solution,reducing the debt,holding people accountable. So,I think I struck on the truth here,you guys couldn't care less if Washington is fixed,you guys just love the negative rhetoric---Got it!! And it also is very telling on how scared the GOP actually is of not having a Presidential Candidate then can even come close to matching up against Hillary or Warren & now we here talk of another brilliant Democrat for a possible VP, Castro-
Is this hate? View attachment 27512 Brain damage is not hate. Brain damage is a legitimate question to ask of a presidential candidate who suffered recent brain trauma with lasting effects or affects over 6 months. Search - Post concussion syndrome phenomena. Witness Short term memory loss emotional changes. depression. and then tell me it does not matter for the lady with her finger on the button. Ah what was that? Moi No
Are these just anti Hillary lucky captures or evidence of emotional problems at the Benghazi hearings. Emotional problems are a post concussion problem. Not good for the one with their finger on the Nuc button. For full benefit, click to enlarge. I see rage. Lose of control. And minimally exaggerated gestures not witnessed in others being grilled by Congress. Moi No
No, just a problem with hypocrites that use the system for their own benefit. I am not surprised that many support this.
First off-I was replying to "Smartmouth" calling Warren "Pocahontus"- Second-You can have the opinion that we don't need Government or everyone that is elected as our Representatives are corrupt-but I think that there is a need for Government,that it is up to the voters to educate themselves to get the best candidates to represent us- So, I really don't see where any discussion between us-will change eithers opinion-& I'm not into the anti rhetoric-name calling-so-----
Not into name-calling but into supporting liars for president. The country would be better off if you just stuck to name-calling.
"Got it" that you don't care for this POTUS-But I do,my opinion ,I look at what our POTUS' accomplish & what is on their agenda to further the country along,I don't spend time tallying up how many lies,how to keep a scandal going or worrying what color of skin a politician has. Pretty remarkable that you take every opportunity to slam our POTUS-but completely disregard a direct question about your hatred & racism! Your remark was something like " The Democrats don't have anybody else besides Hillary",my response was "Yes,we do, Warren" your response "you mean Pocahontus"--I asked "so,what do have against "Native Americans"---your response--"Oh,right,there was no response-----
Both Democrats you admit supporting are liars. Obama about keeping your hc policy and Warren about being Native American. Why do you support liars?
Apparently, Elizabeth Warren's Native American connection was family lore. My best buddy is Mexican American, His father was born here, his mother brought across the border as a child by her widowed mother with two siblings. So What ? Well his father believes his "mother" was Jewish because, she said so and apparently her father was a red haired Irish Jewish Train engineer in Mexico. Okay. Oh and when they traveled and had to bargain, the word was - "get the Jew". Well we have all had our genomes done by 23andMe. And Northern Mexicans generally come out 0.5% Ashkenazi. Maybe Sephardim genetic overlap. Mother who has no Jewish family lore came out, 0.5% but father showed the least, 0.2%. Here is a fine example where family lore did not match the genetics. I believe Warren, lacking evidence to the contrary and similar flaws of character ala Hillary. BTW Jewish families all have their lore of being Cohenim and I had that lore on both sides. But, none in my genome. It is therefore my conclusion that Elizabeth Warren's claim to being Native American was one of those situations above and does not constitute a lie or moral transgression. NOW ! No not National Organization of Women, now This is the Hillary and relevance of brain damage thread View attachment 27528 Comment again on Senator Warren and I will make a thread for her, should laziness overcome. Moi No
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/25/curl-why-hillary-clintons-health-matters/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS <edit> (Reagan) But his real health issues were a closely guarded secret. In 1986, he didnt seem to know a prominent reporter. Another time, he repeatedly referred to his vice president as Prime Minister Bush. His doctors dispute that he had Alzheimers while in office, and his wife, Nancy, said the neurological disease worsened only after he fell from a horse in 1989, suffering a brain injury, a subdural hematoma. Hillary is even more secretive about her health. On Dec. 7, 2012, she disappeared from view without a word. Three days passed before the State Department said the secretary of state was under the weather as it announced she would cancel a planned trip to the Middle East. ABC News put out this mysterious entry in a timeline on what happened next: Sometime early the week of Dec. 9: Clinton faints and falls while at home. Theres never been any independent confirmation of that, nor did Americas crackerjack media do anything more than write down what State officials claimed. Four days later, Hillary was diagnosed with a concussion. Then, on Dec. 15, State Department spokesman Philippe Reines said: While suffering from a stomach virus, Secretary Clinton became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion. More than three weeks after she disappeared, on Dec. 31, her doctors announced that an MRI scan revealed that a right transverse sinus venous thrombosis had formed. This is a clot in the vein that is situated in the space between the brain and the skull behind the right ear. It did not result in a stroke, or neurological damage. But independent doctors dispute the account. Some say the cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) wasnt caused by a concussion, but instead was itself the cause of her collapse at home and even that she had suffered a mild stroke. The Johns Hopkins website says symptoms of CVST include blurred vision and fainting or loss of consciousness. And this wasnt her first episode. In 1998, she was treated for a blood clot in her leg. She fainted during a 2005 speech in Buffalo, N.Y., broke her elbow in an unexplained 2009 fall in the State Department garage, and collapsed while boarding a flight in Yemen in 2011. But like so many times before, out came the Clintonian lies. Hillary said she was just fine, no worries, just a little tumble at home, a little concussion, a little right transverse sinus venous thrombosis. Yet it turns out that it required six months of very serious work to get over a terrible concussion, husband Bill said last week. The forces behind Hillary are faithful to their own profits, not us. This isn't like hiding that FDR was a cripple. This is about the brain. The biological CPU. This is about a damaged poster child for the Clinton profiteers. View attachment 27537 Moi No
