Off topic. But, what type of brace is HRC wearing these days?

[user 7704]

I've been reading that hiltard is putting out feelers she may run 2020

I would be asking for a complete physical and mental evaluation before I invested one $ on her candidacy.

The woman is ill.

 

[Doreena]

They may try Bernie?

It is a possibility, but I don’t think they will. They need to win badly so my gut tells me that whomever they run will be a relative moderate who can pull votes from disgruntled Republicans as well as Democrats. However, some recent wins indicate that moderate Democrats are not doing as well as Social Democrats, so who knows? I think Bernie would have done better than Hillary in the 2016 election against or current president. I guess we will wait and see. I don’t think my vote here in AL counts.....they even took me off of the active voter list and I vote every election. I could really get paranoid! [emoji3]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Doreena]

I would be asking for a complete physical and mental evaluation before I invested one $ on her candidacy.

The woman is ill.

They should do that for ANY candidate, and make sure the evaluation is done by an impartial group of doctors.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick]

Who’s going to do the mental evaluation? Practically every psycho doctor is on antidepressants aka psych meds.

 

[Doreena]

Who’s going to do the mental evaluation? Practically every psycho doctor is on antidepressants aka psych meds.

That is a very good question... maybe a panel of varied backgrounds might help.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Proud Prepper]

This is already done by the groups of people that nominate candidates. Then they are vetted by everyone and then voted in by the people, then get a physical and mental evaluation by doctors.

 

[Maverick]

That is a very good question... maybe a panel of varied backgrounds might help.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Mental health is subjective in science, I would caution the use mental health as a basis to approve or deny ones ability. One’s attitude and or demeanor doesn’t dictate mental derangement, some may base mental deficiencies on perception alone.

 

[Doreena]

This is already done by the groups of people that nominate candidates. Then they are vetted by everyone and then voted in by the people, then get a complete physical and mental evaluation by doctors.

It has to be an unquestionable source. Trumps doctor admitted that he did not examine him thoroughly, but rubber stamped an excellent report with weight and height inaccuracies (what else?) the doctor was later let go for his dubious practices. The method of review must be better than that, and when problems come up, redone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Proud Prepper]

It has to be an unquestionable source. Trumps doctor admitted that he did not examine him thoroughly, but rubber stamped an excellent report with weight and height inaccuracies (what else?) the doctor was later let go for his dubious practices. The method of review must be better than that, and when problems come up, redone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You do not understand. Who determins the unquestionable quilifications? Who determins what a problem is? The persons enemies, there family?

 

[Doreena]

Mental health is subjective in science, I would caution the use mental health as a basis to approve or deny ones ability. One’s attitude and or demeanor doesn’t dictate mental derangement, some may base mental deficiencies on perception alone.

A consensus of experts? I know it isn’t simple, but there should be some way to insure that the one with the keys to the kingdom is worthy, sane, etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Doreena]

You do not understand. Who determins the unquestionable quilifications? Who determins what a problem is? The persons enemies, there family?

I do understand. That is why I said a diverse group as to minimize bias. I don’t have an answer, but each member would have to be carefully vetted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick]

A consensus of experts? I know it isn’t simple, but there should be some way to insure that the one with the keys to the kingdom is worthy, sane, etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Every human has biases and those biases influence studies (human nature)

I hunt, the blood and guts don’t bother me, some will say I would have to be psychotic not to have it bother me, bad guys gets shot I will say things such as let the sob bleed out some will say I’m a psychopath. What basis does he or she base that judgment on? Personal biases! I seen psycho doctors on MSNBC claiming Trump has a mental problem! So he bases his diagnosis on perception and personal biases even though the doctor never had personal interaction.

 

[DrHenley]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who would want to be President in this current political environment must be batshit crazy. LOL

 

[Gazrok]

I doubt it. Bernie was given the Lake House to be quiet and go away....

Warren? Pelosi? Hillary? Do they WANT to just go ahead and swear Trump in for a second term? Because this is how to do it.

Does she really expect the DNC to back her on that decision?

Well, last time, she simply BOUGHT the DNC, so they really didn't have a choice in the matter...LOL. It's even feasible she could eke out a win, but with just one reminder of her little pouting session after the election (where she left her supporters high and dry), that should be the nail in the coffin. And there are a LOT of other nails to bang into that lid.

Kennedy wouldn't be a bad choice, but sexist as it is, the DNC really needs to field a gal in this. The other problem is that Kennedy is just barely even old enough to be POTUS. That could be a good thing, like JFK before him...but in this anti-establishment culture, being a known name in politics is likely to work against you. It also seems as if he doesn't WANT to run (though may be a VP contender). (hell, Warren was this guy's TEACHER in law school, lol).

Biden is a possibility. It was rare that he DIDN'T run in 2016 though. Kind of a given for the VP to make a bid after a two-term run. But creepy uncle Joe isn't going to get any pass on his own gropiness, either. And not running in 2016 will come back to bite him.

Simply put, the DNC has no message. So far, their only message is "We're not Trump!". That's all fine and good, but dumb as they think the American public is, they're still going to need a bit more than that. It's obvious, the DNC still doesn't "get it". They don't know what they did wrong, so they have no idea how to "fix" it.

If I was the head strategist of the DNC, I would choose Kamala Harris as my horse in this race. Female, mixed race, easy on the eyes, not well known for scandal. Well-qualified. A bit too liberal for my tastes, being from CA, but I still think she checks all the boxes for what the Dems need. Question is, are they smart enough to realize it? Probably not.

 

[Doreena]

I doubt it. Bernie was given the Lake House to be quiet and go away....

Warren? Pelosi? Hillary? Do they WANT to just go ahead and swear Trump in for a second term? Because this is how to do it.



Well, last time, she simply BOUGHT the DNC, so they really didn't have a choice in the matter...LOL. It's even feasible she could eke out a win, but with just one reminder of her little pouting session after the election (where she left her supporters high and dry), that should be the nail in the coffin. And there are a LOT of other nails to bang into that lid.

Kennedy wouldn't be a bad choice, but sexist as it is, the DNC really needs to field a gal in this. The other problem is that Kennedy is just barely even old enough to be POTUS. That could be a good thing, like JFK before him...but in this anti-establishment culture, being a known name in politics is likely to work against you. It also seems as if he doesn't WANT to run (though may be a VP contender). (hell, Warren was this guy's TEACHER in law school, lol).

Biden is a possibility. It was rare that he DIDN'T run in 2016 though. Kind of a given for the VP to make a bid after a two-term run. But creepy uncle Joe isn't going to get any pass on his own gropiness, either. And not running in 2016 will come back to bite him.

Simply put, the DNC has no message. So far, their only message is "We're not Trump!". That's all fine and good, but dumb as they think the American public is, they're still going to need a bit more than that. It's obvious, the DNC still doesn't "get it". They don't know what they did wrong, so they have no idea how to "fix" it.

If I was the head strategist of the DNC, I would choose Kamala Harris as my horse in this race. Female, mixed race, easy on the eyes, not well known for scandal. Well-qualified. A bit too liberal for my tastes, being from CA, but I still think she checks all the boxes for what the Dems need. Question is, are they smart enough to realize it? Probably not.

Bernie’s lake house was not even a purchase, but a swap from an inherited house in Maine that wasn’t used, that had been in their family since 1900...so you can’t hold that against him. And before you go to the Bernie bought an expensive car that was posted on that great source of truth (a mime) that was proven to be some one who looked like him, but not him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Proud Prepper]

Bernie Sanders is a communist pretending to be a democratic socialist. Nothing else really matters and any excuses or explanations you give is pointless.

 

[Gazrok]

Bernie’s lake house was not even a purchase, but a swap from an inherited house in Maine that wasn’t used, that had been in their family since 1900...so you can’t hold that against him. And before you go to the Bernie bought an expensive car that was posted on that great source of truth (a mime) that was proven to be some one who looked like him, but not him

Well aware of the car photo hoax.

As for the house, yeah, that's what the "paperwork" may say (but I'm not buying it, or the timing). But it still doesn't mean his wife didn't basically bankrupt her college and skate out like a bandit, nor does it excuse 4 decades in politics with no meaningful legislation beyond naming a couple of post offices.

He was a joke choice, chosen by the DNC to give the illusion of choice. They about messed in their pants when he started to get traction, and their own internal e-mails spell this out quite plainly. His "plans" were going to cost us ALL more money (3 out of 5 of his initiatives would have raised taxes no matter what bracket you were in). But, at least he HAD some plans. Unlike his competitor.

 

[Doreena]

Bernie Sanders is a communist pretending to be a democratic socialist. Nothing else really matters and any excuses or explanations you give is pointless.

Well all right!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasFreedom]

Everything seems to be XXX 2.0 nowadays. So, I'll predict 1984 version 2.0. Anyone old enough to remember Dukakis? What a loser! Remember the little boy look sticking his head out of a tank?

Democrats are desperate to get rid of Trump. But they also know he'll be unbeatable, other than the total nutjobs in the party (ok, yes, that may be a big section of their leadership and many more).

By 'unbeatable', I'm just looking at the track record so far. They've thrown everything at him including the kitchen sink, an F5 tornado, entire nations and races and 'sexual orientations', and not one thing has stuck. They keep trying to stick a crowbar between Trump and his voters and all they keep doing is hammering their own thumbs.

I predict that the 2020 election will be one of the worst losses of all time in a presidential race. Hence my Dukakis reference, I think Reagan got 49 of the 50 states! Yes, it could be that bad for democommunists. So sure, let's see who the democrats put up in 2 years.

 

[Doreena]

Everything seems to be XXX 2.0 nowadays. So, I'll predict 1984 version 2.0. Anyone old enough to remember Dukakis? What a loser! Remember the little boy look sticking his head out of a tank?

Democrats are desperate to get rid of Trump. But they also know he'll be unbeatable, other than the total nutjobs in the party (ok, yes, that may be a big section of their leadership and many more).

By 'unbeatable', I'm just looking at the track record so far. They've thrown everything at him including the kitchen sink, an F5 tornado, entire nations and races and 'sexual orientations', and not one thing has stuck. They keep trying to stick a crowbar between Trump and his voters and all they keep doing is hammering their own thumbs.

I predict that the 2020 election will be one of the worst losses of all time in a presidential race. Hence my Dukakis reference, I think Reagan got 49 of the 50 states! Yes, it could be that bad for democommunists. So sure, let's see who the democrats put up in 2 years.

I disagree. Hillary got more votes than our current president, and I doubt if he has gained any supporters. The Split between candidates pushed the electoral vote over, but I think the lesson was learned. I think more people are upset and former supporters that have been hurt or frightened by his policies, mistakes, and reversals will not support him again. We will see.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gazrok]

I disagree. Hillary got more votes than our current president, and I doubt if he has gained any supporters. The Split between candidates pushed the electoral vote over,

On this, I fully agree. However, if the Dems are foolish enough to go with another pariah (like Waters, Pelosi, Warren, or God forbid, Hillary again), then they are basically handing him a second term.

but I think the lesson was learned.

Obviously not, as they keep floating the names I mentioned.

I think more people are upset and former supporters that have been hurt or frightened by his policies, mistakes, and reversals will not support him again.

Not "hurt" or "frightened". "Disappointed" is a better term. He's done a 180 on a few key issues (like Syria, gays, etc.), and instead of toning down, as many of us hoped, he's poured gas on the fires. (with the exception of NK, but even that is superfluous at best). If the Dems can come up with a palatable option, they win. Simple as that. Question is, are they smart enough to learn WHY they lost in 2016? So far, all evidence is to the contrary.

The Dems have NO message (other than, hey, we're not Trump!). That's fine and all, but not enough to take it home folks. And the few points that ARE somewhat in their mixed messages (like massive gun control or even repealing the 2nd amendment, open borders, free healthcare and college with zero plans on how to fund it, etc.) are alienating.

If I was advising the DNC, I'd pick Kamala Harris for them. Female, mixed heritage, easy on the eyes, not a whack job (or anyone similar). But, will they be wise enough to go this route? Doubtful.

 

[Doreena]

On this, I fully agree. However, if the Dems are foolish enough to go with another pariah (like Waters, Pelosi, Warren, or God forbid, Hillary again), then they are basically handing him a second term.



Obviously not, as they keep floating the names I mentioned.



Not "hurt" or "frightened". "Disappointed" is a better term. He's done a 180 on a few key issues (like Syria, gays, etc.), and instead of toning down, as many of us hoped, he's poured gas on the fires. (with the exception of NK, but even that is superfluous at best). If the Dems can come up with a palatable option, they win. Simple as that. Question is, are they smart enough to learn WHY they lost in 2016? So far, all evidence is to the contrary.

The Dems have NO message (other than, hey, we're not Trump!). That's fine and all, but not enough to take it home folks. And the few points that ARE somewhat in their mixed messages (like massive gun control or even repealing the 2nd amendment, open borders, free healthcare and college with zero plans on how to fund it, etc.) are alienating.

If I was advising the DNC, I'd pick Kamala Harris for them. Female, mixed heritage, easy on the eyes, not a whack job (or anyone similar). But, will they be wise enough to go this route? Doubtful.

I do not mind Kamala Harris, either, and I have seen her name mentioned, but frankly, I am not sure that crossover votes would accept any female candidate. I hate that, but there is so much racism and sexism in our current culture that her gender may hurt a vote count.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DrHenley]

I doubt if he has gained any supporters.

If all you ever heard about Trump was from the mainstream media, of course you wouldn't like him. The amazing thing is how high his approval rating is despite constant daily character assassination in the media.

He is about where Obama and Reagan were at this point their presidencies. If Trump had received the same constant lavish praise from the media Obama got, he would be the highest rated president ever at this point in his presidency.

 

[Gazrok]

I am not sure that crossover votes would accept any female candidate.

This is a total myth, perpetuated by the media (especially based on the piss poor choices mentioned so far), and those who simply don't know actual Trump voters. I don't know a single Trump voter who has an issue with a female candidate (in fact, a lot of us wanted Condi Rice as VP)....just the PARTICULAR candidate last time....NOT her gender (likewise, I don't know any racist ones either). Granted, there may be some who do...but they are in the vast minority I'd wager. Certainly not enough to tilt the tide, if the DNC could actually field a candidate that isn't nauseating. I'd vote Harris over a 2nd Trump term...and I voted for Trump in 2016. It's simple, if you don't hold the positions I based my vote on, then I'm not going to re-elect you.

 

[Gazrok]

Here's another indication that the Dems still haven't figured out WHY they lost in 2016.....

They are also floating around the idea of a younger Kennedy running.

If they haven't learned yet that the election of 2016 was about NOT electing a political insider...then they aren't ever going to learn this. Running someone who is synonymous with the establishment is NOT the correct path.

 

[Mountain trapper]

I hope that Hillary runs again, or some other old hag. Trump would be sure to win in a landslide.

 

[DrHenley]

It just gets curiouser and curiouser...

It has now come out that the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) determined that all but four of Hillary's emails (over 30,000 of them all told) were intercepted by a "foreign entity." When the ICIG reported that information to FBI official Peter Strzok, Strzok didn't do anything with it.

The ICIG also discovered that the FBI had somehow mysteriously failed to notice that some of the emails were marked "Classified."

When the ICIG went to James Clapper with concerns about the FBI ignoring important information, he was chided for "failing to consider the political consequences of his investigative findings"!

 

[user 7704]

Many of the Bernie people hate the DMV so much they are still saying they will never vote Dem again. This was only last week.

They want DWS in jail.

 

[Doreena]

Many of the Bernie people hate the DMV so much they are still saying they will never vote Dem again. This was only last week.

They want DWS in jail.

The Bernie people I know held their nose and voted for Hillary.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[user 7704]

The Bernie people I know held their nose and voted for Hillary.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm talking about the ones that actually picketed the DNC convention etc. The true diehards.