You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 12:11:06 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!]  (Read 40205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #350 on: October 21, 2015, 11:20:10 AM »
« Last Edit: October 21, 2015, 11:23:05 AM by Cycle »

Offline Ebb


Offline Zillah

  • Your kinky little sweetheart
  • On Hiatus
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: Down in the West Village
  • Gender: Female
  • The capital of Montana is not "Hannah"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #352 on: October 21, 2015, 12:41:08 PM »
If you look at their stances on issues, there's not much difference between Biden and Clinton. If anything, Clinton's more liberal than Biden.

Considering how far behind he'd be in raising money and getting a campaign staff together, I can't say I'm surprised he's not running.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #353 on: October 21, 2015, 01:12:00 PM »
Add in the recent death of his son, and yeah. 

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #354 on: October 21, 2015, 08:10:06 PM »
More bad news for 3.0.  He's getting shoved aside at the next debate.  His spot--in the center next to the esteemed Mr. Trump--is going to 3.0's own protege:  Rubio.

Offline KalebHyde

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #355 on: October 21, 2015, 09:36:29 PM »
Sure.  What criminal activity?  Because so far, the worst thing they've come up with is "there might be more emails we haven't seen." 

Well considering there is an ongoing FBI investigation in which criminal charges could be the end result and Clinton has acted guilty as sin from day one, the best one can say for her is that she has shown very poor judgment and violated any right to security clearance which makes for a very poor choice for President.  I find it very hard to believe anyone in her position would honestly believe destroying their hard drive was the right thing to do as it absolutely violates the public's trust and foils nearly any future FOIA attempt which is, again, the public's right.

Quote

That is certainly news to me, I had no idea the President was running in the upcoming election.  Or is the Democratic contention that Obama is the only qualified candidate that can be found that is under seventy and/or non white?  Not that it is a prerequisite, that is unless one happens to be a progressively minded individual who claims diversity to be key in all other walks of life except for the ruling class.  There it is fine to be force fed a dreaded one-percenter as long as she tells her followers what they want to hear.  That is why I respect Sanders, even if I don't agree with him, for being a man of the people and actually meaning what he says.
 

Quote
Ah yes, Conservatives, always the go-to group for innovation.  I'd be more impressed with the mess if it weren't spewing out a racist, hate-filled bigot.  I'm not thrilled with politics as usual, but the GOP seems eager to remind us there are worse things. 

Although I'm not sure a country asking that its borders be respected is automatically racist, I agree, assuming Trump is that supposed bigot, that he is little more than a loudmouthed jerk who is seemingly incapable of delivering the conservative message in an intelligent manner.  He and Obama are two sides of the same coin as they and their followers believe they can do nothing wrong.  Again, though, there remains only one party with any semblance of diversity, one party where conflicting ideas are put in public view to be sorted through rather than a coronation of a candidate that was judged unqualified by her party eight years ago and has legitimately done nothing since to change that opinion.

Quote


I have stated more than once I believe that I want no part of a Bush 3.0 and, so far, it is apparent neither does a large portion of the Republican party.  He has fallen far down in the polls and I hope he continues downward.  I believe the voters of both parties should take a stand against all dynasties.  No more Bushs, no more Clintons.  The Democratic party can not be in such disarray that she is the only hope.  Keep the message, but change the messenger from one who equates  Iran and the Republican party on her enemies list.  I'm really not sure how she is the one to bring the unity Americans claim to be searching for.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #356 on: October 21, 2015, 11:51:18 PM »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #357 on: October 22, 2015, 12:41:32 AM »
One better for you, Cycle:


Offline Cassandra LeMay


Offline eBadger

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #359 on: October 22, 2015, 03:17:54 AM »
Well considering there is an ongoing FBI investigation in which criminal charges could be the end result

"Could be the end result" is any investigation ever.  It's more useful to look at what's actually going on than trial based on lack of information (I, for one, am still picky about needing evidence for a conviction, although I realize social media works differently). 

Even high ranked Republicans are clear this is a blatantly partisan attempt at defamation:
Quote
First came House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s admission that the committee was empaneled for the purpose of hurting Clinton’s poll numbers.

This was followed by Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) voicing his view that “there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton.”

Then there was Bradley Podliska, an Air Force Reserve intelligence officer and self-described conservative, who was fired as a Republican staffer on the committee — in part, he said, because he resisted pressure to focus on Clinton.

And the suggestion that Clinton leaked information was faked:
Quote
Trey Gowdy, had fabricated a redaction to Clinton’s emails to make it look like she’d endangered a spy, and the CIA had busted her. Gowdy even mimicked intelligence community vernacular, designating the redaction as undertaken to protect “sources and methods,” without disclosing that he was the redactor or that the CIA had cleared the name he redacted for release.

This is, by the way, the eighth house or senate committee to investigate the issue.  This isn't new ground.  Regarding the first seven:
Quote
Significantly, none of the reports found evidence that Clinton or anyone else had ordered the military not to attempt a rescue, that the CIA had been trying to move weapons from Libya to Syria, or that Rice’s misstatements after the attacks were a deliberate bid to downplay the terrorist threat for political reasons.

If you're still eager to find a crime and impeach someone, though, you're in luck.  While $4.5 million of tax payer money hasn't proven anything against Clinton,
Quote
House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy appears to have accidentally released the name of a CIA source in the midst of a back-and-forth with Democrats about how sensitive the information was and whether its presence in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account constituted a security breach.
...
Republicans on the Benghazi Committee are trying to make the case that Hillary Clinton was reckless when handling sensitive information, and while making the case, Republicans on the Benghazi Committee mishandled the exact same sensitive information.
*Awaits the same outrage demonstrated for allegations against Clinton*

Did Clinton do something wrong?  Dunno.  But three years, several million dollars, and eight committees haven't found anything. 

That is certainly news to me, I had no idea the President was running in the upcoming election.

So you're just narrowing down the sampling until it matches your preconceptions?  Cool. 

a coronation of a candidate that was judged unqualified by her party eight years ago

Shall we discuss how many times Trump has run for president?

Or perhaps it's better that Carson never has?  ...nor for any other public office, for that matter. 

The Democratic party can not be in such disarray that she is the only hope.




Keep the message, but change the messenger from one who equates  Iran and the Republican party on her enemies list.

In fairness, I think the Republicans are far more likely to impair my way of life than the Iranians.  But yes, I get your notion there, and Hillary isn't the most thrilling candidate.  All I suggest is that, when stating an opinion against her or her party, you do it with a fair mind toward facts and legitimate comparison rather than cherry picking sound bites. 


Offline KalebHyde

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #361 on: October 22, 2015, 01:59:06 PM »
"Could be the end result" is any investigation ever.  It's more useful to look at what's actually going on than trial based on lack of information (I, for one, am still picky about needing evidence for a conviction, although I realize social media works differently). 

I think it is more useful to realize the FBI does not simply go on witch hunts against Democratic frontrunners without cause.  There likely will not be criminal charges, but her personal misconduct and lack of regard for the public's right to information is clear.

Quote
Even high ranked Republicans are clear this is a blatantly partisan attempt at defamation:

An opinion piece from the Washington Post using one misstatement and two other opinions is not much in the way of evidence.
Quote
And the suggestion that Clinton leaked information was faked:

Neither is an MSNBC  hit piece which holds as much worth as Fox News does for liberals.  I would need to see a far more credible source than anything from the Maddow online crowd.

Quote
This is, by the way, the eighth house or senate committee to investigate the issue.  This isn't new ground.  Regarding the first seven:

This is the first House Select Committee on this topic and it seems odd that, even up until yesterday, new emails, including ones from Ambassador Stevens, have continued to surface.  Possibly if the Democratic party had any interest in the truth about four dead Americans in Libya rather than covering themselves for elections, we wouldn't still be going over the same ground.  One doesn't reward the criminal just because his lawyer can drag out the case.  By the way, those other committees did find misconduct and/or incompetence in the government Clinton was a chief player in.  Not exactly the kind of thing which qualifies her for higher office.

Quote
If you're still eager to find a crime and impeach someone, though, you're in luck.  While $4.5 million of tax payer money hasn't proven anything against Clinton, *Awaits the same outrage demonstrated for allegations against Clinton*

Again, I find nothing about MSNBC to be credible in the slightest, but if Gowdy is guilty of the same sorts of misconduct Clinton surely is then yes, he should not be allowed to be President either.  Even though this investigation is the only reason we, the people, ever found out about her server, this really isn't all about Benghazi.  Clinton, in general, has always appeared to consider herself above the law and, while she may not have broken one, her obvious intent was to keep all of her dealings behind locked doors, even those she had no right to keep from the people.  It isn't always the initial step, either, but the coverup.  Not only did she admittedly make the mistake of having a private server, but then compounded it by deleting and attempting to destroy all evidence while expecting everyone to take her word for it.  A word that didn't come, would not have come, had she not been caught by the Benghazi investigation.

Quote
Diid Clinton do something wrong?  Dunno.  But three years, several million dollars, and eight committees haven't found anything. 

Nothing yet, and maybe there never will be.  The money and time spent so far is just as much on the hands of Democrats who could have simply been forthcoming with everything rather than hiding behind private servers and youtube videos.  Transparency is something neither the current nor a future Clinton administration knows anything about.

Quote
you're just narrowing down the sampling until it matches your preconceptions?  Cool. 

Narrowing down the sampling?  This thread is about current Presidential candidates.  If Obama was running for a third term, he would be in the discussion.  The Democratic field stands as it is, old, caucasian, 100% non diverse.  I would expect that to concern the Democratic base but then I guess it's by any means necessary

Quote
Shall we discuss how many times Trump has run for president?

Or perhaps it's better that Carson never has?  ...nor for any other public office, for that matter. 


Discuss away as I'm hoping everyday that something non health wise will derail Trump.  It is humorous how some conspiracy nuts have even claimed Trump is a Clinton plant.  Democrat, Republican, someone please stop the Trump train.

Carson, on the other hand, is a man I can totally see as President and I'm not sure how any Democrat who backed our current President can complain about inexperience.  In fact, how many races has the current Democratic frontrunner won.  Clinton was annointed Senator of New York, where she did nothing of note, then became Secretary of State where she did far worse.  I believe I would take a lack of experience over a record of failure especially when all Washington insiders like Clinton are so looked down upon.


Quote
In fairness, I think the Republicans are far more likely to impair my way of life than the Iranians.  But yes, I get your notion there, and Hillary isn't the most thrilling candidate.  All I suggest is that, when stating an opinion against her or her party, you do it with a fair mind toward facts and legitimate comparison rather than cherry picking sound bites.

It is all a matter of opinion in the end.  To me, the giveaway mentality when our enconomy truly is teetering on the brink and the lack of security on our borders, moreso for those who would do us h.arm than the mouths we really can no longer afford to feed, is what endangers America most.  I guess I lean more Libertarian though I just can't go with Paul's foreign policy, or what I at least know of it.  Cruz I believe to be an honest man but the media has turned him into a pariah just for taking a stand.  Disagree with him, fine, but more people need to take a firm stand for whatever they believe.  I also like Rubio but I've chosen Carson and/or Fiorina for their intelligence, their honesty, and the fact they both stand outside the establishment.  They have flaws like anyone else but there is no perfect candidate.

I think my disappointment in the Democratic party is that, from the outside, it looks like winning is the only thing that matters.  Although he isn't my candidate, Sanders should be far ahead of Clinton.  He stands for his convictions, tells things as he believes them, and has a true grass roots, of the people base.  Still people have Clinton in the lead only because they think she can win.  Why?  What is there about her specifically that makes anyone think she is the one right choice?  That is why it angers me to see the Democratic field as it is.  Being President is worth fighting for but it seems there are only two who even care.  I was disappointed that Biden decided not to run not because I would have voted for him, but because it might have created competition which brings better ideas.  Where is Warren, Booker, any number of others?  I don't understand why no one else on the Democratic side seems to want to help this country avoid the Clinton machine anymore than I understand why Republicans are riding the Trump train.  Compromise comes from standing for one's principles while seeking out common ground, not each side calling the other racist or America haters just for differences in opinion.  Trump vs Clinton ends well for no one interested in America as a whole rather than one's side 'winning'.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #362 on: October 22, 2015, 02:28:52 PM »
Frankly, Carson as President scares the crap out of me.  The man keeps coming up with more and more outlandish statements, and shows that he has little to no clue about how our government actually works.  He does not comprehend the debt ceiling, thinks that the religion of the President should be considered as a qualification (as well as still believing that President Obama is Muslim), and has said that the Holocaust could have been prevented or diminished if more people in Germany had guns.  (In that same statement, he related being in a robbery at a restaurant and telling the gun man to go after the cashier.)

Carson is a big dose of 'Do Not Want'.

Offline Ebb

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #363 on: October 22, 2015, 02:52:38 PM »
If I'm looking to hire a plumber I will want to find someone who is honest, forthright, and a good communicator. I want them to be ethical in their work, punctual, and clean.

But more than any of that, I want someone who knows how to lay pipe, so to speak. If they're not good at plumbing, the rest of the stuff is incidental, and I won't hire them.

The job of being President of the US is infinitely more complicated than plumbing. It is impossible to learn how to be a good president through on the job training. As much as it can be satisfying to rail against the professional political class, the truth is that unless someone has crawled through the sewer pipes to see how a legislature and an executive branch actually interact to get things done, they're not going to be effective as President. I don't so much care whether that experience is at the federal or state level. I wasn't particularly happy about Obama's relative lack of experience, but at least he had some, and had the benefit of an academic background focused on Constitutional law. And he's turned out okay, in my book. Note that he had eight years at the state senate level, and nearly another four in the US senate.

The idea that what you want is a complete outsider who's not "tainted" by political experience is foolish, in my opinion. The Washington bureaucracy is a huge, heavy machine that has evolved over hundreds of years. There is no legitimate "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" fantasy of someone coming in from outside, shaking things up and fixing everything. If you're good and smart and you have experience you might move a couple of gears around, file off some rough edges, and leave the thing in better shape for the next administration. You're not going to tear it to the ground and rebuild -- no single person could ever do that. Instead you'll just get complete gridlock.

The office of the President is far weaker than most perceive it to be from the outside. There are lots of small things that can be done unilaterally, but big things require cooperation, compromise and messy sausage-making deals.

I like Sanders' positions more than I like Clinton's, in general. But I have zero doubt that Clinton will be far more effective at getting things done. I'm not voting for her just because I think she can win. I'm voting for her because I think that she can do the job well, while being basically aligned with policy positions that I support.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2015, 02:56:35 PM by Ebb »

Offline Zillah

  • Your kinky little sweetheart
  • On Hiatus
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: Down in the West Village
  • Gender: Female
  • The capital of Montana is not "Hannah"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #364 on: October 22, 2015, 03:05:52 PM »
Hillary's reaction to this whole ludicrous Benghazi hearing today is priceless.


Offline eBadger

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #365 on: October 22, 2015, 04:22:37 PM »
I think it is more useful to realize the FBI does not simply go on witch hunts against Democratic frontrunners without cause. 

What FBI witch hunt?  Actually,
Quote
The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.

Edit: The FBI generally doesn't like politicians weighing in on such issues.  In response to a demand to turn over info on their investigation,

Quote
“At this time, consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation, nor are we in a position to provide additional information at this time,” FBI General Counsel James A. Baker wrote

and

Quote
Earlier this month the Justice Department, in another pleading, insisted Mrs. Clinton didn’t do anything wrong in being the one who decided which of her messages were official business records that must be returned to the government and which were purely personal and able to be expunged.

So again, that investigation is separate, not about Benghazi, and while no one is saying she's not guilty no charges have been raised either.  Instead what you're seeing is a partisan committee formed about a different issue is trying to take over and make public the ongoing FBI process. 

I'll also point out that your logic here - that no one would be investigated unless they were guilty - is both ridiculous and in direct contradiction to our basic rights and form of government, in particular the 5th amendment. 

What's in the news, on the other hand, is a separate House committee investigation.  You may not think it's without cause, but the committee itself would disagree with you:

Quote
The hearing adjourned for a lunch break after nearly three and a half hours and a shouting match between Mr. Gowdy and two Democrats on the committee about the focus on Mrs. Clinton’s email exchanges

The GOP has the majority on it, though; and I'll leave it to you whether 7 republicans would go on a high profile witch hunt against the primary democratic presidential candidate using federal funds (Hint: yes). 

An opinion piece from the Washington Post using one misstatement and two other opinions is not much in the way of evidence.

I was more focused on the quotes involved, and sure, feel free to dispute the facts. 

Narrowing down the sampling?  This thread is about current Presidential candidates. 

Ah; I assumed when you said "Democratic Party" that you meant more than two people.  So, sure, we'll ignore that the current president is the first minority in such office and the 5th youngest ever. 

Hillary is a whopping 3 years older than Carson (67 v. 64).  Not exactly a generation gap.  She's also female, which I would define as 'diverse' - and a bit noteworthy as we haven't had that 50% of the population represented in the presidency ever.  Carson has a net worth of about $10 million, putting him well above the $8.4 required to be among the 1%.  Hillary is there too, of course; I believe every serious contender is except Bernie, the other democratic possible.  So basically all you've got for Ben is "He's black," which is super but no longer quite as groundbreaking as it used to be and is only one way of being 'diverse'. 

To me, the giveaway mentality when our enconomy truly is teetering on the brink and the lack of security on our borders, moreso for those who would do us h.arm than the mouths we really can no longer afford to feed, is what endangers America most.

All valid reasons to oppose Clinton/the dems. 

I think my disappointment in the Democratic party is that, from the outside, it looks like winning is the only thing that matters.  Although he isn't my candidate, Sanders should be far ahead of Clinton.  He stands for his convictions, tells things as he believes them, and has a true grass roots, of the people base.  Still people have Clinton in the lead only because they think she can win.  Why?  What is there about her specifically that makes anyone think she is the one right choice?

I can't speak for everyone, but personally I lean toward her because she's a completely known factor that represents a fairly moderate path that promises a general lack of crazy.  In a race that I currently see devoid of anyone I actually WANT in the white house, she's the best option.  Bernie is a starry eyed idealist, which is great for feel good Hollywood but not as endearing for national leadership.  Having watched Obama founder on basic stuff like health care in a democratic legislature, I don't think Sanders will accomplish anything with socialism in a split government and I fear the outcome for our politics if he tries.  I would prefer stability and small improvements to grand disasters. 

In short, he has some good messages but I don't think he'd be able to actually carry them through. 

I also think the best chance for Trump's crass capitalism is to force American voters to choose between him and socialism. 

Being President is worth fighting for but it seems there are only two who even care.  I was disappointed that Biden decided not to run not because I would have voted for him, but because it might have created competition which brings better ideas.  Where is Warren, Booker, any number of others?  I don't understand why no one else on the Democratic side seems to want to help this country avoid the Clinton machine anymore than I understand why Republicans are riding the Trump train.  Compromise comes from standing for one's principles while seeking out common ground, not each side calling the other racist or America haters just for differences in opinion.

I see it as a more amiable community that builds consensus through partnerships and focuses on the larger campaign rather than wasting millions to scream Loser at each other. 

The idea that what you want is a complete outsider who's not "tainted" by political experience is foolish, in my opinion. The Washington bureaucracy is a huge, heavy machine that has evolved over hundreds of years. There is no legitimate "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" fantasy of someone coming in from outside, shaking things up and fixing everything. If you're good and smart and you have experience you might move a couple of gears around, file off some rough edges, and leave the thing in better shape for the next administration. You're not going to tear it to the ground and rebuild -- no single person could ever do that. Instead you'll just get complete gridlock.

The office of the President is far weaker than most perceive it to be from the outside. There are lots of small things that can be done unilaterally, but big things require cooperation, compromise and messy sausage-making deals.

I like Sanders' positions more than I like Clinton's, in general. But I have zero doubt that Clinton will be far more effective at getting things done. I'm not voting for her just because I think she can win. I'm voting for her because I think that she can do the job well, while being basically aligned with policy positions that I support.

Put very well. 
« Last Edit: October 22, 2015, 05:46:30 PM by eBadger »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #366 on: October 22, 2015, 07:09:55 PM »
Hillary's reaction to this whole ludicrous Benghazi hearing today is priceless.



I just flipped this back on.  I have to say, just in terms of physical appearance, Trey Gowdy is a mess.  Seriously, he's doing the questioning, yet he's sweating like a pig.  Dude, relax.  Deep breath.  Slow down.  You know there are cameras watching, right?


Offline Zillah

  • Your kinky little sweetheart
  • On Hiatus
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: Down in the West Village
  • Gender: Female
  • The capital of Montana is not "Hannah"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #367 on: October 22, 2015, 07:24:26 PM »
I don't even particularly like Hillary. But the Republicans running this thing have been a total amateur hour compared to her. She's calm and thoughtful, and the few times she's gotten pointed with them, it's deftly done. Meanwhile, Gowdy's a disorganized disaster. So are the rest of his cohorts.

Seriously, Hillary couldn't have asked for a better showcase. And this is what the Republicans wanted.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #368 on: October 22, 2015, 08:10:42 PM »
So, after 11 hours of questioning, what did the Committee get us?


Offline Mikem

  • *Cancer Survivor*
  • Permabanned
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: In the damp and dreary Pacific Northwest
  • Gender: Male
  • No labels. I'm a Man and that's all that I am.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #369 on: October 22, 2015, 09:02:51 PM »
So, after 11 hours of questioning, what did the Committee get us?

Holy crap eleven hours? Did they at least give the poor Woman some Burger King?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #370 on: October 22, 2015, 09:04:03 PM »
Holy crap eleven hours? Did they at least give the poor Woman some Burger King?

Eleven hours of questioning is bad enough, why does she need to suffer even more by eating Burger King? :D

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #371 on: October 22, 2015, 10:09:22 PM »
I just flipped this back on.  I have to say, just in terms of physical appearance, Trey Gowdy is a mess.  Seriously, he's doing the questioning, yet he's sweating like a pig.  Dude, relax.  Deep breath.  Slow down.  You know there are cameras watching, right?

This is the same thing that killed Nixon when he debated Kennedy. 

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #372 on: October 22, 2015, 10:58:46 PM »
Holy crap eleven hours? Did they at least give the poor Woman some Burger King?

Zip, clinton basically answered calmly and the committee was sort of frothing at the mouth near the end that she hadn't slipped up and hadn't found her doing anything wrong During the crisis.

It made her look very leader-like apparently.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #373 on: October 23, 2015, 03:34:50 AM »
*Nods* I think she came out well, with a calmness and endurance that speak well to a presidential candidate.  Nothing notable or new seemed to arise, which Dems will point out is a symptom of a pointless committee on a witch hunt and Reps will say is an example of Clinton withholding or being evasive. 

So we're pretty much at the same place as we were 24 hours ago, but with a few amusing sound bites (I personally like the one where a question seems to ask if Hillary got any on a certain night and she cracks up). 

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #374 on: October 23, 2015, 07:32:47 AM »
"Oh Grand Party Inquisitor, our whipping of the herticial noble hath uncovered no sin, she still refuses to return to her proper place in the kitchen"
"continue with the whipping oh high priest of Gazi, sooner or later we shall uncover the sins we seek!"
"but sir"
"yes minion?"
"she's starting to enjoy it..."