Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #61 
pabar - One can only speculate as to why a position changes but if it isn't for the donations necessary to become President, I'm not sure what the other explanation might be.

Rubio backpedals

Yes, I changed my position.

And the changing positions these two men have held on the issue hasn’t done either of them any favors
.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,540
Reply with quote  #62 
"Bought out is when one changes their position, like Rubio and Walker did on immigration, in order to gain the money necessary to win a nomination.  That's a direct sell out and it's quite sad"

Now you're saying it's speculation?

People, this is Dewey at his dishonest best.  He puts out a statement affirming that Rubio and Walker were bought out and when he's called on it, now he changes his tune to say it's his speculation.

Disgusting.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #63 
It's an accusation I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  I think I've seen a few of those inside here before.  I think Rubio knows he must get in line on this issue or he will not receive the donations necessary to earn the nomination.  It is my opinion on this change of position.

Edit:  Hey wait a minute.  Didn't FIB just accuse Warren of being bought out?  Did you totally miss it or are you playing partisan tag team?

Edit II:  Early in this thread you accused President Clinton of rape.  I missed the "imo" there too.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,184
Reply with quote  #64 
The Clintons directly took cash to support their lavish lifestyle.  Is that the same as changing a policy position to appear more electable (which, BTW, I am not saying Rubio did, but you seem to be).
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,540
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
It's an accusation I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's an accusation you can't prove in any possible way.  I think I've seen a few of those inside here before.  I think Rubio knows he must get in line on this issue or he will not receive the donations necessary to earn the nomination.  It is my opinion on this change of position.

Edit:  Hey wait a minute.  Didn't FIB just accuse Warren of being bought out?  Did you totally miss it or are you playing partisan tag team?  We're not talking about FIB or Warren - we're talking about you.

Edit II:  Early in this thread you accused President Clinton of rape.  I missed the "imo" there too.  I'm not the one who made the accusation.  That would be Juanita Broaddrick.  Where is her justice?
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
PDad - Hey, are you calling me out so these guys can throw rocks at my head? [wink] (If the target fits, wear it) At this stage, I don't have any opinion one way or the other about Warren running or not.  I can tell you I would give her, and others for that matter, consideration.  I'm a believer it's nearly impossible for the Democrats to lose in 2016 (Hillary thought the same thing about herself in 2008) so I'll choose the candidate that interests me the most.  Biden will win if he's our candidate, imo. Interesting...

As for somebody accusing Warren of being bought out, that's absurd.  Bought out is when one changes their position, like Rubio and Walker did on immigration, in order to gain the money necessary to win a nomination.  That's a direct sell out and it's quite sad.  However, I understand why they did it.

Well played. You simply dismissed their accusation of a routine political quid pro quo deal as "absurd" and then shift attention away by making a more forceful accusation against Republicans. The sad part is when people get distracted by your misdirection instead of staying on their topic.

One can only speculate as to why Warren hasn't declared her candidacy but if it isn't in exchange for cocaine and heroin, I'm not sure what the explanation might be. [rofl]
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,842
Reply with quote  #67 
PDad - that was sublime. [smile]
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,992
Reply with quote  #68 
"The sad part is when people get distracted by your misdirection instead of staying on their topic."

I agree, it is sad. The reason I am constantly on alert for his fat-japping.


__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #69 
It's his attempt to control the argument and prove he is smarter than all of us...

Let's stay on topic - why wouldn't Warren run? In my opinion she has either determined Hillary won't win and she can beat an incumbent republican or she has been scared off by the powers that be in the Democratic Party. Thoughts?
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
Let's stay on topic - why wouldn't Warren run?

The Democrats are very confident about keeping the White House, so it's most likely personal reasons and/or party politics. Let's put the reasons in logical groupings.

1. Warren has been paid off with:
1.a Promised position in administration to enhance future candidacy
1.b Cocaine and heroin (jk)

2. Warren has been scared off by:
2.a Powers that be in the Democratic Party 
2.b The demands of running for national office and the extra scrutiny that comes with it
2.c Concerns it would split the party and they'd lose the general election
2.d Hillary's enemy list

3. Warren has evaluated her chances against Hillary and in the future:
3.a Isn't confident she can beat Hillary and challenging HRC would hurt her career.
3.b Is letting Hillary have another shot at it, but will run if/when Hillary's campaign goes in the toilet.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,808
Reply with quote  #71 
Since you are asking, I see it like this. Warren, Omalley, and some others are doing the dance on the razors edge. They saw Obama become the Messiah of the MSM, and out of nowhere, wipe her out. Make no mistake, Hillary, Bill, and their "foundation" are playing hardball. It is in my opinion a smart strategic move to take a maybe I will, maybe I wont strategy for any of Hillary's potential opponents. Instead of making an announcement, and being savaged by the Hillary campaign placements in the mSM, just make a little noise, and step back. The only people capable of stopping a Hillary Bill Clinton ticket, are Bill and Hillary. The more rope Hillary is given, the better for her opponents. They don't have foreign governments cutting checks for millions. Hillary has made a strategic blunder by campaigning, and not declaring for so long, even her MSM plants have lost interest in whatever it is she calls a campaign rollout. Her potential opponents are just waiting in Limbo. They don't have the monetary support to go up against the juggernaut, and the friendly press. They are just biding their time for Hillary to step in deep enough over her Sh*t boots to get stuck. Then they will do a full frontal attack.In my opinion, all they have to do is get close enough to Hillary's MSM pals to become an alternative, when, not if Hillary's campaign goes over the edge, and the political advisers on her campaign start looking at other candidates to get a paycheck from. Don't get me wrong, Hillary is the ordained candidate, until she is suddenly usurped by a guitar playing rockstar, or a Socialist hack repeating the Marxist line to those that will fl0ock towards the newest flame like a moth.
__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad

Well played. You simply dismissed their accusation of a routine political quid pro quo deal as "absurd" and then shift attention away by making a more forceful accusation against Republicans.


PDad - I think I called it absurd because to think one can be bought off from running for President in this day and age is just that, absurd, imo.  The numbers running for the GOP nomination seem to suggest buying someone off is out of the question.  I don't know Sen. Warren that well but I give her more credit than that.

As for your other comments, there's many right leaning members playing offense inside here and when I counter, I can't do it lightly.  Btw, a Democrat can lose to another Democrat but not to the GOP in a national election, as I see it.  There's an important distinction there. [wink] 

Finally, in your last post I'll go with number 3.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,593
Reply with quote  #73 
And it keeps rolling in

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clintons-charity-empire-hid-162600226.html


The Clinton Foundation's finance controversies deepened on Thursday, when The Boston Globe reported that a huge affiliate of the charity failed to report its foreign-government contributionsto the State Department.

 

When Hillary Clinton, now the leading Democratic presidential candidate, became secretary of state in 2009, she agreed to have her family's foundation submit new donations from foreign countries for State Department review. This was designed to avoid potential conflicts of interest with her new government role.

But Clinton's foundation, now called the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and its various initiatives repeatedly violated this agreement, reports over the past few months have shown. The Washington Post reported in February that the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose $500,000 from Algeria at the time the country was lobbying the State Department over human-rights issues. And Bloomberg reported this week that the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, a Clinton Foundation affiliate, failed to disclose 1,100 foreign contributions.

And The Globe's report on the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), another foundation affiliate, may cover the most notable omissions yet as tens of millions of dollars went undisclosed to the State Department.

"Government grants to CHAI, nearly all of them from foreign countries, doubled from $26.7 million in 2010 to $55.9 million in 2013, according to the charity's tax forms," The Globe reported.

According to the paper, CHAI "makes up nearly 60% of the broader Clinton charitable empire" and has an annual budget of more than $100 million.


Just another hatchet job from that right-wing rag, The Boston Globe?


http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/04/29/clinton-health-charity-failed-report-foreign-grant-increases-required-under-agreement-for-hillary-clinton-confirmation/yTYoUTi3wGhy3oDonxy6gI/story.html


__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #74 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
Let's stay on topic - why wouldn't Warren run?

The Democrats are very confident about keeping the White House, so it's most likely personal reasons and/or party politics. Let's put the reasons in logical groupings.

1. Warren has been paid off with:
1.a Promised position in administration to enhance future candidacy
1.b Cocaine and heroin (jk)

2. Warren has been scared off by:
2.a Powers that be in the Democratic Party 
2.b The demands of running for national office and the extra scrutiny that comes with it
2.c Concerns it would split the party and they'd lose the general election
2.d Hillary's enemy list

3. Warren has evaluated her chances against Hillary and in the future:
3.a Isn't confident she can beat Hillary and challenging HRC would hurt her career.
3.b Is letting Hillary have another shot at it, but will run if/when Hillary's campaign goes in the toilet.


Well thought out sentiments.  I think she has surveyed the scene and decided that it's not worth the political backlash she will receive from the Clinton's and their cronies.  It would be a bloody primary and if she lost, she might not recover and be able to run again.  If she sits it out and Hillary loses, she is the leading candidate in 2020 and if Hillary wins and makes it through two terms, she would still have a good shot in 2024.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #75 
I'm predicting Michelle Obama in 2024.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #76 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
Well thought out sentiments.  I think she has surveyed the scene and decided that it's not worth the political backlash she will receive from the Clinton's and their cronies.  It would be a bloody primary and if she lost, she might not recover and be able to run again.  If she sits it out and Hillary loses, she is the leading candidate in 2020 and if Hillary wins and makes it through two terms, she would still have a good shot in 2024.

I like your analysis. Do any American sports books offer proposition bets on domestic politics? For example, it would be fun to watch the lines/odds on Hillary getting the nomination; getting elected once; re-elected; being impeached; being removed from office; and leaving office early due to health/death. Would also like to see over/under lines on number of House and/or Senate investigations, however it would be too easy to manipulate the results for the 'Over' bets. Dewey could get lottery jackpot odds right now on MO-bama being elected in 2024.

Back on topic. It's also possible Warren has concerns about being President, so I'm adding a new group.

1. Warren has been paid off with:
1.a Promised position in administration to enhance future candidacy
1.b Cocaine and heroin (jk)

2. Warren has been scared off by:
2.a Powers that be in the Democratic Party 
2.b The demands of running for national office and the extra scrutiny that comes with it
2.c Concerns it would split the party and they'd lose the general election
2.d Hillary's enemy list

3. Warren has evaluated her chances against Hillary and in the future:
3.a Isn't confident she can beat Hillary and challenging HRC would hurt her career.
3.b Is letting Hillary have another shot at it, but will run if/when Hillary's campaign goes in the toilet.

4. Warren has concerns after evaluating the job description:
4.a Has the personal integrity to admit she isn't qualified yet.
4.b Isn't confident she can/wants to perform all the duties (e.g. Commander in Chief).
4.c Would prefer to focus on her pet issues rather than get spread thin over everything.
4.d Isn't interested in the job in 2016 due to the mess she'd inherit.

I'll consider adding any other reasons/groups that people suggest.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
It's his attempt to control the argument and prove he is smarter than all of us...


Tyler - Was there a purpose to this comment?  Were you trying to see if I agreed with your assessment or are you trying to become a popular member of the club.  As you said a little bit ago, if you want to take shots at me, start another thread and group them together.  Please avoid the shots followed with "let's get back on topic". 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,184
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
I'm predicting Michelle Obama in 2024.


Will she be proud of her country by then, or does that matter?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #79 
She's always been proud of her Country but I understand you like to engage in "gotcha" politics.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,540
Reply with quote  #80 
For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.

That's a direct quote.  Only when she got called on the carpet for it did she change her tune.  Just like her husband's repeated lies about keeping your insurance.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,992
Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
She's always been proud of her Country but I understand you like to engage in "gotcha" politics.


whereas you engage in white guilt.

 BTW her country is Klingon. [in honor of PGP]

I understand how she would be qualified if hilLIARry is, they were both first 'ladies'.  There have to be smarter more qualified people in this country more qualified to be president, wouldn't one think?  Have we actually sunk so low??

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #82 
Hillary, why are you now waffling on the TPP after promoting it in Nov 2012?
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
It's his attempt to control the argument and prove he is smarter than all of us...


Tyler - Was there a purpose to this comment?  Were you trying to see if I agreed with your assessment or are you trying to become a popular member of the club.  As you said a little bit ago, if you want to take shots at me, start another thread and group them together.  Please avoid the shots followed with "let's get back on topic". 


I don't need to be popular and if I feel you are trying to steer a conversation by your attemp at spin, I'll call you on it right then and there.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,992
Reply with quote  #84 
Why?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/07/rebranded-hillary-clinton-sets-her-sights-on-the-pulpit/?utm_source=site-share

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,992
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Over twenty years ago I began listening to Rush and many other talk radio guys bash Bill and Hillary Clinton on a daily basis and it continues even now.  Today, both Bill and Hillary Clinton are more popular than they ever have been.  Do you think there's any correlation?


Proof's in the pudding.  How out of touch can one be?

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.