President Rodham-Clinton?

Heck, the t-bagger guy who represents my district in the House of Reps doesn't live in the district. That's allowed in California. And yes, Dems have done that as well.
 
tekkychick said:
Romney moved to Mass to run for governor although he was still filing taxes in Utah.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He went to Harvard here in the 70's, lived here in the 80s, ran for senator in 94. He lived in mass and had ties here for 25 years before running for governor.
 
Thought Thieves said:
Wrong. He went to Harvard here in the 70's, lived here in the 80s, ran for senator in 94. He lived in mass and had ties here for 25 years before running for governor.
Click to expand...

Sure he had been there before. But he wasn't technically eligible to run for governor. And his main house was in California.
 
evince said:
Ok I forgive you for the mistake if that is all it is.


I just get sick of people doing it to trash my party and the idea of DEMOCRACY.


its rove crap to help Grover kill the country.


they strip the opposition party of the IC to make it sound less like democracy and then tell all their pablum lapping minions that we are not a democracy even though the very definition of the word includes representational government.



The lies are lined up to fuck with the power of the people



then idiots want to pretend it means nothing.

fuck them.

Call my party by it CORRECT name or face that you are a fucking slime bag propagandist.



Please understand this is just like what they do to blacks.


TRASH them as TOO sensitive after they fucking insult them on purpose.
Click to expand...

The democrat party sucks. Get over it
 
Jarod said:
I know its a long time between now and 16' but I am starting to wonder if anyone will challenge SoS Clinton for the Democratic Nomination. It appears she and her only likely opposition, VP Biden may have come to some sort of an agreement. Most insiders would agree that it is helpful for a primary candidate to have some sort of an opponent, but I wonder, incumbents usually don't have an opponent... I'm sure that H. Clinton will drum up a weak opponent if she feels its to her advantage, but the Clintons have become so powerful I wonder if they have effectively handicapped the field.
Click to expand...

I know I'm new to this thread but why was this thread made? Rand Paul has been running since the day after last election. Is this uneducation or a party that wants to hide the opponent?

I tend to think that Rand Paul can hold a good debate with anyone. He's one of the few that were willing to go to the Daily Show (failed bad on cow milk topics)

I think Rand Paul is our next President. The Right is sick of the Left because they are uneducated. The Left is sick of the Right for Corporate power in decisions. The only answer is less Federal Power. Only OPINION.
 
Anti-Party said:
I know I'm new to this thread but why was this thread made? Rand Paul has been running since the day after last election. Is this uneducation or a party that wants to hide the opponent?

I tend to think that Rand Paul can hold a good debate with anyone. He's one of the few that were willing to go to the Daily Show (failed bad on cow milk topics)

I think Rand Paul is our next President. The Right is sick of the Left because they are uneducated. The Left is sick of the Right for Corporate power in decisions. The only answer is less Federal Power. Only OPINION.
Click to expand...

When did Rand Paul become a democrat?
 
cawacko said:
When did Rand Paul become a democrat?
Click to expand...

You corrected me. I thought it stated that no one was running in the next election but you stated "democratic". I missed it while speed reading.

And why would a "Majority of the people" beat a party that supports "The Liberties of few" or "Solo we stand" vs. "United we stand"
 
Anti-Party said:
The Democratic party is a party that supports the people. The Republican party is a party that supports the states government.


Government or people kiddo.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree. I think at one time, Democrats were more in tune w/ "the people." But the term "inside the beltway" has taken on a whole new meaning in 2013.

I think very few who exist there & have been there more than 2-3 years understand what's going on out there, and many likely don't care all that much. It's all about the lobbyists & the cash.
 
Thing1 said:
Gotta disagree. I think at one time, Democrats were more in tune w/ "the people." But the term "inside the beltway" has taken on a whole new meaning in 2013.

I think very few who exist there & have been there more than 2-3 years understand what's going on out there, and many likely don't care all that much. It's all about the lobbyists & the cash.
Click to expand...

And the Democrats fight against the Lobbyists and the Cash...................welcome to politics.
 
rand paul will never be president.

He wont even be vice president or leader of the body in which he serves even
 
evince said:
If no one else steps out of the woodwork their power will depend on if the people are willing to vote for them.


That is what this country is based on.


The republican party depends on cheating the people and lying to their base to win.
Click to expand...

I agree. The question will be how much enthusiasm can Clinton inspire after so much disappointment in Obama?

The clash within the democrats will be between its left and right sides .. with Hillary Clinton decidedly on its right.
 
tekkychick said:
Articles I've read over time it seems Democrats are more likely to pass laws restricting lobbyists access to politicians than republicans are.
Click to expand...

Both are firmly in the pockets of lobbyists.

Democrats talk the talk .. but they don't walk that way.

Lobbyists make it rain for Democrats

During the past two years, the two Democratic party committees collected more money from lobbyists than their Republican equivalents, as a recent Center for Public Integrity analysis highlighted.

That comes despite frequent criticism of lobbyists and Washington special interests by President Barack Obama, who himself rejects donations or contribution bundles from lobbyists, as does the Democratic National Committee.

The Center's analysis found that the DSCC raised nearly three times as much money from lobbyist-bundlers than the NRSC ($2.8 million versus $1 million), while the DCCC also edged out the NRCC ($617,000 versus $455,000).

The analysis also found that Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey raised more money from lobbyist-bundlers than any other member of Congress during the 2011-2012 election cycle (about $227,000) and Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, collected more money from lobbyist-bundlers than any other member of the House ($59,000).

more
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/25/12567/lobbyists-make-it-rain-democrats

Democrats Trash Lobbyists In Speeches, But Party with Their Cash
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-trash-lobbyists-speeches-party-cash/story?id=17180513
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top