Hilary Clinton

moreluck

golden ticket member
162798_600.jpg


 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
Really?

If you knew your history, you'd know that Reagan lost to Ford in '76.

I wouldn't consider Reagan a loser.

And didn't Hillary lose to Obama in 2008?

Is she a loser? (Yes)

Using your "logic", Reagan was a loser. No Republican could have won after Nixon. The whole attack strategy is laughable, because Clinton's qualifications far exceed those of any current (or proposed) GOP candidate.

Your side is attacking Hillary for her age, when several of your candidates in recent decades far exceeded hers (Dole, McCain, Reagan), her lack of experience, which is just laughable, and her health concerns (she fell down). That's pretty thin.

So are the GOP chances in 2016.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
...because
Using your "logic", Reagan was a loser. No Republican could have won after Nixon. The whole attack strategy is laughable, because Clinton's qualifications far exceed those of any current (or proposed) GOP candidate.

Your side is attacking Hillary for her age, when several of your candidates in recent decades far exceeded hers (Dole, McCain, Reagan), her lack of experience, which is just laughable, and her health concerns (she fell down). That's pretty thin.

So are the GOP chances in 2016.
Why aren't you listing all of Hillary's qualifications?? You can leave out the flotus stuff....because decorating the many trees and rooms in the white house doesn't count as any experience in running a country.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
...because
Why aren't you listing all of Hillary's qualifications?? You can leave out the flotus stuff....because decorating the many trees and rooms in the white house doesn't count as any experience in running a country.

Jeez. She was Secretary of State, a Senator, and quite successful at both. Who do you have you can even come close? Rand Paul? LOFL...
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Jeez. She was Secretary of State, a Senator, and quite successful at both. Who do you have you can even come close? Rand Paul? LOFL...
Your list of those successes?? Jeez, if she's that good, I'm sure she has many successes.
Remember Barack was a senator too.....he was present!!
 

realbrown1

Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Using your "logic", Reagan was a loser. No Republican could have won after Nixon. The whole attack strategy is laughable, because Clinton's qualifications far exceed those of any current (or proposed) GOP candidate.

Your side is attacking Hillary for her age, when several of your candidates in recent decades far exceeded hers (Dole, McCain, Reagan), her lack of experience, which is just laughable, and her health concerns (she fell down). That's pretty thin.

So are the GOP chances in 2016.
Did you not understand the conversation or are you drinking this early on a Sunday?
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Hillary Clinton is trying an entirely different approach with Iowa than the one she tried eight years ago when she lost there. She will not start speeches by saying, "Hello, Iowa, or Idaho, or whichever one you are."

Hillary Clinton is making income inequality a central theme in her campaign. Yeah, for example, today she pointed out that her husband makes $300 million a year. She has to get by on $200 million a year, and that's not fair.

-- Conan
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
The best weapon HILLARY CLINTON has is FOX NEWS and the RIGHT WING MOUTHPIECES!

The more they talk about her, the more they attack, they more they make crap up, the more she leads in the polls.

Emails, Bengazi, Donations and everything else the right wing continues to talk about instead of the issues makes her stronger and not weaker as they hoped.

AS you parrots continue the cycles, Hillary still increases her leads in the early polling.

This NEW poll demonstrates what I am talking about..

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hi...n-rivals-in-new-poll-2015-04-20?siteid=yhoof2


read it and weep parrots..

TOS.
 
Top