Are We Done With The Clinton and Obama Trainwreck Yet?

The media darlings for 2016 are Hillary

Rand Paul, who you see all over the media almost daily

Elizabeth Warren (who made her bones when she came out strong for Israel while they were murdering Palestinians in Gaza)

And the joke of the race Ted Cruz

The media monster has christened these candidates

Unless we have a dark horse like Obama was (no pun intended)

I believe the elite want a GOP scoundrel to win probably Jeb Bush

So what might happen is Elizabeth Warren may enter the race and do another Obama to Hillary and she( Warren) will be beaten like Nixon beat McGovern in 1972—one of the biggest landslides in history.

It will be a very entertaining race as it always is

A really BIG SHOW

Kennedy (who also had no military experience)

Umm, you're probably too young to remember, but google 'PT 109'; Kennedy indeed had a military background; not high ranking general, but he served with what can only be called distinction (unless it was all lies) and his older brother who was the one who everyone expected would be president, was killed in WWII. Joseph P Kennedy

Kennedy was the last real president we've had except for Carter who was drummed out in flames by the newly controlled media. You know they're out to get you when they make fun of your daughter's looks, your brother's beer drinking and your wife's cloth coat and homespun style, and tell everyone that you were terrified by a killer rabbit, and announce on the news every night how long the American embassy staff have been kept hostage in Iran, even though they were finally released unharmed and RONALD REAGAN had made back door deals with the Iranians to not release them until his inauguration so he could take the glory - I never trusted Reagan after that little fiasco.

Johnson probably had a hand in murdering Kennedy, Ford was a placeholder who had a part in the criminal Warren Commission, Nixon was a paranoid crook, Reagan was a half bright actor while GHWB was actually the president for 12 years, then we got Clinton the Arkansas Crime Family/Sexual Predator, then we got another Bush Crime Family Only Stupid/AWOL with Cheney probably really acting president (who was in cahoots with Poppy Bush) and then we got Truth and Changie, who was anything but.

Sorry, I'm ranting.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

(Actually the whole Liberal/Conservative labels are only for the campaign, since all the Big Money people are at both extremes. But when thepoliticos get into office, they always end up Centrists, since that's where most voters land on the scale. And a Centrist approach is the best way to work with Congress.)

It would be nice if that were true, but it is not. Centrists they are not, either. Oligarchs, yes.

(The bit that everyone forgets - or won't admit - is that our national Presidential elections have been hijacked by hacked voting machines since 2008. George W. won with the "hanging chads" controversy, despite Al Gore (who also turned out to be a total jerk) having the highest popular vote. Enter the blasted, hackable voting machines! So, despite the polls all showing Romney winning, guess who won in 2012?

I've never seen a poll showing Romney winning except in localized areas and red states. The voting machines are irrelevant too, because if you are still voting Dem vs Republican, you are maintaining the very fraud you state. The two party fraud.

(But the voting machines were glitchy and expensive to maintain, so by 2014, 70% of Americans voted with paper ballots. Voila! The politicos who won basically matched all the polls! So Yeah, there was a mandate: The Dems are as corrupt and broken-down as their voting machines, time to vote GOP.)

People have been voting on paper ballots since I started voting, and still do, and paper ballots have remained the standard for most places, so again, I doubt this had anything to do with it. People have done what they have done in the past: voted the opposite party in to balance out the reigning party, especially when they are unhappy with the current regime.

To say that people voted the GOP in because the Dems are corrupt is like saying I am switching to drinking soda because coffee and energy drinks are bad for you. The Republicans practically gave us the modern day voting fraud trend in the first place. The Republicans are as corrupt and slimy as the Democrats, so again, the change is only superficial. And not a mandate.

(And the fact that the Administrations go back and forth, from Dems to GOP to Dems, and so on, shows that the system works. The one to watch now, however, is Obama. His advisers have been very vocal about pushing their fascist ideas, and keeping King Obama in power ... forever.)

The fact that the admins go back and forth between Dems and Reps actually shows just how broken the system is. If it was working, we would have far more choice than just those two. Switching back and forth between the two parties is more like taking a child from abusive parents and giving them only two choices: Go live with their father who is a drunken abusive pedophile who beats and molests his kids, or have them live with a drug addict mother who abandons them to their own devices for weeks and uses their lunch money for drugs or new clothes.

In otherwords, there is no healthy choice. Which is exactly what this two party system is: an abusive family trying to prevent abused kids from escaping and actually living in a functional, healthy home.

As far as Obama goes, sorry, but he is neither a fascist, nor is he worse than any president before him. His greatest crimes are the ACA and bailing out the banks and car companies, but beyond that, he has been more useless than dangerous. Calling him fascist is laughable. Bush did more harm to this country during his first term than Obama has during two terms. Obama hasn't done much to improve the country, but he hasn't made it that much worse, despite the claims.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: Ceeker63

"I like your parameters for Presidential Candidate. However, I would like to add another. He or she should have been a career military person. That way they would understand our military and how it is suppose to function. A retired General or a Admiral would be nice. IMO"

Ideally, Yes, I'd like my Presidential candidate to have served in the military, if only to understand and respect the patriotism, risk and Can-Do attitude so lacking in today's line-my-own-pockets politicians. BUT I wouldn't want a career military officer, since they tilt a little too far arch-conservative.

President Eisenhower (5-star General in charge of WWII's entire European Front) sold out this country for Alien Tech - and today we have damn little to show for it. President Johnson had seen poverty, and his Great Society worked. But he inherited the VietNam war that Kennedy (who also had no military experience) was getting ready to pull out of when he was assassinated. Johnson let MacNamara micro-manage Vietnam from the White House - take a hill, let the VietCong take the hill, take another hill, let the enemy have it - instead of combat officers actually over there. What a farce! Johnson at least did the honorable thing when he realized he was in over his head - he refused to run for a second term.

But since then - except for Reagan - just an endless stream of Ivy Leaguers who were either draft-dodgers like Bill Clinton, or were assigned to a stateside National Guard like George W. - and seldom if ever showed up. Obama has zero military experience, and distrusts and slams them at every chance.

So, Yeah, someone in the White House who had "served" would be great. Just no top officers, thank you.


Kennedy had no military experience?Oh,thats right,he hired a double for his naval service.

a reply to: Willtell

Warren most likely said that for purely political reasons. She gets how this thing works and being pro palestine only gets you points from an extreme minority.

You should watch her speak or read her recent book. Everything about her just screams that she's a truly decent human being. I really really doubt that someone who cares about equal rights for everyone and giving even the poorest "a fighting chance "(the title of her book) actually supports genocide.

Politics is an extremely difficult game to play and she plays it extremely well for someone who hasn't been in it for years.

I just wish people wouldn't write people off for a single position on something.

I'm in general very against the tea party because so many of their leading politicians are just garbage (Cruz, Palin, bachmann) but I recently watched a documentary about breitbart and found I genuinely liked the guy.

If there is one truth about politics it's that a politicians official position on an issue is meaningless on its own, especially when it comes to the ones where there is only one choice that's viable. They rarely keep to their stated positions unless it's one of their pillars. Her pillar is one thing only, fighting our corrupt corporatocracy.

a reply to: works4dhs I could not agree more with your statement. Americans have been lied to for almost a decade now. They want a fresh face in there, someone that can correct all the mistakes made by this President and Democratic party.

a reply to: Sunwolf

"Kennedy had no military experience?"

My bad. I forgot about "PT 109". JFK had some "grandeur" moments in the White House which reflected his military training. Like telling Russia to turn around that ship with missiles headed to Cuba. (The Russians relented, and turned their missile-ship around, because they knew the U.S. Navy would intercept the ship if they didn't.)

But before the Internet, a lot got swept under the rug - like his continual womanizing (which worried the CIA), and the disaster of the Cuban Bay of Pigs. Plus brother Robert heading the DOJ, and going after the mob who'd helped get JFK nominated at the Dem. Convention in Chicago. And those three groups are generally credited with JFK's assassination.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

"I've never seen a poll showing Romney winning except in localized areas and red states."

By mid-October, Romney and Ryan were ahead EVERYWHERE:

www.nationalreview.com...
WHY ROMNEY WILL WIN
"In the U.S., there are 26 national polling firms. The one I count most trustworthy is Rasmussen (which came closest to hitting the exact result for 2008), and the oldest and best known is Gallup. As of October 23 (just after the third and final debate), both showed Governor Romney beating the president with over 51 percent, and by between four and six points. Even the poll of all the polls (reported daily at RealClearPolitics.com) shows Romney climbing everywhere and day by day pulling ahead in state after state."

And THIS is correct! By mid-October, Romney and Ryan were speaking to standing-room-only, enthusiastic crowds. Obama and Biden were speaking to ... half empty auditoriums. Obama goes to his Chicago Campaign Headquarters on Nov. 3rd to meet with his campaign staff. Then announces to the press "we have the numbers to win." (Translation: "the Fix is in with the voting machines".)

Voting Day 2012 saw record crowds at the polls, with lines that wrapped around the block. With Romney/Ryan and the GOP in general "trending" 55% all day in most polling places. (Which was in line with the polls.)

Then ... BOOM! Obama/Biden are strangely declared the winners. And their favorite pocket-media (Associated Press) had a strange Press Release all ready to be released the next day, that "somehow" millions of voters had sat out the election compared to 2008. LIE! (The Truth was that the voting machines had been compromised, and conveniently "lost" millions of votes for Romney/Ryan! In addition to all the military votes from overseas, which had been delayed in transit until after the Election, and/or had been tossed out for minor errors.)

Today, the lie-spinner Dems are saying that the 2012 polls were "artificially inflated for Romney/Ryan." Which makes NO sense, and doesn't take into account Romney/Ryan's record campaign crowds by late October 2012. Nor the "record turn-out" on voting day, with nearly every polling place reporting a "55% trending for the GOP all day."

The GOP win in the 2014 mid-terms matched the polls, because 70% of voters used paper ballots. Even then, there was massive "election fraud" in New Jersey:

www.nj.com...
4 LAPTOPS IN NEW JERSEY USED TO "CREATE VOTING MACHINE CARTRIDGES"
"Information Technology staff from the county and Dominion Voting System, who supplies the equipment, replicated the pre- and post-election work flow to determine that the four laptops used to create 916 voting machine cartridges did not have an old operating system uninstalled.

"The operating system was upgraded in September to the latest version that is federal and state certified, authorities said. "

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: MKMoniker

Warren. She's in no ones pocket. She fights for the middle class and American values. Sadly Republicans can't see that because she's progressive on social issues. She's one of only a handful of uncorrupted politicians and the only one of those with the popularity and name recognition to win.

Disagree. Sen Warren is an Ivy-League elitist with virtually no real-world or private-industry experience. Her politics is based on theory and faculty-lounge speculation. She is about as far from the US Middle Class as any president since Wilson. (as far as I can see / know / heard)

and to all youse who keep parroting the both-parties-are-the-same line...Obamacare is completely Democrat. A few more Republicans and this monstrosity would never have happened.

originally posted by: MKMoniker

Who would YOU like to see run for 2016, who you could support with enthusiasm?

So far, being one who wants outsiders IN...

I am hoping that Dr. Carson is successful in being the REP candidate, and I heard a brief snippet that a one term DEM Senator from my state of Virginia, Jim Webb is considering a run...

Dr. Carson recently released an hour long deal in a couple dozen television markets, but unfortunately I have yet to find a place to view, but I did find an hour long speech from late Sept of this year :

www.youtube.com...


Here is a link to the former Sen. Webb's exploratory intro to his possible run for the Dems:

webb2016.com...




While there are differences between the two potential candidates, which is to be expected from their party affiliation, I find alot of similar goals from both, and they are both in direct conflict with the "status quo", so in my book they deserve consideration...

YMMV...

originally posted by: works4dhs

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: MKMoniker

Warren. She's in no ones pocket. She fights for the middle class and American values. Sadly Republicans can't see that because she's progressive on social issues. She's one of only a handful of uncorrupted politicians and the only one of those with the popularity and name recognition to win.

Disagree. Sen Warren is an Ivy-League elitist with virtually no real-world or private-industry experience. Her politics is based on theory and faculty-lounge speculation. She is about as far from the US Middle Class as any president since Wilson. (as far as I can see / know / heard)

and to all youse who keep parroting the both-parties-are-the-same line...Obamacare is completely Democrat. A few more Republicans and this monstrosity would never have happened.

So in other words you know nothing about her life story? You just ate up what conservative radio and TV shows told you? She is the literal embodiment of the American dream.

Let's see if you know anything about the truth. In what state did she grow up?

a reply to: MKMoniker

Jessie Ventura with Ron Pual as running mate. Or vice versa.

If they ran I would freaking join their campaign teams. I swear on my dead peoples graves I would go ape isht for them. I would stomp down doors and walk a thousand miles for them if they ran.

Anyone else mostly, I will only vote at all if there is provided a "none of the above" vote.

originally posted by: tavi45

originally posted by: works4dhs

originally posted by: tavi45

a reply to: MKMoniker



Warren. She's in no ones pocket. She fights for the middle class and American values. Sadly Republicans can't see that because she's progressive on social issues. She's one of only a handful of uncorrupted politicians and the only one of those with the popularity and name recognition to win.

Disagree. Sen Warren is an Ivy-League elitist with virtually no real-world or private-industry experience. Her politics is based on theory and faculty-lounge speculation. She is about as far from the US Middle Class as any president since Wilson. (as far as I can see / know / heard)



and to all youse who keep parroting the both-parties-are-the-same line...Obamacare is completely Democrat. A few more Republicans and this monstrosity would never have happened.

So in other words you know nothing about her life story? You just ate up what conservative radio and TV shows told you? She is the literal embodiment of the American dream.



Let's see if you know anything about the truth. In what state did she grow up?

Young Ms. Warren went to school and listened to lectures.
She went to more schools and listened to more lectures.
She went to really really advanced schools and listened to really really advanced lectures.
She became a teacher and lectured students.
She ended up in the Ivy League lecturing.
Now she's a U.S. Senator lecturing the citizens.

And she grew up in a state of denial.

...compare to Mitt Romney.
Business consultant
worked with Bain & Co
co-founded Bain Capital
headed 2002 US Winter Olympics (very succesfully, turning a fiscal loser into a winner)
Held several offices in LDS Church
Governor of Massachusets

I'll take a real-world businessman over a lecturer any time.

I don't vote for GOP or Democrats, and laugh while I cry at the rest of you for doing so.

You're the biggest part of the problem.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
I don't vote for GOP or Democrats, and laugh while I cry at the rest of you for doing so.

You're the biggest part of the problem.

the democrat party thanks you.
all that's necessary for democrats to win is for the intelligent and rational people to not vote.

originally posted by: works4dhs

originally posted by: AgentShillington
I don't vote for GOP or Democrats, and laugh while I cry at the rest of you for doing so.

You're the biggest part of the problem.

the democrat party thanks you.
all that's necessary for democrats to win is for the intelligent and rational people to not vote.

You misunderstand.

I vote in every election. Rational people seem to understand that the Dems and GOP are the ones that got us into this mess, and we shouldn't expect that they have the inclination or ability to get us out.

a reply to: MKMoniker

Maybe we need a new coin?

Finally! someone who gets it!

Thanks for all the comments. But what I'm hearing is that everyone wants an Outsider who can affect real change. But Outsiders to Washington DC can't accomplish anything without the help of the Insiders. And even a Democratic or Republican party affiliation doesn't guarantee an Outsider has the breadth and depth to form coalitions and put forth workable changes for the better.

I'm looking for an ex-governor from a successfully run state. He knows all about management, he can delegate and ride herd to get results, and he's balanced a yearly budget. Wind-bags like Warren (who may or may not have a few drops of Native American blood to pump up her "diversity" creds), are totally unknown outside the East, and totally untested.

I first favored Jon Huntsman in the last election. He'd been a successful governor (Utah), came from Big Money like Romney (so no one could "buy" them), and spoke Chinese. Team Obama shuffled him off to the other side of the world fast, as our Chinese Ambassador. He resigned to run in 2012, had the same "nationally unknown outside Back East and Utah."

He was collecting some great "The GOP Finally Has An Adult In The Room" editorials and newspaper endorsements - when he abruptly dropped out. (Like the Hagel firing, there is undoubtedly much more to this story than we'll ever know.)

I guess I really want what everyone else does: a hybrid Insider with an Outsider's ability to see beyond the horizon, surrounded by top-notch people who can address problems before they become crises. (Unlike Team Obama, who lurches from disaster to near-catastrophe, and blames everyone but their own inadequacies.)

a reply to: MKMoniker

Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS.

Cry all you want but it's going to happen.