It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Romney was forced to quit the race so Hillary can win

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
So Hillary can win?

Try Jeb.

It's McCain and GWB all over again.




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
You all should elect me. I'll give everyone a cheeseburger on a newly created holiday: "National Cheeseburger Day".

Bread and circus still seems to work, right?

Not that 'Artificial Cheese' I hope..you see you didn't say, you crafty old burger!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: MystikMushroom

No No!

Elect me!

Everyone gets a free gun, and I will create a government program to pay for by robbing from the rich, and give to those who can't afford one. It will be so big, so massive, ridden with fraud, and abuse. No none will want to cut it.

National Gun day!

I thought everyone already had a free gun, as in one they can't use while already another in use.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ketsuko
Mitt quit because the party powers decided that Jeb was a better bet and they realized that their base was revolting. If they wanted any chance, they had to put all their eggs in one basket, not two. So Bush trumps Romney to the establishment nobility.

To put in another Bush would be really revolting!


To put in another Clinton would be equally revolting!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ketsuko
Mitt quit because the party powers decided that Jeb was a better bet and they realized that their base was revolting. If they wanted any chance, they had to put all their eggs in one basket, not two. So Bush trumps Romney to the establishment nobility.

To put in another Bush would be really revolting!


To put in another Clinton would be equally revolting!



We need two different options. That would be best. However, if it was a choice between bush or Hillary? I'd have to go with Hillary...Husband and Wife Dynasty, not the same as Father and two Sons. That's way worse. Plus, on the positive side, it will be a huge boost for women's rights and equality. But having said that, I'd still rather have a different choice.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So Hillary can win?

Try Jeb.

It's McCain and GWB all over again.


Goodness, let's hope not

It would be the:

Slimier vs Dumber Election


Ugly old, makes Satan look saintly, and connected, OR Chubby, clueless of what the base wants and Connected
(p.s. people say I could be her twin, so I can call her that)

Neither worthy, NO DYNASTIES!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Elect me. I'll do away with the UN first day on the job in the US. The next one A EO reverting president fords changing us to the credit standard. Another EO disbanding the EPA,and IRS. ALso PAy cuts for the executive branch. Minimum wages for all!!

Wars? Ill retract every US asset around the world and salt th e earth where the bases were. Oil? Ill start charging the saudis for each well the US originally put there to make them a world power. The US army will become a defensive force for the US alone(and israel) got to keep the hawks happy.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ketsuko
Mitt quit because the party powers decided that Jeb was a better bet and they realized that their base was revolting. If they wanted any chance, they had to put all their eggs in one basket, not two. So Bush trumps Romney to the establishment nobility.

To put in another Bush would be really revolting!


To put in another Clinton would be equally revolting!




We need two different options. That would be best. However, if it was a choice between bush or Hillary? I'd have to go with Hillary...Husband and Wife Dynasty, not the same as Father and two Sons. That's way worse. Plus, on the positive side, it will be a huge boost for women's rights and equality. But having said that, I'd still rather have a different choice.



No boost for women's rights here,
she got where she is because
she rode her husbands coat tails all the way.
Didn't get there on her own or because of anything she accomplished.

She blew it big time as Sec of State!

Only got there because of who she married.

That's a boost for women's rights? I think not!





edit on 5Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:58:00 -0600pm20502pmk054 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Were all voting for President Hobson




Hobson's choice - Merriam-Webster Online www.merriam-webster.com/.../hobson's%20choice Merriam Webster a situation in which you are supposed to make a choice but do not have a real choice because there is only one thing you can have or do.


Bush Versus Clinton will be the same as Bush Versus Kerry was

an elite puppet were forced to vote for

So get ready fro another President Hobson



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ketsuko
Mitt quit because the party powers decided that Jeb was a better bet and they realized that their base was revolting. If they wanted any chance, they had to put all their eggs in one basket, not two. So Bush trumps Romney to the establishment nobility.

To put in another Bush would be really revolting!


To put in another Clinton would be equally revolting!




We need two different options. That would be best. However, if it was a choice between bush or Hillary? I'd have to go with Hillary...Husband and Wife Dynasty, not the same as Father and two Sons. That's way worse. Plus, on the positive side, it will be a huge boost for women's rights and equality. But having said that, I'd still rather have a different choice.



No boost for women's rights here,
she got where she is because
she rode her husbands coat tails all the way.
Didn't get there on her own or because of anything she accomplished.

She blew it big time as Sec of State!

Only got there because of who she married.

That's a boost for women's rights? I think not!






THE FOLLOWING IS A JOKE. AS IN I AM NOT SERIOUS.

Women have rights. The right to remain silent and lay there while her husband satisfies himself.
They have the right to fix me a sandwich. They have the right to keep themselves looking hot at all times for me as well.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I think Romney quit to make sure Hillary won't win in 2016.




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
tell ya the truth, i hope that the first woman president is a lot better than the first black president. using him as a example we were better off when it was the good ol boys club no matter what party was in the white house.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ketsuko
Mitt quit because the party powers decided that Jeb was a better bet and they realized that their base was revolting. If they wanted any chance, they had to put all their eggs in one basket, not two. So Bush trumps Romney to the establishment nobility.

To put in another Bush would be really revolting!


To put in another Clinton would be equally revolting!




We need two different options. That would be best. However, if it was a choice between bush or Hillary? I'd have to go with Hillary...Husband and Wife Dynasty, not the same as Father and two Sons. That's way worse. Plus, on the positive side, it will be a huge boost for women's rights and equality. But having said that, I'd still rather have a different choice.



No boost for women's rights here,
she got where she is because
she rode her husbands coat tails all the way.
Didn't get there on her own or because of anything she accomplished.

She blew it big time as Sec of State!

Only got there because of who she married.

That's a boost for women's rights? I think not!






You're not looking at the long view. decades from now, if Hillary was elected president, there would be more female leaders around the world and probably in the US.

It's like the one minute mile, once the first person does something, other people can see the way and can follow and accomplish it as well. It has nothing to do with leadership or her character or her policies. That's just the way it will be...that's just the way these things are. Long view. Take the long view of events and of history.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Vote for me and I'll reduce very single department's budget by 10% annually until we are spending no more than we are taking in. Then I'll reduce that reduction to 5% and the split the surplus between a rainy day and paying down the debt.

I'll write an EO that forces every single federal department head to go before Congress and justify his department's existence to Congress annually and Congress cannot recess until they are all done. The sheer number of offices should persuade them to get rid of quite a few before long as they won't be taking a recess for a quite a while.

If that doesn't work ... by by to several alphabets by EO.

Serious streamlining to the regulations.

Serious overhaul of the tax code even up to repealing the tax Amendment and replacing it with a flat tax Amendment.

Transition most of our European military bases to the countries they are in and renegotiate NATO to be a reciprocal agreement. No more heavy lifting for all of Europe.

And boot the UN. I'm tired of paying a full quarter of the operating budget for a place whose sole purpose is telling us how much we suck.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: WCmutant

My money's on Jeb Bush. No one beats the Bush's, they have too much money and influence.


You are missing the fact that the Bushes control the presidential process and that Bill Clinton views George HW Bush as a father figure. Bush or Clinton, it's a two headed coin in their rigged game. Clinton will win because they've already chosen, now they have to make us think we really did the choosing.

Clinton was suppose to be president in 2008 when it was decided that Obama was going to be president. McCain was not a bad candidate, but they paired him with that derp nugget - Sarah Palin. In 2012, it was too obvious Obama was suppose to have a 2nd term. He approached the initial "debates" very lackadaisical, as if he was going through the motions.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ketsuko
Mitt quit because the party powers decided that Jeb was a better bet and they realized that their base was revolting. If they wanted any chance, they had to put all their eggs in one basket, not two. So Bush trumps Romney to the establishment nobility.

To put in another Bush would be really revolting!


To put in another Clinton would be equally revolting!




We need two different options. That would be best. However, if it was a choice between bush or Hillary? I'd have to go with Hillary...Husband and Wife Dynasty, not the same as Father and two Sons. That's way worse. Plus, on the positive side, it will be a huge boost for women's rights and equality. But having said that, I'd still rather have a different choice.



No boost for women's rights here,
she got where she is because
she rode her husbands coat tails all the way.
Didn't get there on her own or because of anything she accomplished.

She blew it big time as Sec of State!

Only got there because of who she married.

That's a boost for women's rights? I think not!






You're not looking at the long view. decades from now, if Hillary was elected president, there would be more female leaders around the world and probably in the US.

It's like the one minute mile, once the first person does something, other people can see the way and can follow and accomplish it as well. It has nothing to do with leadership or her character or her policies. That's just the way it will be...that's just the way these things are. Long view. Take the long view of events and of history.


Take the long view with a person of questionable character and qualifications?
Take the long view with a woman who used her husband (marriage) to get what and where she wants to be, rather than try and get there on her own merit?
Take the long view?
She is no shining example of a female leader, not getting there on her own,
marrying a man and using him and her marriage,
staying with him when she knew he was a cheater,
in order to achieve her agenda?
She is a horrid example of what a woman should aspire to.
Better to wait and get a woman of integrity who got to the Presidency on her own merit and not because of who she married.



It will only disgrace the long view.
edit on 8Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:34:33 -0600pm20502pmk054 by grandmakdw because: addition format



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
tell ya the truth, i hope that the first woman president is a lot better than the first black president. using him as a example we were better off when it was the good ol boys club no matter what party was in the white house.



Not a chance if it is Hillery

she managed to mess up being Sec of State

she only knows how to sleep her way to power

not how to exercise it.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The type of government we were supposed to have has mutated and is eating itself alive.

The rule book we founded the country on (Constitution) is being grossly abused, interpreted to suit everyone's agenda.

The people are ignorant and apathetic.

The economy is all but circling the drain.

It matters not who runs or who wins.

The United States of America is very close to the end of it's life.

I have already made the popcorn and am just settling in for the show..........



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ketsuko
Mitt quit because the party powers decided that Jeb was a better bet and they realized that their base was revolting. If they wanted any chance, they had to put all their eggs in one basket, not two. So Bush trumps Romney to the establishment nobility.

To put in another Bush would be really revolting!


To put in another Clinton would be equally revolting!



We need two different options. That would be best. However, if it was a choice between bush or Hillary? I'd have to go with Hillary...Husband and Wife Dynasty, not the same as Father and two Sons. That's way worse. Plus, on the positive side, it will be a huge boost for women's rights and equality. But having said that, I'd still rather have a different choice.


That's cute that you think Hillary would help women's rights if elected.

Kinda the same way Obama helped all his black people of this country.....



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ketsuko
Mitt quit because the party powers decided that Jeb was a better bet and they realized that their base was revolting. If they wanted any chance, they had to put all their eggs in one basket, not two. So Bush trumps Romney to the establishment nobility.

To put in another Bush would be really revolting!


To put in another Clinton would be equally revolting!

That's true, although It was a bit of humour I was using back to ketsuko, "they realized that their base was revolting"




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join