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.
Originally posted by jam321
IMO, the key to the 2016 elections is the Republicans. If they send a qualified candidate that people can relate to, they win. If they send the same ol same ol, Hillary or some other Democrat will be the next President.
Originally posted by jam321
IMO, the key to the 2016 elections is the Republicans. If they send a qualified candidate that people can relate to, they win. If they send the same ol same ol, Hillary or some other Democrat will be the next President.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why would this be a "secret deal"? I mean... to me, it's pretty obvious that Obama would support Hillary in 2016, if she runs.
This seems like a non-news item, to me. The whole article sounds like hearsay and conjecture... an opinion piece...
OH! I think I see why.
Adapted from the new paperback edition of Edward Klein’s “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House” (Regnery Publishing), out this week.
At the presidential level it's not as if McCain and Romney fell on their swords as much as they have the stupidity gene turned on.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SaturnFX
I think the Hillary deal was notable, if true, because I seriously doubt Obama had clearly told anyone else he was endorsing Hillary for 2016. Biden has outright said he may want a shot at it. I know...it's hard to imagine...but then, that would be one real good reason for Obama not to have made this an open announcement and taken a solid stand on who he was behind. Certainly not in the form of a deal years in advance. That might piss off some inner circle types, IMO.
It's nothing scandalous outside of the inner Democratic party workings and how it all seems to go. That's interesting, not scandal. Obama has real ones going at the moment for those. This was more of a 'fill in an interesting blank' of questions I figured others may have also had at the time.
BTW, I think the trade off was the very sizable number of people who are loyal to Hillary before they are to Obama and have made that loud and clear. Hillary's speeches and endorsements may have made no material difference? ...but then again, maybe they did. He didn't win by that much, after all.
Originally posted by hamburgerler
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why would this be a "secret deal"? I mean... to me, it's pretty obvious that Obama would support Hillary in 2016, if she runs.
This seems like a non-news item, to me. The whole article sounds like hearsay and conjecture... an opinion piece...
OH! I think I see why.
Adapted from the new paperback edition of Edward Klein’s “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House” (Regnery Publishing), out this week.
I noticed that too
Obama haters are gonna be in for a big surprise once the economy is declared to be "revived", which should occur before the year is out.
It is such a bad strategy to spend years MAKING UP bad qualities to assign Obama, because WHEN reality comes to roost, Obama will look like a genius. Not a Kenyan, Marxist, Islamist, who is lazy, inept and clueless.
It is like the "boy who cried wolf"
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by hamburgerler
There are areas in certain markets that are thriving, that isn't in contention; but the health of the over all economy is a far broader view and cherry-picking stories to make that news good in my opinion.
Arguably, some states are booming (to the detriment of some); Texas, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Other states have been in a steady decline; California, Nevada, Florida, and Michigan.
So while the overall economy is showing signs of improvement, there are some areas where it is lagging and falling behind. Start-up rates are in the tank ("big business" is enjoying that), jobless claims are hardly a solid figure to pin the health of economy on (considering how the manipulation of numbers is well documented), truck sales are promising (could mean an increase in construction), we still have a massive amount of wasteful government spending (and still growing despite the sequestration).
Originally posted by Sankari
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Wait....
You do realize that President Obama and/or his campaigning arms raised above 1.07 billion dollars right? Compared to candidate Romney's .990 billion......
That's right, they both raised about the same amount of money. But nobody believes Romney lost because he raised $0.08 billion less than Obama.
Romney thought he'd win the White House if he pulled in enough cash. That's because he's a businessman, not an experienced politician. Obama understood that you can have plenty of money and still lose an election unless you know what you're doing. Romney didn't know what he was doing.
He didn't lose because he didn't have enough money. He lost because of incompetence.edit on 2/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by KeliOnyx
Well, I wouldn't want you to think I was a Republican these days. There are pretty good reasons for that. I still haven't gotten around to changing the status at the courthouse but really need to. Independent, as officially listed, I suppose. Independent Conservative would be the most accurate I think.
For what it's worth, the Republicans burned me off the party for the last time, last year. They could have shown class where Ron Paul was concerned. They could have shown class where other candidates were concerned and they chose not to. Romney was part of that, but Romney was just a flash in the pan of the party. It'll be another one, next time around and likely the same establishment hack type as Romney and McCain have been.
Democrats are no better and select the same type of hacks. They just have a different ideology for personal belief, is about all I see anymore. Policies don't even change much. Hell, Obama had Bush's Sec. Defense for 2 whole years after taking office, to show how 'Eager Beaver' he was about digging right in to change those war policies. He followed Bush's Iraq withdrawal timetable to the day.
So...You'll hear no disagreement out of me that the Republican Party pretty well sucks right now and will as long as people like Gingrich, Rove and the rest of the old farts are running it. It's just a different version of old farts on the other side...and isn't that just the heart of the American problem right now?