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.

 

Obama made secret deal to support Hillary in 2016?

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by PtolemyII
 


I'm happy to see I'm not the only one paying attention to the small things and those little details. I swear, before we had such a rush of people being banned and coming back under new names just to harass people endlessly, I didn't even bother watching. Now? I swear, I'm becoming real sensitive to type style, chat approach and general terms used. It's sad that we even have to. I'm counting about 5 tho...and some, indeed, are real real close to topic right here.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well I am brand new here ,so I am mindful to be polite ,but A- anyone with a bunneh in their name,is awesome just by default .Had to say something .

B- that person is rude on every thread they post on ,to everyone ....and seems to know little of the topics at hand,just tells you,you are wrong .

It's just annoying ,and for me to notice it so many times,in the short time I have been here,speaks volumes.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   

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.


You'd need a Conservative candidate. If they send another mush, establishment Progressive like McCain or Romney it will be over with.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Of course. Who didn't see that coming? She salivates at the mention of war. She's like the Bush/Obama love child.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Only way republicans would ever win is to put forth a women candidate and not focus on "types of rape" "abortions" "homosexuals" and how they on care about certain % of the population.

Only then, they might have a chance at 2016 being a republican win.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

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.


Who should they send? Some rock star wannabe with zero experience like obama who still got elected thanks to the dead people who voted for him? Someone like that?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I guess the very real fact that Hilary said she is retired after her Secy Of State job ended has escaped everyones attention. That being said and we heard the words from her very own mioth puts an end to this speculation.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

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.

This book and more will be required reading for Obama coolaid drinkers in 2016 thru 2024 if you want any welfare, food stamps, Obama phone repairs, etc. , etc., etc.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I thought it was obvious that this was the price of Bill Clinton going all-out to elect Obama last year. Either that, or I was even telling friends that maybe the takeaway was for Obama to support Chelsea Clinton's future runs for office (she's coming up on the ferris wheel). One or the other, and Bill Clinton's level of support is the best evidence to me that Hillary is running in 2016. Things like the amount of work Bill C put into the campaign don't happen at that level in politics without some quid pro quo (a.k.a. I wash your back, you wash mine) (a.k.a. "what's in it for me?") (a.k.a. Bill gets to live and "entertain" in the White House again).


edit on 3-6-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


You may be onto something with Chelsea. She has followed into a path that could lead that direction if she wants it too. She's a wee young for that level of politics, but then, everyone starts somewhere and Obama is the master of support from the shadows. After all, no one goes from street level community organizer to State Senate, to National Senate to Presidency in that record breaking time...largely with no-show/absentee voting records across both places ...without massive shadow help to get there. That could have something to do with it, indeed.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Chelsea has the makings of at least a Senator from somewhere, with more to come if she pulls that off well. She's sort of an intelligent Caroline Kennedy, who grew up eating at the table which was engaged in some of the most wide-ranging poltical discussions in the U.S.

And Obama's rise to power was greased, of course, but he is also one of the luckiest politicans on the planet given the level of opposition he faced in all his races (except when he tried to unseat black-hero Congressman Bobby Rush, and the voter's weren't about to do that). 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.


edit on 3-6-2013 by Aleister because: spelling

edit on 3-6-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 



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.


Now that I sure can't argue. I don't think either of them threw the game and took one for the team in letting Obama win...but yeah, stupid is epidemic in the GOP just recently. McCain and his "My Friend..." garbage even I was ready to vote for Obama over (I didn't! Perish the thought! .....I wrote in Ron Paul
) and then Romney with his tone deaf ignorance to the point of basically losing what should have been his to win by rights.

Geeze... it takes effort to pull defeat from the jaws of victory but Romney did it like a true master. You're right.

McCain wouldn't have won anyway, I think. Obama was coming in on the heels of Bush and the Republicans could have run George Washington reincarnated, and lost hard after that show to follow.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Haven't had a black president, so elect obama.

Next, we've never had a woman president, so elect Hillary.

Nevermind their qualifications, the pressure of political correctness is more important. And after a woman president, maybe a handicapped president? It's only a matter of time until we're electing a lesbian eskimo left-handed midget ninja albino.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

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.

I highly doubt Biden will run. The guy is a good wingman, but not front runner material...and honestly, I wouldn't feel very confident in him.
In saying that, He isn't a idiot. His gaffes are fantastic, but behind the endless word stumble, there is a clever person there...but no..not top dog material. He does well in northern union type states, but Hillary is a all around kind of person. Her being nominee, if she runs, is almost a shoe in (in saying that, I suspected she would head the ticket in 2008 under the same mentality until Obama started getting noticed)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

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"



And will the people who decide the economy is "revived" be the same that declared 2010 the "recovery summer"?

abcnews.go.com...

And then there's this, which I'm sure you'll find a way to refute.

www.forbes.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


First, I'm trying to get away from hitting 'quote' so much, tho it does make it easier for people to figure out the direction of the conversation. Anyway...

I hate to admit it, but I have to agree with you. Right now, Reps don't have that all around viable candidate. Third parties are still a fringe, tho Libertarians are coming on. right now, they'll just split the vote, tho taking more and more, thereby growing, as time goes on.

Dems DO know how to fight dirty, something Reps and Independents (Libertarians) are loath to do. Something to do with morals, I guess.

But ... If not Hillary, who? Biden??? God forbid...


And. Hope? After 8 years of fundamental change, they're still going to run on hope?
edit on 3-6-2013 by 2ndthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


Unfortunately, Libertarians would fare just as bad, if not worse, than Reps. You're for smaller government. And the low information voter equates smaller government with less social welfare. Which equates to less in their monthly government allotment.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

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).





You know, and this is off topic, sort of, but I just heard today.

California actually now shows a 4 billion dollar surplus. Gerry Brown wants to put it into a rainy day fund, good for him. You know what Dem controlled Sacramento wants to do tho? Spend it. Immediately. Quick. Before it has a chance to cool off.

edit on 3-6-2013 by 2ndthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

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...


Actually, Romney lost because he refused to play Chicago style.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

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?


You took the thought right out of my head.

Reps and Dems are no different. They're both driving down the same road toward the same cliff. They're only fighting over who's in the drivers seat when we go over.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join