Stomach Churning move in Virginia state Senate

[AmsterNat]

How is this scare mongering???? How does Michelle Obama scare anyone???? And how is Hillary running any different than Michelle running???? Do you think Hillary's years between the White House and now really mean anything. The object is not selecting the best candidate, it is selecting the most electable. Michelle will get the same 95% of the black vote. Her ability is not an issue at all. Don't be surprises if FLOTUS runs. Democrats would see it as keeping God on earth in the White House. She could easily win.

And by the way, I'm not totally against Hillary. She was smarter than Bill and she's head and shoulders smarter than Obama. It wouldn't bother me all that much if she won.

Because any suggestions about Michelle conceivably running come only from the far right, with the implicit suggestion that the Obama family will thereby retain a grip on power, and that this would be the kind of shady, underhand tactic that some people on the right seriously think Obama capable of. Some crazies have already come up with the idea that he will try and amend the Constitution so that he can run for a third term!! You can't make this stuff up.

I agree entirely with your assessment of Hillary, which is why I'm not being entirely flippant when I occasionally refer to 'the second Clinton administration'. I can't see any of the Reps who are on or near the political horizon now having a chance against her in 16. The debates sure would be fun, though.

[jomota]

Because any suggestions about Michelle conceivably running come only from the far right, with the implicit suggestion that the Obama family will thereby retain a grip on power, and that this would be the kind of shady, underhand tactic that some people on the right seriously think Obama capable of. Some crazies have already come up with the idea that he will try and amend the Constitution so that he can run for a third term!! You can't make this stuff up.

I agree entirely with your assessment of Hillary, which is why I'm not being entirely flippant when I occasionally refer to 'the second Clinton administration'. I can't see any of the Reps who are on or near the political horizon now having a chance against her in 16. The debates sure would be fun, though.

BOLD…it is entirely possible that this could happen. It is not "the far right". She could win.

UNDERLINED…This is entirely and totally true

[Steel Curtain]

Nah, Michelle wouldn't win. Although I do think she'd get a lot of votes. She would have absolutely zero knowledge of how to run a country.

[IndyFan]

. . . And by the way, I'm not totally against Hillary. She was smarter than Bill and she's head and shoulders smarter than Obama. It wouldn't bother me all that much if she won.

In a nutshell, this is probably the reason the Democrats win the Presidency in 2016. Sometimes you just have a candidate that everyone thinks is head and shoulders better than everyone else. And they have to get a chance to prove it. The Democrats are more united about running Hilary than any candidate I can remember. The GOP sees her as able to do the job well. Not all of them, but enough of them. Add to that shes a woman and, IMO, women think their time has come. Since there are more of them than there are of us, Hilary is as close to a lock as you can have this far out.

[jomota]

Nah, Michelle wouldn't win. Although I do think she'd get a lot of votes. She would have absolutely zero knowledge of how to run a country.

Are you setting me up with that straight line????

[jomota]

In a nutshell, this is probably the reason the Democrats win the Presidency in 2016. Sometimes you just have a candidate that everyone thinks is head and shoulders better than everyone else. And they have to get a chance to prove it. The Democrats are more united about running Hilary than any candidate I can remember. The GOP sees her as able to do the job well. Not all of them, but enough of them. Add to that shes a woman and, IMO, women think their time has come. Since there are more of them than there are of us, Hilary is as close to a lock as you can have this far out.

I'm sure the republicans are working as we speak to come up with some lezbo pictures of Hillary and Rosie Odonnel.

[AmsterNat]

The Reps face the unenviable challenge of trying to find a candidate for 2016 who can appeal to all their potential voters, from moderate independents all the way over to extreme Tea baggers.

Ain't gonna happen, mission impossible.

[flips333]

So Romney's generous donations to his church don't count???? Really???? Giving a donation to a place where you know where the money goes don't count???? Man, you're priceless.

I guess Mitt should have donated his money in cash to all those people standing out there in traffic holdinh up little signs. That would have been better. Maybe go down to those free clinics and spread a little cash around.

You can't make this stuff up.

Priceless, just priceless.

When it goes to this BS yes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Morm...w=1448&bih=918

[jomota]

When it goes to this BS yes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Morm...w=1448&bih=918

I guess you want to get absurd. Don't forget, you started it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

[jomota]

The Reps face the unenviable challenge of trying to find a candidate for 2016 who can appeal to all their potential voters, from moderate independents all the way over to extreme Tea baggers.

Ain't gonna happen, mission impossible.

Are the Republicans the only party with extremists????

Don't the Democrats have extremists???? How long were those Occupy Wall Street nuts camping out in the street???? They seemed pretty extreme to me.

You seem to keep alluding to the view that only one party has screwy extremists when you should know (and probably do) that that just ins't so.

[AmsterNat]

Are the Republicans the only party with extremists????

Don't the Democrats have extremists???? How long were those Occupy Wall Street nuts camping out in the street???? They seemed pretty extreme to me.

You seem to keep alluding to the view that only one party has screwy extremists when you should know (and probably do) that that just ins't so.

To answer your questions in order -

1. Yes

2. No, not remotely in any comparable sense. Of course, I understand that it depends on one's perspective. From where I stand with my European view, I don't consider any part of the Dem. party 'extreme' in any way. From your perspective, which is alien to me, I'm sure you can find Dems whom you consider extreme.

3. I'm not aware that the Occupy movement was anything directly to do with the Dem party, whereas the Tea bagger wing of the Reps houses all kind of strange folks whom even many Americans call 'extreme'.

4. So no, you can't compare the two parties for extremism. The craziest politicians are all on your side.

[dbroncos78087]

Why does if one party did or does something make it ok for the otherside? The GOP is engaging in a practice to make a growing segment of the population into a minority. They are taking advantage of the demographic shift that is seeing urban areas that possess more people becoming a concentrated district.

The GOP scheme in Pennsylvania would have awarded about 70% of the electoral candidate who lost the state by 5%. No one can tell me that is right or makes a bit of sense.

Don't tell me that the other party is doing it and tell me how we are going to stop them both from doing it. But I definitely won't concede that it's a 1 for 1 comparison.

[jomota]

This is why it is nearly impossible to have any sort of discussion/argument with people like you.

Your party won, and congrats on that, but you fail to recognize any shortcomings in your group.

You point out the gun nuts but embrace the abortion freaks.

You rail against the Tea Party (who don't cause any trouble or get arrested) but seem to accept the antics of Occupy Wall street (blocking traffic and people, rapes, public urination and screwing)

Oreilly and Rush are crazy but Al Gore and Michael Moore are sensitive

Oreilly and Rush have "agendas" while Gore and Moore have causes

White supremacists are evil (and they are) but Jesse, Sharpton, Rangel they're fighting for justice

Bain is unscrupulous but ACORN is admirable

The Evil Repubilcans are skewering Hillary but the Democrats protected us from Bork

The self serving Republican congressman can't compare to the righteous and hold Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy

Insufferable Newt dump his wife but Oval Office blow jobs are kinda cool.


It's all just different flips of a coin. The Dems have admirable people and good ideas. They also have some greedy incompetent, scurrilous flakes with stupid thoughts. I don't know why you can't admit to that.

I know the Reps have some of these types too and I recognize them when I see them.

I wonder who really blindly follows the party line and drinks the Kool Aid.

[dbroncos78087]

This is why it is nearly impossible to have any sort of discussion/argument with people like you.

Your party won, and congrats on that, but you fail to recognize any shortcomings in your group.

You point out the gun nuts but embrace the abortion freaks.

You rail against the Tea Party (who don't cause any trouble or get arrested) but seem to accept the antics of Occupy Wall street (blocking traffic and people, rapes, public urination and screwing)

Oreilly and Rush are crazy but Al Gore and Michael Moore are sensitive

Oreilly and Rush have "agendas" while Gore and Moore have causes

White supremacists are evil (and they are) but Jesse, Sharpton, Rangel they're fighting for justice

Bain is unscrupulous but ACORN is admirable

The Evil Repubilcans are skewering Hillary but the Democrats protected us from Bork

The self serving Republican congressman can't compare to the righteous and hold Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy

Insufferable Newt dump his wife but Oval Office blow jobs are kinda cool.


It's all just different flips of a coin. The Dems have admirable people and good ideas. They also have some greedy incompetent, scurrilous flakes with stupid thoughts. I don't know why you can't admit to that.

I know the Reps have some of these types too and I recognize them when I see them.

I wonder who really blindly follows the party line and drinks the Kool Aid.

I'm not sure that you have read my posts very well if this is how you think that I post/feel.

I point out the gun nuts who shoot people but certainly do not equate people who enjoy shooting or want to protect themselves with them. Of course there are abortion nuts but I must say that I don't know of any killing anyone with their support of abortion rights.

I actually have a positive view of the tea party (as a whole). There are wackos but I also think there are wackos in the Occupy Movement and have said as such.

O'Reilly, Rush, Gore, and Moore are all idiots...again I've said this on numerous occasions.

Jackson, Sharpton, and Rangel are also idiots...this too I have said.

Bain and Acorn are not even close to the same thing so I don't see how they are comparable. Bain was in the business of making money and Acorn was (they are no longer an organization) in the business of registering voters. To my knowledge, Bain AND Acorn are not guilty of any crimes, I know Acorn was exonerated and I can't say anything about Bain.

The GOP made themselves look foolish by going after Hilary in the way they did. They forgot their experience with her in the Senate apparently. As far as the Democrats standing up against a GOP president's policies I can't defend other than to say that the numbers are off the charts since 2008 in the number of nominations put under threat of filibuster.

I'm never going to defend (or would I have voted for) Byrd or Kennedy.

Clinton's lack of faith to his wife was terrible and I don't think it speaks well of his character but that certainly doesn't make Newt's actions defendable. I believe that their shared lack of fidelity was a strong bond for the two.

But this entire debate is counter-productive. Are you expecting me to claim that the GOP are all saints because the Democrats did the same thing? Or are you willing to admit that the GOP are fraudulent *******s as well as the Democrats? If we get into these stupid false equivalencies guess who wins? And it's not you and me...

[ewing]

To answer your questions in order -

1. Yes

2. No, not remotely in any comparable sense. Of course, I understand that it depends on one's perspective. From where I stand with my European view, I don't consider any part of the Dem. party 'extreme' in any way. From your perspective, which is alien to me, I'm sure you can find Dems whom you consider extreme.

3. I'm not aware that the Occupy movement was anything directly to do with the Dem party, whereas the Tea bagger wing of the Reps houses all kind of strange folks whom even many Americans call 'extreme'.

4. So no, you can't compare the two parties for extremism. The craziest politicians are all on your side.

dude you are not a stranger in a strange land.