9 Nines Posted January 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 Should we call her Cherokee Hillary or Cherokee Sioux in case she has some other DNA yet to be tested? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9 Nines Posted January 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 Also, I wonder if the "Crying Indian" ad is in public domain yet. Could you imagine the ads President Trump could make with it if Cherokee Hillary is the Deomcrat Nominee: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
begooode Posted January 2, 2019 Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 minute ago, 9 Nines said: Should we call her Cherokee Hillary or Cherokee Sioux in case she has some other DNA yet to be tested? Let's call her Tries-too-Hard or 9Nines used interchangeably. Pragidealist, Legaltitan, and oldschool 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
begooode Posted January 2, 2019 Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 minute ago, 9 Nines said: Also, I wonder if the "Crying Indian" ad is in public domain yet. Could you imagine the ads President Trump could make with it if Cherokee Hillary is the Deomcrat Nominee: Irony -- Mr 70's Shed-a-Tear wasn't a native american Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragidealist Posted January 2, 2019 Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 2 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said: 9s entire point is don’t make the same mistake twice. I agree. How is she Hillary? She seems more Bernie than Hillary.. Its an odd comparison. I'm not a huge fan but she'd be fine. Assuming he makes it to 2020, its all going to be about Trump anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragidealist Posted January 2, 2019 Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 33 minutes ago, 9 Nines said: Should we call her Cherokee Hillary or Cherokee Sioux in case she has some other DNA yet to be tested? I am guessing you're just trying to instigate. There is nothing particularly interesting or funny here. I think you should have used one of your other user ID's. It might have gotten more of a rise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9 Nines Posted January 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2019 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
begooode Posted January 3, 2019 Report Share Posted January 3, 2019 Say what you will, but Warren has a cohesive and passionate message of fighting for middle income families with career credibility to support it. Not to mention her humble beginnings, too. More relatable than I thought. ctm, Starkiller, and pamo9 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted January 3, 2019 Report Share Posted January 3, 2019 I’m a big Warren fan. I can absolutely see her winning. It’s just too early to tell without knowing who else will enter the race. Mythos27 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 3, 2019 Report Share Posted January 3, 2019 16 hours ago, Legaltitan said: Don't make what mistake? And who should be wary of the "mistake?" If we are talking about the Democratic Party, I don't see them putting a thumb on the scales for any candidate, and certainly not to the extent they did for Hillary. And in fact by changing the rules on Superdelegates the party has made it more possible for an outsider to emerge. Otherwise, it's up to us. The voters. I'm not being coy. I honestly don't get people freaking out when one candidate or the other throws their hat in the ring, or "OMG Hillary is thinking about running again!" It is healthy to have a vigorous debate with lots of candidates. The very people worrying about a mistake should embrace all of these candidates. Because a wide open, vicious Republican primary did not hurt Trump at all, whereas a primary where the decks were cleared for Hillary clearly hurt not only the party, but her, because it enraged Bernie supporters. I guess I don't understand what people want. Do people want the Democratic Party to exclude candidates from the process that you guys deem too "polarizing" or annoying, or whatever? I know you don't really mean that, but it sort of seems like it. And putting everything else to the side, the addition of Warren is good for this process if what it is you want is a moderate candidate that can appeal to midwestern voters. Because Warren divides the progressive vote that 100% went to Bernie last go around. Furthermore, she draws fire from Trump as his favorite punching bag, and she likes to punch back, allowing other candidates to fly under the radar and take the high road. And Warren's #1 issue is one that happens to be very very important to non coastal elites, which is that banks have become too powerful and consumers are getting screwed by crony capitalizm run amock. Oh I’m not saying she shouldn’t run. I’m saying it would be a mistake to nominate her. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 3, 2019 Report Share Posted January 3, 2019 If she, or anyone else wins the nomination then it's not a mistake. If she's a weak candidate she'll be out early begooode, Legaltitan, Pragidealist, and 2 others 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legaltitan Posted January 3, 2019 Report Share Posted January 3, 2019 2 hours ago, OILERMAN said: If she, or anyone else wins the nomination then it's not a mistake. If she's a weak candidate she'll be out early Hello. Exactly. This is what I guess I have been driving at the whole time. Thanks for summing it up for me. OILERMAN, and Pragidealist 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 3, 2019 Report Share Posted January 3, 2019 5 hours ago, OILERMAN said: If she, or anyone else wins the nomination then it's not a mistake. If she's a weak candidate she'll be out early Yeah, if she lost to Trump it would be another huge mistake for the Dems. There’s no way around it. It would actually be an unmitigated disaster for the next Dem to lose to Trump. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragidealist Posted January 3, 2019 Report Share Posted January 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said: Yeah, if she lost to Trump it would be another huge mistake for the Dems. There’s no way around it. It would actually be an unmitigated disaster for the next Dem to lose to Trump. The next election- I don't think it matters too much who the nominee is. It will be a referendum on Trump. Much as the last became about- not Hillary. It matters- but because we would like to have an actual president elected this time. I don't think the candidate's competitiveness/ electability will be that big of an issue. It will be about not Trump. Both the democrats and Trump will make it that way. (again- assuming he is able to able to run). IsntLifeFunny, begooode, and Starkiller 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 3, 2019 Report Share Posted January 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Pragidealist said: The next election- I don't think it matters too much who the nominee is. It will be a referendum on Trump. Much as the last became about- not Hillary. It matters- but because we would like to have an actual president elected this time. I don't think the candidate's competitiveness/ electability will be that big of an issue. It will be about not Trump. Both the democrats and Trump will make it that way. (again- assuming he is able to able to run). I totally agree. I stand by what I said. She’s the weakest candidate I can think of for the Dems to put up there in my opinion. I think she would still win, but the referendum I would like to see will hopefully be a massive landslide and a bitch slap to all the tards who voted for him a second time. Pragidealist 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.