Author Topic: Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)  (Read 329452 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #100 on: July 18, 2014, 08:57:56 PM »
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85175
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Hillary 2016?
« Reply #101 on: July 18, 2014, 09:02:43 PM »
I'm honestly not goEMAW'ing, I love the crap out of these types of ksudub posts
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 09:06:48 PM by steve dave »

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #102 on: July 18, 2014, 11:33:01 PM »
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

They should choose a super rich dismissive white guy.

Offline Daddy Claxton

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #103 on: July 19, 2014, 08:21:08 AM »
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Offline Cartierfor3

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
  • I just want us all to be buds.
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #104 on: July 19, 2014, 02:24:44 PM »
Don't you think Hilary's pretty War mongery? Like, doesn't she love going to war? I have no idea it just seems that way.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #105 on: July 19, 2014, 02:25:44 PM »
Don't you think Hilary's pretty War mongery? Like, doesn't she love going to war? I have no idea it just seems that way.

yes

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30237
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #106 on: July 19, 2014, 02:30:30 PM »
If romney runs again he must have zero pride or shame.  I can't imagine being humilited that many times.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85175
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #107 on: July 19, 2014, 02:31:11 PM »

Don't you think Hilary's pretty War mongery? Like, doesn't she love going to war? I have no idea it just seems that way.

Yeah, this is why I hope she doesn't get the nomination

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #108 on: July 19, 2014, 10:03:43 PM »
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Once again? My friend, you are misinformed. Romney trounced Obama among independents. He lost because many of those that "religiously watch Fox News" didn't show up to vote. So you've got it exactly backwards.

Hillary can try to separate from Obama, just like McCain tried to separate from Bush. It's only so effective.

As for GOP candidates, there are plenty of good possibilities. Marco Rubio would be a superb candidate (once he gives the official mea culpa on the gang of eight fiasco). Scott Walker is an intriguing possibility. These are smart people with good ideas. Or, it could very well be a grassroots campaign for someone that's not on anybody's radar. There is a groundswell of popular animus towards Washington that's only growing stronger scandal after scandal, across almost all demographics. Another Hillary weakness and another GOP opportunity.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #109 on: July 19, 2014, 10:42:32 PM »
President Scott Walker doesn't sound good. We will never have a president named Scott or Walker. Should change his name.

Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #110 on: July 20, 2014, 12:36:06 AM »
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Once again? My friend, you are misinformed. Romney trounced Obama among independents. He lost because many of those that "religiously watch Fox News" didn't show up to vote. So you've got it exactly backwards.

Hillary can try to separate from Obama, just like McCain tried to separate from Bush. It's only so effective.

As for GOP candidates, there are plenty of good possibilities. Marco Rubio would be a superb candidate (once he gives the official mea culpa on the gang of eight fiasco). Scott Walker is an intriguing possibility. These are smart people with good ideas. Or, it could very well be a grassroots campaign for someone that's not on anybody's radar. There is a groundswell of popular animus towards Washington that's only growing stronger scandal after scandal, across almost all demographics. Another Hillary weakness and another GOP opportunity.

Yeah okay, it's not like Romney was a condescending ass with a shameless  rogue corporate background or anything.

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #111 on: July 20, 2014, 10:30:19 AM »
"Shameless rogue corporate background" lol. Romney was a great businessman. People that held that against him were idiots.
:adios:

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #112 on: July 20, 2014, 11:02:51 AM »
"Shameless rogue corporate background" lol. Romney was a great businessman.

eh, he can kind of be both.


Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #113 on: July 20, 2014, 11:13:01 AM »
Because by golly injun we got such a full disclosure about the current president.   How long are his academic records sealed for?  2030 or something like that?

Plus, there's no "shameless corporate" types filling up the Democratic political cofers?

Just millions of everyday folks sending their $5 bucks at a time?

You're right, Obama is basically another corporatist hack..  Wall Street republicans should be happy with them. Im not arguing that.

As for his schooling, well we've done worse. 

Still doesn't dismiss Romney and his job killing leveraged buyout background.

Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #114 on: July 20, 2014, 11:15:38 AM »
"Shameless rogue corporate background" lol. Romney was a great businessman. People that held that against him were idiots.

Loading up companies with debt and paying yourself millions with it while not worrying about the long term condition of those companies is not great.. Its a conniving financial scheme that hurts people in the process.


Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17542
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #115 on: July 20, 2014, 11:35:39 AM »
A party is usually not going to through their best candidates against an incumbent.  Romney and Kerry were both pretty bad candidates.

Offline Daddy Claxton

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #116 on: July 20, 2014, 02:32:51 PM »
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Once again? My friend, you are misinformed. Romney trounced Obama among independents. He lost because many of those that "religiously watch Fox News" didn't show up to vote. So you've got it exactly backwards.

Hillary can try to separate from Obama, just like McCain tried to separate from Bush. It's only so effective.

As for GOP candidates, there are plenty of good possibilities. Marco Rubio would be a superb candidate (once he gives the official mea culpa on the gang of eight fiasco). Scott Walker is an intriguing possibility. These are smart people with good ideas. Or, it could very well be a grassroots campaign for someone that's not on anybody's radar. There is a groundswell of popular animus towards Washington that's only growing stronger scandal after scandal, across almost all demographics. Another Hillary weakness and another GOP opportunity.

Obama won self identified "moderates" in every swing state and by 15 points over all.  Hilary will do the same if not better.

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #117 on: July 20, 2014, 02:50:45 PM »
Romney was a better candidate than whoever the R's will put up in 2016 and Hilary is a better candidate than Obama. Landslide.

Hillary is a far worse candidate, which is why she lost. She also has the added disadvantage of following this disaster and a president who will finish in the high 30s if he's lucky.

Not sure who GOP will choose, but I doubt it will be worse than Romney.

Do you believe that someone who has not yet separated himself/herself from an incredibly mediocre group of candidates will be a good candidate?

Do you not think Hilary is already doing a great job of separating herself from Obama?  The repubs are going to campaign as if they are running against Obama and will once again fail to reach any voter who doesn't religiously watch Fox news.

Once again? My friend, you are misinformed. Romney trounced Obama among independents. He lost because many of those that "religiously watch Fox News" didn't show up to vote. So you've got it exactly backwards.

Hillary can try to separate from Obama, just like McCain tried to separate from Bush. It's only so effective.

As for GOP candidates, there are plenty of good possibilities. Marco Rubio would be a superb candidate (once he gives the official mea culpa on the gang of eight fiasco). Scott Walker is an intriguing possibility. These are smart people with good ideas. Or, it could very well be a grassroots campaign for someone that's not on anybody's radar. There is a groundswell of popular animus towards Washington that's only growing stronger scandal after scandal, across almost all demographics. Another Hillary weakness and another GOP opportunity.

Obama won self identified "moderates" in every swing state and by 15 points over all.  Hilary will do the same if not better.

Moderates are libtards in denial, idiot
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #118 on: July 23, 2014, 01:59:14 PM »
I mean, the Clintons are just really, really vicious politicians. I really hope they aren't rewarded with another term or two in office.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #119 on: July 23, 2014, 02:03:15 PM »
If history is our guide, the military industrial complex should be hoping for a Hillary win.   I mean, she'll treat the commanders like dirt, but good lord, the industry itself will thrive.


Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #120 on: July 23, 2014, 04:34:05 PM »
I mean, the Clintons are just really, really vicious politicians. I really hope they aren't rewarded with another term or two in office.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html

Can't imagine why they were angry at that unbiased journalist just trying to write an honest piece examining their daughter.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #121 on: July 23, 2014, 09:23:12 PM »
I mean, the Clintons are just really, really vicious politicians. I really hope they aren't rewarded with another term or two in office.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html

Can't imagine why they were angry at that unbiased journalist just trying to write an honest piece examining their daughter.

There's a big difference between being angry and the level to which the Clinton machine can and will go to exact revenge. Regarding Chelsea, she is apparently a relatively small part of the book and regardless, the nepotistic largess she has enjoyed should be fair game, no?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Cartierfor3

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
  • I just want us all to be buds.
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #122 on: July 23, 2014, 09:28:24 PM »
K-S-U-Wildcats! has become the poster that many decide their opinion of his posts without considering the actual content.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #123 on: July 24, 2014, 01:01:05 PM »
The Clintons are your typical "power couple" subhumans. They are self absorbed, psychopaths who will do anything and harm anyone in their path. One of them is a serial rapist who is constantly waging war on women. The other, a woman, complicit is said war.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary 2016?
« Reply #124 on: July 24, 2014, 01:13:45 PM »
The Clintons are your typical "power couple" subhumans. They are self absorbed, psychopaths who will do anything and harm anyone in their path. One of them is a serial rapist who is constantly waging war on women. The other, a woman, complicit is said war.

K-S-U-Wildcats! has become the poster that many decide their opinion of his posts without considering the actual content.
I think that is still FSD (WNTRSD)
:adios: