Originally Posted by Guest

The old diversion technique does not play well for you. It does not work for you here nor on To-ix.

Anyhow, when a viable Democrat contender besides Mrs. Clinton emerges, they can be looked at with interest. The Republicans know O'Malley has no chance of winning the general election and, therefore, would love for him to be THE candidate.

I would suggest on winnowing down the crowd of GOP contenders and settle on Cruz (I am voting for him in the primary) or Santorum. Both smart guys with great things to say. Both are great contenders that would make for a tight race in 2016.

And you read the article in the link ?

Your post makes ZERO sense. Do you see some sort of conspiracy everytime someone says something that does not jibe with your thoughts ? Do you actually READ or simply make assumptions, and your post is rife with assumption.

I can assure you that after posting a liberal article by a liberal writer in a liberal paper and getting hammered for it, I will only discuss Ms Clinton. That is what the democrats, at least the closed mind ones on here, want.

Calling diversion by allowing for an article that plays to the liberals is a really unique attack. Your definition of diversion is different than mine for sure. From what was I diverting ?

Originally Posted by Guest

The old diversion technique does not play well for you. It does not work for you here nor on To-ix.

Anyhow, when a viable Democrat contender besides Mrs. Clinton emerges, they can be looked at with interest. The Republicans know O'Malley has no chance of winning the general election and, therefore, would love for him to be THE candidate.

I would suggest on winnowing down the crowd of GOP contenders and settle on Cruz (I am voting for him in the primary) or Santorum. Both smart guys with great things to say. Both are great contenders that would make for a tight race in 2016.

I must say, this post has left me confused. So much of it makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Guest

I must say, this post has left me confused. So much of it makes no sense whatsoever.

Confused as to why I consider Cruz and Santorum to be good candidates? Both men speak very highly of family values, want a strong military, and oppose open borders.

Originally Posted by Guest

Confused as to why I consider Cruz and Santorum to be good candidates? Both men speak very highly of family values, want a strong military, and oppose open borders.

Talk about diversion.

What was this thread about until this.......?

This thread is missing all together. Clinton or O'Mally really doesn't matter. There are to many voters making their living from government to elect a Republican. It is simply numbers, all this other stuff is just noise. Republicans fed this bloated government when they should have taken a stand but didn't have the courage. We've gone beyond the tipping point.

It is so very simple to eliminate the confusion or to get the question aswered what is this thread all about......just go back and read the original link.

It helps to ignore the arm waving and rantings of those trying to derail the subject.

It is also of note, these folks are the very first to attack a link source....except this one. No mystery here is there?

Originally Posted by Guest

It is so very simple to eliminate the confusion or to get the question aswered what is this thread all about......just go back and read the original link.

It helps to ignore the arm waving and rantings of those trying to derail the subject.

It is also of note, these folks are the very first to attack a link source....except this one. No mystery here is there?

I understand, but when I posted a follow up link to the OPs, I got the distinct impression that the democrats on this board want no discussion of anyone but Ms. Clinton.

I thought there might be some discussion, but I suppose not. The attacks were on me for even posting a link...I was diverting from something. My post by the way was from a liberal writer, for a liberal newspaper in a liberal city, yet...so I don't understand.

And your link was fine.

The problem with elections is that name recognition means more than qualifications because name recognition only requires well recognizing the name of the candidate. and that's about as far as they need to go before they enter the voting booth.

The 19+ Republicans candidates provide an opportunity for needed debate about national priorities and solutions.

Following the Republican primaries we will have an opportunity to test if name recognition is enough?

If elections in Europe are any indication the mood of voters is leaning conservative

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem with elections is that name recognition means more than qualifications because name recognition only requires well recognizing the name of the candidate. and that's about as far as they need to go before they enter the voting booth.

The 19+ Republicans candidates provide an opportunity for needed debate about national priorities and solutions.

Following the Republican primaries we will have an opportunity to test if name recognition is enough?

If elections in Europe are any indication the mood of voters is leaning conservative

All great points.

But do you not find it curious that in a democratic primary season with someone as far ahead and as easily identifiable as she is, that a new candidate on the scene might make for a bit of conversation ? I was shocked that not one democrat has posted on this (or at least that I recognized a such)

Will be interesting as he hits the road how he is received and if the press even gives him a nod !

I realize, or maybe assume from the conversation or lack thereof on here, that nobody wants anyone but Ms Clinton to be discussed, but today I am reading a few viewpoints on the three running, mostly related to Wall St.

""Martin O'Malley is now like, I would say persona non grata — public enemy number one in in the halls of Goldman Sachs, in the halls of Black Rock, the big money management firm. All throughout Wall Street right now,"

Read more: Martin O'Malley is Wall Street's 'public enemy number one' - Business Insider

This from an article in Business Insider noting that he ticked off Wall St in his opening remarks for the campaign.

This referring to Ms Clinton.....

"WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton flew to Nashville, Tenn., in February to earn a fast $225,000 for sharing his insights with a private gathering of wealthy clients of Switzerland’s largest bank.

It marked at least the ninth time since 2011 that the widely sought ex-president had appeared at a speakers’ series for UBS’ American clients, at venues stretching from Miami to Los Angeles. For voicing his thoughts, he reaped a tidy $1.5 million, according to financial disclosure statements filed by his wife.

But with Hillary Clinton once again a presidential candidate, the global gallivanting, which brought her husband a windfall of more than $118 million in speaking fees since 2001, is prompting questions about whether he has compromised her independence, including with Wall Street.

Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions – including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs – have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank.


Read more here: WASHINGTON: Bill Clinton’s Wall Street cash puts wife in an ethical spot | Elections | McClatchy DC

And most importantly, Sen Sanders......This quote is from the President of the USA at the 2015 White House Correspondents dinner....

""Apparently some folks want to see a pot-smoking socialist in the White House."

Now that event is meant to be funny and sarcasm rules. But, Sen Sanders has a sense of humor as well

"As his campaign gathers steam and Sanders begins to crack double digits in national polls, he has an idea for a job for his main rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- whom he has steadfastly refused to criticize during his nascent campaign.

"Would she be interested in being my vice president?" he said.

Is Bernie Sanders really a pot-smoking socialist? - CBS News

I know that everyone wants Ms Clinton, but you have to stay aware of everyone,