Totally agree ... reducing the key qualifier for a Presidential candidate to their position on homosexual marriage is MORONIC. This is especially the case in a dangerous world that is the result of botched foreign policy for the last 15 years or so

I need to correct you in a few areas.

1. I have no doubt that Hillary is capable of winning. Have never said she couldn't

2. She can win because there are growing numbers of ignorant people, often illegally here, who will readily vote for whatever Santa Claus candidate the Dems put on their ticket.

3 if Hillary does win in 2016 I too will be at the Square but with a large bottle of booze to drown my sorrows

4. However, my key assertions remain intact and impregnable to any factual refutation. To wit, Hillary is a mean spirited shrew who loathes the common people... she is a totally transparent phony and a money grubbing liar. Her email incident is a case study in a level of premeditated prevarication that would make Nixon proud. Her fabulous wealth stems from her trading on her name and selling access to foreign powers.

Now come on ... you are a very smart woman, and I'm confident that while you may support her policies, you don't condone her behavior or lack of character

Everyday more insight into Clinton and her notion of why she thinks she is entitled to be POTUS:

Articles: Why Hillary Can't Be in the Moment

Something everyday....it can't all be made up.

I - and probably others here - would like to know who you believe has the traits you listed.

Experience in what? Being an elected leader, being experienced in making foreign policy, experience in bringing political factions together?

Integrity, character, and leadership experience all matter - a lot. This country had the rare chance to elect somebody with outstanding character, credentials, and business experience but went for the left wing rhetoric and the ideology of envy and class hatred instead. Mitt Romney would have been an outstanding President. You blew it America and we are now a lesser country than we could have been because of it. Clinton is as transparent as Obama if people would just open their eyes. This is not a left or right issue - she lacks character as demonstrated by numerous lies and deceptions.

I agree with the previous poster - Mitt Romney would have been a great choice regarding leadership qualities, experience, and integrity; and we all now know for a fact his foreign policy knowledge was far superior to the current President. Now here's where it gets tricky - does he espouse my political views? I would have to say no to that in some areas, but you see, I can rise above some aspects of my ideology if I think a candidate clearly has what it takes to lead a country.

Mitt was not perfect but he is very very SMART !! Unlike Obama, Mitt actually professes an intellectually coherent foreign policy world view

By the way, not that it's related, Mitts ncaa brackets score was something like 99.9% percentile. Does anyone know what Obamas score was??

So why isn't there a big 'draft Mitt Romney' movement at the grass roots level today? As far as we know, he is still available and would stand head and shoulders above the current crop of GOP candidates that showed up in NH this past week-end.

Just waiting. Let us hope the same is true of better democratic candidates.

As campaigns launch, poll finds GOP field stays tight - CNN.com


The difference is that Hillary Clinton beats all her GOP rivals by a minimum of 14 points, and the leading GOP candidate, Jeb Bush is only garnering 17% of the GOP vote. This new CNN has some very interesting numbers to chew on.

Same way she poled in 2008 before being bumped off by a virtual unknown, untested, unqualified, dark horse candidate.

We
 

Do have a couple more options for our dems. What about Joe Biden or especially loved Elizabeth Warren? Any of the three could easily beat all the GOP candidates including Romney. Y'all need to start looking for moderation and middle of the road candidates. Someone capable of negotiation and compromise!

Polls are essentially useless this far out. Their sole purpose is to give talking heads something to blather about.

This is too hysterical. All the GOP has done is focus on taking away a woman's right to choose, birth control choices, introduce vaginal probes, personhood amendments, religious freedom laws, and now that they are on the wrong side of all these issues, they are like boohoo, boohoo, talk about something else, anything else.

Republicans can't win a presidential election any more and can't repeal these court decisions, so they will just chip away at every law they don't agree with.

The safety of the country is probably not a winning issue for the
GOP either since 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened on their watch.

They can't criticize the economy too much either, since the largest recession since the great depression happened on their watch.

How about repealing the ACA? Always a biggie for republicans? Nineteen million residents who now have health care, many for the first time, might disagree with you.

Dying wish: Don't vote for Hillary Clinton - Katherine Borgerding - POLITICO


Another old white man can't stand the thought of a woman president, even from the grave.

Just out of curiosity, in your fever swamp world, do you define Elizabeth Warren as a "moderate?"

More predictable anti-white male racism and bigotry from the very font of tolerance from the soul of the leftist world view ... in other words, a sick puppy who needs help.

A true activist...predictable.....always slashing out.....very narrow world

Has it ever occurred to you, within your anti white male racist worldview, that perhaps this guy would love to see someone like Carly Fiorina elected, instead of the dishonest shrew Hillary Clinton?

The New York Times and Fox News have each made arrangements for additional in depth reporting on new book which details the Clintons' apparently unquenchable thirst for gaining wealth and cash, even if it means perverting the honesty and integrity of the Office of Secretary of State to do it.

The book purports to show how donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees paid to former president Bill Clinton may have influenced Hillary Clinton's decisions at the State Department.

This should be interesting. The detestable, evil and (fill in your favorite hate word) "Faux News" is one thing for liberal wackos to rail at. However, when the respectable, honest, totally unbiased and often morally superior New York Times gets in bed with the same source being used by Fox ...well that could cause liberals' heads to literally explode.

Thus, I request that all liberal TOTV members please use caution when reading the link from Politico.

New York Times, Fox News strike deals for anti-Clinton research - POLITICO.com

I'm glad you found the post hysterical. What I find amusing is that in all of your ranting above, you missed the entire point of the post that you chose to criticize.

Ah now doesn't that take the wind out out the arm waving mill of feminism?
I can't wait to see how it gets spun to suit the coming rant we all know will come.

Murdoch Empire Colludes With 'Liberal Media' To Promote 'Clinton Cash' - The National Memo


Women of America Unite...We are not going back.

You know for someone who discounts biased sources such as "faux News" etc, why would you even bother to cite the left wing partisan rag you did in your post?

In any event, it's amusing to to hear an updated IWW ( ie Wobblies) slogan and let us know women "are not going back" My guess is any woman dumb enough to buy that line are in no imminent danger of that ever happening anyway ... no sane man would want them

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/20..._r=0&referrer=

This story from the New York Times is depressing tale of greed and corruption .... I wonder how the smartest woman in the world could be dumb enough to do this ?

This thread continues on ad nauseam

Hillary Clinton Just Took A Shot At GOP Plans To Cut Social Security


Hillary Clinton spoke out on her plan to save social security today, while campaigning in NH. This woman is amazing.

Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie all are in favor of cutting Social Security benefits to seniors.

Hillary Clinton is not in favor of reducing Social Security benefits to seniors.

Which one will be most popular in The Villages? Hmmmm?

And she'll do it while balancing the budget and leaving a huge surplus, just like her husband did.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Another intelligent, well thought out response from the side that can't even find a candidate and who predicted Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.

Wow, talk about revisionist history and drinking the cool aid!! :)

Bill had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, by Newt and the boys who forced a balanced budget upon him. He also inherited the momentum of what Reagan had done in the 80s ...

Let's see, Reagan left office in 1988, and Bill Clinton left office in 2000, but all of Clinton's surplus was the result of Reagan's policies? Maybe in your alternate universe.

And what happened to those surpluses when George W Bush was president?

What about Obama? Selective memory, huh?

Barack Obama claims deficit has decreased by two-thirds since taking office | PolitiFact

President Obama claims the deficit has decreased by two thirds since 2009. He made this claim in his state of the union speech on Jan 20, 2015. Politifact rates this claim as mostly true.

Look at the charts contained in the article.

Clinton was interviewed onthe trail today and when asked about the emails and donations issues. She stated this was political jousting and these are nothing but distractions.

OF COURSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!

He has ONLY reduced the rate at which the deficit CONTINUES to grow and nothing more, He has added over 8 trillion to the national debt since he has been in office -- TWICE the amount of G. W. Bush.

She has no plan. There are only two "knobs" to turn: you can either reduce benefits, including phasing in another retirement date as was done previously, and/or increase social security taxes. You can try to con the masses with rhetoric but it is a numbers games and to try to convince people otherwise is just wrong and deceptive. But that is what Clinton does.

Clinton versio of the hope and change farcical musings.