did she kill someone again?
― scott seward, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:40 (nine years ago)
she gave an interview: "I accept total responsibility for my loss, and here's whose fault it was..."
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:42 (nine years ago)
eye on the prize, Morbz
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:43 (nine years ago)
you're right she should refrain from ever appearing in public or answering questions for the rest of her time on Earth.
― evol j, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:44 (nine years ago)
she had to wait an entire 100 days before she could blame everyone. that takes presidential fortitude.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:45 (nine years ago)
YES, and it's for our own good... bcz the next step is she runs again. HEED MY WARNING. xp
no scott, she's been doing it for weeks now
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:46 (nine years ago)
i think there's zero chance she runs, i mean i cannot imagine the DNC letting her anywhere near the nomination process whatsoever, they're not that du--well, ok maybe.
― nomar, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:47 (nine years ago)
Hillary Clinton says she won't run for public office again
― Mordy, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:47 (nine years ago)
she's not going to run again unless she wants to endure the humiliation of not even winning the nomination.
― evol j, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:48 (nine years ago)
like Hubert Humphrey in '72 and '76? check
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:50 (nine years ago)
she's not going to run again gimme a break
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:51 (nine years ago)
ok, cancer kept him from running in '76, mea culpa
xp
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:52 (nine years ago)
it's much more likely that Chelsea would run, which would at least offer the lulz of causing the dirtbag left to commit seppuku.
― evol j, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 19:55 (nine years ago)
Will put money on HRC running again in 2020. Don't think she would get nominated though.
Who else is there? Warren, and... um, uhhh....
― flappy bird, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:01 (nine years ago)
Classic
― bought 2 raris, went to chili's (crüt), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:01 (nine years ago)
flappy, i'd bet $500 that she doesn't run in 2020. i'm sure there's some escrow website we can use or something to enforce the terms.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:05 (nine years ago)
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:09 (nine years ago)
Buncha senators (booker, gillibrand, warren, etc) wanna run. Plus Cuomo. At least! Dems are gonna have a big field.
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:09 (nine years ago)
Also, she'll be 73 in 2020. Of course she's not going to run.
probably a decent person, bad politician with moderately bad policies. gave us donald trump.
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:11 (nine years ago)
Gillibrand said today she will not run for prez, which i find ~2% more believable than HRC
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:12 (nine years ago)
gillibrand said she wouldn't yesterday fwiw (probably not much)
― global tetrahedron, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:12 (nine years ago)
Glad we're finally having this discussion. It's been too long.
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:12 (nine years ago)
the emails were classic
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:12 (nine years ago)
i'll extend that bet to anyone who thinks hillary running in 2020 is easy money
― Mordy, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:12 (nine years ago)
shameless co-opter/panderer. good debater. very hard worker. knows policy as well as anyone. voted for iraq war and learned pretty much zero lessons from it. married to bill. overall admirable response to decades-long smear campaign.
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:13 (nine years ago)
Hillary Clinton did not give us Donald Trump. People who voted for Donald Trump gave us Donald Trump; I am not willing to delegate that responsibility away from the people who marked his name on their ballots.
― Rachel Luther Queen (DJP), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:14 (nine years ago)
i will say that 10 years ago it would have been a lot more fashionable to hate hillary on the left. i personally find the reclamation efforts pretty transparently disingenuous but i understand that that's how the current left-of-center political zeitgeist wants to see things
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:15 (nine years ago)
Anyone as wealthy as the Clintons is overwhelmingly likely to be a dud.
― El Tuomasbot (milo z), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:16 (nine years ago)
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/387201/BILL-CLINTON-AL-GORE-SHORTS.jpg
― scott seward, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:16 (nine years ago)
thanks djp
― ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:17 (nine years ago)
Would say automatically but Dirk Nowitzki and Lebron seem pretty cool. I wouldn't want either to be President, though.
― El Tuomasbot (milo z), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:17 (nine years ago)
i will say that 10 years ago it would have been a lot more fashionable to hate hillary on the left
is it not incredibly fashionable now
― ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:18 (nine years ago)
that photo -- it's Hillary out with her gay manfriend!
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:18 (nine years ago)
on the bernie left it is for sure. i think the intersectional left currently is making a point of being pro-hillary, which again is understandable from an optics standpoint but kind of hollow imo
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:20 (nine years ago)
i will say that 10 years ago it would have been a lot more fashionable to hate hillary on the left.
don't understand this, hating Hillary is practically prerequisite for being progressive these days.
― evol j, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:20 (nine years ago)
sorry when i say left there i don't mean hard left, obv they've always hated the clintons and always will
Minorities understand her like whites never will, as shown in the turnout.
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:22 (nine years ago)
I don't think it's "hollow" if you're a woman. My wife still hasn't gotten over November and it's hard to blame her.
― evol j, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:23 (nine years ago)
it's because she's much more deserving of it now xxp
"$675,000? I don't know, it's what they were paying." Really what is up with these progressives who can't see she's on the side of the angels, and a true "ally" of "everyday Americans"?
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:23 (nine years ago)
yes, like Alfred said.
sentimental bullshit
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:25 (nine years ago)
you got it, that's the spirit that's making America great again!
― evol j, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:26 (nine years ago)
you are a minority of one, it's true
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:26 (nine years ago)
I wouldn't really call you sentimental, Morbius.
― Rachel Luther Queen (DJP), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:26 (nine years ago)
― flappy bird, Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:01 (nineteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i doubt warren is especially liable to win over the "lock her up" brigade, even if I do enjoy watching her grilling bankers, it makes me feel powerful.
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:26 (nine years ago)
i'm not going to be quite as harsh as morbs because i think the lingering feelings are legitimate, but i def think there is a certain tendentious revisionism currently in fashion among certain people under the democratic umbrella that has more to do with her differences with donald trump than it does with her own virtues
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:28 (nine years ago)
huh?
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:30 (nine years ago)
she's viewed favorably because people would rather her be president
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 2 May 2017 20:31 (nine years ago)
she*
(i mean, with good reason obv)