|
Post by Angelo on Nov 5, 2017 18:23:29 GMT -5
Anyone I listed before, including Hillary if she did run again. There is no chance Hillary runs again. Her chance is as good as Bernie's chance. They are both yesterday's news. And this would be the 3rd time Hillary tried to run for president, I think that might be a record. After everything that came out just this week with regards to Hillary, her political career is most likely dead. Bernie, on the other hand is actually an independent. If the DNC is righted, the last thing they are going to do is let him get the nomination. They need a strong internal candidate. Preferably a woman, who is preferably not white. I personally think that's fucking stupid, but it's kind of easy to see that that's the direction they are going to go in. If she wants it, the money seems to be behind Kamala Harris getting the nomination. The Kamala memes alone will make it worthwhile. Harris's corruption during her tenure as California's AG is too fresh to get over IMO. Top that off with her sister (who she is close to) being involved in the Hillary corruption of the DNC, her brother in law (also close to) defending sexual harassers and discrimination in the workplace, along with her involvement with the lawyers to the elite... She'll be too much on the defensive from the democrats' base themselves if anyone decides to attack her. If they want a non-white, non-christian, pro-military woman Democrat, who actually can get republican votes, with no open skeletons in their closest yet... Tulsi Gabbard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 18:34:57 GMT -5
Whatever nonwhite candidate is fielded by dumbocrats “Gaaarth you just hate minorities... only racists make so many predictions that come true” Prople thinking you hate minorities has nothing to do with your "predictions."
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 5, 2017 19:16:21 GMT -5
There is no chance Hillary runs again. Her chance is as good as Bernie's chance. They are both yesterday's news. And this would be the 3rd time Hillary tried to run for president, I think that might be a record. After everything that came out just this week with regards to Hillary, her political career is most likely dead. Bernie, on the other hand is actually an independent. If the DNC is righted, the last thing they are going to do is let him get the nomination. They need a strong internal candidate. Preferably a woman, who is preferably not white. I personally think that's fucking stupid, but it's kind of easy to see that that's the direction they are going to go in. If she wants it, the money seems to be behind Kamala Harris getting the nomination. The Kamala memes alone will make it worthwhile. Harris's corruption during her tenure as California's AG is too fresh to get over IMO. Top that off with her sister (who she is close to) being involved in the Hillary corruption of the DNC, her brother in law (also close to) defending sexual harassers and discrimination in the workplace, along with her involvement with the lawyers to the elite... She'll be too much on the defensive from the democrats' base themselves if anyone decides to attack her. If they want a non-white, non-christian, pro-military woman Democrat, who actually can get republican votes, with no open skeletons in their closest yet... Tulsi Gabbard. It will be someone yet unnamed. Dumbocrat messiahs always have to “come out of nowhere” at the eleventh hour, or else their cheap schtick wears thin, they commit gaffes, unsavory biographical details and shady associations begin to surface, and they lose. Bill Clinton, carter, and Obama were all unknown, obscure nobodies a couple years before they rode the artificially created movie buzz into office (Obama was a little less obscure than the other two clowns, but it still applies). My prediction is that it will be some hero who spent a tour in Iraq commanding a file cabinet at HQ and sanctimoniously harkens to it in every speech. Those guys usually fool everyone except veterans
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 5, 2017 19:21:55 GMT -5
Harris's corruption during her tenure as California's AG is too fresh to get over IMO. Top that off with her sister (who she is close to) being involved in the Hillary corruption of the DNC, her brother in law (also close to) defending sexual harassers and discrimination in the workplace, along with her involvement with the lawyers to the elite... She'll be too much on the defensive from the democrats' base themselves if anyone decides to attack her. If they want a non-white, non-christian, pro-military woman Democrat, who actually can get republican votes, with no open skeletons in their closest yet... Tulsi Gabbard. It will be someone yet unnamed. Dumbocrat messiahs always have to “come out of nowhere” at the eleventh hour, or else their cheap schtick wears thin, they commit gaffes, unsavory biographical details and shady associations begin to surface, and they lose. Bill Clinton, carter, and Obama were all unknown, obscure nobodies a couple years before they rode the artificially created movie buzz into office (Obama was a little less obscure than the other two clowns, but it still applies). My prediction is that it will be some hero who spent a tour in Iraq commanding a file cabinet at HQ and sanctimoniously harkens to it in every speech. Those guys usually fool everyone except veterans WTF rock are you living under. Clinton was talked about a a Presidential contender since mid 80s, Carter it was said from day one the Governorship was a stepping stone, and Obama everyone knew was an up an comer to was going to make a run, just ran an election earlier than people expected is all.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 5, 2017 20:09:01 GMT -5
It will be someone yet unnamed. Dumbocrat messiahs always have to “come out of nowhere” at the eleventh hour, or else their cheap schtick wears thin, they commit gaffes, unsavory biographical details and shady associations begin to surface, and they lose. Bill Clinton, carter, and Obama were all unknown, obscure nobodies a couple years before they rode the artificially created movie buzz into office (Obama was a little less obscure than the other two clowns, but it still applies). My prediction is that it will be some hero who spent a tour in Iraq commanding a file cabinet at HQ and sanctimoniously harkens to it in every speech. Those guys usually fool everyone except veterans WTF rock are you living under. Clinton was talked about a a Presidential contender since mid 80s, Carter it was said from day one the Governorship was a stepping stone, and Obama everyone knew was an up an comer to was going to make a run, just ran an election earlier than people expected is all. Good god you’re a fucking choad. You repeatedly derail potentially interesting discussions with your pathological need to pretend t9 know everything. Obama you’re kind of right about (they were able to maintain the “mystery” wth Obama because everyone was too scared to ask any questions), but Bill fucking Clinton and carter were fucking obscure to everyone except dumbocrat functionaries until the fucking primaries. Do you know who the fucking governors of Arkansas and Georgia are today without google? Bill fucking Clinton and Carter were equally well known in 1973 and 1989. They weren’t Ronald Reagan, who spoke at repub conventions from 1964 on, they weren’t Trump. Nobody was fucking talking (more importantly scrutinizing) Bill Fucking Clinton or Carter prior to the primaries they rose to the White House in Saturday night live was doing sketches on the potential democrat presidential candidates in 1991, and they didn’t include Bill fucking Clinton. Because he was completely obscure
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 5, 2017 20:21:55 GMT -5
WTF rock are you living under. Clinton was talked about a a Presidential contender since mid 80s, Carter it was said from day one the Governorship was a stepping stone, and Obama everyone knew was an up an comer to was going to make a run, just ran an election earlier than people expected is all. Good god you’re a fucking choad. You repeatedly derail potentially interesting discussions with your pathological need to pretend t9 know everything. Obama you’re kind of right about (they were able to maintain the “mystery” wth Obama because everyone was too scared to ask any questions), but Bill fucking Clinton and carter were fucking obscure to everyone except dumbocrat functionaries until the fucking primaries. Do you know who the fucking governors of Arkansas and Georgia are today without google? Bill fucking Clinton and Carter were equally well known in 1973 and 1989. They weren’t Ronald Reagan, who spoke at repub conventions from 1964 on, they weren’t Trump. Nobody was fucking talking (more importantly scrutinizing) Bill Fucking Clinton or Carter prior to the primaries they rose to the White House in Saturday night live was doing sketches on the potential democrat presidential candidates in 1991, and they didn’t include Bill fucking Clinton. Because he was completely obscure Shit then the people I grew up around were much more in the know, and they weren't the political type so no idea what their fucking connection was. Shut the fuck up, they weren't unknowns, you just don't pay attention to the other side AT ALL because you HATE them so you IGNORE them and put your own make believe reality onto them.
|
|
|
Post by ToNoAvail on Nov 5, 2017 20:30:15 GMT -5
Well this should just be fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Nov 5, 2017 21:42:44 GMT -5
WTF rock are you living under. Clinton was talked about a a Presidential contender since mid 80s, Carter it was said from day one the Governorship was a stepping stone, and Obama everyone knew was an up an comer to was going to make a run, just ran an election earlier than people expected is all. Good god you’re a fucking choad. You repeatedly derail potentially interesting discussions with your pathological need to pretend t9 know everything. Obama you’re kind of right about (they were able to maintain the “mystery” wth Obama because everyone was too scared to ask any questions), but Bill fucking Clinton and carter were fucking obscure to everyone except dumbocrat functionaries until the fucking primaries. Do you know who the fucking governors of Arkansas and Georgia are today without google? Bill fucking Clinton and Carter were equally well known in 1973 and 1989. They weren’t Ronald Reagan, who spoke at repub conventions from 1964 on, they weren’t Trump. Nobody was fucking talking (more importantly scrutinizing) Bill Fucking Clinton or Carter prior to the primaries they rose to the White House in Saturday night live was doing sketches on the potential democrat presidential candidates in 1991, and they didn’t include Bill fucking Clinton. Because he was completely obscure If Bill Clinton wasn't well known and considered a potential presidential candidate, why did the NYT write an article in 1987 about his decision not to run in 1988? www.nytimes.com/1987/07/15/us/clinton-decides-he-won-t-seek-88-nomination.htmlWhy was he on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson (shortly after being the keynote speaker at the 1988 DNC--he also gave speeches at the 1980 and 1984 DNCs) also in 1988? www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/clinton-carson-appearance/Coincidentally, HRC was on good morning america in 1988 as well; isn't that funny? abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/hillary-clintons-appearance-gma-1988-38567419
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 5, 2017 22:10:44 GMT -5
Good god you’re a fucking choad. You repeatedly derail potentially interesting discussions with your pathological need to pretend t9 know everything. Obama you’re kind of right about (they were able to maintain the “mystery” wth Obama because everyone was too scared to ask any questions), but Bill fucking Clinton and carter were fucking obscure to everyone except dumbocrat functionaries until the fucking primaries. Do you know who the fucking governors of Arkansas and Georgia are today without google? Bill fucking Clinton and Carter were equally well known in 1973 and 1989. They weren’t Ronald Reagan, who spoke at repub conventions from 1964 on, they weren’t Trump. Nobody was fucking talking (more importantly scrutinizing) Bill Fucking Clinton or Carter prior to the primaries they rose to the White House in Saturday night live was doing sketches on the potential democrat presidential candidates in 1991, and they didn’t include Bill fucking Clinton. Because he was completely obscure If Bill Clinton wasn't well known and considered a potential presidential candidate, why did the NYT write an article in 1987 about his decision not to run in 1988? www.nytimes.com/1987/07/15/us/clinton-decides-he-won-t-seek-88-nomination.htmlWhy was he on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson (shortly after being the keynote speaker at the 1988 DNC--he also gave speeches at the 1980 and 1984 DNCs) also in 1988? www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/clinton-carson-appearance/Coincidentally, HRC was on good morning america in 1988 as well; isn't that funny? abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/hillary-clintons-appearance-gma-1988-38567419He can't read that, when it comes to liberals he blocks out information and replaces it with words that makes him happy and fits his narrative.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 6, 2017 1:37:51 GMT -5
Look you ignorant and wholly disingenuous shitbricks: obscure state politicians are still going to be public figures but if you polled the country in 1990 less than 2% could have told you they ever heard of Bill Fucking Clinton. That = relative obscurity.
As I indicated before, he was equally well known as you would expect an Arkansas governor to be. Same for Jimmy Carter. Neither were nationally known figures the same way Trump or Reagan were. Not remotely. Not in the same universe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 7:28:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Nov 6, 2017 13:03:11 GMT -5
WTF rock are you living under. Clinton was talked about a a Presidential contender since mid 80s, Carter it was said from day one the Governorship was a stepping stone, and Obama everyone knew was an up an comer to was going to make a run, just ran an election earlier than people expected is all. Good god you’re a fucking choad. You repeatedly derail potentially interesting discussions with your pathological need to pretend t9 know everything. Well said. He's also the least intelligent know-it-all I have ever encountered. Some know a little bit about a lot of things and can pass themselves off as an authority in certain conversations, but not this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 16:24:15 GMT -5
He's a contrarian troll; he doesn't even really pretend to "know" about the subjects he talks about. He just spews out dumb arguments that hold no water, apparently because he likes to.
It's not like he has anything BETTER to do....
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Nov 6, 2017 17:42:56 GMT -5
Look you ignorant and wholly disingenuous shitbricks: obscure state politicians are still going to be public figures but if you polled the country in 1990 less than 2% could have told you they ever heard of Bill Fucking Clinton. That = relative obscurity. As I indicated before, he was equally well known as you would expect an Arkansas governor to be. Same for Jimmy Carter. Neither were nationally known figures the same way Trump or Reagan were. Not remotely. Not in the same universe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 18:46:26 GMT -5
Bill Clinton was obscure. Really obscure. Going on late night tv does not = widespread notoriety. He was plucked from obscurity and slowly introduced.
Kamala Harris is also obscure amd if she wants to run- the money in The Hamptons is already behind her.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 6, 2017 19:02:17 GMT -5
Look you ignorant and wholly disingenuous shitbricks: obscure state politicians are still going to be public figures but if you polled the country in 1990 less than 2% could have told you they ever heard of Bill Fucking Clinton. That = relative obscurity. As I indicated before, he was equally well known as you would expect an Arkansas governor to be. Same for Jimmy Carter. Neither were nationally known figures the same way Trump or Reagan were. Not remotely. Not in the same universe. Ok hillary: accuse the other side of what youre guilty of me: “Bill Clinton rose from obscurity” you:” deerffle derf, ack-chu-ally, derf, he was once on Carson, he came on right after the guy with the koala from the Ackron, Ohio Zoo, and before the guy making turkey calls with his armpit. A national figure”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 19:36:46 GMT -5
I'd NEVER heard of Bill Clinton until he gave that long-winded, "when is he gonna shut up?" speech at the 1988 Democratic convention. He wasn't on many folks' radar until then, and the idiot news media started cleaning him up for national exposure from that point on.
And why not? He was handsome, had a sob-story about his youth (confronting his stepdad, etc., the usual tearjerker stuff that women eat-up), "felt our pain" (LOL), confessed he hadn't always been faithful to Hillary, and played a good sax on TV. What more camouflage does a Dem candidate need?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 6, 2017 20:37:01 GMT -5
Clinton was supposed to run in 88' and Hillary was set to run for his Governorship, as he was already one of the most popular governors in the country and his profile grew even more after his State of the Union response in 85'. It was considered a surprise that he didn't. He's said he literally changed his mind at the last moment.
As for why he didn't run, I'm better he didn't want to deal with Atwater and company with all the whitewater shit he was in the middle of and they weren't sure if they hid Hillary's futures front-running well enough at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 22:10:18 GMT -5
"Most popular governor" is like saying "famous minor league player."
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 7, 2017 5:25:44 GMT -5
I'd NEVER heard of Bill Clinton until he gave that long-winded, "when is he gonna shut up?" speech at the 1988 Democratic convention. He wasn't on many folks' radar until then, and the idiot news media started cleaning him up for national exposure from that point on.
He wasn’t on anyone’s radar after then. SNL did a skit in 1991 about next year’s democrat primary. There was no “Bill Clinton” Impersonator included. There was a Paul Tsongas. In other words, Bill Clinton was more obscure than Paul Tsongas in 1991, yet in 1992 he (thanks entirely to Perot) becomes president Dem candidate need? [/quote] I guess he was handsome? At any rate, he was given the messiah treatment by the media, not unlike Obama, and I became Lord Garth watching it unfold at age 17. I was told he was “slick willy” and I didn’t find him slick at all. All my pot smoking buddies, college student friends, co-workers, were absolutely entranced with him... but for no reason, other than the television told them how smart and wonderful he was, and the magazine covers in the stores hammered it home
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 8, 2017 2:26:34 GMT -5
Democrats cleaned up at the elections, but I think it is gonna give them a false sense of security for the upcoming ones. Pretty much every Democratic win came against a Republican candidate that was... asinine. In some parts because Republicans were lazy (the Governor race), but in others because they supported retarded incumbents (Bob Marshall).
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Nov 8, 2017 10:12:51 GMT -5
Relative obscurity is always relative to perspective. Powerful forces were marshaled to help Obama in IL in 2004. (Yes, I was refreshed on that while looking for current pics of Jeri Ryan aka Seven of Nine for Star Trek Voyager.. but that's for a different thread) If you need a refresher, against the wishes of both parties, a CA judge unsealed their divorce documents (they had already unsealed some voluntarily but requested anything that could affect their children remain sealed). Of course the seedy details of those documents, sunk the campaign against Obama in 2004 (insert person who chimes in and says Obama would have won anyway). The point is, unknown to 'us', is strictly a relative term. If you grew up in a house or with people that did stuff like sit down and what the DNC convention, then sure Slick Willy was maybe known.
I can only attest to my own observation. I watched the results of primaries and polling leading up to them. Without using the googles, I can tell you that something called Paul Tsongas was on top early and often. I can still remember Tsongas's pic in the little box next to the check marks. In 1990, and 2000, and 2010, and yesterday and today and last week, and whenever, hundreds of millions of people pay no attention to politics until the primary campaigns start (which back in the 90's was not 3 years before the election). Even when the do start at the primary level, almost nobody pays attention (don't let the news fool you, most people don't even watch any news). So really, candidates that have not been VP, possibly high profile Senators/Congressmen, or possibly a notable military leader, are all going to 'come out of nowhere' for hundreds of millions of humans residing in our part of the continent. -Edit
Everyone is a little bit right on this one.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Nov 8, 2017 11:44:37 GMT -5
Relative obscurity is always relative to perspective. Powerful forces were marshaled to help Obama in IL in 2004. (Yes, I was refreshed on that while looking for current pics of Jeri Ryan aka Seven of Nine for Star Trek Voyager.. but that's for a different thread) If you need a refresher, against the wishes of both parties, a CA judge unsealed their divorce documents (they had already unsealed some voluntarily but requested anything that could affect their children remain sealed). Of course the seedy details of those documents, sunk the campaign against Obama in 2004 (insert person who chimes in and says Obama would have won anyway). The point is, unknown to 'us', is strictly a relative term. If you grew up in a house or with people that did stuff like sit down and what the DNC convention, then sure Slick Willy was maybe known. I can only attest to my own observation. I watched the results of primaries and polling leading up to them. Without using the googles, I can tell you that something called Paul Tsongas was on top early and often. I can still remember Tsongas's pic in the little box next to the check marks. In 1990, and 2000, and 2010, and yesterday and today and last week, and whenever, hundreds of millions of people pay no attention to politics until the primary campaigns start (which back in the 90's was not 3 years before the election). Even when the do start at the primary level, almost nobody pays attention (don't let the news fool you, most people don't even watch any news). So really, candidates that have not been VP, possibly high profile Senators/Congressmen, or possibly a notable military leader, are all going to 'come out of nowhere' for hundreds of millions of humans residing in our part of the continent. -Edit Everyone is a little bit right on this one. Except dumb fuck Jackel. I am 46 and recall the period and when I first heard of slick Willy. Jackel claims to be a lot younger so we all know the dunce was not paying attention to potential presidential candidates or knew who governors were at the age of 10. The point being he had no reason to chime in as he has no perspective on the period of time we are talking about. The stupid motherfucker is a troll that feels it necessary to feign expertise on everything so don't coddle him. He does his usual "let me google this" and talk shit routine in EVERY thread. His claim that "Clinton was talked about as a presidential candidate in the 80s" is purely from him taking 30 seconds to google, misunderstand, read wave tops and then feel he should come type that shit for no reason other than seeking attention and being an asshole. Pre-internet and social media we learned things via newspaper and news, and Clinton was NOT nationally known. He is a waste of skin and wrong, as usual. Fuck his opinion and pointless trolling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 12:31:51 GMT -5
I'm 40 and can also recall when I first heard about slick willie. My dad was a Rush Limbaugh guy and Rush sure did not care for ol slick willie. Neither did my father.
I also had heard of Obama way before he ran.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 8, 2017 13:15:48 GMT -5
I'm 40 and can also recall when I first heard about slick willie. My dad was a Rush Limbaugh guy and Rush sure did not care for ol slick willie. Neither did my father. I also had heard of Obama way before he ran. This is the thing, pre 04' a lot of the country relied on radio, or good local reporters for updates on the political world so barring someone doing something major (say being an actor like Reagan), everyone was a "relative unknown" to the common person before running for President. Since 04'ish though it is easy for people to access information and become educated on potential candidates. Then there are people like your father, my parents and grandparents who actually paid attention to the smaller tidbits on the radio (Rush was talking about Clinton as a front runner since 88' when he started), who talked with people they knew around the country to see who heard what, who took an active part in learning about things. To them, the only candidate that came out of nowhere for a Presidential election was Harding. Garth likes to pretend Clinton, Obama, and Carter were obscure unknowns to make what he considers the worse Presidents, even scarier. Nothing to do with fact, it is just the way that Garth adds his version of pathos to his "observations", like a fisherman saying I caught a Bass THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS Big, when it was really only THIIIIIS Big.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Nov 8, 2017 13:16:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Nov 8, 2017 13:54:00 GMT -5
I'm 40 and can also recall when I first heard about slick willie. My dad was a Rush Limbaugh guy and Rush sure did not care for ol slick willie. Neither did my father. I also had heard of Obama way before he ran. This is the thing, pre 04' a lot of the country relied on radio, or good local reporters for updates on the political world so barring someone doing something major (say being an actor like Reagan), everyone was a "relative unknown" to the common person before running for President. Since 04'ish though it is easy for people to access information and become educated on potential candidates. Then there are people like your father, my parents and grandparents who actually paid attention to the smaller tidbits on the radio (Rush was talking about Clinton as a front runner since 88' when he started), who talked with people they knew around the country to see who heard what, who took an active part in learning about things. To them, the only candidate that came out of nowhere for a Presidential election was Harding. Garth likes to pretend Clinton, Obama, and Carter were obscure unknowns to make what he considers the worse Presidents, even scarier. Nothing to do with fact, it is just the way that Garth adds his version of pathos to his "observations", like a fisherman saying I caught a Bass THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS Big, when it was really only THIIIIIS Big. Good god you’re a fuck face. Still in the weeds over thedefinition of “relative obscurity?” This is exactly what I am talking about with you detailing what otherwise could be interesting discussion. On “Relative obscurity”: You can bank that less than 5% of the population could have picked Bill Clinton or Jimmy fucking Carter out of a lineup 2 years before they were elected. So shut your pathetic underdeveloped palate
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 8, 2017 14:24:55 GMT -5
This is the thing, pre 04' a lot of the country relied on radio, or good local reporters for updates on the political world so barring someone doing something major (say being an actor like Reagan), everyone was a "relative unknown" to the common person before running for President. Since 04'ish though it is easy for people to access information and become educated on potential candidates. Then there are people like your father, my parents and grandparents who actually paid attention to the smaller tidbits on the radio (Rush was talking about Clinton as a front runner since 88' when he started), who talked with people they knew around the country to see who heard what, who took an active part in learning about things. To them, the only candidate that came out of nowhere for a Presidential election was Harding. Garth likes to pretend Clinton, Obama, and Carter were obscure unknowns to make what he considers the worse Presidents, even scarier. Nothing to do with fact, it is just the way that Garth adds his version of pathos to his "observations", like a fisherman saying I caught a Bass THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS Big, when it was really only THIIIIIS Big. Good god you’re a fuck face. Still in the weeds over thedefinition of “relative obscurity?” This is exactly what I am talking about with you detailing what otherwise could be interesting discussion. On “Relative obscurity”: Y ou can bank that less than 5% of the population could have picked Bill Clinton or Jimmy fucking Carter out of a lineup 2 years before they were elected. So shut your pathetic underdeveloped palate Considering more than 5% saw Clinton's response to Reagan (7 years before he ran), and his DNC speech (4 years before he ran), his time on various TV shows (national and regional) thru the entirety of the 80s, and on Carson's couch in 88'... I'd work on that math of yours and your definition of obscurity. Carter on the other hand, he was pretty unknown to the general public. However, every political junkie and wonk in the country knew he wanted to be President, speaking at every national event he could since before he was Governor. He almost got himself up as McGovern's running mate in 72', made head of the DNC's campaigns the following year. If you followed politics, you knew who he was and what he wanted, he wasn't shy about his ambitions. Just because Joe Schmo who doesn't pay attention to politics doesn't know who a candidate is, doesn't mean that the person is obscure among the people who are going to be the ones telling people who to vote for and why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 14:42:04 GMT -5
Jackel-
Clinton and Carter were obscure. Late night TV does not = well known. Speaking in response to the State of the Union does not make you well known either.
Tell me who the governor of the state two states away from you is without Googling it. If you claim you can, you're just like the Governor of my state. Completely Full Of Shit.
Clinton was only well known to card carrying D's, which is less than 5% of the population of this country. Clinton did come out of nowhere and so did Carter. So did Obama as far as most are concerned. Key word being "MOST".
Most people have more important things to do than sit around watching for political candidates of the future.
And Kamala Harris is going to be the candidate the Dems go with. When I'm right about this, I'll ask you to STFU again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 9:48:50 GMT -5
Have you seen the video of the minorities at Berkeley who wanted to be allowed to do a take home essay in leiu of an exam, because exams are inherently racist? Surprisingly the professor stuck to his guns and told them they had to take the exam. I have no idea if they did or not because they just yelled and screamed for like 5 minutes. Yes-students at Berkeley, one of the most prestigious universities in the country and they are complaining about privilege. The irony was STRONG in that video. I also like the one with the black girl saying all of science needs to be thrown out because science is racist. She did this with a microphone, amplifier, and loudspeaker. In a room with lights on. I love irony.
|
|