JTA wrote:I miss Herman Cain as the token black GOP presidential candidate.
homerfobe is revealing that for him the only people to "miss" in life are the men he's had sex with.rstrong wrote:Obsessed.homerfobe wrote:That means your proof positive that once you've tried a black man?The truth comes out. (no pun intended)
Close-ish for Trump.The most respected Iowa pollster's final caucus poll is out. Here's what it says.
... Trump in first among likely caucusgoers with 28 percent, Ted Cruz in second with 23 percent, and Marco Rubio in third with 15 percent. Ben Carson is in fourth with 10 percent, and no other candidate gets more than 5 percent support.
... On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is ahead with 45 percent among likely caucusgoers, followed by Bernie Sanders with 42 percent. Martin O'Malley is very far back, with just 3 percent....
We all know that's a crock of horse shit. Wasn't me that chose a career as a pecker-checker, Mr. Nursie-poo. Besides, a male that would turn his sexual desires to another male is only a male of his species, he's no man. There's males and females, man and wo-man, so such thing IRL asVrede tu tu wrote: homerfobe is revealing that for him the only people to "miss" in life are the men he's had sex with.
I'm settling down with my socialist earned pension while you continue your miserable everyday drudgery checking out fags and twat twinkies.
And yet here you are, ranting and raving about homosexuality, in an unrelated topic. As always it's the ONLY thing you talk about.homerfobe wrote:...
O Really wrote:The fact that the cartoon's author would see the list as desirable "menu" items vs. "leftovers" expresses more of an anti-Hillary opinion than an analysis. Some pretty big names in past Presidents, and particularly on the Republican side were "leftovers" before being elected.
True that; this was the only political cartoon I saw that reflected anywhere near the field of candidates that are running for office of POTUS. One of the most frustrating issues I had with the debates (both parties) was the moderators not spreading the questioning out evenly; i.e., with 3 candidates present, (who's Martin O’Malley?) the gist of questioning went to Clinton and Sanders. It was as though O'Malley wasn't even there. Same in the GOP "debates" . . . Trump and Cruz pretty much dominated the fielded questions, with Jeb and Christy getting in a few licks here and there. I think it was Rand Paul that reminded the moderators that there were other candidates there that would like to have a part in the "debate"; not that it did any good. I can't even recall the names of the other GOP candidates. . . :-0?> So----in essence, those who are not top contenders are . . . leftovers.
Hillary has no more baggage than anybody else in public life for more than 25 years, and a lot of that has been created out of whole cloth. Not that she doesn't have real issues, but if she does become the nominee, there will be enthusiastic support. Why? Like her or not, she's got a good chance to win, and everybody likes to win even if they take that win holding their nose.
Like in 2008?
Besides, there isn't any credible analyst who would not say the large "menu" and particularly some of the more exotic offerings is detrimental to overall success of the meal.
It is easier with only three. And I don't think they ought to intentionally ignore him. But debate performance notwithstanding, I don't see he's done much for team O'Malley. I think maybe he's running for VP, or maybe just to build a little recognition for next time. Too bad, too. It would be nice if he was competitive.Vrede too wrote:With only 3 in it, I hope O'Malley is given a fair shake. I can see the reason for some winnowing among the Repubs.
Yeah he'd move up to second behind "Generic Democrat."Vrede too wrote:An email revelation/indictment could knock Hillary out and Bernie could have a stroke. Then, things would change for O'Malley. Or, Biden gets drafted.
O Really wrote:Campaigns do frequently turn on minor incidents, don't they? Riding tanks, 47%ers, primal screams, etc. And also on dirty tricks like fast-boating, things out of your control like Iran hostages, and voter stupidity like the Florida idiots who voted for Nader. Kinda makes you think all the money spent on campaigns might could be put to better use, doesn't it?
Well I certainly hope you've been thoroughly cleansed of that demon.billy.pilgrim wrote:... I still believed the American public had some degree of intelligence above the moron level ....
I know, blaming it on Nader voters (or Nader) is like blaming the kicker for missing a potential winning kick in the last second. Took a whole game to get to that point, and if the team had done better in the first 59.5 minutes they wouldn't have been behind. But still, with the opportunity to go ahead, a miss is a miss. And Nader's people put a wrench in the process. No different from recognizing that Perot had an effect on electing Clinton, just smaller numbers.Vrede too wrote:I probably voted for Nader, too, but not in a state where it mattered. Anyhow, Gore messed up both before and after election day, and Clinton disaffected liberals before that. Then, there were all the people that stayed home, the legit voters prevented from voting, the funky ballots and funkier SCOTUS. It's not fair to lay it all on Nader and his 97,488 (1.635%) Fl voters, many of whom might not have voted at all. Less than 500 counted votes the other way and some would be blaming Patrick J. Buchanan (17,484, 0.293% ), Harry Browne (16,415, 0.275%) and/or Curtis Frazier (1,371, 0.023%).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ed_results
O Really wrote:Well I certainly hope you've been thoroughly cleansed of that demon.billy.pilgrim wrote:... I still believed the American public had some degree of intelligence above the moron level ....
billy.pilgrim wrote:... I voted for Bugs Bunny in 2012, but only regups were running for pres ...
) are on life support.