The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on December 23, 2016, 03:03:10 PM

Title: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: franksolich on December 23, 2016, 03:03:10 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512665703

Oh my.

I've been saying Obozo's the main reason Messalina Agrippina lost this year--a "search" of the DUmpster shows it---because he got selfish and greedy and couldn't wait. 

It was obvious that 2008 was to have been her year, and she probably would've won the presidency that year, but the Democrat, liberal, and primitive propensity for shiny new toys--in this case a "black" man--and their distrust of strong, confident women did her in.

And one must keep in mind that Democrat, liberal, and primitive distrust of strong, confident women almost cost her the Democrat nomination this year, when a grouchy old sourassed sourpuss male tried robbing her of it, and almost succeeded.

Quote
Axolotls (19 posts)     Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:06 AM

The DNC messed up (Hillary '16 instead of '08)
 
(Hope I've posted in the correct forum, I think so but apologies if it belongs in General Discussion)

Would it not have been better had the DNC nominated Hillary in '08, and Obama this year? I say it would've, and had that happened instead, since many voters were open to/seeking change and something different this time--Trump wouldn't be the incoming president.

While it would've only been 8 years since Bill was in office, a lot of people had Bush fatigue and much disillusionment with the gop so whoever the democrat candidate was in '08 would've been a shoo-in, plus there wasn't the anti-establishment fervor as in this cycle, where being a Clinton didn't sit well with many (the same problem Jeb Bush faced and being part of a dynasty). Don't get mad please but I didn't like Hillary, didn't vote (I live in a deep blue state so it wouldn't matter but even if I was in a swing state, unsure I still could do it as that was a bridge too far)...but 2008 was her only real guaranteed shot, and she would've won.

Obama could've been put "on hold", and he was young and had time on his side. Also unlike Hillary, he had the immense likability and incredible magnetism and great campaigning skills, and lack of baggage and scandal. Does anyone think he would've lost to Trump? I don't. The DNC screwed up big time--and thinking it was a good idea that after 8 years of a democrat president, Hillary of all people was a savvy move and sure thing. Wtf.

Yeah, and Obozo should've been put on hold, permanent hold.

Quote
Orsino (33,886 posts)       Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:09 AM

1. The rule, I'm told, is that the nominee is the candidate who gets the most votes.
 
It wasn't up to the DNC in any practical sense.

I could imagine the sort of damage they would have done by picking the other candidate--no matter that I think she could also have won.

Quote
SFnomad (2,309 posts)     Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:17 AM

5. Re: the most votes
 
Not always true ... Clinton also got more votes in 2008 in the Democratic Primary. Obama beat her in the delegate count.

Ohmigod; I forgot all about that, another case of Messalina Agrippina getting more votes but losing anyway.

Shit happens.  Sometimes more than once, I suppose.

Quote
Orsino (33,886 posts)      Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:24 AM

7. And delegates' are the votes that count.
 
Sure, attempts were made to woo them, and I'm okay with that in the primary, as I was with EC this month.

That party delegates wrnt with Obama was weird, but once they had declared, imagine the outcry and fallout had they flipped.

Quote
SFnomad (2,309 posts)     Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:09 AM

2. The "DNC" didn't nominate Obama or Hillary
 
And typically the only people that use the term "democrat president" are right wingnuts.

Quote
Axolotls (19 posts)      Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:26 AM

8. I'm an independent but left-leaning

Quote
SFnomad (2,309 posts)      Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:29 AM

10. If you say so ...
 
... and I have no reason not to believe you, but ...

"Democrat President"
"Democrat Party"
"Democrat whatever"

is usually a sign of right wingnuttery. They remove the "ic" from the end of the adjective because they want to point out that the "Democrat Party (uppercase D)" is not really democratic (lowercase d).

^^^ :yawn:

It's hardly that important.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: Carl on December 23, 2016, 03:11:11 PM
The DNC did everything it could to advance Obumbles in 2008.
They wanted nothing to do with Shillary and all her baggage as she was likely the one dumbocrat that could have lost that year.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: SVPete on December 23, 2016, 03:13:40 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512665703

Oh my.

I've been saying Obozo's the main reason Messalina Agrippina lost this year--a "search" of the DUmpster shows it---because he got selfish and greedy and couldn't wait. 

It was obvious that 2008 was to have been her year, and she probably would've won the presidency that year, but the Democrat, liberal, and primitive propensity for shiny new toys--in this case a "black" man--and their distrust of strong, confident women did her in.

And one must keep in mind that Democrat, liberal, and primitive distrust of strong, confident women almost cost her the Democrat nomination this year, when a grouchy old sourassed sourpuss male tried robbing her of it, and almost succeeded.

In her mind, Obama did cost her the Presidency in 2008. And she may be correct. And among the many reasons she failed to win in 2016, her doings while and as BHO's SecState and her obligatory avowals of BHO's policies and actions were very important. In that sense it could be said that BHO cost her the Presidency in 2016.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on December 23, 2016, 05:36:17 PM
So Barack was supposed to fill in for Morgan Freeman in Driving Miss Daisy...   :fuelfire:
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: dane on December 23, 2016, 06:05:32 PM
It doesn't seem to matter to the DUmmies when they are reading - whether it is the most poorly written screed or the best piece of writing ever penned - if the suffix -ic is not used with 'democrat', that is what they take away from the article/post/conversation:

Quote
10. If you say so ...
 
... and I have no reason not to believe you, but ...

"Democrat President"
"Democrat Party"
"Democrat whatever"
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: miskie on December 23, 2016, 07:24:37 PM
Quote from: SFnomad (2,309 posts)     Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:17 AM


5. Re: the most votes
 
Not always true
... Clinton also got more votes in 2008 in the Democratic Primary. Obama beat her in the delegate count.

Quote from: SFnomad (2,309 posts)      Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:29 AM

10. If you say so ...
 
... and I have no reason not to believe you, but ...

"Democrat President"
"Democrat Party"
"Democrat whatever"

is usually a sign of right wingnuttery. They remove the "ic" from the end of the adjective because they want to point out that the "Democrat Party (uppercase D)" is not really democratic (lowercase d).

I can hear the whirring of the Cognitive Dissonance engine from here, can you ?
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: freedumb2003b on December 23, 2016, 09:21:56 PM
If they waited, there was too much of a chance the USA would realize they are NOT nominating David Palmer.

And yes, I am serious.  I am 100% sure obozo got elected b/c many people thought he really was David Palmer.  He got reelected because Romney.

If they put hiLIARy up in '08 the result would have been the same as this year or worse since she would not have 8 years of terrible liberal lunacy to grease the skids for her base.
 
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on December 24, 2016, 03:37:06 AM
If they waited, there was too much of a chance the USA would realize they are NOT nominating David Palmer.

And yes, I am serious.  I am 100% sure obozo got elected b/c many people thought he really was David Palmer.  He got reelected because Romney.

If they put hiLIARy up in '08 the result would have been the same as this year or worse since she would not have 8 years of terrible liberal lunacy to grease the skids for her base.

You mean, HE, of the vaunted.... palmerreport.com!

(http://www.sethroselife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mich5.jpg)

Trump is toast!!!!!1111!!!1eLeBinTy!!!!111
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: BlueStateSaint on December 24, 2016, 03:38:51 AM
If they waited, there was too much of a chance the USA would realize they are NOT nominating David Palmer.

And yes, I am serious.  I am 100% sure obozo got elected b/c many people thought he really was David Palmer.  He got reelected because Romney.

If they put hiLIARy up in '08 the result would have been the same as this year or worse since she would not have 8 years of terrible liberal lunacy to grease the skids for her base.

There wouldn't have been the bathroom server with TS-SAP material on it, though.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: SVPete on December 24, 2016, 07:18:16 AM
You mean, HE, of the vaunted.... palmerreport.com!

(http://www.sethroselife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mich5.jpg)

Trump is toast!!!!!1111!!!1eLeBinTy!!!!111

The writer of the "Palmer Report" - and owner-contributor of the Daily News Bin - is Bill Palmer. Neither he nor his Dust-Bin nor his Re-Snort are currently significant enough for an article on W'pedia.
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: Adam Wood on January 13, 2017, 02:18:56 PM
So Barack was supposed to fill in for Morgan Freeman in Driving Miss Daisy...   :fuelfire:
Or at least carrying their bags....
Title: Re: primitives discuss Hillary in 2008 rather than in 2016
Post by: tuolumnejim on January 13, 2017, 02:23:19 PM
Quote
SFnomad (2,309 posts)      Fri Dec 23, 2016, 11:29 AM

10. If you say so ...
 
... and I have no reason not to believe you, but ...

"Democrat President"
"Democrat Party"
"Democrat whatever"

is usually a sign of right wingnuttery. They remove the "ic" from the end of the adjective because they want to point out that the "Democrat Party (uppercase D)" is not really democratic (lowercase d).

To be honest when I think of demoNrats I also think "ic", but in a different sense.  :-)