Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Is Her Own Worst Enemy

|

White House Flickr

Can Hillary Clinton be defeated? As she toured the country promoting her book last week during what was widely seen as a prelude to a presidential run, top Republican politicians and donors gathered in Utah to discuss the prospects for defeating the former Secretary of State and presumed Democratic nominee.

The answer is yes, perhaps, but at least in the short term, Republicans won't be the ones to undermine her chances. For the moment, Hillary Clinton's worst enemy is herself—with President Obama providing a bit of backup.

As in 2008, much of the case for Clinton relies on the expectation that her candidacy is inevitable, and once she's nominated she will be unbeatable. Since at least 2012, she's maintained strong favorability numbers—coming in as high as 70 percent favorable—and for much of this year, polls have shown her handily besting potential GOP nominees: A CNN poll in February found her leading New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 16 points. A Fox News poll in March found Clinton polling far better than Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in head to head contests. Multiple polls in April and May showed Clinton above 50 percent when compared against Rand Paul.

Those sorts of poll numbers constitute an impressive display of political force. Yet they already appear to be waning, making Clinton look less and less inevitable by the day.

As she has stepped out onto the national stage with her new book and numerous media events to accompany it, her numbers have dropped noticeably. Bloomberg, which put her at 70 percent favorability in December 2012, now finds her favorability at just 52 percent, down four points from March. A Gallup poll last week put her favorability at 54 percent, a five-point drop since February.

Meanwhile, potential challengers are gaining ground. Clinton still leads Christie, Paul, and Bush, but has dropped below the 50 percent mark on all of them, according to Bloomberg. She's weakest against Christie, despite the scandals that have plagued him throughout the year: In March she was leading him 52 to 39, but since then her edge has dwindled to 45-38.

Republicans are beginning to talk generally about how to beat Clinton, but mostly they're dealing with their own problems right now. The GOP isn't responsible for Clinton's dropping favorability—Clinton is.

Her dropping favorability numbers were the inevitable result of the transition to a more political, proto-campaign mode. To that end, she's lost ground with independents (who tend to view more politicized figures less positively), according to the most recent Gallup survey.

But to a degree, it may also reflect the way that the earliest presidential polls largely test name recognition. Clinton, as the former senator, secretary of state, and first lady, is far better known than any potential challenger. But while name recognition provides an early advantage, it's not a platform or an agenda or an idea. Clinton has none of those things yet. Her memoir, Hard Choices, was a lengthy but essentially news-free account of her time as Secretary of State, along with some additional backstory. In an interview with NPR, she struggled and grew testy when asked about the transformation of her position on gay marriage. In interviews throughout the week, she appeared not to want to talk about why she made the decisions she made, or what she supported going forward. She only wanted to talk about who she was.

The typical presidential pitch goes like this: "Hi, I'm [insert name], and I'd like to be president because [insert reason]." Right now, Clinton, presuming she runs, only has the first part of the equation: "Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'd like to be president."

She has plenty of time to say more, of course; she hasn't even announced her candidacy yet, although there can be little doubt that she is testing the waters. But constructing an agenda will be a difficult task for Clinton, who will inevitably feel the need to stick closely to the ideas, themes, and policies of the Obama era. The Democratic base won't let her stray too far, and since she won't be able to run on innovation, she'll run on continuation instead—with, perhaps, a somewhat more hawkish foreign policy posture.

But the Obama presidency has limited appeal beyond the base. The president's approval rating is just 44 percent, roughly where it was around the 2010 midterm when Republicans took control of the House, and it's not likely to get better this year.

This, in short, is Clinton's problem: Her inevitability is predicated on her name recognition and popularity. But she's lost popularity as she's become more political, and she has little room to propose a vision or agenda that would break free of today's politics. So she's setting up a campaign in which she runs on her name and experience alone—but the political Clinton without an agenda is no match for the statesperson whose popularity soared.

She's running against herself. And right now, it looks more than a little like she's losing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

271 responses to “Hillary Clinton Is Her Own Worst Enemy

  1. HRC is a fucking cunt. That is all.

    1. A customer at the store yesterday said, “Hillary Rodham Cunton.” Works.

      1. “Heh. Heh You said ‘Rod’!”

        1. A quick delete?

          1. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

            *Any* comment, however offensive.

            1. That’s why you quote what you’re replying to.

            2. Now we know a certain c-word is off limits.

              1. Mr. Schultz must be the new summer intern

              2. Now we know a certain c-word is off limits.

                Cankle?

                (Props to Pl?ya)

              3. Conjugal? Cunnilingus? Cunning? Country?

  2. She’s been fucking up pretty much nonstop for months now. I’m pretty confident the Dems will find someone else to nominate, because she’s a disaster and has so much baggage that she’s the opposite of the “success” they had with Obama.

    1. I’m pretty confident the Dems will find someone else to nominate

      “I give you the next President of the United States — Chuck Schumer!”

      1. There’s Biden, of course, who I suppose has a slight chance, but I suspect it will be someone new. Not necessarily another mostly unknown, but someone not so strongly associated with either of the last two administrations.

        1. Fauxcahontas

        2. A certain newly-minted Senator from New Jerksey?

          1. Booker? Why would they go draw from the inexperienced black senator well again right after the disaster that was Obama?

            If the Dems are massacred in the midterms and Obama continues to be very unpopular, we’ll see a schism between progs that want Warren and party-first Democrats that want a safe choice like Schweitzer or someone equally uncontroversial.

            1. Why would they go draw from the inexperienced black senator well again right after the disaster that was Obama?

              It was only a disaster because of those obstructo-racist, teafracking rethuglicans.

              Besides, the only metric of success in politics is winning the election. Everything that happens after that is just background noise.

              1. You know, I think there was a time that wasn’t quite as true as today. Why is that? I can’t think of anything except flat out corruption–I mean, the financial kind. Winning office has to have some point, right?

                1. Winning office has to have some point, right?

                  Money, cars and the wominz, right?

                  1. They can have that without doing anything, though.

                  2. Loose shoes, tight pussy and a warm place to shit.

                    1. Funny stuff. Even funnier that it’s a quote from a government official.

                      attributed to:
                      Earl L. Butz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz)
                      Secretary of Agriculture 1971-76

                      “tight pussy; … loose shoes; and … a warm place to shit.”

                      priorities!
                      also

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Sn-A7D76o

        3. but I suspect it will be someone new.

          I suspect when the dust settles it will be Julian Castro. He’s really the closest candidate the Dems have on their bench that could possibly replay the Obama campaign playbook. More experience than Obama, but not too much that the media can’t make him everything to everyone. He’s also a minority, of course.

          Plus the media will get really soupy about a young, relatively handsome, hispanic twin. They can hang on the personal shit for years without ever having to sift through his politics.

          He didn’t get a prime speaking spot at the 2012 DNC Convention for nothing.

          1. I suspect when the dust settles it will be Julian Castro. He’s really the closest candidate the Dems have on their bench that could possibly replay the Obama campaign playbook.

            I read somewhere that he speaks no Spanish. In any case I could write a campaign ad where you take a speech Castro is giving and them run it side by side with an old campaign speech by Obama.

            Caption: “We Tried This Before. It Didn’t Work.”

            1. Castro speaks manageable Spanish. He’s my hometown mayor. Actually, for a TEAM BLUE member, he is tolerable. Who knows what he will do at the Nat’l level (he just got nominated to run HUD).

              In all honesty, I think they are gonna keep him in pocket to be Hillary’s VP. Women+Latino vote is a democratic wet dream.

          2. Julian Castro would be a plausible pick for Vice President. He looks too young to be number one.

          3. Guy doesn’t really seem to have much of a national profile.

            Plus…Castro? I don’t see the Cubans down in South Florida pulling the lever for anyone with that name, Hispanic or not.

      2. That is so not funny Rich!

        *begins checklist for going into exile*

        1. What?! You wouldn’t find it amusing to have a president who looks like a Muppet?

      3. that guy’s an alderman, state rep at most. this grand lie that he’s a Senator at the Federal level is getting old.

    2. She really has been fucking up a lot lately. Every time she tries to go off script, she sticks her cankle in her mouth.

      Seriously, the claim that they were broke and having trouble paying for their houses? WTF was she thinking?!?

      1. Indeed. It just shows what a bubble she’s in. And as for her “inevitability,” I just can’t see it. No accomplishments plus lots of scandals and lying. Is the electorate that stupid? Maybe. They elected Obama twice, but people are feeling burned by the first Affirmative Action president, and I doubt they’ll want another anytime soon.

        1. But you are applying reason and they operate on feelz.

          But I agree. They have ditched Clinton once so the precedent is there. Castro or Fauxahauntis is my bet for the right odds.

          1. “But you are applying reason and they operate on feelz.”

            I think that hits it on the head very succinctly.

    3. Yup. The GOP has this in the bag, as long as their candidate doesn’t talk about rape, abortion or god crap.

      So she’s pretty much a shoo in.

  3. “I’m Ready for Hillary”
    because
    “What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?”

    1. This

  4. She’s a completely null human being. Other than standing by her man (Tammy Wynette style), she offers no redeeming or remarkable qualities.

    1. Hillary is the Richard Nixon of the Democrat party.

      1. Why not Obama? Too incompetent to be evil?

        1. Think of Obama like the Mirror Universe version of Jimmy Carter.

          1. I always thought of him as a modern LBJ: expansive domestic policy that sounds good to progressives, inherited war, and zero foreign policy finesse.

            1. He’s just Woodrow Wilson 2.0

              1. minus the racism of course.

                1. 0 is plenty racist against Hispanics, Asians, and even other blacks.

                  1. But not TeaBaggers ?

      2. Nixon had his “enemies list” and Hillary has her “vast right wing conspiracy.” Yup, definitely some similarities.

        1. Follow the trail of bodies back to Arkansas.

    2. Redeeming isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when I think about a woman standing by her man after he got his dick sucked by a woman who was nearly their daughter’s age.

      1. Not to mention attacking the women involved. So much for feminist solidarity.

        And isn’t it remarkable that boss/employee sex was said to be sexual harassment, right up until Clinton got caught doing it?

    3. From empty suit to empty pantsuit.

  5. She really isn’t a good campaigner – losing her only real campaign to a freshman Senator in ’08.

    And, she has nothing to run on. Her record as SecState sucks and the world seems to be falling apart now. I can’t remember a thing she did as a Senator.

    1. She tried to ban violent video games.

      1. I thought that was Tipper? (Bad sign when you are confused with Tipper Gore)

        1. It was Tipper. Btw, ever notice how much Monica looked like Tipper Gore?

            1. My god, my eyes! My eyes!

      2. She wore a Yankees cap.

        1. To pretend to be a New Yorker.

    2. And, she has nothing to run on.

      I doubt she needs more than, “I’m a woman.”

      1. “I’m a woman.”

        Can she bring home the bacon? Fry it up in a pan? Never, ever let you forget that you’re a man?

        Now, stop shuddering and answer the question.

        1. I remember that commercial. What was it, some fragrance?

            1. Well, at least I named the fragrance.

        2. I’m betting there’s a whole lot of things she never lets Bill forget. 🙂

    3. What was Hillarycare, chopped liver?

      1. Romneycare Lite.

  6. She really isn’t a good campaigner – losing her only real campaign to a freshman Senator in ’08.

    And, she has nothing to run on. Her record as SecState sucks and the world seems to be falling apart now. I can’t remember a thing she did as a Senator.

    1. And I hear she is pro-squirrel.

      1. That should end her chances right there and then!

  7. A millionaire who goes broke because of out-of-control personal spending should be easy to slam on the campaign trail. But the GOP will fuck it up and go “soft” on her like they did with His Holiness, because they don’t want to be seen as “sexist”.

    1. I would like to see the GOP go with Ben Carson.

    2. I dunno, I don’t think the “war on women” narrative is going to work if Hillary runs. Lizzy Warren might get away with it, but I don’t think Hillary can. She destroyed the lives of way too many women back in the days of the “bimbo eruptions”.

      1. She won’t need to – her acolytes will do it for her.

      2. Don’t you worry. Her campaign with throw every possible dirty trick, every possible slur, every mendacious lie, that they can think of against the wall. It will be a filthy glory to behold.

        They will milk the Kulturkamf, the redistributionists and and the identity politics fuckstains as much as they can.

        1. They’re doing that now. No coincidence that the lull in AGW propaganda ended with an explosion. And the usual identity politics noise has increased.

          Anything but the economy, foreign policy, and the administration’s utter corruption and incompetence.

  8. She has such thin-skin it’ll take a full-blown media conspiracy to prop her up once she starts getting more and more hostile to scrutiny from both apostolic members of the press and other Democrats in the primary.

    If there’s one thing American voters hate, it’s pettiness. Hillary Clinton is the queen of petty sniping and slights.

    1. American voters only hate pettiness when white men do it.

    2. If there’s one thing American voters hate, it’s pettiness.

      I dunno. I sizable segment of the voting public seemed to love it in 2012.

      1. That’s because the media did everything in their power to make the Romneys seem worse. They let Seamus the dog play out for months. That’s how absurdly in the tank they were for Obama.

        Obama’s reelection changes would be DOA if he had to run this year.

        1. And they’ll be absurdly in the tank for Hilary.

    3. I expect her to sob on tv at least twice b/c of icky words. And then her supporters will talk of curtailing the 1A.

      1. #BanBossy.

    4. ^This.

      And people think they’re suppose to admire Hillary. The media pushes the narrative so aggressively. But once they get a close look at her over the course of a campaign? She’s incredibly boring. Have you ever listened to an interview or a speech she gave all the way through? No one has, not even Bill. Charisma is what wins elections. Every winner since t.v. was invented was the more charismatic candidate. Hillary has none, nada, zippo.

      1. You are assuming the GOP will runs someone with charisma.

        I’ll also note that George H.W. Bush has zero charisma.

        1. H.W. beat Dukakis – the only living person with less charisma. He lost re-election when he ran against someone with significantly more charisma – Clinton.

          But, yes. The GOP’s is a charisma challenged organization.

        2. True enough, but he had a resume a mile long. He’d done stuff. She has none of the above and wouldn’t be anything but a disbarred attorney if it weren’t for her far brighter, far more politically talented, and far better speaking husband.

          1. I’d bet on ol’ Bill doing 50%+ of the actual campaigning. Hell, I’d bet on him doing all the campaigning except the debates, and he would do those, too, if he could.

            1. “How ya’ll doing? Miss me yet?”

              1. I would like to. Would you and your family please exile yourselves? I hear Switzerland is nice.

    5. Yeah, how did she manage to get in a fight with an NPR reporter who gave her an exclusive interview?

      She has that “if I were your boss I’d make sure you suffered every day” vibe.

  9. “War on women” + historic “first” + inevitable crappy Repub candidate = Hillary coasts to victory in 2016

    1. What?! And not be able to spend quality time with the grandbaby?!

  10. A CNN poll in February found her leading New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 16 points.

    Gun to my head, I’d take Shillary over Christie.

    1. Equally vindictive assholes, but Christie seems better at it. So, I guess I agree.

      Barf.

    2. None of the above. The lesser of two evils is still evil. I won’t vote for either of them.

      1. I won’t vote for either of them.

        Yeah. If it’s Hillary vs. Clinton, I’m out.

        I’d definitely vote for Rand and possibly for someone like Scott Walker.

        1. Yikes, I meant Hillary vs. Christie

          There all the same, regardless.

        2. If my governor ran he’d get my vote. Not that he’d have a chance of winning. The guy is a bit too crass (honest) for national politics. But that’s part of his charm.

          1. My last political act before moving to New Hampshire was voting for LePage.

            I love that guy.

            1. He’s the only politician I can think of who I actually voted for, as opposed to voting against someone.

          2. If Marden’s is open, then Maine is open.

    3. For fuck’s sake, take the gun away from his head!

      1. If he can comment through a stroke, he can comment through a GSW to the head.

        1. Well, I only meant in the context doing something stupid, but Fist is kinky like that.

          1. I never use props. They’re the poor man’s Viagra.

            And I never use Viagra.

    4. Gun to my head, I’d say pull the trigger, I don’t want to live in either of those worlds. Neither Corpulent Jesus nor Uggo-Paris-Hilton has demonstrated anything remotely like fitness to be President, and either one’s elevation to that office would presage the end of the Republic, and possibly the world.

  11. A CNN poll in February found her leading New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 16 points.

    So, just like in my professional life, someone utters a bad idea that initially, I wave it off and say, “They’d never do that…” and then, slowly, over time, it keeps getting mentioned, maintains traction, and then the next thing you know, it’s happening.

    Chris Christie is just that bad idea. It’s like the GOP learned nothing from Romney.

    1. I would not be surprised to see Romney run again.

      1. I would.

        1. I’d be surprised if Romney, who actually seems like a decent person, would want to put himself and his family through the hell of the entire media slandering him with impunity for another 6 months. But good God, it’s still more than 2 years before the election, can we put this off until this time next year at least?

          1. He does seem like a genuinely good person. No wonder the left hates him so much.

          2. He might if he feels that it’s his duty to try to give the country one last chance to save itself. (Not that I think he’d be a savior, but I’m guessing how the choice could present itself in such a way that a decent person could be talked into running again.)

          3. Romney always came across to me as someone who would say what he thought needed to be said to get what he wanted.

            1. “Romney always came across to me as someone who would say what he thought needed to be said to get what he wanted.”

              And on the flipside, he often avoided saying what should have been said.

  12. I look forward to reading Tulpa and him telling us how important it is for libertarians to support Christie.

    Good times for 2016.

    1. Even in 2016, people here still won’t have forgiven him for the sockpuppet incident.

    2. The GOP deserves permanent minority status if they keep pushing Romney Christie.

  13. I think we’re over thinking this. Most Americans don’t vote based on principles, not even stupid principles like equality or I want more free shit. The election is for all intents and purposes a beauty contest. Hillary has no chance.

    1. I’m probably going to shoot my TV if I see another story on “the candidate people would most want to have a beer with.” If after all this time people can still think of Obama as “likable,” and more than half have a favorable opinion of Hillary then it almost doesn’t matter what positions the candidates take. As you say it’s a beauty contest and my candidate has electrolytes so that’s who I’m voting for.

  14. Since at least 2012, she’s maintained strong favorability numbers?coming in as high as 70 percent favorable

    If that’s not an indictment of how fucked in the head this country is, I don’t know what is.

    This only reinforces my desire to never vote again. Why bother?

    1. I kind of like the “man in the street” interviews where they ask Hillary supporters to name her achievements, and they are totally stumped. But by God, they’re gonna vote for her!

      1. Those who aren’t stumped name “Senator” and “Sec’y of State” as “achievements”.

    2. I vote because it’s somewhat entertaining to see the outcome be the inverse of my ballot.

  15. Aside from the fact that she is a dishonest and odious old termagant of a battle axe, with serious anger management issues, she seems incompetent when it comes to foreign affairs.

    1. So you’re saying she’s as qualified as 9 of the last 10 presidents.

    2. She’s got the withered harpy vote locked in.

  16. Hillary Clinton: Enemy of Freedom.

    1. It worked for Bush and Obama.

    2. I’d give that title to Warren. Clinton could be convinced to support a pro-freedom position with a large enough bribe or if it became politically expedient.

      Warren is against you have any autonomy outside the control of the state. From owning a gun to smoking marijuana to opening a damn credit card, everything needs to be either banned for your own good or heavily regulated.

  17. “Those sorts of poll numbers constitute an impressive display of political force.”

    Did you mean to say “force” or “farce”?

  18. Hillary is the Richard Nixon of the Democrat party.

    That’s not fair to Nixon.

    1. Nixon was indisputably brilliant, just plagued by character flaws. He also demonstrated genuine loyalty to his cronies which is why he tried to cover up Watergate instead of throwing his CREEP friends under the bus.

      1. Nixon was also pretty much ideology free. He wasn’t really conservative – he just did whatever the hell he thought might work. So while he was loyal to his cronies, he was a disaster to his party.

        I agree that Hillary isn’t much different.

    2. That’s not fair to Nixon

      Nixon was like a solid 6, maybe a 7. Hillary is an iffy 5.

      Get Nixon out of a hospital bed and prop him up under some heat lamps next to JFK, then the comparison starts to make sense.

  19. But while name recognition provides an early advantage, it’s not a platform or an agenda or an idea. Clinton has none of those things War on Women, free shit, Boooooooosh and playing the victim.

  20. I’m told she has two indisputable reasons to vote for her: a vagina and she wracked up a ton of frequent flier miles. Her supporters also tell me she’s “a women of strong integrity” but I’m not real sure that’s indisputable.

    1. Plus she was in Sarajevo when the bombs started flying.

  21. I recommend we embrace her .. specifically her estate tax avoidance. “I’m voting for Clinton because of her excellent estate planning .. saved a ton in taxes.”

    1. I’m hoping she gives out insider trading tips on her weekly fireside radio chats.

  22. I’ll vote for Gary Johnson (again), write in myself for the rest of them, and only pay real attention to the local and state ballot initiatives.

    1. Is Johnson going to run again? Or is the LP going to go back to the Republican-who-wants-an-ego-boost well? McCain might be feeling a little down.

      1. “McCain might be feeling a little down.”

        He has much to feel down about (with apologies)

      2. McCain is the reason Obama is in the White House. If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, the question of whether or not she wins the White House depends on how shitty the GOP nominee is.

        1. Exactly. If only he could have been a real maverick for once, and told his banker paymasters that he was running against the TARP bailouts.

  23. “Hillary Clinton Is Her Own Worst Enemy”

    How did she jump to the head of the list?

    I’d like to see the empirical evidence to back up that claim, Mr. Suderman.

    1. You know who else was largely technocratic?

      1. Gov. Christie is technocratic. Largely.

        1. enough with the fat jokes already.

  24. For decades the President has been worse than his predecessor. I shudder when I think what will happen in 2016. Are we finally going to be living in the movie, Idiocracy?

    1. How do you figure that “for decades the President has been worse than his predecessor”? How many decades? Who are you talking about. Please give examples. Was Truman worse than FDR. Please elaborate. Thanks. Have a nice day.

      1. I didn’t make the claim, but I can’t see this going back any further than 1989, as you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone not totally in the (D) tank that will claim Carter was better than Reagan.

      2. I should add that I don’t feel the same. I could make the claim that the last 4 Presidents were approximately equal in terms of shittiness. No doubt Hillary, if elected, would continue that streak.

      3. It’s my belief that George HW Bush was worse than Reagan (impeachably so). That goes to 1988, 26 years ago.

        And, I’m on the fence with Reagan. At the end of his 8 years, taxes sucked up by the Feds as well as Fed expenditures were greater than when he started. Carter? He legalized home brewing!

        1. Carter deregulated airlines and trucking, too. This was back in the days when even Ted Kennedy thought there was too much regulation! But Carter still sucked, much more than Reagan.

    2. More than likely, if this keeps going on the way it is. Hopefully, the whole thing comes to an end sooner than later.

  25. It’s still too early, but this woman could be our next President. I’ll be very surprised if you does not run, win or not.

  26. Typo alert. Meant I’ll be very surprised if SHE does not run.

    1. This my last post ever. I promise.

    2. Super double pinky swear.

      1. But he has the right to post here.

        Even if he gave his word he would never do it again, post after post after post.

  27. If Republicans weren’t hell-bent on ruining the country as fast as possible through sheer stupidity, they might actually get some traction with the strategy of promising 8 years of retching from their bigoted ids and annoying the fuck out of everyone. “Well I don’t know if I want to deal with that bullshit after Obama. I’ll vote Republican just to shut them the fuck up for a while.” Oh well, 10 more years, maybe a few of the fatter and louder ones will have coronary incidents.

    1. Hmmm….ran that through the Derpian to English translator…

      ARGLEBARGLEGARGLE! RACISMZ! DERPITY!

    2. Tony, I know you. I’ve met you. I mean, not specifically you, but I know you . You are a mendacious twat with no content to add to a conversation.

      You throw firebombs probably don’t get enough attention from the females in your area and you genuinely have pent-up frustration about it. I understand why you are like this. You want to be someone important but are simply outclassed by even the lowliest Reason commenter. I see it time and time again. Why? Surely you aren’t stupid. No, merely- you are driven by emotion. You lack true intellect, or truly independent thinking.

      1. but in your heart of hearts, you truly think you are better than everyone. Damn the world, they don’t see it.. but YOU DO! They’ll see, all of them, one day. I can hear you from here.

        I’ve known you my whole life, a weak, powerless, yelping puppy that is pinned on its back and whines out for a savior. You are the essence of beta-male TEAM BLUE. “they annoy me” is code for “I don’t understand their argument” or “I haven’t read HuffPo for a witty comeback yet”. Move on, kid. You parade in here like a self-appointed technocrat- but we all see you as a child who was given a trophy when none were deserved.

        1. I have never witnessed an actually physically fit, intelligent, decent person ever use the term “beta male.” Talk about being an easy read.

          Most of the civilized world is on my side. I don’t need you morons to do anything but keep on truckin’. I’m here for target practice, nothing more.

          1. you have now then.

            1. No, you don’t understand. Nobody who uses that term can possibly be intelligent and decent. It’s a logical impossibility. Start throwing it around in this nerdscape and you may be less popular than me.

              But truly, congratulations, you fuck more women than me.

              1. Thank you, it is a great thing.

                And yes, “alpha” and “beta” get thrown around on the internet, but you cannot possibly claim that there are not different personalities and certain traits that define them.

                1. I would never claim that. For example, anyone who uses terms like “alpha male” and “beta male” is automatically of the douchebag classification. My crowd tends to prefer a more mannerly way of crassly ranking people for their physical and social traits: letting them speak for themselves.

                  1. “automatically a douche”

                    thank you, mr. authority. Please tell me, a lowly peon, that I should feel guilty about not conforming to the way you think about human nature. I should feel bad about discerning masculinity in individuals, and personality traits that make us unique. Woe is me. Tony, the all-knowing, has the answers for me.

                    1. I am not especially masculine dude. I am gay. We are above you. We make culture. We win world wars while the masculine people go off and be tank fodder. I am not a part of your hierarchy, peasant.

                    2. 1) don’t care if you’re gay, so idk if that was supposed to be some revelation or what LOL

                      as for the rest of your comment, I chuckled softly as I sighed. “We are above you” – oh, Tony. You special boy.

                    3. It means that your groan-inducing fratboy bullshit is completely lost on me.

                    4. never been in a frat, sorry. And I’m not interested in what makes you groan. You have a superiority complex when there is no reason for one, and you wish for the whole world to look upon you as a rightly-guided savant. You are pure emotion, intentions-mean-everything-results-mean-nothing kind of person. Like I started with, I have known you my whole life.

                      Meaning, I’ve known excuse-making, petty, jealous little losers my whole life. Like crabs in a bucket- they try to drag down anyone who gets the motivation to climb out of the bucket and do more.

                    5. So I have a superiority complex and am a petty, jealous loser. But I’ve never been in a frat either, so that can’t be right.

                      I don’t think an advanced social democracy with a safety net impedes anyone’s ability to be entrepreneurial. I think it simply affords the opportunity to a whole lot more people. When you’re not focused on starving, you can focus on higher-order accomplishments. Being taxed to pay for such an advanced society has never, to anyone’s knowledge, impeded anyone’s ability or motivation to succeed.

                    6. Except those that it regulates out of existence and those it steals from to subsidize the Good Causes(tm).

                      Your socialism has done its level best to kill as many people as capitalism has lifted out of poverty. Socialism has been shown to be a failure every time it’s been tried. Or do you consider Venezuela a success?

                    7. Seriously Tony.

                      How old were you when your Father abandoned you and Your Mother ?

                    8. You win world wars? Really? Stalin was gay?

                      No, you know who was gay? The SS.

                      And they lost the war.

                    9. “we are above you”.

                      Unless you’re a bottom, in which case I don’t think you’re above us. Any of us.

                      And having read more than a few of your posts (why I don’t know) you’re definitely a bottom. In every sense.

          2. Most of the civilized world is on my side

            Might makes right, eh Tony?

            1. See what I mean with the cliches?

                1. I prefer to say I’m on the side of science.

                  1. It seems you prefer to speak in cliches.

                  2. umm…

                  3. I prefer to say I’m on the side of science I am told I am on.

                    FTFY

                  4. I prefer to say I’m on the side of science.

                    Except economic science. And anything to do with nuclear energy. Or GMOs. Or ethnic differences in IQ tests. But other than those things, you’re totally pro-science.

                    1. I understand current science on all of those things, probably better than you do, though I’m curious about the implications of “ethic differences in IQ tests.” What is the racist way to be a libertarian? Let inherently disadvantaged people simply continue to lose at capitalism forever? Then bitch about how lazy they are, perhaps?

          3. Actually, people like this are “on your side,”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

            Now that’s intellect.

          4. Tony said. “I’m here for target practice, nothing more.”

            Yes you are Tony. As the target. You have a desperate need to feel “Oppressed” rivaled only by your need for female attention.

            1. The less female attention I get the better. No offense to the one female here.

              1. anti-social? Gay? Either way, it doesn’t matter. You crave attention, recognition for being full of novel ideas. Hell, I’m willing to bet you are still in college. Please explain why I, an unassuming commenter, should take you seriously. What positions do you hold, other than the first searchable Salon headline about libertarians? Give me a genuine reason why I should consider your political viewpoints a) valid b) better than my own.

                You critique libertarians for being insular and “tiny intellectual minority”, but then go on to consider yourself a supreme intellectual. It’s called projection, Tony. And it’s hilarious.

                1. You don’t have to consider my viewpoints any way if they aren’t convincing. I never claimed to have a supreme intellect, and I certainly don’t claim they are unique. It’s run-of-the-mill modern liberalism that you can indeed find at Salon and various other places. I believe it to be defined by its rigorous insistence on evidence, which means that people who care about evidence are going to naturally coalesce around a common politics. If something I propose proves not to work (and really–not according to some self-serving counterfactual bullshit you guys love to dish up), then I have no problem discarding it. Can you say the same? You don’t have to–libertarianism is famously and largely unapologetically unempirical.

                  1. so all those who are smart enough to demand evidence will all think one way politically? LOL holy collectivism.

                    You sincerely believe that anyone who does not hold the same political beliefs as you is dumb or misguided. You hold no room in the world for genuinely different worldviews. Hilarious.

                    Hey Tony- empirical evidence is great, and sometimes applicable to the social sciences. Does that bother you? Does it bother you that I don’t “naturally coalesce” to your political brand? Or am I just a big dumb dumb? LOL

                    1. You’re probably quite a bit dumber than you think you are. But as a good liberal I don’t judge you for it, I consider you a victim.

                    2. LOL that’s all you got man? You can keep your victim culture.

                      Tony, how would you know that I’m “quite a bit dumber than you think you are”? Didn’t I, a lowly commenter, even state that I- even if I was Einstein- do not hold sufficient knowledge (and cannot, I argue) to run society and decide what is best for you? Is that not humility in the face of overwhelming Tony-esque arrogance?

                      Why do you consider yourself above all others, and in a position- via anon comments on the web- to discern between those who are “worthy” and those who are not? Are you an enlightened philosopher-king?

                    3. But you’re lying when you claim you just want to leave people alone. What if people want to get together by the millions and pool their resources to enact a welfare state? What if they overwhelmingly want to do that, perhaps because it’s what every decent place on earth has done? Does your laissez-faire dogma trump that, forever, no questions asked? Who’s being humble? In truth I want to meddle in the lives of actual human beings far, far less than you do. You’re just using a bunch of euphemisms for not taxing rich people’s incomes. I hate to be the first to break it to you, but that’s what your dogma is really all about. It’s kind of a giant scam.

                    4. just because your side lies and holds motivations below the surface, doesn’t mean that I do. That’s called projection, AGAIN.

                      I think if people wanted to forma safety net, I am all for it. But if others do not, they should hold no obligation to contribute- but expect no particpation in it, either. But that’s just me.

                      I am not rich, nor do I care about their incomes. That is their fruit of their labor, and they alone are in the place to decide what to do with it. Do you make more than 34k a year? If so, you are in the global 1 percent.

                      And what dogma do you speak of? I merely suggest that what’s yours is yours, and I support your free use of it to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t harm people. You have a large strawman built in your mind, it makes me think that you’ve never actually met anyone who doesn’t think like you.

                    5. You’re born into a society with existing public services. Many of them are impossible to simply opt out of. Just stop worrying and learn to love socialism. You’re a selective socialist anyway–as you admitted when you said you think society should prevent force. It doesn’t do that for free or simply by asking nicely.

                    6. But you’re lying when you claim you just want to leave people alone. What if people want to get together by the millions and pool their resources to enact a welfare state? What if they overwhelmingly want to do that, perhaps because it’s what every decent place on earth has done?

                      Nobody is stopping them so long as it is voluntary and they do not compel participation by force.

                      In truth I want to meddle in the lives of actual human beings far, far less than you do.

                      Fuck you you mendacious fuck. You are lying.

                    7. But you think I should be compelled to pay for police and courts, no? Or do I get to opt out of that little program and steal whatever I want? I didn’t sign any contract not to steal your shit!

                    8. Tony|6.17.14 @ 5:34PM|#
                      “But you think I should be compelled to pay for police and courts, no? Or do I get to opt out of that little program and steal whatever I want? I didn’t sign any contract not to steal your shit!”

                      Libertarian Philosophy 101
                      NAP- The Non-Aggression Principal
                      most eloquently summed up as “Don’t hurt people, and don’t take their stuff”

                      The fact that your concerned with how you can steal “legitimately” is a very open view of your life philosophy of Regressivism. The reason your ilk may no longer claim progressivism is that its been tried throughout our ENTIRE human history and failed 100% of the time, not one socialist or communist nation has ever seen prosperity because the ugly truth is that when you want equality you will never have equal wealth, only equal poverty and suffering, and no politician will allow themselves to suffer like commoners so they elevate themselves in palaces of government with hordes of shock troops to enforce their every whim.

                    9. I didn’t sign any NAP contract.

                    10. Hi Tony,

                      “What if people want to get together by the millions and pool their resources to enact a welfare state?”

                      You are describing what I believe to be a true democracy, where the majority rules, the minority is enslaved, and rights do not matter.

                      All your neighbors could take a vote on whether or not to take your house, and if your minority vote isn’t enough, you’ve lost your house – rights be damned. Imagine if there was a vote to legalize slavery, and 51% voted ‘yes’. This is why the will of the majority should never trump the rights of the minority.

                  2. Tony said. “You don’t have to consider my viewpoints any way if they aren’t convincing.” Well they are not convincing Tony. That settles it. =)

                  3. And yet you’re never able to show any of this supposed evidence. “Evidence” I do not think that word means what you think it means.

          5. Most of the civilized world is on my side.

            And most of the world, “civilized” and uncivilized, is a craphole for most of the people who live in it – and always has been.

      2. If you think I care about female attention, you really don’t know me.

        I just can’t help myself. I find it endlessly fascinating what this tiny collective of full-grown adults who still believe in libertarianism considers intelligent. If you find yourself in a tiny intellectual minority, why suppose that it’s because only you (mostly people who don’t know anything about the subjects you’re talking about except what libertarianism has to say about them) have discovered the truth? Isn’t that a bit cultish?

        1. I cannot speak for anyone else who believes in classical liberalism. I can speak for myself.

          While I am quite intelligent by all accounts, I don’t think that is why I am politically libertarian. There is no “special class” of people who are able to see the light because of their intellect. Simply, I lean this way because I don’t believe that you (or I for that matter)can possibly know enough to dictate to society how it should live. I could be Einstein and I would still be a fool if I claimed otherwise.

          You reject any challenge to the official narrative, from either side, and don’t think for yourself. What is right to you? Not what a MSNBC talking point says, not what your teacher taught you. Simply, I believe stealing from others is wrong (taxation, welfare state), assaulting people is wrong (interventionist policy, militarized police), I alone control my body (drug war, gay marriage, gun control), and that I don’t need permission from anyone to do things that do not harm anyone. THAT’S why I’m libertarian, not the narcissistic strawman you created.

          1. I don’t believe that . . . I . . . can possibly know enough to dictate to society how it should live.

            Except that you demand it to wholly alter itself to adopting a mostly untested radical version of laissez-faire policy that will significantly affect everyone’s lives (probably negatively). But nope, you’re not meddlesome at all.

            I don’t need permission from anyone to do things that do not harm anyone.

            Liberals don’t disagree with this. We just realize that there are forms of harm more subtle than the ones you guys are apparently capable of imagining. Not that polluting the earth or the predatory aspects of capitalism are particularly subtle.

            At least half of your characterization of your “laissez-faire” beliefs consists of what you want to restrict (taxation, redistribution, assault). Isn’t that odd?

            I think it’s a more free society in which people (who are naturally and immutably collective creatures) can choose to enact policy and distribute the resources of planet earth how they wish. Even if it means I don’t always get my way. But that’s not radical, and it’s not a radical interpretation of how human beings live. It’s what children learn in kindergarten.

            1. “probably negatively”

              Gonna need a citation.

              “collective creatures”

              coerced vs voluntary, that’s a pretty basic distinction.

              “we just realize there are more forms of harm that you guys can imagine”

              Who’s part of a high-and-mighty “intellectual elite” now? Hmm.

              All of your little arguments express to me that you are a loser in life. You are afraid you are getting a bad deal, that a smart wiley guy might screw you over. That someone will come along and be “predatory” to you, and your little house of cards might get upset. So you do not wish for all people to start on a level playing field. You want special privilege so that no one can out-do you or out-earn you. That is a wimp mentality, a dependent one, and an infinitely jealous one.

              1. Society cannot live on douchebaggery alone. Why do douchebags not get this? If you’re a strong, privileged, handsome specimen who can make his own way with no help from others, good for you, go forth and enjoy your laughably delusional state of mind, if it helps you get through.

                Since you’re doing such a bad job psychoanalyzing me across the internet, let the record show that I am a relatively privileged person with few complaints about my life, few complaints in the many beds I’ve graced, and have earned everything I own.

                What liberalism is about for a person like me is the realization that not everyone is so lucky, and that starvation is a bit harsh of a punishment for people being unlucky or even lazy–and especially harsh for their children. Do you feel the need to tell the mentally or physically handicapped that they’re such deltas? Why don’t they man up and stick their cock in something and stop whining? Or are you about to alter your simple formula for a winning society to deal with the reality of disabled people, because otherwise it would be incredibly, indefensibly douchey?

                1. ad hom? Douchebaggery? Who is proclaiming to be the douche-king? I must know.

                  I actually did a great job at “psychoanalyzing” you. Your relationship with women (in your case, your mother) is a root cause of your petty narcissism and need for aggrandizement.

                  I think you took my use of alpha and beta too seriously, so I will disregard your “handicapped are deltas”. I don’t think it works like that, nor did I ever claim it to be. I think in this world, yes, the blessed and “privileged” are free to aid in those who are less fortunate, and I encourage it. Personally, I believe it is the mark of a fully realized adult. But that’s neither here nor there. I just don’t get how you don’t understand voluntary, morals-based cooperation as opposed to top-down mandated “helping”.

                  1. So if a starving orphan can’t find someone willing to dole out charity, tough shit? All the less privileged will be wards of churches and otherwise whatever smattering of capable people are willing to take them in? There’s a reason you think there is utility in pooling resources to have courts and police to protect your property. Because pooling resources is useful in general.

                    At the risk of Brian annoying me about cliches, some of us simply think that pooling resources and collectively acting can and should be used to provide for the basic needs of the poor, and not just to protect the luxuries of the rich. Some of us think that this “minarchism” is fundamentally morally flawed for this utterly plutocratic hypocrisy.

                    If you reject that, then you must favor anarchy, in which case you’re simply nuts.

                    1. Tony:

                      At the risk of Brian annoying me about cliches, some of us simply think that pooling resources and collectively acting can and should be used to provide for the basic needs of the poor, and not just to protect the luxuries of the rich.

                      Don’t worry: there’s a completely different standard when you use cliches. Those are awesome.

                    2. Tony:

                      pooling resources and collectively acting can and should be used to provide for the basic needs of the poor, and not just to protect the luxuries of the rich.

                      Tony likes pretending he lives in a fantasy world where this is what the government does.

                      And, if it doesn’t, it’s only because more people don’t think like Tony and believe harder!

                    3. Too bad progressives like you Tony pushed out Mutual Aid Societies because they were afraid of immigrants.

                      http://www.heritage.org/resear…..fare-state

                    4. * Progressives afraid of immigrants.

                    5. Hi Tony,

                      “So if a starving orphan can’t find someone willing to dole out charity, tough shit?”

                      Yes. No one here wants a child to suffer. I’d just not be willing to force someone else to pay for his situation at the point of a gun.

            2. Tony:

              It’s what children learn in kindergarten.

              In kindergarten, children learn not to hit. They learn not to take things from other children.

              I don’t always get my way.

              In what way is “I don’t always get my way” not a cliche? How does that cliche not apply literally to everyone who has an opinion, regardless of what that is? How does the cliche “I don’t always get my way” somehow apply to libertarians in a way it doesn’t apply to Tony?

              Somehow, when Tony has a complaint with the system, “I don’t always get my way” isn’t the first thing on his lips.

              1. Did they not teach sharing in your kindergarten? Or that the Ayn Rand spouting weirdo in the corner doesn’t get to dictate everything that goes on in class?

                1. I think it’s weird that Tony, who thinks the world can’t be dealt with using simple rules, refers everyone to kindergarten for the foundation of his philosophy.

                  1. You do realize there’s not a prayer he, or any other liberals, are actually considering, for a moment anything you or the others have to say?

                    In a nutshell, you’re trying to reason with someone who is fundamentally unreasonable. He can’t see or admit it because if he did, that would be an act of reasonableness.

                    It’s a basic problem with liberals in general. All arguments bounce off them unconsidered. Little energizer bunnies of bullshit like him are essentially trolls, not worthy people who have a different take that merits consideration.

                2. Funny thing about Ayn Rand – she, like many progressives, disliked libertarians and she, like many progressives, claimed to hate crony capitalism. And like most progressives, she was scared to death that somewhere, somehow, somebody was a free rider – not paying their fair share into the grand collective.

                  It seems to me that progressives share many more similarities with Ayn Rand and her cult of Objectivists than they know, especially their irrational dislike of libertarians and the outright hatred of anarchists.

                  1. Funny things about modern libertarians, they all sound like bastardized Objectivists, and very much not like any of the libertarian forefathers.

                3. Tony|6.17.14 @ 5:41PM|#
                  …”Or that the Ayn Rand spouting weirdo in the corner doesn’t get to dictate everything that goes on in class?”

                  You mean the guy who asked to be left alone and not bothered by assholes like you?

                  1. He means the kid whose lunch money he wants to steal and divvy up among the other kids just because it’s more than what they have.

                  2. Exactly I think we summed up who the Libertarians are.
                    The people who want to be left the fuck alone to enjoy their lives how they see fit without causing harm unto others, but understand that pure anarchism would lead to warlords currently so a more metered lessening of government is necessary to achieve what we all want which is to be left the hell alone.

        2. Tony:

          If you find yourself in a tiny intellectual minority, why suppose that it’s because only you (mostly people who don’t know anything about the subjects you’re talking about except what libertarianism has to say about them) have discovered the truth? Isn’t that a bit cultish?

          When you look at the demographics of atheism, you’re in a tiny intellectual minority.

          Would it bother you if someone referred to your atheism as “cultish”? Especially someone who believed in god?

          We feel pretty much the same way when you ad hominem us.

        3. “I just can’t help myself.” Yes you can Tony !!! Yes you can.

        4. If you find yourself in a tiny intellectual minority, why suppose that it’s because only you… have discovered the truth?

          Because most people are morons and reflexive followers? Because my intellectual powers have proven superior in several other fields? Because it’s an obvious concept that stealing from other people isn’t a sound basis for a moral society?

        5. “I just can’t help myself. I find it endlessly fascinating what this tiny collective of full-grown adults who still believe in libertarianism considers intelligent. If you find yourself in a tiny intellectual minority, why suppose that it’s because only you (mostly people who don’t know anything about the subjects you’re talking about except what libertarianism has to say about them) have discovered the truth? Isn’t that a bit cultish?”

          I discovered the truth in my own mind, I questioned why the hell I need any human to tell me how I should live because it made me miserable, I questioned who would be virtuous enough to accept as leader and i came up with no human, only God could be so perfect so I chose to live as he would have me to work hard take personal responsibility and respect the rights of my fellow animals, and to follow laws of nature because they are morally correct not because some failable human on a man made throne dictated morality to me.
          Libertarianism is the closest thing to being left the FUCK ALONE by the government and has the most economically sound model to do so, I do not want to be part of your “grand society” and I wish it to leave me the fuck alone, if your “grand society” were to leave us an agriculturally fit landmass for our own country we would stay the hell out of your ridiculous crap philosophy and let you live in your failing communist hell hole you so desperately want

          1. Yet I suspect you use precisely no fewer government services and facilities than I do, and you would miss any if they went away.

            You’re expressing the frustration of a petulant teenager and calling it a political philosophy. What you need is some free “agriculturally fit” land? Is that all? Any other things you want for free?

            1. Hi Tony,

              “Yet I suspect you use precisely no fewer government services and facilities than I do, and you would miss any if they went away.”

              I don’t have a problem with this scenario. I disagree with the idea of unions. If I were in one, I’m sure I’d like the (most likely) higher pay, better benefits, lesser amount of accountability. If something benefits me, it doesn’t make it right. If I’m against welfare, I’ll still choose to collect it because it exists. It’s only hypocritical if I’m against it but still vote for it. The chick that won the $1 mil lotto and still collected welfare; good for her. I’m not mad at her, I’m mad at the system.

              I’d imagine that the slave-owners were happy with making tons of money from their workers. That owning slaves benefited them didn’t make it right, because it violated human rights. Just like forced altruism, but on a lesser scale.

              1. True, you can play by the rules but still want the rules changed.

      3. *golf clap*

    3. Tony|6.17.14 @ 3:45PM|#

      blah blah blah

      Tony, how old were you when your father abandoned you and your Mother ?

  28. Her own worst enemy? And, probably everyone else’s as well.

  29. Whitewater, cattle futures, Chinagate (which involed direct contributions from the Chinese Government to the Democratic National Committee and the Clintons), Lippo Group, Travelgate, Filegate; the Clintons are by far the most corrupt people to have ever occupied the White House. Bill “my humidor wears a blue dress” Clinton lied under oath at least once. Hillary lies every time she opens her mouth.

  30. And here he is the Republican nominee for President and the next President of the USA!! (Loud cheers from 1000s of drunken delegates).

    Interviewer:

    What is your position sir on abortion following rape?

    Republican Nominee:

    “You mean like rape, rape? Or, what they call rape now?”

    (In the background and all across the nation 10s of millions of reasonable conservatives do a face palm.)

    Hillary, Warren, Booker, Pelosi, whomever wins…I hate to say it.

    Paul Ryan wins in 2020 for pretending to be a fiscal conservative, because by then the debt wall will have been run into.

    1. You just made me vomit in my own mouth…. begone fortune teller

  31. What a web Obama and Hillary weave, as they lead to deceive us. For Obama, it’s led to scandal after scandal, as Obama takes actions to get the latest scandal off the headlines, creating another scandal.

    For Hillary, it’s reduced her to saying nothing, less she contradict the facts again. Like landing under fire in Bosnia. How she turned $1000 into $100,000 with cattle future trades. How is it they now have a net worth of over $100 million? That’s over 500 speeches at $200,000 each (good pay for year, but for the Clintons that’s less than an hours work, not including travel time) but one wonders where she found the time given she was Sec. of State.

  32. Hillary has more baggage than: (insert witty comment here)

    1. Hillary has more baggage: than her husband screws.

    1. Presumably she is opposed to the overturning of Prop 8 then. Democratic majority and all that.

    2. “To stop this we have sent out our SS to go door to door to purge the minorities from our society”

      for some reason I bet she thinks the Holodomor was a good thing

    3. repeating myself from earlier but…

      The will of the majority should never trump the rights of the minority.

  33. It’s her God-given RIGHT to be President. She DESERVES to be President. She should not have to put up with all these stupid questions. In fact, there is no good reason to even bother with an election!!

    1. LMFAO

  34. I think hillary look like nixon

  35. I can’t begin to describe how much I want to see Rand Paul shred this harpy in a debate. The only thing I’d like more would be watching Andrew Napolitano do it.

    -jcr

    1. I’d pay to watch that shit.

      1. Is the Judge even running?

  36. Vote for Christie or Hillary? I would prefer dying of alcoholic poisoning than voting for cyanide or arsenic.

  37. I don’t know why libertarians talk about Hillary like she is some force to be rekun with. She is just a boring ass Generation Xer mother with no real ideology of her own, or guiding principle, other than spend other peoples’ money to create some utopian society (or more like give people free shit so she can get reelected).

  38. Hillary is here to put the dick in Dixie and the cunt back in country. Eeehaw arkansawwww

  39. But she is a force to be reckoned with. She’s a well connected neocon as well as first woman running for president from a major party, who’s had a couple of high level government jobs with a well financed political machine behind her. The typical American voter, especially the sort likely to vote for her, neither knows nor cares how crappy her performance has been.

    She’ll win too unless the GOP runs a worthy candidate.

    1. Never underestimate the ability of team red to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory…
      If they do not side with the Libertarians they have lost, there’s no fucking hope with the shrinking SoCon minority and there’s really no hope in playing Demoncrat lite to try an pander to the opposite parties philosophy. but both are the GOP strategy and both things make them completely unelectable to any sane person who wants a choice so they stay home or they vote for libertarians and then the libertarians are going to get blasted for not selling out freedom to jump on the team red bandwagon

  40. She’ll win. We might as well face it.

    Which magical candidate is going to beat her?

  41. Hello! I just want to offer you a huge thumbs up for the excellent info you have right here on this post. I’ll be returning to your blog for more soon.
    Cheers,
    http://www.elbassma.net/

    http://www.prokr.com/furniture…..ny-riyadh/

  42. Noor Dammam company of distinctive companies and leading Altnatif She works hard to please their customers and improve their confidence by
    It uses the finest detergents and global best types of machinery and equipment and the best workers trained at the highest level of levels
    http://dammam12.com/
    Provides cleaning process in Saudi Arabia in Dammam and other neighboring cities are really wonderful company and working to meet customer requests
    It also provides detection of leaks of water process
    And to learn about our company we’ll show you some links

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.