Sierra Oscar wrote: » https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1020333776679964672 You have to wonder what other conversations he recorded.
rossie1977 wrote: » Clinton won't run again As for who will I suspect Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker. I expect it to be between the former trio not the latter. If it's Biden the televised debates between him and Trump would be some of the greatest tv ever broadcast.
Leroy42 wrote: » He recorded everything would be my bet.
seamus wrote: » If the Democrats had any sense they'd do an Obama on it and pick someone with enough governance experience to talk the talk, but without a high-profile legacy that can be picked over and rubbished. US politics is now a "last man standing" battle where candidates have mud slung at them continuously until one person remains. So you need a candidate who brings with them very little mud, or one who is so caked in mud from the outset that it doesn't matter anymore (like Trump). Clinton & Biden are awful candidates, there are warehouses full of mud waiting for them. Sanders is too polarising. Even Warren stinks of "commies".
Water John wrote: » Mitch Landrieu, says he won't run, but that is not absolute. Would be a good candidate. The name you were looking for. A good few out there who have good form
badtoro wrote: » Taytoland wrote: » The CIA, NSA etc, are full of liars and deceivers. To this day I am still waiting for those WMD's to turn up but somehow I doubt very much it is going to happen. It amazes me that anyone believes anything they say. And they have also for years interfered in other countries elections, tried to overthrow other countries regimes. They haven't got a leg to stand on. So when people say Russia interfered in the US election, my response is great, well done to them. On the WMD issue, I had the misfortune to listen to a Trump supporter during the week talk about this. I don't see it as this black & white thing that the intelligence services lied. There is a blend of inputs from raw data to human intelligence to analysis to political bias. I believe that the then president George W Bush wanted revenge on Saddam for his plan to assassinate President George George HW Bush. If one takes that view then it can be said that political,or personal, bias leaned heavily towards a particular view that Saddam needed to be got rid of and how can information be cherry picked to build a narrative to war. They would have been better off coming out and saying Saddam is a colossal bag of **** the world would be better off without, not sure too many would have disagreed. As to political interference in other nations affairs, there's no denying of that. However, this is where one must chose sides in the real world. To my mind, as dysfunctional as the USA has recently become it is still preferable to Authoritarian and aggressive Russia or Communist expansionist China.
Taytoland wrote: » The CIA, NSA etc, are full of liars and deceivers. To this day I am still waiting for those WMD's to turn up but somehow I doubt very much it is going to happen. It amazes me that anyone believes anything they say. And they have also for years interfered in other countries elections, tried to overthrow other countries regimes. They haven't got a leg to stand on. So when people say Russia interfered in the US election, my response is great, well done to them.
Taytoland wrote: » You had Colin Powell in the senate holding up a piece "evidence" lying through his arse in order to make a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. I am saying they absolutely lied. They knew rightly WMD wasn't in Iraq.
Sal Butamol wrote: » Democrat candidate list is shocking...is that it? Warren Vs Trump would be hilarious too Biden and Sanders too old. I bet Hilary will try again.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » No, that's not how you treat someone and that is not discussion. She shoulf be ashamed of herself, as should anyone that feels that's an okay thing to do to a guest that has been invited onto a show and if Fox did the same to a liberal I'd say the same.
Sonics2k wrote: » Taytoland wrote: » You had Colin Powell in the senate holding up a piece "evidence" lying through his arse in order to make a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. I am saying they absolutely lied. They knew rightly WMD wasn't in Iraq. So wait, you accept and acknowledge that Bush's administration was involved in lies and a conspiracy, set up by themselves. But, at the idea of Trump bring involved in one, then it's fake? Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.
rossie1977 wrote: » As a hardcore Trump supporter I suspect you would find any Democratic candidate list 'shocking'. Again why is Biden 75 and Sanders 76 too old when Trump is 72. Clearly Biden is in much better physical shape than Trump for one. As for Warren she enjoys a much better approval rating than Trump so it would be a much closer contest than you might think..i suspect Trump knows that too hence why he keeps attacking her.
BabyCheeses wrote: » But saying someone who dislikes Trump is insane is ok.
You should at least try not to be a hypocrite when pretending to be impartial.
listermint wrote: » This is amusing. Sure they didn't need the UN two weeks ago . All their rethoric. The US is a laughing stock
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Where did I say it was 'ok'? Whoopie's a grown woman, she throws around insults of her own a plenty. Hence the comment indeed. Throwing someone off a show for that is ridiculous. Especially given that she was invited on to discuss a book where she talks about how liberals are deranged when it comes to Trump. It'd be like inviting a Global Warming denier on to discuss their book and then kicking them off when they start denying climate change. Oh, so I'm lying when I say if a liberal was booted off a Fox show I'd be just as critical. Tell me, are you capable of discourse with those you disagree with without personal attacks? Certainly doesn't appear so. What's amusing exactly? The Trump administration has got us closer than ever to North Korea denuclearizing. How the hell could they be a laughing stock? Here's the full presser. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQDR2RUONG0
Sal Butamol wrote: » Hilary to run again? Who's the alternative?
badtoro wrote: » If the Dems allow "that woman" run again, they truly deserve everything bad coming to them. She was a terrible candidate. Reminded me of the scene in Master & Commander "One must always chose the lesser of two weevils doctor!" That's all she had going for her and messed it up. Who else?....... Oprah. Trump won't be beaten by a politician imo.
StringerBell wrote: » Too far out to be thinking of you realistic candidates now.
irishash wrote: » In most other political norms I would agree, but this is America and you seem to have to declare your interest almost as soon as one election cycle is over. Obama was been talked about just after the democratic national convention in 2004. I have no idea who is going to run in 2020. Anybody who goes up against Trump will be 100 times more qualified than him for the office but yet the election will not come down to that or their ability to do the job. I would like to see Warren go for it, but I think she values her seat in the senate as a place she can do her best work. For my money, if the Democrats do not win 2020, and as long as he can keep his nose clean, my pick for 2024 would be Joe Kennedy III.
