a hunnerd empty mail servers....

.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...st_is_dead.jpg

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead ....

getting closer
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/hillary-c...144310936.html

LOL!!!:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

again, i admitted that i shot from the hip with my recollection of the historical fact and i cleared it up when it was brought to my attention. the most important thing was history is against hillary and that was my point. the details were a recollection of something i previously learned.

what's obvious is your butthurt lingers because on one hand you're whining i can't admit an error and ger hurt and angry, yet when i do admit an error, you say i admitted it too quickly.

fyi, that's 3rd grade level playground logic

why don't or can't you realize i made a prediction, have the nutsack enough to substantiate it with a confidently worded thread topic and then gofuckyourself? you're making yourself look like you think gfy is your real world. :1orglaugh

another reason i can add to my confident prediction hillary is a non-contender in 2016-

she lost to BO.

and a lot of that was due to enthusiastic black voters voting for BO, even so, Romney garnered a shit ton of the popular vote.

Hey, while we're adding to the stack of predictions:

"So rand is out of the 2016 President race"

rand paul is out of the race. throwing your hat in the ring doesn't = being in the race. it only means you threw your hat in a ring.

experts know this.

so why do you have a picture of Marilyn Monroe in your avatar? jk! I know it is a picture of Bilbo Baggins senior

oh, look who got my point, Bill Clinton. While I may have incorrectly recollected the specifics, my point is more than valid.





"It's hard for any party to hang on to the White House for 12 years, and it's a long road," Bill Clinton said in an interview with Town & Country magazine. "A thousand things could happen."

Since 1948 — the year Harry Truman won a fifth straight election for the Democrats, following Franklin D. Roosevelt's four wins — a political party has won three straight elections only once.

It happened in 1988, the year the Republican nominee, Vice President George H.W. Bush, won the right to replace Ronald Reagan.

Otherwise, a string of candidates have found it impossible to do what Clinton may try to do — succeed a president from the political party that has held the White House for eight years.

Republican nominee Richard Nixon couldn't do it in 1960, after President Dwight Eisenhower's two terms. Democratic nominee (and Vice President) Hubert Humphrey couldn't do it in 1968, after eight years of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

In 2000, Democratic Vice President Al Gore lost his bid to succeed Bill Clinton after two terms. In 2008, Republican John McCain lost a presidential election after eight years of George W. Bush.

The main reason: Eight years is a long time to build up a presidential record, one that to be defended by fellow party members.

The longer the presidency, "the more there is for opponents to criticize," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Princeton University. "The more there is for voters to be unhappy about."

Voters seemed more willing to stick with incumbent parties back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Starting in 1896, three Republicans — William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft — won four straight presidential elections. Democrat Woodrow Wilson ended that string of GOP dominance by winning the election of 1912, a race that included both Taft and the by-then independent Roosevelt.

Americans went back with the Republicans after eight years of Wilson. The Roaring Twenties saw three more consecutive GOP wins: Warren Harding in 1920, Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928.


Hillary Clinton's test: A third straight Democratic term

Stop fooling yourself. Hillary will win.

History is against Hilary, but things have changed a lot in the last 30+ years. I don't ever remember our country as divided along political lines as it is now (at least in my lifetime). I think the next election will likely be close and it will be similar to the last four elections. It will come down to who can win the majority of the 8-10 battleground states.

To me the winner of those battleground states will be the person who can get their base to turn out for them, connect with the young voters in those states and appeal to minorities. Republicans struggle with young voters and minorities, but their base hates Obama and they hate the Clintons so they will likely turn out. Will that be enough? I'm not sure.

One thing is for sure. Hillary is clearly not as strong as she was just 3-4 months ago. I still don't see a democrat out there who can take her down (but then again nobody saw Obama coming). The biggest question is who the republicans will end up nominating. They too don't have anyone on the horizon that doesn't come with a lot of baggage.

I agree. The hardline Democrats and the hardline Republicans are as psycho polarized as I think I've ever seen.

Yet the parties are nearly identical in actual policy -- war, torture, health insurance industry corporate welfare, etc.

He defeated her in a grueling Democratic nomination battle. Then she pursued his agenda across the world as secretary of state. Now, the delicate relationship between Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama is about to get even more complicated.

..nearly six in 10 Americans said they wanted someone who would change most of Mr. Obama?s policies, according to a CNN poll released last month.

Mrs. Clinton will also be trying to defy political history: Only once since the establishment of the two-term limit in 1951 has a candidate won an election to succeed a president from the same party ? and it was the first President George Bush, whose predecessor, Ronald Reagan, remained popular at the time and was beloved by Republicans.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us...bama.html?_r=0

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

told ya hillary was out of the race- before trump even entered.

Do you think it's strange that after you started posting again, Matt-adx and boozer both also showed out of the blue again.. Neither had posted in quite some time.. It's also strange we picked up a new 2017 nick that can't stay out of the politics posts xJim something or another.. all of course are very much pro Trump Hillary haters..

Yet again this morning Trump mentioned Hillary and her missing emails.

Hillary won.

You are obsessed with me. What's your address I will send you a signed picture buddy. Go look at my post history you Mong I have been posting nearly daily for well over 8 months and been quite active for the last 3 years.

You need a break

you're still just as wrong about everything as you were when i used to hang out here pointing out how wrong you are about everything.

You could not find a single post of mine that is pro-trump and that's because there isn't any.

in fact, every trump post i've made is very much anti-trump. I don't expect you to embrace that fact though.

#shitinabag

So you don't think it's odd that Matt-ADX hasnt posted here since he accidentally outted himself as a fake nick Now He's back a day after you started posting again... Boozer being one of the many who rotates in and out like Matt26z or JoushaG..

Now we have a new one xJim somethig or a other.. all with the same narrow world view..

which makes my point even more valid. she was a flawed candidate, as i stated even before trump entered the race. she didn't win enough to even beat trump based on how presidential campaigns are run.

How did I out myself you liar, you just making up nonsense.