HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Does Hillary have the tem...

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:15 PM

Does Hillary have the temperament to be President?





90 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
13 (14%)
No
77 (86%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

68 replies, 3137 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Does Hillary have the temperament to be President? (Original post)
Autumn Apr 2016 OP
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #1
merrily Apr 2016 #10
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #11
libtodeath Apr 2016 #2
Electric Monk Apr 2016 #3
NewImproved Deal Apr 2016 #4
nichomachus Apr 2016 #5
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #6
zappaman Apr 2016 #7
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #9
Armstead Apr 2016 #30
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #45
Armstead Apr 2016 #51
Beacool Apr 2016 #43
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #46
nichomachus Apr 2016 #52
Beacool Apr 2016 #58
Armstead Apr 2016 #54
giftedgirl77 Apr 2016 #55
treestar Apr 2016 #67
edgineered Apr 2016 #8
livetohike Apr 2016 #12
Duval Apr 2016 #38
restorefreedom Apr 2016 #13
Avalux Apr 2016 #14
Autumn Apr 2016 #16
Cheese Sandwich Apr 2016 #15
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #17
baldguy Apr 2016 #18
oldandhappy Apr 2016 #20
baldguy Apr 2016 #26
bjo59 Apr 2016 #29
pacalo Apr 2016 #36
oldandhappy Apr 2016 #19
Retrograde Apr 2016 #21
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #25
creon Apr 2016 #22
JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2016 #23
Octafish Apr 2016 #24
Fumesucker Apr 2016 #27
Octafish Apr 2016 #28
Duval Apr 2016 #39
Logical Apr 2016 #37
Octafish Apr 2016 #48
Logical Apr 2016 #49
Octafish Apr 2016 #50
Logical Apr 2016 #57
Octafish Apr 2016 #62
Logical Apr 2016 #65
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2016 #31
TomCADem Apr 2016 #32
gollygee Apr 2016 #33
pacalo Apr 2016 #34
PyaarRevolution Apr 2016 #35
Duval Apr 2016 #41
Beacool Apr 2016 #40
SharonClark Apr 2016 #42
Dem2 Apr 2016 #44
JoePhilly Apr 2016 #47
tularetom Apr 2016 #53
sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #56
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #59
Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #60
TomCADem Apr 2016 #61
Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #66
Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2016 #63
PufPuf23 Apr 2016 #64
bigwillq Apr 2016 #68

Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:16 PM

1. That was strange

 

I put NO and it put a YES AND a NO in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:37 PM

10. For me, it made the yes bar longer, but did not change the number of yeses. Also strange!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:37 PM

11. You only registered as a NO

You can look at the list of who voted for each choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:16 PM

2. No,her sense of entitlement is horrifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:18 PM

3. I don't know if any of the current canditates do, frankly. On either side. Kinda scary.

 

Bernie seems the least bad on that aspect...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:20 PM

4. No. Too shrill, too smug, too petulant.

 

As Former First Ladies go, even Imelda Marcos and Isabel Peron were better matches for their people...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:21 PM

5. Hillary's temperament

Is pretty much My Way or the Highway. She can go from Zero to Nasty in about 10 seconds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:21 PM

6. Cause Bernie is Mister Happy Sunshine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:22 PM

7. Lol!

Today is silly OP day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:25 PM

9. No kidding.

It's safer under any bridge right now than it has been in years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:13 PM

30. He's Mr. Brusque But Straightforward

 

I prefer that to Tracy Flick



And to avoid being called sexist, I also prefer it to Slick Willie smooth con arrtist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:59 PM

45. Bernie speaks in such gentle, dulcet tones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:05 PM

51. No he doesn't

 

I'd refer to the otehr candidate's vocal qualities, but I imagine that would be considered sexist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:18 PM

43. They really have some nerve, don't they?

They support a cranky guy who spends his time scolding and wagging his finger at anyone who doesn't pass his purity test and they got the gumption to question if a former SOS has the temperament to be president? Do they even realize what it takes to put up with the crap that SOS put up with and still keep one's aplomb?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 07:01 PM

46. They spin the wheel of outrage and then go where it points them ...

... no matter how ridiculous.

In all honesty, I have met Evangelical Fire and Brimstone Baptist ministers who are less preachy and self-righteous than most of these folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:15 PM

52. A former failed SOS

She was a bungler and a total disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #52)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:47 PM

58. Yeah, right........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:16 PM

54. Finger wagging?

 







?itok=YAQnqMG4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:17 PM

55. +1000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:23 AM

67. I was just going to say

that question should not be asked by a Bernie supporter. They only bring up the obvious fact Bernie does not have the temperament.

We've been spoiled by Obama, whose temperament was perfect for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:25 PM

8. Temperment, as displayed by

Kathy Bates in the film "Misery", upon finding her penquin facing the wrong direction; clearly Clinton sees people as either a friend or a foe. Any difference in opinion with her does not place one in the friend category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:48 PM

12. 1 million times better temperament than that whiny,

ALWAYS angry, complaining, blaming, vindictive Sanders. He doesn't even have one friend he could name among his colleagues. He'll be throwing temper tantrums every time things don't go his way.

His temperament is the main reason I do not support him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to livetohike (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:08 PM

38. LOL!

 

Hilarious response!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:50 PM

13. if there was a "hell no" option i would have picked it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:54 PM

14. I'm more worried about her carelessness.

According to Obama, she didn't intentionally do anything to jeopardize the country, but she was careless with her emails, and has owned that carelessness.

I don't think being careless is a trait worthy of being president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Avalux (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:00 PM

16. Yeah, when Obama says someone is careless you can take it to the bank that person is careless.

We can't afford careless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:59 PM

15. No she's paranoid and power mad. Been in the bubble too long.

 

Bill Clinton showed it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:02 PM

17. bad question--better: "... temperament to be a GOOD president?"

Obviously, she has the temperament to be president.

The real issue is whether she would make a good president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:05 PM

18. Does Bernie?

 

Bernie Sanders Walked Out of an On-Camera Interview Over a Question About His Wife

http://gawker.com/bernie-sanders-walks-out-of-on-camera-interview-after-q-1765769530

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:50 PM

20. He spoke his truth

He will be wonderful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldandhappy (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:40 PM

26. He obfuscated & didn't answer the question.

 

He would be a disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:07 PM

29. Wow. Time to bring up that easily debunked claim again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:50 PM

36. I have to laugh at the contrast here ...

between the media's ho-hum attitude toward Sheriff Arpaio's Tent City & Bernie & Jane Sanders' concern about the humanity of the make-shift facilities that are meant to be permanent by a sadistic-minded sheriff.

The point is, Jane Sanders was doing what the media should be doing to make this country better & worthy of being admired.

Pink underwear for men doesn't cut it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:50 PM

19. The cameras are always on and that will keep her OK

I know the recent video incident has reminded her to keep the lid on. She is temperamental in private. I would not want to have to live with her or work for her. She knows how to be president. I think actually being in the position and on the job will be a shock for any of the current candidates. White hair coming up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:58 PM

21. "He's forceful, she's shrill"

"He's firm, she's unyielding". If you look beyond their respective sexes, neither of them appear to behave any worse than previous presidents who liked to get their ways - Johnson and Nixon come to mind. And if Johnson didn't go around bullying senators the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s wouldn't have passed. Then again, there was the part about getting the US entrenched in Vietnam...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:12 PM

25. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:06 PM

22. The question is fatuous

It begs the answer of "no".

Asking the same question about Sanders is equally fatuous.
If that question were asked, it, too, would beg the answer of "no".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:09 PM

23. Temperament? No worse than LBJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:10 PM

24. Sec. Clinton has the temperament. She also has the brains.

DU: If she is our nominee, we are in like Flynn come November.

Best of all, the country will continue to move forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:44 PM

27. The brilliant mind that was fooled by Dubya

It's really too bad Hillary had never heard of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, she might have been less naive and more prudent if she had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:06 PM

28. That is a good point.

Thank you for reminding me. I knew there was something about her critical faculties that bugged me.

ETA: Thus, one's "judgement" would be part of those.

ETA2: Where does "integrity" fit in? The mind or the nature?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:11 PM

39. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:54 PM

37. LOL, says conspiracy guy. OK. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 07:11 PM

48. Do you think I'm sandbagging Sec. Clinton?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 07:30 PM

49. "The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes" says it all! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:02 PM

50. The person who wrote that, Vincent J. Salandria is a man of integrity.

Instead of using the assassination of President Kennedy as a means of belittling me, you should learn more.



Letter to Vincent J. Salandria

April 5, 1995

by E. Martin Schotz

EXCERPT...

Look at Kennedy’s American University speech in which he tried to indicate to the American people the direction our nation needed to go in securing world peace.[31] Interestingly he could not bring himself to tell the American people about the dangerous conflict that had erupted in Washington over the direction he was taking, even though at the time his brother, the Attorney General, was sending messages to Khrushchev to cool it, because they were worried about the possibility of assassination.[32]

This American University speech is so important. As I go back and reread it, I realize how advanced Kennedy’s position was at that time, much more advanced than anything we have coming from our government today. In that speech there is an understanding very close to the position George Kennan articulates in the later essays in The Nuclear Delusion.[33]

What I am referring to is an understanding that there was something of value to the powers that be in the United States, as well as to the people of the United States, in the existence of the Soviet Union: namely that there was an organized force on “the other side” that was also interested in disarmament. When I go back and read Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika[34] today I think of where Kennedy and Khrushchev were in 1963 and the opportunity that was beginning to emerge and that was destroyed.

I know that no one seems to be interested in the McCloy-Zorin agreement.[35] Hardly anyone even knows about it any longer. And I really don’t understand why. Maybe they were just words as far as Kennedy was concerned in 1961 when it was signed. But as events developed, particularly after the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think the McCloy-Zorin agreement began to take on real significance. Because if you go back and look at that American University speech, I think Kennedy is talking about the McCloy-Zorin agreement without mentioning it by name. Khrushchev and Kennedy were talking about worldwide disarmament, conventional as well as nuclear. That is really radical. That is what Gorbachev was talking about, that you can’t settle problems with military means any longer. And the “powers that be” in this country didn’t want Gorbachev. And even the liberals were ecstatic when the Soviet Union collapsed and Yeltsin replaced Gorbachev. You read the American University speech by Kennedy and George Kennan’s later writing and you read Castro, Gorbachev, and Nelson Mandela[36] and you realize how foolishly narrow the political mind set that dominates this country is.

People are always asking how would our history be different if President Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated. For me this isn’t the question to ask. Rather ask how would history have been different if President F.W. de Klerk had been assassinated in the midst of South Africa’s transition to majority rule and the ending of apartheid. It seems to me that South Africa would still have gone through the changes it has accomplished because that society had the organized social momentum to move in that direction.

This is why I see Kennedy as a “de Klerk without an ANC.” He saw the handwriting on the wall in our situation, the way de Klerk did in his. But Kennedy didn’t have an “ANC,” an organized social movement for peaceful coexistence that could compel the society to move in that direction. So he was in a very vulnerable position.

And as in South Africa before the ascendancy of Nelson Mandela and the ANC to the government, we too in America are confronted by a “third force” which is shadowy and operates behind the scenes. You will recall that this “third force” in South African society turned out to have the clandestine backing of the government.

It seems to me that at the moment of the assassination the Kennedy forces had a choice. They could openly acknowledge to the American people what had happened. To do this might have meant to release a popular disillusionment with the military and the CIA. You understand that in such a situation these liberal leaders as well as the conservatives might lose control of the situation to popular forces. Or they could decide not to run that risk; they could accept the assassination as a brutal, heinous wound to their side, but nevertheless keep going with the people in the dark. Obviously this was the decision that was made. And in so doing they decided (perhaps unconsciously like the “innocent” parents of the anti-social teenager) that the CIA murder of the President was acceptable to American democracy. The fact that our press and universities fell into line is an indication that they too accepted American democracy as delimited by this liberal-conservative establishment.

Are the American people really any different? Do they really want to know what happened and take responsibility, as opposed to indulging themselves in endless speculation?

Warren Commission member John J. McCloy is quoted by Edward J. Epstein in Inquest as saying that the paramount importance of the Commission was to “show the world that America is not a banana republic where a government can be changed by conspiracy.”[37] Nowhere has the primary concern of the establishment been more honestly acknowledged in this case.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/letterToVJS.html



That was 1995. We've learned a lot since then. I reported some of it on DU, thanks to the suggestions of some of my favorite DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #50)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:43 PM

57. Oswald did it, I know it is boring and not exciting but it is true. But keep up the drama. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #57)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:29 PM

62. That's what Allen Dulles and J Edgar Hoover said.

Dulles helped NAZI war criminals escape justice after World War II.

Hoover said there was no MAFIA until the New York State Police raided a big meeting.

Neither one breathed a word to the public that the CIA had contracted the MAFIA in 1960 to murder Fidel Castro and others.

Both also lied under oath about that to the American people.

I wrote about them on DU for a long time. Here's something from 2005:

Know your BFEE: Corrupt Craftsmen Hoover and Dulles

Believe them about Dallas if you want, I prefer to go by what we've learned since Nov. 22, 1963.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #62)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 11:55 PM

65. I honestly think you are just messing with us. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:23 PM

31. In the face of any form of adversity, her first instinct will be to do that which appears tough.

 

And absent that adversity, her only instinct is to cultivate and support her friends network - no matter how evil they may be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:46 PM

32. WaPo - "Men really need to stop calling women crazy"

Bernie does lose his temper from time to time even during interviews where he is clearly upset because he is so passionate about what he believes in. However, the issue of his temperament is not usually raised as an issue. However, a woman loses patience, and the old tropes about whether she has the temperament to be President are raised.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/09/men-really-need-to-stop-calling-women-crazy/

No, “crazy” is typically held in reserve for women’s behavior. Men might be obsessed, driven, confused or upset. But we don’t get called “crazy” — at least not the way men reflexively label women as such.

“Crazy” is one of the five deadly words guys use to shame women into compliance. The others: Fat. Ugly. Slutty. Bitchy. They sum up the supposedly worst things a woman can be.

“Crazy” is such a convenient word for men, perpetuating our sense of superiority. Men are logical; women are emotional. Emotion is the antithesis of logic. When women are too emotional, we say they are being irrational. Crazy. Wrong.

Women hear it all the time from men. “You’re overreacting,” we tell them. “Don’t worry about it so much, you’re over-thinking it.” “Don’t be so sensitive.” “Don’t be crazy.” It’s a form of gaslighting — telling women that their feelings are just wrong, that they don’t have the right to feel the way that they do. Minimizing somebody else’s feelings is a way of controlling them. If they no longer trust their own feelings and instincts, they come to rely on someone else to tell them how they’re supposed to feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:20 PM

33. They both have the temperament to be president

One need not be inhuman to be president. She is a human being, as is Bernie, and either would make a good president, particularly when compared to Cruz or Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:31 PM

34. One word: Greenpeace.

After seeing her act on an assumption that a question was instigated by Bernie's campaign, I don't want her anywhere near the red button. And, judging from her rhetoric, she seems anxious to prove she can start another war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:38 PM

35. When people march like I suggest to hold one's feet to the fire on issues.

I wonder how much Hillary might try to shut people down, bully them to shut up and sit down, calling them "sexist" if they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PyaarRevolution (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:14 PM

41. Or worse. Emmanuel called Move On members "terrorists".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:13 PM

40. Of course she has the temperament, what a nonsensical question.

Only on a pro-Sanders board would such a question be asked. Well, maybe on a RW board too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:18 PM

42. Of course she does

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:21 PM

44. Of course she does

One would have to be an intemperate hyper-polarized political website troglodyte to vote any other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 07:03 PM

47. And more importantly for now ... does she have the DELEGATES?

Looks like she will have them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:16 PM

53. Nah, she's way too much "respect mah authoriteh" for the job

She has the temperament to be dictator, not president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:30 PM

56. Wrong question,imo. Ask about judgement instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:53 PM

59. Ambitious, ruthless, and mendacious make successful politiions.

 

Not to mention successful gangsters, CEOs, and generals.

Sometimes, those attributes make presidents.

We've had more than our share of that type. We don't need more of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:03 PM

60. This poll tells me that there really are more Sanders supporters posting in this forum

The other persons supporters are just noisier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sky Masterson (Reply #60)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:42 PM

61. New Yorker - "The Bernie Bro Code"

Your observations are consistent with the Bernie Bro Code as reported by this New Yorker piece:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-bernie-bro-code

1. A Bernie Bro must #FeelTheBern twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A Bernie Bro’s newsfeed must reflect this.
2. Under no circumstances should a Bernie Bro allow the delegate count to cock-block Bernie Sanders from the White House.
3. Even if a Bernie Bro claims that he is “just gonna leave this here” when posting a Bernie-related Op-Ed on social media, he must also be prepared to reply to all comments that seem to refute its pro-Bernie sentiments in any way.
4. If a Bernie Bro goes two weeks without sharing that picture of Bernie sitting with Martin Luther King, Jr., his Bernie Bro­-ship shall be subject to scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 05:26 AM

66. Or you could just be high

And have done what non-thinkers do and broadbrush a whole bunch of persons you don't know.
You have such Mansonesq devotion to the Neocon Hillary that I wonder if you need an intervention/deprogramming.
Should I call someone to rescue you from this cult?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:30 PM

63. She was mean to that young girl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:35 PM

64. This person does not have the temperament to be POTUS nor CIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:36 AM

68. No (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread