Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love a Haley-Cheney ticket (but Cheney as VP)

I could go for this. Happy to have either as VP.

The problem with Haley is her enabling of Trump. She is tainted now. If she hadn't tried to lend him a veneer of respectability, she would have remained very respectable herself.

She also said she would sign a national election ban. Non-starter for most women, particularly independents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than the times where they bucked against their respective parties' positions, what makes either one of them qualified?

What made Obama qualified?

Obama was very well qualified in 2012 after serving his first 4 year term and he served the country very well in his second term. It's easy to see where we messed up big time when comparing Obama's resume to Hillary's or McCain's in 2008 and that mishap led us down the road to Trump 2016. Oops

We didn't make a mistake in 2008 or 2016 in passing on Clinton. The Clinton family was a terrible corrupt family. We did not need a Clinton dynasty. One was enough for the country to know that we didn't need to repeat it. The real error was in letting an unelectable candidate run in 2016. If we had had a different Democratic candidate in 2016, we would not have had Trump. We elected the second worst candidate in history because he ran against the worst candidate in history.

i wouldnt consider HRC and Bill to be a dynasty. They are a married couple. Dynasty is usually hereditary or multiple generations of a family having access to power and wealth. HRC was one of the most suitable candidates based on breadth of experience in recent history. And dont bring up that she wouldnt have had those positions without Bill and backroom deals because most of the past and current political landscape is funded through nepotism and handshakes, she isnt exempt from it but that doesnt lay at her feet alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than the times where they bucked against their respective parties' positions, what makes either one of them qualified?

What made Obama qualified?

Obama was very well qualified in 2012 after serving his first 4 year term and he served the country very well in his second term. It's easy to see where we messed up big time when comparing Obama's resume to Hillary's or McCain's in 2008 and that mishap led us down the road to Trump 2016. Oops

We didn't make a mistake in 2008 or 2016 in passing on Clinton. The Clinton family was a terrible corrupt family. We did not need a Clinton dynasty. One was enough for the country to know that we didn't need to repeat it. The real error was in letting an unelectable candidate run in 2016. If we had had a different Democratic candidate in 2016, we would not have had Trump. We elected the second worst candidate in history because he ran against the worst candidate in history.

Can you please write me up a list of the things that make the Clinton family a "terrible corrupt family?"

Thanks,

She's DOA with the MAGA crowd, so at best she'd end up splitting Republican votes. I have no problem with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than the times where they bucked against their respective parties' positions, what makes either one of them qualified?

What made Obama qualified?

Obama was very well qualified in 2012 after serving his first 4 year term and he served the country very well in his second term. It's easy to see where we messed up big time when comparing Obama's resume to Hillary's or McCain's in 2008 and that mishap led us down the road to Trump 2016. Oops

We didn't make a mistake in 2008 or 2016 in passing on Clinton. The Clinton family was a terrible corrupt family. We did not need a Clinton dynasty. One was enough for the country to know that we didn't need to repeat it. The real error was in letting an unelectable candidate run in 2016. If we had had a different Democratic candidate in 2016, we would not have had Trump. We elected the second worst candidate in history because he ran against the worst candidate in history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love a Haley-Cheney ticket (but Cheney as VP)

I could go for this. Happy to have either as VP.

The problem with Haley is her enabling of Trump. She is tainted now. If she hadn't tried to lend him a veneer of respectability, she would have remained very respectable herself.

She is total trash

Anonymous wrote:No way. This is a democracy. Not a hereditary monarchy. One Chaney was one too many. Liz is good where she’s at.

Amen!

There are over 300 million people in this country. We can definitely do better.

Anonymous wrote:For president of what? Halliburton??

+1.

Yuck!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love a Haley-Cheney ticket (but Cheney as VP)

I could go for this. Happy to have either as VP.

The problem with Haley is her enabling of Trump. She is tainted now. If she hadn't tried to lend him a veneer of respectability, she would have remained very respectable herself.

Anonymous wrote:Just because she sees reality on Trump doesn’t make her a good candidate. She’s still a republican who is anti-abortion and has issues accepting her own LGBT relatives. Absolutely not.

Actually seeing reality on Trump and other authoritarians is far more important than her opinions on specific cultural issues. What good will abortion access or kumbaya circles do if Trump becomes Dear Leader?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than the times where they bucked against their respective parties' positions, what makes either one of them qualified?

What made Obama qualified?

Obama was very well qualified in 2012 after serving his first 4 year term and he served the country very well in his second term. It's easy to see where we messed up big time when comparing Obama's resume to Hillary's or McCain's in 2008 and that mishap led us down the road to Trump 2016. Oops

No way. This is a democracy. Not a hereditary monarchy. One Chaney was one too many. Liz is good where she’s at.

Anonymous wrote:The is still a pro0life, neo-con zealot. She is just not MAGA, which means she couldn't get the GOP nomination and most Dems wouldn't vote for her either.

You were saying something about zealots?

Anonymous wrote:I would love a Haley-Cheney ticket (but Cheney as VP)

I could go for this. Happy to have either as VP.

What would be her target demographic? She's too niche.