By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Not excited about Clinton's candidacy

michchamp said:
I think of the potential challengers, Elizabeth Warren was the most legit, and had the best chance to force a serious fight in the primaries.

I can't think of anyone else right now who'd be willing to jump in the ring & has some name recognition (at least among most progressives). Maybe a senator like Ron Wyden or Sherrod Brown?

state governors are overwhelming GOP right now (31 to 18, plus 1 independent).

I had to look them up... among the democrats who are governors... yikes a lot of them would probably run to the right of Hillary.

not sure where else you find a candidate; there are a handful of congressmen with some name recognition outside their state (e.g. Alan Grayson). I haven't read anything about drafting one of them to run. Among failed or former politicians, or others in office... there's Howard Dean... and Kucinich... eh... Joe Biden? I don't see Biden running to the left of Hillary.
Click to expand...

Castro brothers are the future. By 2020/2024, i fully expect them to be the faces of the party.
 
in 20 years it'll be Chelsea Clinton vs. one of the Bush twins. Or maybe a Palin kid. heh.
 
Monster said:
warren has said dozens of times that she would not run. IMO she would destroy Hillary and anyone the gop nominates. She's much more likable and much more of a Liberal.
Click to expand...

If she thought she could destroy Hillary she wouldn't be saying she's not running. In my example, I indicated she could step in if Hillary has a major stumble. But without a major stumble, Hillary is a lock.

Correction to my earlier post - the best possible outcome for Republicans would be Howard Dean to end up with the nomination. He'd being doing Michael Dukakis the biggest favor ever.
 
Last edited:
Spartanmack said:
If she thought she could destroy Hillary she wouldn't be saying she's not running. In my example, I indicated she could step in if Hillary has a major stumble. But without a major stumble, Hillary is a lock.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think Warren is happy with the perception of herself she's cultivating right now. And though her supporters are vocal, they still represent a small portion of Democrats.

There seems to be a mismatch between what party elites want, and what the larger Democratic base (and more importantly the potential Democratic base -- including young people and minorities -- that won you the election in 2008 and 2012) wants. If Hilary wins more or less unchallenged and continues falling all over herself like she has, Dems will get crushed in the general. And it will be 100-percent their fault.
 
tinselwolverine said:
Yes, of course, somebody could run against her for the Democratic nomination, and I have no doubt somebody will.

How formidable they might be I don't know.

The parties themselves don't "back" anybody until they've nominated a candidate through the nominating process; i.e., the primaries and caucuses.

Read The Making of the President 1960 by Theodore H. White and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 by Hunter S. Thompson if you want to familiarize yourself with how this sort of works.
Click to expand...

The perception of it I have right now (and I know this doesn't contradict anything you've said), is that such a large number of people in the party have publicly endorsed Clinton, including many Senators (who would form a natural "constituency" for someone like Biden, for example), and that's acted as a deterrent for a lot of potential candidates to enter the race.

Some key people endorsed Obama early on in 2008, while many others waited for the dust to settle. Clinton's consolidated support really, really early this time around (yay coronation). It will help her in the primary but I don't think it will pay dividends in the general, especially if she keeps doing everything in her power to look like a moron consistently.
 
Whoever wins is going to get half a row boat load of Justices to replace. Sure would be nice to see America with 5 moderate to left leaning justices instead of what we have now..I just really hate this 2 party system.. Need other parties badly..
 
biggunsbob said:
Whoever wins is going to get half a row boat load of Justices to replace. Sure would be nice to see America with 5 moderate to left leaning justices instead of what we have now..I just really hate this 2 party system.. Need other parties badly..
Click to expand...

So you don't like more moderate to right leaning judges but more moderate to left leaning is okay?
 
michchamp said:
I think of the potential challengers, Elizabeth Warren was the most legit, and had the best chance to force a serious fight in the primaries.

I can't think of anyone else right now who'd be willing to jump in the ring & has some name recognition (at least among most progressives). Maybe a senator like Ron Wyden or Sherrod Brown?

state governors are overwhelming GOP right now (31 to 18, plus 1 independent).

I had to look them up... among the democrats who are governors... yikes a lot of them would probably run to the right of Hillary.

not sure where else you find a candidate; there are a handful of congressmen with some name recognition outside their state (e.g. Alan Grayson). I haven't read anything about drafting one of them to run. Among failed or former politicians, or others in office... there's Howard Dean... and Kucinich... eh... Joe Biden? I don't see Biden running to the left of Hillary.
Click to expand...
Warren would be my choice on the left, Clinton is uber establishment. I like rand Paul on the right but he's pivoting to the right on military spending as well. If love a Paul -Warren election, two populist candidates instead of the Clinton machine vs the bush shadow government
 
michchamp said:
in 20 years it'll be Chelsea Clinton vs. one of the Bush twins. Or maybe a Palin kid. heh.
Click to expand...

2024 or 2028 might see my M housemate and HS debate partner Dr Rajiv Shah (BHam Groves, '91) run for the Office. He ran the Gates Foundation before being appointed by Obama to head USAID, the body that the Italian captor recently killed in that drone strike worked for.

That subject came up while we were in Park City in Feb and Dr. Shah was exchanging emails with Pres. Obama and other members of the National Security Council.

At least he said he intends to run at some point.
 
Spartanmack said:
if you pay closer attention you'll hear rumblings about Martin O'Malley (former Gov of MD), Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The latter 2 are extreme lefties, both are idiots and probably unelectable (Sanders (Independent) is a self-proclaimed socialist). O'Malley is the only one that really has a chance and I would bet he's not going to run against her for the nomination unless something big happens - like maybe the fallout from this book ends up being a big deal and really hurts her standing.

I don't think Hillary is a lock in the general election - she may not even be a lock for the nomination, but she has the best chance of any Dem. The best thing that could happen for Republicans would be for the world to wake up to what a horrible human being she is and Elizabeth Warren to enter the race and beat out O'Malley - sadly, even Dems aren't foolish enough to nominate Sanders.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Warren an idiot? I would bet my house that she's considerably more intelligent than you. Are you even familiar with her background?

You may not agree with her politics but her general intelligence should be beyond doubt.

Would be the same of me to sit here and call Ted Cruz an idiot. He's a lot of things but he's not stupid.
 
Last edited:
tigersofjustice said:
Elizabeth Warren an idiot? I would bet my house that she's considerably more intelligent than you. Are you even familiar with her background?

You may not agree with her politics but her general intelligence should be beyond doubt.

Would be the same of me to sit here and call Ted Cruz an idiot. He's a lot of things but he's not stupid.
Click to expand...

She was born, raised and went to college in the southwest.

Until 1996 she was a republican.

So lefties on this board are just is justified to refer to her as "an idiot" as righties.
 
Last edited:
tinselwolverine said:
She was born, raised and went to college in the southwest.

Until 1996 she was a republican.

So lefties on this board are just is justified to refer to her as "an idiot" as righties.
Click to expand...

All these big lefty liberals like Bill Clinton and Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama all went to or are involved with snooty elitist schools like Yale and Harvard.

These lefty pinkos are not from regular people stock, like Bush I and Bush II.
 
Last edited:
michchamp said:
that's all you got on her too. that's it. that's the worst thing she's ever done in her life. clearly not fit to be president.
Click to expand...

Was it ever proven that she lied? Just because she doesn't look native american doesn't mean she isn't. She could be 1/8 or 1/16 and i believe she can still identify as NA. I think 1/32 still qualifies you.
 
The legitimacy of Warren's claims to Native American heritage has certainly been challenged by many critics, and it is true that while Warren was at U. Penn. Law School she put herself on the "Minority Law Teacher" list as Native American) in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools, and that Harvard Law School at one time promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member. But specific evidence that she gained her position at Harvard (at least in part) through her claims to Native American heritage is lacking. Warren denied applying for special consideration as a person of Native American heritage during her career, and when the matter was examined in 2012 in response to Brown's claims, people with whom Warren had worked similarly denied her ancestral background's factoring into the professional opportunities afforded her:

The former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools, David Bernstein, told the Herald that the group's directory once served as a tip sheet for administrators. "In the old days before the Internet, you'd pull out the AALS directory and look up people," he said. "There are schools that, if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, 'I didn't know Elizabeth Warren was a minority.'"

Warren said she didn't know Harvard had used her heritage as proof of diversity until reading about the issue in the news, according to a Herald report. She also denied that she ever tried to gain a professional advantage through her lineage.​

Warren responded she was recruited for the positions and did not "apply" for them; and for the most part, her record did not indicate any identification as part of a minority group:

The Globe obtained a portion of Warren's application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school's Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered "no."

For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was "white."

But Penn's 2005 Minority Equity Report identified her as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority. The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate's heritage didn't come up during the course of her hiring. "It simply played no role in the appointments process," he said. "It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty."

The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, "I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned."​
​

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/warren.asp#KyxjegHJ02MCXF4T.99
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I always wondered about that. Never really thought it was a big enough "scandal" to care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
32,883
Messages
1,108,932
Members
942
Latest member
Proud Pheasant

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top