is Hillary Clinton really a viable candidate?

I do not think she is as strong as the leftanistas think she is. Matter of fact I hope they do nominate her she has so much political baggage it is not even funny.

I don't think it matters. The right has nobody to put up that is impressive at all, unless maybe Ben Carson runs. And the left will vote for whoever they put up along with all the cartoon characters and dead people, just like they did for Obama. She'll probably win with 52% of the vote.

I too think the winner will be whomever the Dems decide to run. The Republican party at the national level is a lost cause. Just look at the behavior of "balls-free-boehner".

I disagree. The republican field is strong. You have Rubio Walker Cruz. All three young vibrant and well spoken. If you are looking for the perfect candidate you are not going to get it. I mean really look at it who does the left have?
So the top Democratic contenders for POTUS is Hilary Clinton a 70 year old white rich racist women with dementia , burdened with political baggage and a womanizing husband , Warren a mental case who lies so much she doesn't know the difference between a lie and the truth - or Biden a stand up comedian -


Now who does the right have to run?

Scott Walker two term governor that saved thousands of teachers jobs. Beat back the best the left had to offer in a very blue state.- Rand Paul Doctor, Senator can connect with young people.- Marco Rubio Florida Speaker of the House, Senator of Florida.

The only hope the republicans have is if Ben Carson runs.

The NRC will not back Walker, or anyone who doesn't toe their line. (Pro illegal immigration, pro big govt., and so on.) And without that backing, no candidate would have a chance.

Whoever they back, will not be as good of a candidate as Romney was, and we know how that worked out. We know for sure they will never give it to Rand Paul anymore than they gave it to his dad, even if they have to lie, cheat, and discredit him in the MSM just like they did with his dad.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

I disagree. The republican field is strong. You have Rubio Walker Cruz. All three young vibrant and well spoken. If you are looking for the perfect candidate you are not going to get it. I mean really look at it who does the left have?
So the top  Democratic contenders for POTUS is Hilary Clinton a 70 year old white rich racist women with dementia , burdened with political baggage and a womanizing husband , Warren a mental case who lies so much she doesn't know the difference between a lie and the truth - or Biden a stand up comedian -

Now who does the right have to run?

Scott Walker two term governor that saved thousands of teachers jobs. Beat back the best the left had to offer in a very blue state.- Rand Paul Doctor, Senator can connect with young people.- Marco Rubio Florida Speaker of the House, Senator of Florida.

One of the biggest issues we face, if not the biggest, and a litmus test as far as I'm concerned is a candidate's position on illegal immigration.

From: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/immigration-problem-issue-most-gop-2016-hopefuls-n341471

Quote :

Rubio's leading role in the Senate's passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation in 2013 continues to be black cloud over the otherwise popular junior senator from Florida -- at least when it comes to the Republican primary.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker have backed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. So has Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has as well. Even Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has not ruled out a path to legalization for some undocumented immigrants. And former governors Rick Perry of Texas and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas both backed their states version of the DREAM Act, a measure that gives undocumented youth access to in-state college tuition. (Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has never said he supports a path to legalization or the DREAM Act.)

Every stinking one of them favors amnesty in one form or another. And that should be unacceptable to any Conservative person. I cannot justify rewarding people whose first action in relation to our country is to break its laws by sneaking in.

As far as I can tell, backing amnesty is a requirement for support of the National Republican party because it pays enormous dividends to their business backers, at the expense of the middle and working class of this country.

So the Republican field is going to get lukewarm support at best from conservatives, leaving the door to the white house open to whomever the dems run.

Like I said you are not going to find the perfect candidate. As far as amnesty goes build the fence first secure the border. However the left has no intention of doing that. Not until something drastic happens in the U.S.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Like I said you are not going to find the perfect candidate. As far as amnesty goes build the fence first secure the border. However the left has no intention of doing that. Not until something drastic happens in the U.S.

The right has no intention of doing that either.

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Like I said you are not going to find the perfect candidate. As far as amnesty goes build the fence first secure the border. However the left has no intention of doing that. Not until something drastic happens in the U.S.

The right has no intention of doing that either.

Did you mean "The Republicans have no intention of doing that either." ?
If so, I agree with you. But the political right, which does NOT include the national republican party would do so in a heartbeat, given the ability to do so.

Annoyed wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Like I said you are not going to find the perfect candidate. As far as amnesty goes build the fence first secure the border. However the left has no intention of doing that. Not until something drastic happens in the U.S.

The right has no intention of doing that either.

Did you mean "The Republicans have no intention of doing that either." ?
If so, I agree with you. But the political right, which does NOT include the national republican party would do so in a heartbeat, given the ability to do so.

There's nobody on the right who could possibly do anything about it other than the Republicans. Because as you said, nobody else has the ability to do so. So yeah, you could read my comment to mean "The Republicans have no intention of doing that either." They hold all the power on the right just as the Democrats hold all the power on the left. Which makes them by default the same as saying the right and left.

The republicans have proposed this to Obama. Of course it was denied. Actually on this one I would love to see Obama call the republicans bluff.

eber322 wrote:

There's nobody on the right who could possibly do anything about it other than the Republicans. Because as you said, nobody else has the ability to do so. So yeah, you could read my comment to mean "The Republicans have no intention of doing that either." They hold all the power on the right just as the Democrats hold all the power on the left. Which makes them by default the same as saying the right and left.

I think it's important to point out that the Republican party at the national level has severely lost its way. They are RINO's at best, so I think it is important to differentiate between them and the real "right".

Annoyed wrote:

eber322 wrote:

There's nobody on the right who could possibly do anything about it other than the Republicans. Because as you said, nobody else has the ability to do so. So yeah, you could read my comment to mean "The Republicans have no intention of doing that either." They hold all the power on the right just as the Democrats hold all the power on the left. Which makes them by default the same as saying the right and left.

I think it's important to point out that the Republican party at the national level has severely lost its way. They are RINO's at best, so I think it is important to differentiate between them and the real "right".

Could it be that democrats infiltrated the republican party?

I think the republicans and democrats are all a dog and pony show anyway. They all actually work for the same people and take their orders from them.

Yes, Clinton is absolutely a viable candidate.

Bandit wrote:

Yes, Clinton is absolutely a viable candidate.

She would be considered viable FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
Democrats aren't really all that picky about their candidates. As long as they make the right noises on the campaign trail, that's good enough for most of the voters on the left.

But considering the ever-expanding trail of scandals; email server, Benghazi and all the rest, even if she made the right noises for the right, I don't think many of us would vote for her. She obviously considers herself to be above the law, and that is unacceptable.

Nevertheless, I think she will likely win in 2016, 'cause the Republicans will nominate yet another RINO.

At this point, I've yet to see anybody who could actually get the Rep nomination with even a remote chance of beating her.

eber322 wrote:

At this point, I've yet to see anybody who could actually get the Rep nomination with even a remote chance of beating her.

After McCain & Romney, I'll be satisfied if they run someone who actually behaves like a Republican/Conservative. That is their best chance of building a strong level of support; motivated voters who want to go vote for whoever it is. The only thing another RINO will get is *yawn*.

Annoyed wrote:

eber322 wrote:

At this point, I've yet to see anybody who could actually get the Rep nomination with even a remote chance of beating her.

After McCain & Romney, I'll be satisfied if they run someone who actually behaves like a Republican/Conservative. That is their best chance of building a strong level of support; motivated voters who want to go vote for whoever it is. The only thing another RINO will get is *yawn*.

I'd like them to nominate Rand Paul, but they won't because they like him no more then they did his dad. Other than that, I'd like to see Ben Carson run, but I'm not sure the Rinos would back him either.

I do not see anybody from any party with a remote chance of beating her. Like her or not she is a political juggernaut. Her credentials and experience are unmatched by any other politician. Hell, she can run based off name recognition alone. Even if you live under a rock in a desert on Mars, you know who she is.

She also is a powerful "vote getter". She just barely lost the primaries to Obama. And as a woman, she has won more primaries and delegates than any other female politician in the nations history.

Yes, she has been through a number of political scandals. None of which she was found guilty of any wrong doing. She knows "mud slinging" all too well, having her personal life dissected and scrutinized by the entire nation since birth. So forget trying to get some "dirt" on her.

I have no problem with her as POTUS. I had no problem with McCain either until his selection for a running mate. Romney either, until he said he only cared about 40% of the nation (upperclass/wealthy). So there is still plenty Clinton can do herself, to ruin any chance of her winning the Presidency.

Bandit wrote:

I do not see anybody from any party with a remote chance of beating her. Like her or not she is a political juggernaut. Her credentials and experience are unmatched by any other politician. Hell, she can run based off name recognition alone. Even if you live under a rock in a desert on Mars, you know who she is.

She also is a powerful "vote getter". She just barely lost the primaries to Obama. And as a woman, she has won more primaries and delegates than any other female politician in the nations history.

Yes, she has been through a number of political scandals. None of which she was found guilty of any wrong doing. She knows "mud slinging" all too well, having her personal life dissected and scrutinized by the entire nation since birth. So forget trying to get some "dirt" on her.

I have no problem with her as POTUS. I had no problem with McCain either until his selection for a running mate. Romney either, until he said he only cared about 40% of the nation (upperclass/wealthy). So there is still plenty Clinton can do herself, to ruin any chance of her winning the Presidency.

As I said, the left doesn't hold their champions to very strict standards. If she was on the right, the scandals would kill her chances.
That being said, I expect her to win in 2016, so we're faced with another 8 years of a criticism-proof administration.
Just as no one dares confront the current occupant of the White House for fear of being called a racist bigot, no one will attack a Clinton administration for fear of being labeled a woman hating misogynist or worse.

Best scenario I can see is that she gets the nomination from the Democrats, and then one of the scandals hits home with criminal charges in the weeks before the election, too late for the Democrats to change their path. She can't run the country from a prison cell.

Sorry man I am just not buying it. She is not Bill Clinton and even Bill never got more than 50 percent of the vote. I suspect a third party candidate will run as a liberal because the far left just cannot stand her. I just do not think she has the political savvy.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

She is not Bill Clinton and even Bill never got more than 50 percent of the vote.

Neither did Obama, yet they both got two terms.

I hate to say it, but I think Jeb Bush might be their only chance. Why you ask? One simple reason, the Bush name has been on the presidential ticket, as either pres or vice, six times. And has been on the winning ticket five out of those six times. The odds favor another Bush win.