Can it get any worse? Topic

I think she's an exceptionally weak candidate and she would have lost to Rubio/Walker/Bush/Ryan/Romney/Kasich...maybe even Cruz.

I also think a lot of her problem is the perception of corruption as opposed to actual corruption. But that's still (at least partially) her fault.

I do think her policy positions are better than those of a generic Republican, though.
10/21/2016 11:46 AM
"I think she's an exceptionally weak candidate ..."

Finally admitted it. Thank you. Hopefully this means you're finally going to stop acting like she's something other than that.
10/21/2016 11:57 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/21/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I think she's an exceptionally weak candidate and she would have lost to Rubio/Walker/Bush/Ryan/Romney/Kasich...maybe even Cruz.

I also think a lot of her problem is the perception of corruption as opposed to actual corruption. But that's still (at least partially) her fault.

I do think her policy positions are better than those of a generic Republican, though.
That's what I thought. But even as an "exceptionally weak candidate", you would still have voted for her, right?

p.s. If you don't want to be perceived as "corrupt", you should probably start by NOT being corrupt (i.e. collecting millions of dollars of graft while in public office)
10/21/2016 12:28 PM
Hillary would have beat Scott "Let's build a wall with Canada, too" Walker... not that Walker ever had a chance at the nomination.
10/21/2016 12:34 PM
Posted by all3 on 10/21/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):
"I think she's an exceptionally weak candidate ..."

Finally admitted it. Thank you. Hopefully this means you're finally going to stop acting like she's something other than that.
I'm 100% positive that I've said that several times. But please note that weak candidate does not necessarily equal bad president.
10/21/2016 12:36 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 10/21/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/21/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I think she's an exceptionally weak candidate and she would have lost to Rubio/Walker/Bush/Ryan/Romney/Kasich...maybe even Cruz.

I also think a lot of her problem is the perception of corruption as opposed to actual corruption. But that's still (at least partially) her fault.

I do think her policy positions are better than those of a generic Republican, though.
That's what I thought. But even as an "exceptionally weak candidate", you would still have voted for her, right?

p.s. If you don't want to be perceived as "corrupt", you should probably start by NOT being corrupt (i.e. collecting millions of dollars of graft while in public office)
That's my point. She isn't actually corrupt. The foundation does great work and there's no evidence of any quid pro quo.
10/21/2016 12:38 PM
For ****'s sake. Hillary is corrupt. Any politician who has gotten as far as she has in politics is corrupt. An honest politician is a politician who has a different day job.
10/21/2016 12:40 PM
Posted by wylie715 on 10/21/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake. Hillary is corrupt. Any politician who has gotten as far as she has in politics is corrupt. An honest politician is a politician who has a different day job.
Corrupt relative to a generic presidential candidate.
10/21/2016 12:48 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/21/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 10/21/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake. Hillary is corrupt. Any politician who has gotten as far as she has in politics is corrupt. An honest politician is a politician who has a different day job.
Corrupt relative to a generic presidential candidate.
One semi-sensible comment followed by the usual b_l lunacy. Just when we had hope. It really is so fleeting.
10/21/2016 5:57 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/21/2016 9:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by sjpoker on 10/21/2016 6:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/20/2016 11:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/20/2016 8:17:00 PM (view original):
I would think the Argue Monkey would have torn into this:
"That's an interesting take. Very liberal based but interesting nonetheless. I think, if the government entrusted us with confidential information and we handled it in the same manner as Hillary, we're going to be on the wrong end of a prosecution."

And the AM would have to respond to this:
"Do you really think you or I, if entrusted with the same information Hillary mishandled, would walk away unscathed after a FBI investigation?"



Are you feeling OK?
I didn't think your the first part was very interesting and I already answered the second part.
SEE? PSBL does that all the time. If he has no interest in the question, he ignores it. Yet he DEMANDS you answer his questions. And he hits you again and again and again with "this" replies.

What an idiot.
I answered his question. Then he asked it again.



He's PSBL.
10/21/2016 7:39 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/21/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 10/21/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):
"I think she's an exceptionally weak candidate ..."

Finally admitted it. Thank you. Hopefully this means you're finally going to stop acting like she's something other than that.
I'm 100% positive that I've said that several times. But please note that weak candidate does not necessarily equal bad president.
I'm 100% positive you're an idiot.
10/21/2016 7:41 PM
I question YOUR intelligence if you just now realized that.
10/21/2016 7:55 PM
Posted by sjpoker on 10/21/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/21/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 10/21/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):
"I think she's an exceptionally weak candidate ..."

Finally admitted it. Thank you. Hopefully this means you're finally going to stop acting like she's something other than that.
I'm 100% positive that I've said that several times. But please note that weak candidate does not necessarily equal bad president.
I'm 100% positive you're an idiot.
LOL, ok.
10/21/2016 8:33 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/21/2016 8:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by sjpoker on 10/21/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/21/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 10/21/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):
"I think she's an exceptionally weak candidate ..."

Finally admitted it. Thank you. Hopefully this means you're finally going to stop acting like she's something other than that.
I'm 100% positive that I've said that several times. But please note that weak candidate does not necessarily equal bad president.
I'm 100% positive you're an idiot.
LOL, ok.
Wow, two PSBL admissions in one day! I guess an Admin complaint ticket is next.
10/21/2016 9:46 PM
ALEX JONES WOULD CALL IT A "FALSE FLAG" OPERATION

REPUGS DID IT. LIKE HITLER FIRING THE REICHSTAG AND BLAMING IT ON COMMUNISTS.
10/22/2016 8:58 AM
◂ Prev 1...8|9|10|11|12 Next ▸
Can it get any worse? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.