Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Proof the entire state really IS high by this point: according to a new poll. Rand Paul would beat Hillary Clinton in Colorado if the election were held today   (politico.com) divider line 132
    More: Unlikely, Colorado, polls, reelection, Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, Mike Huckabee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  
•       •       •

541 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2014 at 1:47 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-24 02:53:11 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?


Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.



http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.
 
2014-04-24 02:54:16 PM  
Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.
 
2014-04-24 02:55:32 PM  

czetie: Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.


I think this is funny because when Bill Clinton ran the first time Hillary was considered the idealistic liberal and now people have the totally opposite belief.
 
2014-04-24 02:58:23 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Read the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.

Now re-read what I said. What possible Dem candidate you think would not be just as "polarizing" after the GOP set their sites on them?


I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.
 
2014-04-24 02:59:50 PM  
Nobody's that excited for Hilary.

Plenty of people are horrified by Republicans enough to put her in the White House.
 
2014-04-24 03:01:30 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.


Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?
 
2014-04-24 03:03:34 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.


Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?
 
2014-04-24 03:06:25 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?


Yeah:
The main thing I've said is not to legalize them

Right that is so open to interpretation if he wants to legalize it or not. Him  specifically saying he is not to legalize it when specifically asked about it. Right just keep believing your bullshiat no matter what reality actually is.
 
2014-04-24 03:07:49 PM  

Corvus: People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.


A large part of this confusion could be driven by the many inconsistencies in his statements:

Paul has previously supported states' rights to legalize marijuana, but didn't comment on the proposed law's effect on pot legislation. On March 24, 2013, he told Fox News, "The main thing I've said is not to legalize them [marijuana and synthetic recreational drugs] but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time."
 
2014-04-24 03:08:32 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?


So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?
 
2014-04-24 03:09:18 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?

Yeah:
The main thing I've said is not to legalize them

Right that is so open to interpretation if he wants to legalize it or not. Him  specifically saying he is not to legalize it when specifically asked about it. Right just keep believing your bullshiat no matter what reality actually is.


What's Hillary's position???
 
2014-04-24 03:10:43 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?


Yeah Paul is a big supporter of legalizing pot. Just keep telling yourself that so he can win an election and screw you over. Actually maybe he is right about pot:

During an April 10 event at Howard University, Paul said, "I think that if you use it too much you will lose IQ points, I think if you use it too much you won't show up for class, I think you'll eat too many Doritos."

It seems that most of his pot smoking followers lost many IQ points.
 
2014-04-24 03:11:41 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?


You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?
 
2014-04-24 03:12:40 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?

Yeah:
The main thing I've said is not to legalize them

Right that is so open to interpretation if he wants to legalize it or not. Him  specifically saying he is not to legalize it when specifically asked about it. Right just keep believing your bullshiat no matter what reality actually is.

What's Hillary's position???


Don't know. Don't care. The issue was about Rand Paul follower fans who are fools and like him for positions that he is actually against.

You seem to have a hard time focusing on what the discussion is about.
 
2014-04-24 03:13:49 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?


I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.
 
2014-04-24 03:14:35 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?

Yeah:
The main thing I've said is not to legalize them

Right that is so open to interpretation if he wants to legalize it or not. Him  specifically saying he is not to legalize it when specifically asked about it. Right just keep believing your bullshiat no matter what reality actually is.

What's Hillary's position???

Don't know. Don't care. The issue was about Rand Paul follower fans who are fools and like him for positions that he is actually against.

You seem to have a hard time focusing on what the discussion is about.


Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.
 
2014-04-24 03:14:37 PM  
Rand Paul: Smoking Pot makes you stupid! And I want to make sure to keep it illegal.

Pot Smokers: Hey lets vote for this guy!!!

I guess Rand Paul might be right about something.
 
2014-04-24 03:15:21 PM  
And George McGovern would beat Richard Nixon in Massachusetts, and Walter Mondale would
beat Ronald Reagan in Minnesota, and Dewey would defeat Truman....
 
2014-04-24 03:15:30 PM  

Corvus: Don't know. Don't care


Heh.
 
2014-04-24 03:17:36 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.


I am not frothing. I am pointing to the pot smoking idiots who think Paul is great when Paul has said they are idiots and would not legalize pot.

They are fools. I think it's funny. And then they get all mad and ignore reality when you point out to them they have no idea what their idols positions actually are for an issue that is so important to them.
 
2014-04-24 03:18:35 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.


Yes you did:

Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.


Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?
 
2014-04-24 03:20:13 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.

I am not frothing. I am pointing to the pot smoking idiots who think Paul is great when Paul has said they are idiots and would not legalize pot.

They are fools. I think it's funny. And then they get all mad and ignore reality when you point out to them they have no idea what their idols positions actually are for an issue that is so important to them.


You took all that from some poll? Do you even know any pot smokers?
 
2014-04-24 03:20:38 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Read the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.

Now re-read what I said. What possible Dem candidate you think would not be just as "polarizing" after the GOP set their sites on them?

I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.


So by that definition would you be willing to criticize any of the right for being polarizing?
 
2014-04-24 03:21:25 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.

Yes you did:
Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?


Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?
 
2014-04-24 03:22:37 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.

I am not frothing. I am pointing to the pot smoking idiots who think Paul is great when Paul has said they are idiots and would not legalize pot.

They are fools. I think it's funny. And then they get all mad and ignore reality when you point out to them they have no idea what their idols positions actually are for an issue that is so important to them.

You took all that from some poll? Do you even know any pot smokers?


Nope not from the poll from first hand experience on Fark threads.
 
2014-04-24 03:23:11 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.

Yes you did:
Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?

Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?


Should the Republicans, since by your definition, if half the country dislikes them, they are polarizing candidates.
 
2014-04-24 03:23:13 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.

Yes you did:
Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?

Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?


So then who would be another choice that would not become polarizing at all then?
 
2014-04-24 03:23:30 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Read the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.

Now re-read what I said. What possible Dem candidate you think would not be just as "polarizing" after the GOP set their sites on them?

I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

So by that definition would you be willing to criticize any of the right for being polarizing?


I certainly do, on a regular basis.
 
2014-04-24 03:24:26 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: ead the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.


An alternate analysis occurred to me.  Hillary was once married to the president of the US.  She was famously a candidate for the Dem nomination in '08.  She's been the Secretary of State lately.  Pretty much everyone in the US knows who she is and has some idea of her.

It is possible to think that non-political Americans (which seems like roughly half or more of the population) would have had less exposure to Rand Paul and even less to Huckabee.

This could explain the lack of a strong reaction.  If someone asks you if you approve or disapprove of Jerimiah Kowalski... you say to yourself, "Who's that?" and answer that you don't have an opinion of them.

Don't forget, a lot of Americans are totally divorced from the political process.
 
2014-04-24 03:24:54 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: What's Hillary's position???


I just looked it up because I was curious. (unlike you I am actually capable of looking up positions of candidates).

Her position is very similar to Rand Pauls. Shorter sentencing, treatment over incarceration.
 
2014-04-24 03:27:06 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.

Yes you did:
Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?

Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?

So then who would be another choice that would not become polarizing at all then?


Hillary has been in national politics for over 20 years. EVERYONE knows her. Everyone has an opinion of her. Most candidates lack that type of exposure, which is why 20-30% have no strong opinion of most candidates, whereas it's only 5% for Hillary. She might be the most 'polarizing' candidate in modern US history. Good luck with that.
 
2014-04-24 03:27:15 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?


Depends.  If that candidate polarizes people 51-49%, that's not a bad nomination.  If it's 55-45% that's a brilliant nomination.

That being said, I really don't want HIllary to be the president of the US.  Obama's far enough right already, thank you very much.
 
2014-04-24 03:27:20 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?


The only way to have someone be "non-polarizing" is to get someone that no one really knows about. And once people got to know them during the campaign they are going to get about a 50/50 split. So saying "Don't nominate someone polarizing" is stupid because going through the political process everyone becomes "polarizing".

Is this too complicated for you to understand?
 
2014-04-24 03:28:02 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Hillary has been in national politics for over 20 years. EVERYONE knows her. Everyone has an opinion of her. Most candidates lack that type of exposure, which is why 20-30% have no strong opinion of most candidates, whereas it's only 5% for Hillary. She might be the most 'polarizing' candidate in modern US history. Good luck with that.


So Obama is less "Polarizing" than Hillary?
 
2014-04-24 03:28:49 PM  
Last time Hillary ran for president, she treated it as a coronation that was owed to her. I'm glad OObama derailed that and caused much weeping at the Clinton News Network.
 
2014-04-24 03:28:51 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: What's Hillary's position???

I just looked it up because I was curious. (unlike you I am actually capable of looking up positions of candidates).

Her position is very similar to Rand Pauls. Shorter sentencing, treatment over incarceration.


Plenty of room to 'evolve' huh?
 
2014-04-24 03:29:08 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: which is why 20-30% have no strong opinion of most candidates


And after a political campaign do you think people would still have a 20-30% no strong opinion about them?

If no, then why does it matter what it is when it starts?
 
2014-04-24 03:30:39 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: What's Hillary's position???

I just looked it up because I was curious. (unlike you I am actually capable of looking up positions of candidates).

Her position is very similar to Rand Pauls. Shorter sentencing, treatment over incarceration.

Plenty of room to 'evolve' huh?


Not what I said. You seem to really have a heard time focusing on what is being discussed. You were the one saying Pauls position could "evolve" because you didn't like that he said he was against legalizing pot.

I never said that for either of the candidates.
 
2014-04-24 03:33:52 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: which is why 20-30% have no strong opinion of most candidates

And after a political campaign do you think people would still have a 20-30% no strong opinion about them?

If no, then why does it matter what it is when it starts?


Go ahead and nominate her, I don't care. But she will have problems winning in places like Colorado.
 
2014-04-24 03:34:27 PM  
Paul still has 29% undecided.  Clinton has 5%.

People largely don't know anything about Rand Paul, and his poll numbers are probably slightly above Generic Republican because of the "oh yeah, that guy" factor.  Polling on this right now only makes sense if you work fort a PAC and want to fundraise for/against someone.
 
2014-04-24 03:34:35 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: What's Hillary's position???

I just looked it up because I was curious. (unlike you I am actually capable of looking up positions of candidates).

Her position is very similar to Rand Pauls. Shorter sentencing, treatment over incarceration.

Plenty of room to 'evolve' huh?

Not what I said. You seem to really have a heard time focusing on what is being discussed. You were the one saying Pauls position could "evolve" because you didn't like that he said he was against legalizing pot.

I never said that for either of the candidates.


I don't trust either of them on the issue.
 
2014-04-24 03:35:27 PM  

BSABSVR: Paul still has 29% undecided.  Clinton has 5%.

People largely don't know anything about Rand Paul, and his poll numbers are probably slightly above Generic Republican because of the "oh yeah, that guy" factor.  Polling on this right now only makes sense if you work fort a PAC and want to fundraise for/against someone.


You've also got to think that Paul will look like a nutcase to undecideds because they haven't been exposed to him.  Undecideds usually don't break for fringe candidates.
 
2014-04-24 03:37:18 PM  

BSABSVR: Paul still has 29% undecided.  Clinton has 5%.

People largely don't know anything about Rand Paul, and his poll numbers are probably slightly above Generic Republican because of the "oh yeah, that guy" factor.  Polling on this right now only makes sense if you work fort a PAC and want to fundraise for/against someone.


Also like I said before a lot of his  supporters think he is a civil libertarian, which he is not at all.
 
2014-04-24 03:45:39 PM  
Marijuana policy is going to be a major sleeper issue in 2016. Should be interesting.
 
2014-04-24 03:50:11 PM  
Colorado as a whole is VERY conservative.  The large urban areas are not so conservative.  When it comes to a popular vote, the urban areas override the rural areas.  If this poll was a statewide poll that didn't focus proportionately on the urban areas but just blanketed the state, then it's surprising that Paul's approval wasn't much lower because of him not being conservative enough.  I've lived in MS, TX, UT, and CO.  CO is very conservative.

I've always wondered what it'd be like to live someplace that wasn't so conservative, but I appear to be stuck in CO now.
 
2014-04-24 03:52:39 PM  
img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-04-24 03:58:00 PM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

This should be good.
 
2014-04-24 04:01:54 PM  

Explodo: Colorado as a whole is VERY conservative.  The large urban areas are not so conservative.  When it comes to a popular vote, the urban areas override the rural areas.  If this poll was a statewide poll that didn't focus proportionately on the urban areas but just blanketed the state, then it's surprising that Paul's approval wasn't much lower because of him not being conservative enough.  I've lived in MS, TX, UT, and CO.  CO is very conservative.

I've always wondered what it'd be like to live someplace that wasn't so conservative, but I appear to be stuck in CO now.



replygif.net

//oh boy, now I need a drink.
 
2014-04-24 04:17:31 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Marijuana policy is going to be a major sleeper issue in 2016. Should be interesting.


Thank god some people will focus on the "unimportant" issues like healthcare coverage, education, war, civil rights, income inequality. Instead of the huge important issue of "I want to smoke pot easier".
 
2014-04-24 04:22:01 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Marijuana policy is going to be a major sleeper issue in 2016. Should be interesting.

Thank god some people will focus on the "unimportant" issues like healthcare coverage, education, war, civil rights, income inequality. Instead of the huge important issue of "I want to smoke pot easier".


Ya know, some people might actually have a business interest in the MJ issue.  I voted for Obama and against the Mormon for a reason.
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report