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  
•       •       •

531 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2014 at 1:47 PM (18 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 04:24:52 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".


I like weed and I may vote to a degree based on positions relating to decriminalization/medical use but I would never waste a vote simply on the issue of legalization.  It is so far down my priority list, as to be something I would pretty much ignore politically.
 
2014-04-24 04:26:22 PM
I can't wait until pot is legalized nationwide and stoners are just considered pot hipsters.
 
2014-04-24 04:46:40 PM

Corvus: 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.


It's like a twenty year career in Washington turns idealistic outsiders into cynical insiders.  Who knew?
 
2014-04-24 05:19:35 PM

Corvus: 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.


Experience from Fark threads? Watch out guys, we got an expert here!
 
2014-04-24 05:40:16 PM

llortcM_yllort: Corvus: 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.

It's like a twenty year career in Washington turns idealistic outsiders into cynical insiders.  Who knew?


So my take actually is maybe she is a candidate with good inside knowledge that can twist arms and get things done.
 
2014-04-24 05:41:20 PM
It's pretty old news that Colorado has its share of lolbertarians who smoke weed.

Though I would agree Clinton is a terrible choice. Way too much baggage.
 
2014-04-24 05:44:00 PM

whidbey: Though I would agree Clinton is a terrible choice. Way too much baggage.


Like what exactly?

Most of the "baggage" I can think of is Republican generated BS like Benghazi and the stupid stuff done as attacks during the Bill Clinton administration and those have not much substance and people are tired of them.

She is actually very vetted there is not going to be anything "new" on her because they have gone after her so much already.
 
2014-04-24 05:44:03 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: This just in, Colorado isn't a blue state.


Except for their senate delegation, the governor, and the last two presidential elections.
 
2014-04-24 05:47:55 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: If by weird, you mean awesome, you are correct.


There is considerable overlap between the two.
 
2014-04-24 05:58:56 PM

Corvus: Wait until his Colorado fans find out:
He is AGAINST gay marriage.


So is Colorado, alas.

Including the so-called "libertarians" I have met in Colorado.
 
2014-04-24 06:04:46 PM

Corvus: 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.


Since then, she has held public office and done stuff that revealed her actual politics.
 
2014-04-24 06:17:33 PM

Corvus: whidbey: Though I would agree Clinton is a terrible choice. Way too much baggage.

Like what exactly?

Most of the "baggage" I can think of is Republican generated BS like Benghazi and the stupid stuff done as attacks during the Bill Clinton administration and those have not much substance and people are tired of them.

She is actually very vetted there is not going to be anything "new" on her because they have gone after her so much already.


We're not going to get anywhere with this. I'd say since we agree on most other things, this is my take:

People hated her husband, and hate her. Not just lilbertarians, either. Many of us would like to see some fresh blood for 2016 like they did when they ran Obama. Warren is the best choice. Clinton is a very lazy oligarchical choice where it's just going to cause so much bullshiat, it's going to make Obama's term look like a dog cart ride. She's really better off out of the picture. Of course, reality is probably going to dictate otherwise. But I sure hope not. I really don't want a return to 2000 where I punted the system with my vote.
 
2014-04-24 06:21:00 PM

Mercutio74: That being said, I really don't want HIllary to be the president of the US.


Since when has been a matter of voting for a candidate you actually want, instead of picking which of two candidates you hate the least?
 
2014-04-24 06:48:06 PM

Corvus: 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.


It is funny like when Clinton was President she was undermining the office by being a powerful lawyer with lots of connections in the legal establishment, inviting allegations of favoritism and corruption by the executive favoring her connections. Now after more years in various legislative and executive roles, she is a nobody who only has a shot at being President because of who her husband is.
 
2014-04-24 06:49:27 PM

static1.fjcdn.com

 
2014-04-24 07:10:01 PM

whidbey: People hated her husband, and hate her. Not just lilbertarians, either. Many of us would like to see some fresh blood for 2016 like they did when they ran Obama. Warren is the best choice. Clinton is a very lazy oligarchical choice where it's just going to cause so much bullshiat, it's going to make Obama's term look like a dog cart ride. She's really better off out of the picture. Of course, reality is probably going to dictate otherwise. But I sure hope not. I really don't want a return to 2000 where I punted the system with my vote.


Yes and they hate Obama to and they will hate whoever the candidate is for 2016. The problem is not Hilary. It's the partisanship and attacks that the GOP does for whoever is nominee.

You think if Hillary is not nominated the Republicans are going to go easy on the person?

I would rather someone vetted then someone not. New issues are a lot bigger deal than 30 year old ones.
 
2014-04-24 07:12:09 PM

Corvus: You think if Hillary is not nominated the Republicans are going to go easy on whoever the nominee is?


There clarified what I meant.

The idea that if we elect someone not Hilary the Republicans won't send hundreds of made up controversies about them is naive.
 
2014-04-24 09:34:24 PM

Communist_Manifesto: Ow! That was my feelings!: This just in, Colorado isn't a blue state. Hell, Dems only make up about 31% of registered voters.

It's not a red state either. It's a weird state.

~900k Active Dem Voters ~940k Active Repubs and ~1 Million Unaffiliated

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2014/March /V otersByPartyStatus.pdf



That isn't weird. The moderates and liberals in the cities are surrounded by evangelicals and military who are conservatives and libertarians. Right now the moderates and libertarians are one issue voters and would probably see Hillary take away their weed.
 
2014-04-24 11:48:47 PM
I would love to see President Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.

That would make me happy.
 
2014-04-24 11:56:49 PM

xria: Corvus: 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.

It is funny like when Clinton was President she was undermining the office by being a powerful lawyer with lots of connections in the legal establishment, inviting allegations of favoritism and corruption by the executive favoring her connections. Now after more years in various legislative and executive roles, she is a nobody who only has a shot at being President because of who her husband is.


You're an asshole and an idiot for ignoring her performance of Secretary of State, unless you're merely trolling by adopting the gimmick of an uninformed Fox News junky who has been living in a nuclear bomb shelter for the last 6 years. In which case, you hooked me, good job on flamebait sir.
 
2014-04-24 11:58:22 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: xria: Corvus: 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.

It is funny like when Clinton was President she was undermining the office by being a powerful lawyer with lots of connections in the legal establishment, inviting allegations of favoritism and corruption by the executive favoring her connections. Now after more years in various legislative and executive roles, she is a nobody who only has a shot at being President because of who her husband is.

You're an asshole and an idiot for ignoring her performance of Secretary of State, unless you're merely trolling by adopting the gimmick of an uninformed Fox News junky who has been living in a nuclear bomb shelter for the last 6 years. In which case, you hooked me, good job on flamebait sir.


Sorry I'm drunk and didn't parse that you truly are mocking those said assholes originally.
 
2014-04-25 12:33:46 AM

Marcus Aurelius: At least Rand would be highly entertaining.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-25 12:47:26 AM

Corvus: whidbey: People hated her husband, and hate her. Not just lilbertarians, either. Many of us would like to see some fresh blood for 2016 like they did when they ran Obama. Warren is the best choice. Clinton is a very lazy oligarchical choice where it's just going to cause so much bullshiat, it's going to make Obama's term look like a dog cart ride. She's really better off out of the picture. Of course, reality is probably going to dictate otherwise. But I sure hope not. I really don't want a return to 2000 where I punted the system with my vote.

Yes and they hate Obama to and they will hate whoever the candidate is for 2016. The problem is not Hilary. It's the partisanship and attacks that the GOP does for whoever is nominee.

You think if Hillary is not nominated the Republicans are going to go easy on the person?

I would rather someone vetted then someone not. New issues are a lot bigger deal than 30 year old ones.


Well of course!  I mean, the Dems nominated Obama instead of Hillary, and look at how easily the Republicans got along with him!

Hillary has made an amazing number of enemies, and I don't mean the Republicans.  She was always the 'bad cop' of the pair.  I'd rather see a President that could work well with Congress, but as long as the Republicans refuse to work well with anybody, what's the point?
 
2014-04-25 02:19:21 AM
I think Rand Paul would make a good president, but only in the way Zaphod Beeblebrox made a good president.
 
2014-04-25 02:19:25 AM

JolobinSmokin: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

She scares me a lot less when I factor in who she would pick for the supreme court, because leftist causes would be safe.


Yeah, if a republican wins in 2016, they'll likely get the chance to replace one or two of Ginsbert, Kennedy, and Breyer.  You think the supreme court is bad now?  We'll be screwed for at least a generation if President Paul (or whoever) picks their replacements.
 
2014-04-25 07:13:42 AM

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".


The fact that you can be given a longer jail sentence for drug possession than for murder, plus all the money we waste on incarcerating non-violent offenders, is important to some people.
 
2014-04-25 07:16:51 AM

Corvus: whidbey: Though I would agree Clinton is a terrible choice. Way too much baggage.

Like what exactly?

Most of the "baggage" I can think of is Republican generated BS like Benghazi and the stupid stuff done as attacks during the Bill Clinton administration and those have not much substance and people are tired of them.

She is actually very vetted there is not going to be anything "new" on her because they have gone after her so much already.


Pro censorship? Supports the same surveillance state as Obama and Bush?
 
2014-04-25 07:27:09 AM

mcnguyen: JolobinSmokin: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

She scares me a lot less when I factor in who she would pick for the supreme court, because leftist causes would be safe.

Yeah, if a republican wins in 2016, they'll likely get the chance to replace one or two of Ginsbert, Kennedy, and Breyer.  You think the supreme court is bad now?  We'll be screwed for at least a generation if President Paul (or whoever) picks their replacements.


 Coincidentally, this is the exact same argument my partisan Republican friends were using to support Romney last cycle; "Vote for the guy you don't really support because SCOTUS appointments".


 
2014-04-25 08:08:03 AM

Mister Buttons: The Rent is too Damn High


Pardon me for saying this, but I don't think that guy is a supporter of an unfetterred private economy.
 
2014-04-25 10:43:10 AM
Huh....so a candidate who's been on the stump for the past year is polling better than one who hasn't yet announced her candidacy.


Who'd have thunk it?
 
2014-04-25 11:45:23 AM
We all are stoned here you know.  AND we've been voting for RON Paul for like... two decades.  I think everyone just thinks it's a typo.
 
2014-04-25 06:08:35 PM

flondrix: Mercutio74: That being said, I really don't want HIllary to be the president of the US.

Since when has been a matter of voting for a candidate you actually want, instead of picking which of two candidates you hate the least?


Wasn't the case in the past 10 years.

Mad?
 
Displayed 32 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 »






Report