Has Hillary disqualified herself?

Less so by your juvenile lack of response.

 

That link doesn't show anything. What is the database and parameters you used?

No, my link is to the household survey where you find the UR numbers.

Bush had *by far* the worst employment numbers of any president since the GD. If you take out the huge increase in government jobs during his term, his job numbers are actually negative. To brag about his employment is just the depths of partisanship.

 

Not the CIA which accomplished the task you fallaciously apply to her.

This is about the candles SHE holds which warrant her election but as you continue to prove the only thing you can offer is you have no alternative for her.

Keep wallowing in that mud.

 

You're actually trying to impress us with the argument that because the Dems had the House and the Senate they therefore had 2x the control and power because the Republicans only controlled the executive branch and administration of the Government?

That's the type of argument I'd expect a third grade student to make.

 

Prove she had no involvement in any of those events.

ROTFLMAO you cannot even identify one GOP alternative that could hold a candle to her.

 

Hillary is still a woman, and because of that, will win the next election.

Performance is the furthest thing from the minds of the left.

 

To the contrary, she's by far the most experienced candidate with years in the White House and the legislature as well as foreign policy.

Who's the alternative?

 

Experience has nothing to do with performance.
Are you in the same convo ?

A lefty female with more mental stability than Hillary ?

Gabby Giffords.

 

Of course it does. That was why the Republicans attacked Obama for his lack of experience in 2008.

Don't understand your question.

Yet another con dodges the question.

Anyone what to answer it?

 

Who? A little to soon to tell is it not? You have a crystal ball? Anyways, sleaze is something I distance myself from. Hillary is as low as it gets and no other is more sleazier.

So far no one has caught my attention on a national level. I tend to push more at local politics, we did a awesome job here in Colorado on Sept 10th ridding ourselves of 2 sleazy people....Morse and Giron. Sent them back to the trailer park.

No worries, once I do decide on the National level I will let you know.

 

Apparently the crystal is good enough to speculate about Clinton as president. If its good enough to do that seems fair to ask who would be proposed as the alternative if you are going to evaluate her as a choice as president.

 

Sorry, my opinion and evaluation of Hillary is based on her past performance....do you understand? Now I remember you when I looked up at your avatar and post count.

I do need to ask why you want other members here to pick a candidate now? Seems odd at this point in time and somewhat narrow. Whats to gain?

 

You're talking to someone who hasn't a clue about the difference between performance and experience.

Who, as you have realized, will argue nonstop just because they love arguing.

 

I am still curious why he wanted and pushed members to pick now? Whats to gain? Very odd position to be in.

 

Prove your baseless claim that I don't have a clue about the difference between performance and experience.

What utter nonsense.

LOL, says the guy who's arguing nonstop because he loves arguing.

 

So they can argue against whomever people name.

Some call it boredom... others consider it a mission.

 

Good for you. What does that have to do with my post?

The issue is why Hillary would win and why anyone would vote for her.

Elections are about choices. If you're going to ask why she would win or why vote for her, you also have to consider the alternative.

And it is very illuminating that of the several conservatives who have posted on the issue, not one has been able to identify an alternative.

 

No problem...

Your comment made no sense whatsoever.
His lack of experience was pointed out, not his performance... I mean.. since he wasn't even President yet.
Is that difficult to understand ?

Forget that...
You said experience and performance are related.

Like I said.... not a clue.

Agreed.

 

No, so you can compare the alternative to Clinton when evaluating whether she would win or why one would vote for her.

Seems pretty logical to me.

 

I think your point is being proven as I type, anyways hope he has fun with it.

 

So in your mind, me saying that experience has something to do with performance is "proof" that I don't have a clue about the difference between performance and experience.

Got it. Putting aside the obvious non-sequitur of your position, maybe others are impressed with your position that experience has nothing to do with performance. I beg to differ.

First intelligent thing you've written.

 

You don't consider the alternative candidate when you make a decision to vote, eh? I suspect many conservatives do the same.

 

Yeah... some "fun" that must be for him.

 

I do take a certain pleasure in making conservatives look silly, I admit. : )

 

The dire prognostications regarding Clinton's prospects from the seers who were heralding Landslide Willard in MMXII should be a tad more guarded.