My Silhouette friends, be ready for the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential election. I am not the only one that thinks Hillary will go into office without any problems. The bookies and actuaries have calculated tremendous odds for Hillary compared to other possible candidates. Here is an article outlining the reasons.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -2016.html

I suppose the good news is that she's more conservative than Bill or BHO, a damn sight tougher - she won't go low profile - and she knows there's a country beyond Chicago. Plus she has sense enough to choose her battles.

The Republican party needs to get serious about a sane candidate that appeals to voters outside the Republican mainstream - independents and conservative Democrats. A strict, no compromise Tea Party candidate is a sure loser, as is anyone idiot enough to claim that "businesses are people too".

BCloninger wrote:I suppose the good news is that she's more conservative than Bill or BHO, a damn sight tougher - she won't go low profile - and she knows there's a country beyond Chicago. Plus she has sense enough to choose her battles.

The Republican party needs to get serious about a sane candidate that appeals to voters outside the Republican mainstream - independents and conservative Democrats. A strict, no compromise Tea Party candidate is a sure loser, as is anyone idiot enough to claim that "businesses are people too".

And the best part of it is she has NO record of accomplishment that could be held against her one way or the other!!!!

I always wonder why liberals think ""Government" are people too," yet they have this vision that "Corporations" (that was the term used in the original Romney quote) are somehow void of any human touch or connection. As an investor, consumer and fellow human being, it is very clear to me that corporations are nothing more than an amalgamation of living creatures trying to carry out a set of objective goals, based on goods and services, which in the end will provide a profit for the corporations shareholders (me) and jobs for its employees. I guess that is hard to understand when you want to portray "Corporations" as the bogey man and "Government" as the savior????

The concept of the corporation as a person has existed as a legal fiction for a very long time, and recent supreme court decision have extended that definition. Disagreeing with that extension is pro-person, not anti-corporation.

Personally, I'm tired of the bomb throwing and lack of worthwhile candidates on both sides, not that anyone cares. But if the choices come down to Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz, I'm staying home.

No BCloninger, she is not more conservative than Bill or Barry just more sneaky with her agenda. Her information on Wikipedia demonstrates her abilities at deception of the "ignorant" masses. The similarities of Hillary to Angela Landsberry's character in the original "Manchurian Candidate" movie is frightening. My point is the preppers and hoarders are going to strike again after that 2016 election making it more difficult for the normal match shooters to continue their harmless sport.

So - stock up on ammunition now? If you can even find it, that is.

BCloninger wrote: The Republican party needs to get serious about a sane candidate that appeals to voters outside the Republican mainstream - independents and conservative Democrats. ".

They did that, his name is Romney....

Not so much. Romney was a job destroyer in a former life - that's a real disqualifier for some.

BCloninger wrote:Not so much. Romney was a job destroyer in a former life - that's a real disqualifier for some.

Care to offer up a few documented examples of this? Try to provide me with verifiable analysis not articles from Slate and the Huffington Post!! While as implausible as it might sound to you, it is better to lose some jobs than all jobs (Hostess), of course this does not fit the Union modus operandi which I am sure you cling to.

On the other hand, some might be a little more concerned about taxpayer money being used for pseudo private equity investment by the Obama administration. For examples see the article at the link below:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/comparing ... lic-equity

You do validate a theory I have espoused in the last few years. There were a lot of people who did not vote for Romney because they erroneously believed what Pelosi, Reid and you said regarding Romney's private equity record. If they had, more of them might have real jobs today!

BCloninger wrote:Not so much. Romney was a job destroyer in a former life - that's a real disqualifier for some.

It's called capitalism and is legal. You have something for sale, I offer you a price, you sell it to me, it's mine to do with as I wish....

Only in Soviet Russia did they run factories making widgets that had no value or use other then to keep people employed.

cedestech wrote:

BCloninger wrote:Not so much. Romney was a job destroyer in a former life - that's a real disqualifier for some.

It's called capitalism and is legal. You have something for sale, I offer you a price, you sell it to me, it's mine to do with as I wish....

Only in Soviet Russia did they run factories making widgets that had no value or use other then to keep people employed.

Absolutely true.