OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

User Forum Topic
Submitted by svelte on December 11, 2015 - 7:41am

I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be!

Submitted by an on March 9, 2016 - 12:47pm.

spdrun wrote:

What about leakage of nuclear plant?
What about loss of land due to leakage of nuclear (3 miles island)?

Not a problem if you don't hire idiots to design and operate the plant. And modern designs are a lot safer than 1960s designs in operation in the US.

Burning coal also puts radwaste into the environment you know.


There are a lot of idiots out there.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 9, 2016 - 12:52pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
ok, not free, but cheap and not budget busting.
Mexico City's subway fare is 25c...
One can still ride all over SF on the streetcar, cable car or bus (or a combo of the above) for $2.50 or less per day.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 9, 2016 - 1:14pm.

Let me give you an example of kookoo extremism from people who don't want to even consider anything reasonable.

Anyone who uses airconditioning knows that efficiency is key to lower bill. There's a huge difference between SEER-10 and SEER-13 or even higher (up to SEER-23 now)

As Clinton left office he mandated SEER-13. Bush rolled it back and the issue went to court. So we didn't get SEER-13 until 2006 manufacture date. So most of the houses built doing the boom years still had the old stuff, manufactured before.

Lots of wasted energy and higher power bills for millions of consumers, simply because of obstruction.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/...

BTW, I happen to know this because I researched when I bought property.

If you run AC a lot and have high power bills, you know who to blame. AN, you have solar because you like AC. Well, do some research and see what your energy usage would be if you had SEER-18.

Anyone remember the polemic over the incandescent light bulbs. Isn't it so quaint and anachronistic now that LED is everywhere?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/ho...

Submitted by spdrun on March 9, 2016 - 12:59pm.

Or they can walk faster than most of those modes of conveyence. SFMUNI is a nice model train set :)

Submitted by no_such_reality on March 9, 2016 - 1:15pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
ok, not free, but cheap and not budget busting.
Mexico City's subway fare is 25c...
One can still ride all over SF on the streetcar, cable car or bus (or a combo of the above) for $2.50 or less per day.

Mexico City also has a $5/day minimum wage. Which given California's $10/hr minimum wage and an 8 hour work day, equates to a $4/subway far. LA's subway fare is $1.75. Roughly 1/2 as much a Mexico City's equivalent.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 9, 2016 - 1:21pm.

spdrun wrote:
Or they can walk faster than most of those modes of conveyence. SFMUNI is a nice model train set :)
You better be in damn good shape to walk up and down some of SF's lo-o-ng hills every day, especially rolling a couple of bags of groceries or carrying a heavy backpack. Of course, lots of people do but they are mostly college-age and Gen Y ... lol.

It's not uncommon for a SV worker to have to walk up and downhill up to one mile to and from the Caltrain stop from their (SF) home every workday.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 9, 2016 - 1:29pm.

I learned my "appropriate footwear for SF" lesson the hard way. When walking to catch public transportation to/from kid(s) homes high on a hill, always wear running shoes or Uggs, etc (something flat, with support).

Trying to "look good" wearing "fashionable" boots with "higher heels" on is not a good plan. They're okay for walking around union square shopping and catching a streetcar and then boarding a bus up the hill but NOT okay for walking up and downhill in. They're a recipe for a badly sprained (or even broken) ankle :=0

Submitted by spdrun on March 9, 2016 - 1:29pm.

Isn't that what the Scroogle buses are for? So they don't have to strain their weedle tootsie footsies?

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 9, 2016 - 1:46pm.

spdrun wrote:
Isn't that what the Scroogle buses are for? So they don't have to strain their weedle tootsie footsies?
Well, yeah, but the "Scroogle busses" pick up and drop off the masses of worker-bees in the flats (such as in SOMA). It is a commercial area and as such, hardly anyone lives there. The vast majority of 2-4 unit flats in that part of SF are uphill and many of these hills' crest at over one mile from the bottom.

Those "Scroogle busses" (and any other employer sponsored bus) come across the SF Bay Bridge early in the am from picking up workers who gathered at various pickup points located in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. When they arrive in SF, the buses just have 2-4 stops on main thoroughfares in the City and perhaps one in Stonestown or SSF and one in Daly City before heading on down to SV.

The SV worker residing in SF has to get to/from the bus stop themselves. The employer buses don't have door-to-door service or anything close to that in SF unless the worker lives dtn (on/off Market St) in the flats in one of the newer high-rise complexes.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 9, 2016 - 1:53pm.

spdrun wrote:
Or they can walk faster than most of those modes of conveyence. SFMUNI is a nice model train set :)
I agree that sometimes it IS faster and easier to walk, depending on where you are and where you want to go :=0

Submitted by no_such_reality on March 9, 2016 - 2:18pm.

LCD/LEDs over incandescent mandate is a good example of a foisted solution without fully understanding the impacts and questionable numbers.

LEDs make great sense in long hour operating environments, i.e Stores/ warehouses that run the lights 12-24 hours/day. Less so in residential housing where the cycling of lights increases failure rates and the extremely long (hypothesized life) of the bulb isn't beneficial.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/p...

Quote:
Surprisingly to many, the true reliability and lifetime of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting systems
is generally not known. Even worse, lumen maintenance values of LED devices are widely used as a
proxy for the lifetime of an LED lighting system, which is misleading since lumen maintenance is
but one component of a luminaire’s reliability. In fact, quite often the lifetime of a well-designed and
manufactured luminaire is not determined by LED lumen depreciation. For many manufacturers
estimating the luminaire lifetime using LED lumen maintenance, results can be ascribed to
dependence on readily available numbers without developing actual luminaire data. In many cases,
neither product providers nor customers are aware of the differences, perhaps in part because the
problem has not been sufficiently explored and communicated.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Let me give you an example of kookoo extremism from people who don't want to even consider anything reasonable.

Anyone who uses airconditioning knows that efficiency is key to lower bill. There's a huge difference between SEER-10 and SEER-13 or even higher (up to SEER-23 now)

As Clinton left office he mandated SEER-13. Bush rolled it back and the issue went to court. So we didn't get SEER-13 until 2006 manufacture date. So most of the houses built doing the boom years still had the old stuff, manufactured before.

Lots of wasted energy and higher power bills for millions of consumers, simply because of obstruction.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/...

BTW, I happen to know this because I researched when I bought property.

If you run AC a lot and have high power bills, you know who to blame. AN, you have solar because you like AC. Well, do some research and see what your energy usage would be if you had SEER-18.

Anyone remember the polemic over the incandescent light bulbs. Isn't it so quaint and anachronistic now that LED is everywhere?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/147007-bachmann-let-there-be-incandescent-light

Submitted by SK in CV on March 9, 2016 - 2:37pm.

poorgradstudent wrote:

I think Rubio's biggest issue is the Big Money donors aren't too impressed with him. I mean, if I was a completely loaded Republican, at this point I'd be tempted to just let Trump or Cruz win the nomination and sink my cash into competitive Senate races. Or maybe even cross my fingers for a brokered convention, where backroom influence goes a long ways.

Rubio's problem is that he has no campaign. He never built one. He's lazy. He's always been lazy. He gives a speech. If people like it, he gives it over and over again. Even if he had a campaign, he has nothing to run on. He's a good looking, young, Hispanic republican. Full stop. That's what he has. He would have an unlimited supply of insider money if he had anything beyond those attributes, and a campaign. He's history. His senate seat is up next January. We may never hear from him again.

It's likely the big republican money will go into the senate races and house races. Either Trump or Cruz will be a huge drag on down-ticket races. A Trump-Cruz ticket (or vice-versa) might cause Republicans to lose both the Senate and the House. It's unlikely to happen. Cruz hates Trump. Everyone hates Cruz (that's the one universal truth of this election cycle.) If the nominee comes out of a brokered convention, it's unlikely to be either of them. My money is on Paul Ryan. He's owed, big time. And down-ticket races will suffer even more.

Submitted by spdrun on March 9, 2016 - 2:39pm.

Cycling is actually harder on incandescent bulbs. The filament stretches and shrinks due to heating/cooling as the bulb is cycled. Can you say metal fatigue?

Submitted by an on March 9, 2016 - 3:04pm.

That AC example is exactly what I'm talking about in term of side effect. I bought my AC a few years ago and my AC system is SEER-16 and my heater is 98% efficient. I have the $ to front the cost difference banking on the energy saving in the long run. However, not everyone can afford to spend a few more grand up front. Which mean those people would have to live w/out AC or upgrade to 92% efficient unit if their old unit is @ <80%, if we put a limit at 95% efficiency.

As for incandescent vs LED, that's another horrible example. W/ incandescent, each bulb is a few cents while LED, each bulb is a couple of $. How long would you have to use those incandescent before it break event w/ LED? My outdoor light gets used maybe 1 hour a month on average. How long do you think it'll take to break even? There nothing wrong w/ LED, but not everyone can afford it and it's not the right solution in all situation.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 9, 2016 - 3:49pm.

AN wrote:
. . . As for incandescent vs LED, that's another horrible example. W/ incandescent, each bulb is a few cents while LED, each bulb is a couple of $. How long would you have to use those incandescent before it break event w/ LED? My outdoor light gets used maybe 1 hour a month on average. How long do you think it'll take to break even? There nothing wrong w/ LED, but not everyone can afford it and it's not the right solution in all situation.
Agree with this. I bought a bunch of incandescent bulbs on clearance before they wouldn't be sold anymore (both indoor and outdoor). I'm glad I did, especially the (more expensive) outdoor floodlight bulbs which are controlled by sensors and indoor Halogen bulbs. The price I got them for was about 1/10th of the price of new LED bulbs. I don't use that much lighting, usually only have lights on in one room at a time and am usually the household who conserved gas and electricity the most compared to my neighbors, according to SDG&E.

For my needs, some LED bulbs cost $8 each (or more).

The amount of savings in using LED bulbs (if any) over incandescent bulbs is entirely dependent on how much power the household or business uses.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 9, 2016 - 3:56pm.

AC example is actually excellent. Builders bear of cost of building, and all they can sell for is market price. The manufacture cost is probably a couple hundred dollar difference.

The SEER difference is an upsell point for manufacturers/resellers to get higher margins. Like plain white appliances vs. stainless steel.

That certainly proves that efficiency mandates work.

I just saw a 10 pack 60W equivalent LED for about $12 at Costco. You have to be stupid to buy incandescent, unless you need to achieve a very specific look. BTW the law is not to ban incandescent bulbs but to set gradual efficiency improvements. It's all about phasing in new standards. if that's not reasonable, then what is?

Submitted by poorgradstudent on March 11, 2016 - 12:42pm.

I have a feeling the March 15th primaries will end Bernie's campaign. Although the polls were badly wrong in Michigan, March 15th has a bunch of big states Hillary should carry by decent margins. Even if there's one surprise (Ohio?) she's likely to build a pledged delegate lead big enough the narrative will more or less call her the winner.

Still, after that it's a sparse calendar with a month of mostly Western states that Bernie should do OK in. I could see him hanging on until New York in mid-April where Hillary will look to throw the Knock-out punch.

Submitted by svelte on March 11, 2016 - 5:10pm.

poorgradstudent wrote:

Still, after that it's a sparse calendar with a month of mostly Western states that Bernie should do OK in. I could see him hanging on until New York in mid-April where Hillary will look to throw the Knock-out punch.

I think the Dems want him to hang on. Otherwise there is nothing to watch and all the attention will go to the Republicans. But Hillary will be the nominee.

But on the Republican side I still can't imagine a scenario my brain is comfortable with.
- Trump? It just boggles my mind that he would be the candidate.
- Cruz or Rubio? Can't see how they would get more delegates than Trump at this point
- Cruz/Rubio ticket? Only combo that could beat Trump, methinks, but I'm not sure I see them teaming either
- Romney? Come on. Far fetched. And I think there would be pandemonium in the party as Trump supporters turned all the tables in the room over.

Whatever happens on the Republican side it is going to be surreal.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 11, 2016 - 5:49pm.

svelte wrote:

- Romney? Come on. Far fetched. And I think there would be pandemonium in the party as Trump supporters turned all the tables in the room over.

Whatever happens on the Republican side it is going to be surreal.

Will there even been Trump supporters in Cleveland? The delegates Trump wins are bound to vote the him the first round only. They're not his supporters.

It will be fun to watch.

I think that as of now, the Republican establishment is hoping for Cruz or Kasich. Rubio's campaign has disintegrated that will likely lose Florida.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on March 11, 2016 - 6:05pm.

svelte wrote:

But on the Republican side I still can't imagine a scenario my brain is comfortable with.
- Trump? It just boggles my mind that he would be the candidate.
- Cruz or Rubio? Can't see how they would get more delegates than Trump at this point
- Cruz/Rubio ticket? Only combo that could beat Trump, methinks, but I'm not sure I see them teaming either
- Romney? Come on. Far fetched. And I think there would be pandemonium in the party as Trump supporters turned all the tables in the room over.

Whatever happens on the Republican side it is going to be surreal.

At this point only Trump has a legitimately clear shot at getting enough delegates to walk into the convention as the nominee. Cruz mathematically could still swing it, but he'd need to start building momentum in states that aren't necessarily heavy in his core supporters.

So really, there are two likely outcomes: Trump is the nominee before the convention, or there is a contested convention where all Hell could break loose.

Submitted by paramount on March 11, 2016 - 6:35pm.

The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so...

Submitted by spdrun on March 11, 2016 - 6:39pm.

But Hillary will be the nominee.

Unless the rumors about her ill health are true, of course, and that cough is really lung cancer. Maybe Sanders donors should chip in and send her packs of unfiltered Camels.

Submitted by zk on March 11, 2016 - 6:50pm.

paramount wrote:
The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so...

So far all the violence I've seen has been perpetrated by Trump supporters, not protesters. Why would the jails be full of protesters?

Submitted by joec on March 11, 2016 - 7:05pm.

SK in CV wrote:
poorgradstudent wrote:

I think Rubio's biggest issue is the Big Money donors aren't too impressed with him. I mean, if I was a completely loaded Republican, at this point I'd be tempted to just let Trump or Cruz win the nomination and sink my cash into competitive Senate races. Or maybe even cross my fingers for a brokered convention, where backroom influence goes a long ways.

Rubio's problem is that he has no campaign. He never built one. He's lazy. He's always been lazy. He gives a speech. If people like it, he gives it over and over again. Even if he had a campaign, he has nothing to run on. He's a good looking, young, Hispanic republican. Full stop. That's what he has. He would have an unlimited supply of insider money if he had anything beyond those attributes, and a campaign. He's history. His senate seat is up next January. We may never hear from him again.

It's likely the big republican money will go into the senate races and house races. Either Trump or Cruz will be a huge drag on down-ticket races. A Trump-Cruz ticket (or vice-versa) might cause Republicans to lose both the Senate and the House. It's unlikely to happen. Cruz hates Trump. Everyone hates Cruz (that's the one universal truth of this election cycle.) If the nominee comes out of a brokered convention, it's unlikely to be either of them. My money is on Paul Ryan. He's owed, big time. And down-ticket races will suffer even more.

I agree completely. Rubio is done IMO. He got elected to 1 term I think and has been a lazy senator, and from all reports, the laziest never showing up and he had a singular goal of trying to reach the presidency after his Senate mid-step...(according to his campaign manager I think?)

After he loses Florida sadly, I hope and think he will be done with Politics since he hasn't done a thing and only wanted to be POTUS 6 years ago...

Good riddance I say....

Submitted by joec on March 11, 2016 - 7:39pm.

poorgradstudent wrote:
I have a feeling the March 15th primaries will end Bernie's campaign. Although the polls were badly wrong in Michigan, March 15th has a bunch of big states Hillary should carry by decent margins. Even if there's one surprise (Ohio?) she's likely to build a pledged delegate lead big enough the narrative will more or less call her the winner.

Still, after that it's a sparse calendar with a month of mostly Western states that Bernie should do OK in. I could see him hanging on until New York in mid-April where Hillary will look to throw the Knock-out punch.

I disagree with this completely. Are you a Hillary supporter? Campaigns primarily stop when they run out of money. Bernie, after winning Michigan did a fund raising event in 10 seconds in a hastily called press conference and just told people to donate to the campaign. He asked people to donate a few bucks and in a week, he has 10-20 million just like that. These are small (< $30) donations.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sande...

I couldn't find funding after Michigan, but expect a solid fundraising after that win.

I even saw an article where Clinton has a higher chance of running out of money since she actually has to go to some fancy dinner with a few donors paying lots of cash. There are smaller crowds with much less energy or passion at her events when 5-10k (HUUUUUGE) crowds show up for Bernie. A part of this is because a lot of people actually don't even like her that much or want her, but are stuck with her.

LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-na...

Bernie will take this as far as the convention if the funding is there which I think will be.

Also, the electoral map is MUCH MUCH more favorable after March 15th to Bernie (the african American south is sorta done) so he has even more reasons to stay.

Also, if Clinton runs into issues or gets indicted, her support and electability and superdelegates may change their vote since she may also have a chance to lose the election.

Trump also toned down his rhetoric in the last debate which will make him a tougher opponent if he comes off as saying he said what he did to win the nomination. You even have Carson endorsing him now. For all the idiocy that is Trump (I'm not a supporter), he is still a pretty smart business man and generally a success taking advantage of every advantage so Hillary and Bill, especially will have trouble dealing with him IMO.

Also, every poll I have seen has Sanders topping every Republican challenger. Clinton had some polls where should would actually lose. On the ones she might win, she also wins by a smaller margin than Bernie against any Republican.

In short, Hillary is the candidate the establishment dems are "stuck" with. The dems will always vote for dems so there will always be support and people will fall in line (that's that 70% Hillary support), but Hillary 'flip-flopping' Clinton is a pretty weak candidate that the majority of people find distrustful and in the pocket of the wealthy elite.

Full disclosure, yes, I would like Hillary to lose...badly...

Submitted by paramount on March 11, 2016 - 11:57pm.

zk wrote:
paramount wrote:
The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so...

So far all the violence I've seen has been perpetrated by Trump supporters, not protesters. Why would the jails be full of protesters?

Oh, that's just because you were watching CNN.

The socialist progressives and their victims were the ones that were actually breaking the law.

Submitted by zk on March 12, 2016 - 8:27am.

paramount wrote:
zk wrote:
paramount wrote:
The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so...

So far all the violence I've seen has been perpetrated by Trump supporters, not protesters. Why would the jails be full of protesters?

Oh, that's just because you were watching CNN.

Not sure what difference it makes what channel on which I saw video of Trump supporters assaulting Trump protesters without provocation (unless you call asserting their first amendment rights provocation). Unless you're saying CNN faked the videos. Are you saying CNN faked the videos?

If you have links to videos that clearly show Trump protesters instigating violence without provocation, by all means show them to us. Show us links to videos that show enough Trump protesters initiating violence that they would fill the Chicago jails.

paramount wrote:

The socialist progressives and their victims were the ones that were actually breaking the law.

First off, not all Trump protesters are "socialist progressives." Most of them are probably protesting Trump because he's a racist, misogynist fool.

Second, what laws were the protesters breaking?

And who are "their victims" and what laws were they breaking?

Submitted by XBoxBoy on March 12, 2016 - 6:13pm.

joec wrote:
Campaigns primarily stop when they run out of money.

While running out of money is a problem for a candidate, in the nomination race if your opponent gets over 50% of the delegates pledged to her (or him) it's game over no matter how much money you have.

Submitted by Coronita on March 13, 2016 - 2:41pm.

paramount wrote:
zk wrote:
paramount wrote:
The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so...

So far all the violence I've seen has been perpetrated by Trump supporters, not protesters. Why would the jails be full of protesters?

Oh, that's just because you were watching CNN.

The socialist progressives and their victims were the ones that were actually breaking the law.

Paramount. You really have lost it. I know you have this anti-extreme liberal thing. And to some extent, so did I wrto some of the ridiculous policies. But, for a minute, can you briefly take off the anger and hate that you have against apparently "liberals" and just think rationally for a second?

Look at this....

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-tr...

Quote:

Donald Trump took a step toward supporting violent action by a supporter Sunday, saying that he had instructed his attorneys to look into paying the legal bills for a man charged last week with punching a protester who was being led out of a rally.

The statement of potential financial support, which Trump made on NBC’s “Meet the Press” added a new and remarkable dimension to his presidential campaign’s flirtation with violence and again drew condemnation from a wide spectrum of politicians.

Let's put this in perspective for you... Let's say someone found out who you are and your anti Obama stance. And let's say someone goes to your house and kicks the living shit out of your kids or your wife, simply because he didn't like your anti-obama stance, and he wanted you to STFU. And your wife is bleeding, your kids are roughed up...And they caught the guy who did it.. Obama saw the news in the headlines and says he'd offer to pay the perpetrator for his legal expenses for kicking the shit out of your wife and your kids, because Obama felt you were threatening (when in reality, he didn't just like what you were saying about him and was glad your family got roughed up, since that would teach you a lesson).... That would be OK, right?

This isn't about left or right. This guy is insane. He's a bully. Probably borderline mentally unstable. You might like him, because you feel the only way you'll get "even" with whatever some imaginary adversary you have that apparently pisses you off. But stop and think about this. Is this really some guy you want to have his hands on a nuclear button? Is this the sort of behavior you want your kids growing up to learn? That if in life you can't get your way, that's it's ok to find a bunch of people to rough up other people? Think. The next 4 years and probably 8, you're going to have to live with that choice you make not just for yourself but for your kids.

People keep saying "it's no big deal". How much damage can a president do? Let me ask you this, how do you explain this sort of viewpoint to your kids, if he is president? What sort of message does it send to our younger generation? Are white people really that mad in that they really don't want anyone that isn't white to be in this country?

Trump is making Obama look like prince. And you know me, I never liked Obama, ever.

Trump isn't a republican, he's neither conservative nor is he a moderate. He's just criminally insane and thinks rules, laws, human decency doesn't apply to him.

Submitted by joec on March 13, 2016 - 6:50pm.

Trump's a bully and mostly (like nearly ALL the candidates) looking out for himself, but calling him insane is a bit off I feel.

If he was truly insane, he would have squandered all his born wealth and would be a total failure with no marriages and living in a ditch or dead.

From all data, I think it's fair to say he was born a millionaire and made himself into a billionaire (how much, still over $1 bil)...more than what most people would amount to.

He also raised 3 kids which nearly all the press and people who know them state are decent and upstanding kids...especially Ivanka.

I think in the end, Trump is extremely calculating and has a good sense of what the mood/feel/whatever you want to call it is for people and uses it to make sure he's getting his share/cut...and uses it to succeed.

It's true he's no conservative, but maybe that's a good thing since there's been ads against him for coming out and supporting universal health care
(my main concern in general) and other things "conservative" far right republicans would never support.

What I don't get is why LEGAL immigrants want to support ILLEGAL immigrants who are probably affecting their financial and job prospects far more. Having more workers compete with you if you are legal doesn't help you and I'd assume legal immigrants (Mexican, Asian, whoever) should be against all the freebees you see bantered about. Maybe it's your family, but legal immigrants can bring them in legally as well...I don't get this point.

On Clinton, the superdelegates can flip and who knows, maybe an indictment would force her to get out since no one really wants to support someone who'd actually lose to Trump and getting charged with a felony of leaking trade secrets or mishandling trade secrets won't help and her support would crumble I think.

I don't know where I read it and maybe it's all fake, but I saw somewhere that Obama wants to be UN Secretary after office (as does Bill Clinton) and he'd need Hillary not be president for that to happen.

Maybe all conservative conspiracy theories...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.