Michelle Obama For President?

Reub · Post by **Reub** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:57 am

Can anyone else besides me envision a scenario where Michelle Obama runs for President against Hillary in the Democrat primaries in 2016? It seems that it is very difficult for Presidential families to forego power and fame once they have it and she seems very ambitious. I'm sure that the Obamas have plenty of "dirt" on Hillary that they can use when necessary.

Stewardship · Post by **Stewardship** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:22 am

I've been predicting Michelle to run for President as well. Not necessarily 2016. 2020 perhaps...

Reub · Post by **Reub** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:51 pm

Biden has no chance. Michelle would be formidable at some point.

Reub · Post by **Reub** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:21 pm

It's not like I'm endorsing her, because I'm not. I think that she would be just as bad for this country as her husband.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:25 pm

Lord have mercy!

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:16 pm

Lord Have Mercy!!!
Lord Have Mercy!!!
Lord Have Mercy!!!

Benko · Post by **Benko** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:30 pm

Desert wrote: There MUST be someone better than what the Republicans threw out there in the last election. I felt like I was watching One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest when I watched the Republican debates a couple years ago. The Republicans should be able to win, if they can simply (?) put a candidate out there that isn't a complete embarrassment.

I was not a big Romney fan, but he didn't win because the left (including the press) is super good at demonizing people and because Obama lied (you can keep your plan/doctor) and covered up (Bengazi). Romney would have been a much better president.

If people vote for Clinton, they deserve what they get.

Reub · Post by **Reub** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:27 pm

This is no ploy. It came from the dark recesses of my mind.

MachineGhost · Post by **MachineGhost** » Sun May 04, 2014 4:55 pm

Reub wrote: Can anyone else besides me envision a scenario where Michelle Obama runs for President against Hillary in the Democrat primaries in 2016? It seems that it is very difficult for Presidential families to forego power and fame once they have it and she seems very ambitious. I'm sure that the Obamas have plenty of "dirt" on Hillary that they can use when necessary.

NO! She has zero qualifications.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Sun May 04, 2014 5:47 pm

MachineGhost wrote:
Reub wrote: Can anyone else besides me envision a scenario where Michelle Obama runs for President against Hillary in the Democrat primaries in 2016? It seems that it is very difficult for Presidential families to forego power and fame once they have it and she seems very ambitious. I'm sure that the Obamas have plenty of "dirt" on Hillary that they can use when necessary.
NO! She has zero qualifications.

Pretty much like her husband.

MachineGhost · Post by **MachineGhost** » Sun May 04, 2014 6:19 pm

Mountaineer wrote: Pretty much like her husband.

And we see how well that works out, don't we? I trust electoral voters pay attention next time and never again elect someone without executive experience. You can't change the culture of DC if you're surrounded by unelected advisors telling you what you don't know.

moda0306 · Post by **moda0306** » Sun May 04, 2014 6:27 pm

MachineGhost wrote:
Mountaineer wrote: Pretty much like her husband.
And we see how well that works out, don't we? I trust electoral voters pay attention next time and never again elect someone without executive experience. You can't change the culture of DC if you're surrounded by unelected advisors telling you what you don't know.

Really? What does executive experience really give us?

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Sun May 04, 2014 8:05 pm

Desert wrote: I'm trying to think who the most qualified president in recent years was ... I'm thinking it's a tossup between Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton.

Thomas Jefferson - very recent in terms of time since the last ice age.

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick · Post by **Pointedstick** » Mon May 05, 2014 10:00 am

Libertarian666 wrote: Even the Republicans have figured this out, if I can go by the changes in the "national surveys" they send me all the time, since I was a delegate to the Texas convention. There are two major changes:

1. They have a new question asking whether they should forget about the "social issues" and just concentrate on the fiscal ones.
2. In the first part, where they ask "how do you describe your political leanings" (or words to that effect), they have added "Libertarian" as an option. It was never there before.

I get these too and was similarly surprised.

Then again, they're the Republicans. They're probably going to find a way to screw the pooch anyway. A year or two ago, the RNC came out with a huge report that basically said that to remain relevant, they needed to drop the social issues, stop demonizing immigrants, and STFU about women's issues, and it was promptly ignored.

dragoncar · Post by **dragoncar** » Mon May 05, 2014 10:29 am

Pointedstick wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: Even the Republicans have figured this out, if I can go by the changes in the "national surveys" they send me all the time, since I was a delegate to the Texas convention. There are two major changes:

1. They have a new question asking whether they should forget about the "social issues" and just concentrate on the fiscal ones.
2. In the first part, where they ask "how do you describe your political leanings" (or words to that effect), they have added "Libertarian" as an option. It was never there before.
I get these too and was similarly surprised.

Then again, they're the Republicans. They're probably going to find a way to screw the pooch anyway. A year or two ago, the RNC came out with a huge report that basically said that to remain relevant, they needed to drop the social issues, stop demonizing immigrants, and STFU about women's issues, and it was promptly ignored.

So basically "be a different political party"

MachineGhost · Post by **MachineGhost** » Thu May 15, 2014 4:35 am

moda0306 wrote: Really? What does executive experience really give us?

How to work in DC and get deals done; not just hope talk brings parties to the table. Look at how well Governer "Moonbeam" has handled the new job compared to "The Terminator".

Reub · Post by **Reub** » Thu May 15, 2014 3:32 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Desert wrote: I'm trying to think who the most qualified president in recent years was ... I'm thinking it's a tossup between Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton.
Thomas Jefferson - very recent in terms of time since the last ice age.

... Mountaineer

I'm genetically related to Thomas Jefferson so he is immediately excluded as the most
qualified.

Post by **dualstow** » Thu May 15, 2014 7:24 pm

Reub wrote: I'm genetically related to Thomas Jefferson so he is immediately excluded as the most
qualified.

If you are serious, then you are related to my dad's former personal trainer near Annapolis. How'bout that.

Reub · Post by **Reub** » Thu May 15, 2014 9:38 pm

dualstow wrote:
Reub wrote: I'm genetically related to Thomas Jefferson so he is immediately excluded as the most
qualified.
If you are serious, then you are related to my dad's former personal trainer near Annapolis. How'bout that.

Michelle Obama For President?

Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?

Re: Michelle Obama For President?