Wow...that's perfect palehorse :thumbsup:
Couldn't have said it better myself. The one good thing that will happen in 2008 even if McCain doesn't win is that at least it appears the country will be innoculated from the Clintons.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The one good thing that will happen in 2008 even if McCain doesn't win is that at least it appears the country will be innoculated from the Clintons.
You can't be serious. The electoral college exists to give smaller less populated states a more equal voice. Otherwise, every election 300 mil people in the U.S. would be at the mercy of urban voters from the heavy population centers of the Northeast and West...which always vote for liberals, handouts, and welfare. Please, what a disaster that would be.
I'll agree with you on the super-delegate thing. The Dems play right into the 'elistist' stereotype with that by basically saying they don't trust their own voters to pick the right candidate. As I've said in another thread however, I actually like their method of awarding delegates proportionally for primaries though.
what was the opening salvo? when she put Reagan and HW Bush on a higher pedestal than the only democrat elected president in 30 years?
I don't like at all Hillary or Bill, they are way to sleazy. But to me, they are not as bad as Bush/Cheney. Why? Bill kept all his sleaze on the "typical politician" level. IOW, he screwed a bunch of women, probably got lots of illegal money from people, gave away powerful positions to friends and lobbyists. Typical corrupt politician.
But Bush/Cheney have take sleazy/dishonest/illegal to a WHOLE new level. Clinton wasn't shredding the Constitution like Bush, declaring himself above the law. Clinton wasn't illegally wiretapping this entire country, or locking American citizens without charges for years without a trial. Clinton wasn't trying to routinely torture all our enemies, or ordering the CIA to waterboard terrorists.
What Bush/Cheney have done is orders of magnitude worse then getting a blowjob and lying about it, and anything else that I have heard about either Clinton.
That said, if HRC actually became president (I sure hope not, and looks like she won't), she has the same attitude as Bush, so I could easily see her matching Bush in breaking the laws of this country. She would have no problems using this "unitary executive" bullshit that Ceheny like to push, for her own personal agenda.
This is the big reason that I will be voting for Obama this fall....HRC and McCain are all to willing to look at what Bush did, and say "Cool, I want the power to do that too". Obama at least says he will review all of Bush's orders and countermand any that are found to be illegal.
Quoted For Truth.
palehorse has failed to provide any evidence for his claims.
palehorse74 = fail.
At this point, I think I'd rather see her get the nomination. This party has so screwed up the primary, it seems more and more likely that they've handed it to McCain. And if that's the case, whoever his opponent is will find it next to impossible to win the nomination the next time around.
Beyond that, though, part of me thinks it would be best for the Democrating party if the Republicans win. No matter what anyone tells you, our collossal screwups in the mideast isn't going to get fixed in the next 4 to 8 years, no matter who is President. And the economy is going to be rough for a good while longer before it gets very much better. Let the Republicans own it, and let them earn the enmity of the public for it. I'm tired of watching them prove so effective at the game they always play with taxes and public opinion.
We see it over and over again, and the American public never stops falling for it. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that increasing spending while decreasing revenue is a bad thing, long term. And yet time and again, the Republicans play the same game. They push for tax cuts without decreasing spending (except, of course, for spending on programs they don't like... though that gets offset by what they do like spending on). This helps them curry favor with Joe Q. Public, but consequently necessitates that a future administration raise taxes to get things back in check. Then, when Democrats are forced to raise taxes back to where they were before the Republicans lowered them... maybe even higher... they look like bad guys and the public sees them as taking away the money that the Republicans have given them. But every once in a blue moon, the Republicans are in power for just a little too long; and it bites them on the ass.
We saw it when Bush Sr. inherited Reagan's debts. And even though it was a Democratic congress that raised taxes, Bush was forced to admit it as being necessary, ate his crow, and paid the price for his campaign promise of "Read my lips, no new taxes." Well here we are again. We have someone who seems determined to continue the "don't t tax, but spend more" policies, but will be forced to do so with a Congress he doesn't control. And we have an economic crisis that will either force him to work the Democrats to balance the budget, thereby pissing off the Republicans, or work against them and dig us deeper and deeper into the holes we're now trying to get out, and piss of the entire country (along with sizable chunks of the world).
So screw it... If Hillary's so determined to have the nomination that she'll destroy her party to get it, let her have it. If McCain is so willing to continue with policies that have so clearly proven inurious to our nation and our world image, let him and his party pay the price for it. As they've both sown, let them reap. We're have rough patches, no matter who is in the White House, and we're going to eventually rebound, as well. In the meantime, let those who've brought us to this point take all the blame that they deserve.
Beyond that, though, part of me thinks it would be best for the Democrating party if the Republicans win. No matter what anyone tells you, our collossal screwups in the mideast isn't going to get fixed in the next 4 to 8 years, no matter who is President. And the economy is going to be rough for a good while longer before it gets very much better. Let the Republicans own it, and let them earn the enmity of the public for it. I'm tired of watching them prove so effective at the game they always play with taxes and public opinion.
We see it over and over again, and the American public never stops falling for it. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that increasing spending while decreasing revenue is a bad thing, long term. And yet time and again, the Republicans play the same game. They push for tax cuts without decreasing spending (except, of course, for spending on programs they don't like... though that gets offset by what they do like spending on). This helps them curry favor with Joe Q. Public, but consequently necessitates that a future administration raise taxes to get things back in check. Then, when Democrats are forced to raise taxes back to where they were before the Republicans lowered them... maybe even higher... they look like bad guys and the public sees them as taking away the money that the Republicans have given them. But every once in a blue moon, the Republicans are in power for just a little too long; and it bites them on the ass.
We saw it when Bush Sr. inherited Reagan's debts. And even though it was a Democratic congress that raised taxes, Bush was forced to admit it as being necessary, ate his crow, and paid the price for his campaign promise of "Read my lips, no new taxes." Well here we are again. We have someone who seems determined to continue the "don't t tax, but spend more" policies, but will be forced to do so with a Congress he doesn't control. And we have an economic crisis that will either force him to work the Democrats to balance the budget, thereby pissing off the Republicans, or work against them and dig us deeper and deeper into the holes we're now trying to get out, and piss of the entire country (along with sizable chunks of the world).
So screw it... If Hillary's so determined to have the nomination that she'll destroy her party to get it, let her have it. If McCain is so willing to continue with policies that have so clearly proven inurious to our nation and our world image, let him and his party pay the price for it. As they've both sown, let them reap. We're have rough patches, no matter who is in the White House, and we're going to eventually rebound, as well. In the meantime, let those who've brought us to this point take all the blame that they deserve.
Hillary Clinton is doing to the Democrats what Paul Martin (ex, Canadian Prime Minister) did to his party, the Liberals.
The Liberal Party was in a great place where the voters mistrusted the alternative parties and they enjoyed relatively easy elections...then, the head of the party (then Prime Minister Jean Cretien) retired and the people wanting to take his place all started fighting over what was considered a sure bet to be the Prime Minister. Paul Martin won that fight, not before the people who ran against him all were destroyed politically or were forced to quit. The Liberal Party lost some strong people and were weaker in the following ekection because of it.
Today we are left with a bunch of conservative wingnuts that kiss the ground Bush walks on running our government. All because the Liberals fought with each other (well, not the only reason but a major one).
If I were Democrat I would worry about Clinton for sure as she has to quit this 'scorched earth' approach
The Liberal Party was in a great place where the voters mistrusted the alternative parties and they enjoyed relatively easy elections...then, the head of the party (then Prime Minister Jean Cretien) retired and the people wanting to take his place all started fighting over what was considered a sure bet to be the Prime Minister. Paul Martin won that fight, not before the people who ran against him all were destroyed politically or were forced to quit. The Liberal Party lost some strong people and were weaker in the following ekection because of it.
Today we are left with a bunch of conservative wingnuts that kiss the ground Bush walks on running our government. All because the Liberals fought with each other (well, not the only reason but a major one).
If I were Democrat I would worry about Clinton for sure as she has to quit this 'scorched earth' approach
Kappo
Platinum Member
- Aug 18, 2000
- 2,381
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: palehorse
uhhh, what "claims"? My personal opinion of Hillary's character, or lackthereof?!
Would you like a link to my cerebral cortex?
Damnit... Morpheus, get the machine ready again.
Even if you did provide examples, they would call it "quote mining" or "cherry picking" anyway. The only way to satisfy them is to write a book, and by then the attention span has already been wisted away by something shiny in the distance...
I'd like to play devil's advocate for a second.
Alright, I'm back. Now, two questions...
Does she care about herself? Of course; that's human nature.
Does she care about winning the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008?
I would argue that she does not. During Sen. Obama's ten-contest winning streak in February, he netted 158 delegates, building an insurmountable pledged delegate lead that she would not be able to overcome through primary victories alone.
Since then, it has only been mathematically possible for her to win by running her campaign in a way that makes an overwhelming number of superdelegates side with her. However, she hasn't done this.
Here are my data points:
Gas Tax Holiday
Clinton did not appear to be appealing to (one would assume) the high-information party insiders who make up the superdelegates, as expert support appeared non-existent for this. Clinton further alienated the super-delegates by calling for a vote because she wanted constituents to see if their congressional reps were "with us or against us."
MI and FL
In August 2007, superdelegates were paying more attention to Presidential politics than the average citizen. Thus, Clinton's current comparisons of the FL/MI debacle to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s probably ring hollow with a larger percentage of superdelegates compared to average citizens.
Popular Vote
Same reasons. How many average citizens will bother to check that Clinton's count includes zero Michigan votes for Sen. Obama and does not include four caucus states that did not release numbers? How many superdelegates will already know and laugh at her for trying to use it as a selling point?
I'm in a similar boat. I'm not a big fan of Obama, a lot of what he is is questionable, but that can be both a plus/con. Obama, at the very least, looks smart and looks honest. I don't agree with a lot of his policies (dem policies in general). McCain, I think is senile. His stance on very similar issues is so far off the edge where Obama might be sitting comfortably that I would never ever consider voting for him. He's beyond presidency and should retire, his thoughts, his lack of intelligence and his general views are just not fitting for this country.
I also feel this way a bout Bush/Cheney/the current GOP. I think they're absolute trash and many of them need to be put in jail. Here's the problem, however, with Hillary. I hate her. I hate her like I hate Bush/Cheney. I think she's AS corrupt, if not more corrupt--and worse yet, she's got a much better education and will NOT "just" be ignorant like Bush _chooses_ to be.
I actually believe she has the capability of being more damaging than Bush to this country, which is what scares me the most. Not on her "current" policies, but based on her capabilities, her campaigning, and her general persona/being. Of the three, Obama is placed near "willing to vote for", McCain near "would never vote for", and Hillary at "would do anything to stop".. if I could, anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
I also feel this way a bout Bush/Cheney/the current GOP. I think they're absolute trash and many of them need to be put in jail. Here's the problem, however, with Hillary. I hate her. I hate her like I hate Bush/Cheney. I think she's AS corrupt, if not more corrupt--and worse yet, she's got a much better education and will NOT "just" be ignorant like Bush _chooses_ to be.
I actually believe she has the capability of being more damaging than Bush to this country, which is what scares me the most. Not on her "current" policies, but based on her capabilities, her campaigning, and her general persona/being. Of the three, Obama is placed near "willing to vote for", McCain near "would never vote for", and Hillary at "would do anything to stop".. if I could, anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
LOL. We're digging pretty deep to find outrage here
Still, I want Hillary. At least she's not Muslim. I know that the Clinton campaign has had some people resign because they forwarded on e-mails that Obama's a Muslim, but I don't agree with that.
I'll just leave it at that.
Heroes :thumbsup:
Thats the sillyest excuse I heard..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Intel processors crashing Unreal engine games (and others)- Started by BFG10K
- Replies: 2K
Facebook
Twitter