Any man who would support Hillary has lost his MIND and his NUTS. Is there even one person here who will admit to supporting her?
I support assassinating her. I won’t do it, but I would shed a blue tear if somebody else did.
I applaud the man who is willing to speak here on TNation in favour of Hillary.
Because, this might actually spark a real debate! Several times in the past, I raised the question why so many here detest her policy. I barely got meaningful responses. Guess it’s a “T-thing”.
I now little of her agenda, yet I plainly see how many of my american friends here seem to hate her for emotional and trivial reasons. The irony, of course, is that real “T-Men” should, when assessing a politician’s worth, come to a conclusion not based upon gut-feeling (woman’s instinct?) or the buddy-factor. Real T-Men, at least in my book, look upon the merits and flaws, in in a matter of fact way. They don’t give a shit about a brand new scandal or a media hype, but go for the bigger picture.
But I’d be damned if more then one here is willing to speak out for her.
She has wrinkly tits, after all.
Well, she has proposed a giant new spending program while we’re already incapable of paying for the one’s we have now. And who knows what she thinks about the Iraq War and foreign policy. She’s changed her position so much and often I have no clue what she’d actually do once in office.
Oh, I don’t support her, which I guess was the actual question. I’ll no longer throw an anti-Hillary vote on behalf of the Republican, however.
I’m confused, is Hillary running for her first term as president, or is her husband running for his third?
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
I’m confused, is Hillary running for her first term as president, or is her husband running for his third? [/quote]
She’s running for her third.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I applaud the man who is willing to speak here on TNation in favour of Hillary.
Because, this might actually spark a real debate! Several times in the past, I raised the question why so many here detest her policy. I barely got meaningful responses. Guess it’s a “T-thing”.
I now little of her agenda, yet I plainly see how many of my american friends here seem to hate her for emotional and trivial reasons. The irony, of course, is that real “T-Men” should, when assessing a politician’s worth, come to a conclusion not based upon gut-feeling (woman’s instinct?) or the buddy-factor. Real T-Men, at least in my book, look upon the merits and flaws, in in a matter of fact way. They don’t give a shit about a brand new scandal or a media hype, but go for the bigger picture.
But I’d be damned if more then one here is willing to speak out for her.
She has wrinkly tits, after all.[/quote]
Basically if she is for an issue I am against it, and vice versa, not because of her, it’s just coincidence. If you have the approval of terrorists and sworn enemies of the U.S., that’s a pretty good sign that she should not be president. If I am on the fence, I look at what Fidel thinks should happen and I go the opposite way. She wants to grow the government to massive proportions, most of us want the government out of our lives.
As a person, she is nasty and shrill, even people who agree with her positions, don’t like her as a person.
Her husband was giving a speach in Denver yesterday citing Bill: “We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy” to fight global warming.
Irregardless of your views on global warming, I am not sure she wants him getting loose with quips about “slowing down the economy” when there is a recession looming.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html
It doesn’t matter who you support… she will be the next president.
I’ll make a case for Hillary - based on the caveat that among the legitimate contenders for the Democratic nomination (excluding Richardson, who was never legitimate, and that was too bad), Hillary would be the best option.
We are given essentially two options in the national elections - Democrat and Republican. To head off the usual whining about “not having more options”, the options are there - but the system will usually generate two candidates that represent broad coalitions.
The GOP brand name is hurting. The Democrat brand name ain’t great, but a number of factors - natural political exhaustion, the GOP’s weaknesses, etc. - point to a very good shot at a Democrat winning in 2008.
That said, we have a vested interest in who the Democratic option is, even if you wouldn’t ordinarily vote Democrat - as such, you should care who the Democratic candidate is, even if you don’t like them.
So, to Hillary - one of the primary jobs of a president is foreign policy. In my view, she would be much tougher than an Obama or Edwards, for a couple of reasons. One, she is a woman - and the brass tacks of the matter is that she feels pressure to show she is tough enough. Second, as one commentator described her, that “Machiavellian bitch” is a better Democrat to sit across the table from the president of Iran than is Obama - who scares exactly no one. Love her or hate her, Hillary has some sharp elbows - and that would at least be better than Obama or Edwards in the rough-and-tumble of foreign policy.
Domestically, she may be ambitious - but domestic stuff is mostly the preserve of Congress. Most likely, she will have enough of a divided Congress to neutralize her more ambitious projects - and she would likely become a triangulator like her husband was. That isn’t great - but it could be a lot worse.
I don’t like Hillary at all - but I realize a Democrat stands a good chance to be elected. If that is the case, I’ll take Hillary over the others.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ll make a case for Hillary - based on the caveat that among the legitimate contenders for the Democratic nomination (excluding Richardson, who was never legitimate, and that was too bad), Hillary would be the best option.
We are given essentially two options in the national elections - Democrat and Republican. To head off the usual whining about “not having more options”, the options are there - but the system will usually generate two candidates that represent broad coalitions.
The GOP brand name is hurting. The Democrat brand name ain’t great, but a number of factors - natural political exhaustion, the GOP’s weaknesses, etc. - point to a very good shot at a Democrat winning in 2008.
That said, we have a vested interest in who the Democratic option is, even if you wouldn’t ordinarily vote Democrat - as such, you should care who the Democratic candidate is, even if you don’t like them.
So, to Hillary - one of the primary jobs of a president is foreign policy. In my view, she would be much tougher than an Obama or Edwards, for a couple of reasons. One, she is a woman - and the brass tacks of the matter is that she feels pressure to show she is tough enough. Second, as one commentator described her, that “Machiavellian bitch” is a better Democrat to sit across the table from the president of Iran than is Obama - who scares exactly no one. Love her or hate her, Hillary has some sharp elbows - and that would at least be better than Obama or Edwards in the rough-and-tumble of foreign policy.
Domestically, she may be ambitious - but domestic stuff is mostly the preserve of Congress. Most likely, she will have enough of a divided Congress to neutralize her more ambitious projects - and she would likely become a triangulator like her husband was. That isn’t great - but it could be a lot worse.
I don’t like Hillary at all - but I realize a Democrat stands a good chance to be elected. If that is the case, I’ll take Hillary over the others.[/quote]
Agreed. I would take Hillary over Obama anyday. And I despise her.
As a teenager, I am obviously a stupid ass idealist. Therefore I’d prefer Obama. That is the main difference between them of course, idealism versus realism. I’m just feel a bit of idealism is need every once and awhile. Especially after we’ve had a moron, and two realists sit in office.
Oh, and her gun control stance makes me go cross eyed.
Obama is for net neutrality, and talks about it like he knows what it means. He’s also promised that he’ll meet with any foreign leader that approaches him, which is a move I agree with.
So for me, Obama>Hilary. Hell, McCain>Hilary. I know she’ll end up taking the middle road eventually, but my dislike for the double legacy in the White House bit and her obvious lack of sincerity make me lean Obama. I don’t want Hilary acting all tough and strong simply to prove she can, so she isn’t criticized.
Fuck it. I can’t vote in the primary anyway.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
As a teenager, I am obviously a stupid ass idealist. Therefore I’d prefer Obama. That is the main difference between them of course, idealism versus realism. I’m just feel a bit of idealism is need every once and awhile. Especially after we’ve had a moron, and two realists sit in office.
Oh, and her gun control stance makes me go cross eyed.
[/quote]
Obama is even worse on guns than Hillary dude. He wants guns to be allowed only to police and retired police. We need that old lady from the Wendy’s commercials to show up to one of his rallies to ask, “Where’s the beef?” The guy is all starry-eyed optimism and no substance.
mike
Hillary Road-Ham has a history. It should not matter how people feel about her.
Does anybody remember she tried before to put a universal health care system into place.
My belief is that the economy actually stalled out due to her ideas back then. People were not sure what was going to happen, so many investors held back, playing it safe, until they knew what was going to happen. Similar events in business. Was the health care plan going to save them money, or cost them money? Couldn’t go too wild with hiring until they could do the math.
Then there were all those problems she was involved in. Whitewater, which got a few people thrown into jail, some for refusing to testify about the Clinton involvement. (Why wouldn’t they testify for them?) The controversy with the travel office, amazing extreme profits in beef investments, and a speech she gave which caused her investments to climb. She couldn’t get into trouble for the last one because she wasn’t an actual government official. (All the benefits, none of the drawbacks.)
Anyone remember a controversy involving illegal donations from China? Deja vu?
Just politically I am opposed to her gaining office. But with her history I do not believe she can be trusted.
That being said, people do need to keep their emotions in check. When Bill Clinton was president, Republicans kept seeing him smoothly and adeptly deflect every single controversy, and spin things to his benefit to the point Republicans began to lose it, and were seeking anything against him that would stick.
I believe this resulted in Democrats wanting revenge, and that has driven this vehement hate of Bush, at least in the beginning.
If she gets elected, I see the same political polarization we have now escalating. It may not go away if somebody else is elected, but I cannot see it as being as bad as it will be if she is elected.
Now on another note, it should be pointed out that if Hilary, or Obama is elected, the media will call it a wonderful thing because the first (black man/woman) got elected. But if a Republican gets elected, then it will be terrible because America just wasn’t ready for a (black man/woman) to be president, and ignore any other reason for them not being elected.
And I really doubt any of this would have mattered if Condoleezza Rice was elected president.
This lets them have another reason other then their usual, “He was so smart the public couldn’t understand him, or accept him.” excuse they have used repeatedly. But still expect whomever becomes the next Republican president has having some dimwitted problem the media suddenly finds wrong with him.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[…]but a number of factors - natural political exhaustion,…[/quote]
It’s not Bush’s fault; It’s natural that 4000 Americans died in Iraq, that oil prices are exorbitant and the a recession is on the doorstep.
Power hungry whore who will do anything to be Commander and Chief…
Sadly, after watching Mccain the other night…he is the same. He lied, knowingly, at least four times.
[quote]Valor wrote:
Power hungry whore who will do anything to be Commander and Chief…
Sadly, after watching Mccain the other night…he is the same. He lied, knowingly, at least four times.[/quote]
You talking about the accusation against Romney? If so, I couldn’t believe that myself. I actually felt a little bad for Romney, and that’s saying something.
[quote]lixy wrote:
It’s not Bush’s fault; It’s natural that 4000 Americans died in Iraq, that oil prices are exorbitant and the a recession is on the doorstep. [/quote]
Lixy, you know I think you are blundering idiot - and you keep proving me right.
You’ll notice I listed “natural exhaustion” along with “GOP weaknesses”, and yet you selectively crop out the rest of my statement in hopes of making a point, any point.
“GOP weaknesses” certainly account for any bad policies Americans lay at the feet of GOP politicians, and not just Bush (which was my point) - but notice how you glide over that because it undermines your ability to squeal about your pet cause?
“Natural exhaustion” means, of course, that the GOP has held power so long that even if we had the perfect GOP candidate, American political history (and common sense) advises that voters may seek something different. This point was made to explain that a Democrat has a good chance of getting elected no matter who is put forth as the GOP candidate.
Your Bush Derangement Syndrome has turned you into a sad, pathetic little man. You can barely open your mouth on any topic without having to menstruate about how much you hate Bush, even though he is out of office in 2009.
Lixy, do try and not let your immaturity jerk another thread into a discussion about how much you hate the evil Bush. You are already a laughingstock as it is - at least try and rescue some sense of respect for yourself around here.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Any man who would support Hillary has lost his MIND and his NUTS. Is there even one person here who will admit to supporting her? [/quote]
I fully support hillary as the democratic nominee.
I’m very worried that Conservatives won’t vote in the case of a McCain versus obama matchup.
JeffR
Looks like Ann Coulter does.
http://www.silverrepublican.org/content/view/191/