Clinton

elSicomoro · 03-15-2007, 09:59 PM

As a liberal, I find her way too divisive. If she were to be elected, her presidency would be as useless as...well, the current one's. And for once, I don't mean this as a slap in the face to Dubya. His presidency has been so contentious for this country...even more so than Clinton's. I really think we need a president that will finally--finally--bring us closer together as a people. This hard core divisiveness started in the run up to the impeachment, IMO...hell, it might actually have started during the '92 elections. And it's just gotta stop. How we can truly be a world leader when we can't even come to a reasonable consensus on who we want to lead us?

skysidhe · 03-20-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I don't know how anyone with a conscience could vote for her.
She says what she thinks people want to hear to get what she wants and nothing else.
This is not isolated, it is common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

As a liberal, I find her way too divisive. If she were to be elected, her presidency would be as useless as...well, the current one's. And for once, I don't mean this as a slap in the face to Dubya. His presidency has been so contentious for this country...even more so than Clinton's. I really think we need a president that will finally--finally--bring us closer together as a people. This hard core divisiveness started in the run up to the impeachment, IMO...hell, it might actually have started during the '92 elections. And it's just gotta stop. How we can truly be a world leader when we can't even come to a reasonable consensus on who we want to lead us?

I am in agreement with what you say yet.... I think she would make a good president.

She is just playing the game and I know we are tired of political games but she can't win playing clean. Can anyone these days?

glatt · 03-21-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skysidhe

I am in agreement with what you say yet.... I think she would make a good president.

Well, one thing that she has is a strong machine already in place. If she won, the transition would be a fast one. And she would have lots of advisers to help her. That's the nicest thing I can think of to say about her.

03-31-2007, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skysidhe

I am in agreement with what you say yet.... I think she would make a good president.

She is just playing the game and I know we are tired of political games but she can't win playing clean. Can anyone these days?

Yes, of course they could.
Why could someone not just tell the truth and win? That makes no sense.
She is a liar and not, remotely, how she presents herself.
HELL, no one knows HOW she presents herself or WHO the HELL she is!
It would be the same as "OK, let's get the president behind curtain nummmmmberrrrr ONE!!!!!"

xoxoxoBruce · 04-01-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Yes, of course they could.
Why could someone not just tell the truth and win? That makes no sense.

You can't be that naive. Every issue has two factions. A serious contender can't alienate either side and win.

Quote:

She is a liar and not, remotely, how she presents herself.
HELL, no one knows HOW she presents herself or WHO the HELL she is!
It would be the same as "OK, let's get the president behind curtain nummmmmberrrrr ONE!!!!!"

We know more about her than anyone else running. Did you know what a dangerous prick Bush is when he ran the first time?

richlevy · 04-01-2007, 07:16 PM

You know, I'm not really supposed to be telling anyone here this, but I just heard from a friend in the Clinton campaign. There is a better than 50/50 chance that Hillary will declare Bill her vice-presidential running mate.

For the past two months they've quietly had lawyers looking over the 22nd amendment. Obviously, there is nothing in there preventing a president from running for vice president once the term limits are up, but they had to look beyond the amendment to challenges on the intent of the amendment.

At this point they're weighing the pros and cons. On the con side is the possibility that Hillary will not be perceived independent from Bill, that she will be seen as a puppet. This is similar to the musings on the left about GWB's relationship with Cheney.

On the plus side is the possibility of satisfying conservatives who would not be comfortable with a 'male first lady' as well as moderates and liberals who would love to see Bill Clinton retake an official role in foreign policy.

On a public relations front, with Bill traveling overseas on foreign assignments, the couple could show legitimate reasons for separation due to job roles, freeing them from having to maintain a residence together and again from allegations of Hillary being manipulated by Bill.

From what I hear, they intend to declare in the fall. Right now they are reviewing other candidates as a backup and to provide cover, but it's pretty much a done deal. I probably shouldn't even post this, but I can't keep it in. Fortunately, the Cellar doesn't get many hits on any threads besides IOTD, so it should be safe enough to post it here.

He's back.

April's fool!

Urbane Guerrilla · 04-02-2007, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Did you know what a dangerous prick Bush is when he ran the first time?

Bruce, permit me to correct you: Bush is dangerous to the fascists and the undemocrats.

Now into which of these camps do you fall? They suck equally, so the choice is entirely up to you.

But you could have chosen so much better. For God's sake, man, you could have thought like me -- and actually supported the Republic's true interests. And for starters, you must not scream at me about how Bush is awful for the environment or something -- because he's really not doing anything at all to speak of to or about it. He's not playing the busybody -- the actions of the Bush Administration do not support the idea that the Bush Administration is degrading the environment. Bush is busy elsewhere, being dangerous to fascists.

elSicomoro · 04-02-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Bruce, permit me to correct you: Bush is dangerous to the fascists and the undemocrats.

Now into which of these camps do you fall? They suck equally, so the choice is entirely up to you.

Bruce, I'd say you're undemocratic with some fascist leanings.

Griff · 04-02-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

Bruce, I'd say you're undemocratic with some fascist leanings.

That or he hates America. I can't tell which.

xoxoxoBruce · 04-02-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Bruce, permit me to correct you: yada, yada, yada, stupid bullshit, ad nauseum, more bullshirt, der fuhrer doesn't approve......

Sure sweetie, as soon as you get your head out of your ass and figure out what's really going on.

xoxoxoBruce · 04-02-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

Bruce, I'd say you're undemocratic with some fascist leanings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

That or he hates America. I can't tell which.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

No...you hate America. Remember?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

Oh, that's right. You're against baseball though.

You guys deserve each other, send him some crocs, Syc.

Urbane Guerrilla · 04-07-2007, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Sure sweetie, as soon as you get your head out of your ass and figure out what's really going on.

In other words, dear Bruce, you don't have an argument that beats mine. So you sneer. NOT impressive. If it weren't for your generally praiseworthy pro-gun/antigenocidal stance, what would you have going for you?

Tw continues in his delusive thinking. Well, it's good that the resident commie stays busy with mental masturbation, as he'd be dangerous otherwise. Since I know more history than he does and am willing to show it, he grouses, and waves his micropenis.

04-01-2007, 07:16 PM	#6
richlevy King Of Wishful Thinking Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Philadelphia Suburbs Posts: 6,669	You know, I'm not really supposed to be telling anyone here this, but I just heard from a friend in the Clinton campaign. There is a better than 50/50 chance that Hillary will declare Bill her vice-presidential running mate. For the past two months they've quietly had lawyers looking over the 22nd amendment. Obviously, there is nothing in there preventing a president from running for vice president once the term limits are up, but they had to look beyond the amendment to challenges on the intent of the amendment. At this point they're weighing the pros and cons. On the con side is the possibility that Hillary will not be perceived independent from Bill, that she will be seen as a puppet. This is similar to the musings on the left about GWB's relationship with Cheney. On the plus side is the possibility of satisfying conservatives who would not be comfortable with a 'male first lady' as well as moderates and liberals who would love to see Bill Clinton retake an official role in foreign policy. On a public relations front, with Bill traveling overseas on foreign assignments, the couple could show legitimate reasons for separation due to job roles, freeing them from having to maintain a residence together and again from allegations of Hillary being manipulated by Bill. From what I hear, they intend to declare in the fall. Right now they are reviewing other candidates as a backup and to provide cover, but it's pretty much a done deal. I probably shouldn't even post this, but I can't keep it in. Fortunately, the Cellar doesn't get many hits on any threads besides IOTD, so it should be safe enough to post it here. He's back. April's fool! __________________ Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE! I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama

03-15-2007, 09:59 PM	#1
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	As a liberal, I find her way too divisive. If she were to be elected, her presidency would be as useless as...well, the current one's. And for once, I don't mean this as a slap in the face to Dubya. His presidency has been so contentious for this country...even more so than Clinton's. I really think we need a president that will finally--finally--bring us closer together as a people. This hard core divisiveness started in the run up to the impeachment, IMO...hell, it might actually have started during the '92 elections. And it's just gotta stop. How we can truly be a world leader when we can't even come to a reasonable consensus on who we want to lead us?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)