View Full Version : Hillary Clinton must be stopped.
Clinton support national 55 MPH speed limit (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69045.htm)
May 24, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - In a surprise move yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called for "most of the country" to return to a speed limit of 55 mph in an effort to slash fuel consumption.
ARRGGHHHH.
Warriorbird
05-25-2006, 01:34 AM
Clearly. You ought to be supporting her. She's the best chance the Democrats have to lose badly. Even worse than Gore.
I don't disagree with you there.
Hillary Clinton is my hero.
/end sarcasm
Clearly. You ought to be supporting her. She's the best chance the Democrats have to lose badly. Even worse than Gore.
Although on the other hand the Democrats are going to have to really fark up to lose the presidency in '08.
Satira
05-25-2006, 02:01 AM
I'm a liberal who would LOVE to vote for a woman, and I still can't stand her.
Tsa`ah
05-25-2006, 04:54 AM
Although on the other hand the Democrats are going to have to really fark up to lose the presidency in '08.
The precedent is there. First Gore, then Kerry.
Fucking up is what the Dems do best come an election year.
These things are cyclical. The dems are due to hit, I expect them to gain seats in '06 and take a majority in the the lower house in '08.
Tsa`ah
05-25-2006, 07:09 AM
These things are cyclical. The dems are due to hit, I expect them to gain seats in '06 and take a majority in the the lower house in '08.
Voter apathy, most of the encumbants in congress aren't going anywhere when you consider the win percentages amongst congressional encumbants.
The presidency is another story all together. Considering Clinton was the first 2 term Dem since Truman, though Kennedy would likely have been a 2 term president. If you count the terms between parties since Carter and note the pattern, that's 3 terms for the Dems, 5 for the GOP with 3 of those between Carter and Clinton.
Likely the Dems will flounder the next election as well. Of everyone they have, Obama stands out as the likely candidate in my mind, but he's young ... and though I wish it weren't true, he would either lose by a huge majority in the south, or turn out the record black vote.
Hillary will most likely get the Democratic nod, which pains me even more than the potential win/loss based on skin color. If that bitch gets the nod, the Dems can say goodbye to the White House.
At this point I believe the Democratic party has a lower collective IQ than the general populace of the US ... and that's why they'll think backing Hillary makes sense.
Sean of the Thread
05-25-2006, 07:49 AM
I can't believe it. There is no way the Dem's would push such a people pisser this close to election. Is there?
Parkbandit
05-25-2006, 08:40 AM
I can't believe it. There is no way the Dem's would push such a people pisser this close to election. Is there?
Two words:
Howard Dean
Dems did win the popular vote in 2000.
I’m not down with Hillary. This amendment is stupid. Sure it saves gas, but that should be a person’s choice, not the governments decree.
Tsa`ah
05-25-2006, 11:36 AM
Dems did win the popular vote in 2000.
I’m not down with Hillary. This amendment is stupid. Sure it saves gas, but that should be a person’s choice, not the governments decree.
That would be why Clinton signed it over to the States to decide. It's kind of ironic when you think about it, one Clinton is attempting to undo what the other signed into place.
In the end, it should be up to each state.
That would be why Clinton signed it over to the States to decide. It's kind of ironic when you think about it, one Clinton is attempting to undo what the other signed into place.
In the end, it should be up to each state.
Agreed.
Warriorbird
05-25-2006, 11:40 AM
Of course. I trust my state would be decent enough not to do something that silly, too.
It was already suggested here in Jersey and quickly shot down.
That would be why Clinton signed it over to the States to decide. It's kind of ironic when you think about it, one Clinton is attempting to undo what the other signed into place.
In the end, it should be up to each state.
To take this a step further.
-Hypothetically speaking-
I wonder how many efforts of her husband's she would try to reverse if she were to land the white house in 08. Would it be for spite?
I also wonder if she would have a box of cigars on her desk.
Scary thoughts.
Apathy
05-25-2006, 02:57 PM
I also wonder if she would have a box of cigars on her desk.
Scary thoughts.
I really don't want to know where your mind is wandering with this one.
---
Hillary is more dangerous (as in has a real shot at winning) than you people are giving her credit for:
She lived with Bill for years, you know she is skilled at the fine art of appealing to her audience. Even if its half of what Billy could do that still puts her miles ahead of most politicians.
(Dumb) women will vote for a woman based on the fact it is a woman. Read: Oprah.
She will have leftover Clinton lover's loyalty because of her last name.
She was a good enough politician to fool New York.
Conspiricists say the plan all along was for Hillary to assume the presidency, not Bill. I thought it was a wack idea the first time I heard it, but it seems less and less far fetched the more I see of her.
IF she wins the primary she will have Democratic Loyalty support, which should be larger than usual given the last 6 years.
----
I'm scared.
Hulkein
05-25-2006, 03:26 PM
She has no shot.
For those interested, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm
Stanley Burrell
05-25-2006, 03:37 PM
She has no shot. :bisou:
Stanley Burrell
05-25-2006, 03:38 PM
That emoticon is called "bisou" but what Hulkein said.
I just can't use the quote tags without inserting some randomness.
Apathy
05-25-2006, 07:20 PM
That's the attitude that will get her elected.
Latrinsorm
05-26-2006, 12:05 AM
Howard Dean would have won the '04 election big time. The Democrats should run him in '08 unless theEschaton perfects his birth certificate forgery skills.
Rupert Murdoch is holding a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, maybe he knows something we don't.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml
There is one thing she does better than most politicians, even hubby.. and that's raising money.
There is one thing she does better than most politicians, even hubby.. and that's raising money.
Sure, what's next Fox News shilling for Hillary like they do for Bush? You have to admit Murdoch raising money for Hillary is bizarre. This is one of those things that makes me wonder if the one world global government conspiracy nuts aren't so crazy.
It is bizarre, I agree. I have no actual opinion regarding it though. She has a history of doing that one thing better than others. Possibly a power move on his part. Who really knows. It is a bit mind biggling especially due to their tactical political differences.
Fission
05-29-2006, 04:30 PM
Maybe he's trying to help bankroll the candidate that many feel is one of the few chances, if any, of the democrats tanking come next election. If it worked with Ralph Nader in Florida, why not on a larger scale?
Warriorbird
05-30-2006, 09:09 AM
Hillary Clinton offered up some things to him that the Republicans once did. Thus sayeth one of my old poly sci profs.
Parkbandit
05-30-2006, 09:25 AM
Why is it so strange that Murdoch is raising money for Hillary? She's probably the ONE candidate that won't be able to beat any Republican in 08.
Shrewd move imo.
On second thought Murdoch is like the John Kerry of media giants. His support sways with the wind. Similarly, as many people dislike Clinton she has a very strong yet silent support base, and her political tactics are nothing short of ruthless. So are Murdoch's with regard to reporting about politicians.
The most striking contrast was the fact that his newspaper opposed her run for Senator and his staunch supporter of Bush.
In the long run I think it's interesting as hell. Murdoch doesn't waste his money on a candidate he thinks has no chance.
Why is it so strange that Murdoch is raising money for Hillary? She's probably the ONE candidate that won't be able to beat any Republican in 08.
Shrewd move imo.
If that is his strategy, it is a risky move. Hillary is a shrewd political animal herself and she can change her political stripes at will or as they media dubbs it she repositions herself on issues.
If Hillary moves to the centre which she seems to be doing she could be a threat. I also wonder how much she will resonate with female voters that could be the deciding factor in an election.
Parkbandit
05-30-2006, 02:03 PM
If that is his strategy, it is a risky move. Hillary is a shrewd political animal herself and she can change her political stripes at will or as they media dubbs it she repositions herself on issues.
If Hillary moves to the centre which she seems to be doing she could be a threat. I also wonder how much she will resonate with female voters that could be the deciding factor in an election.
There are far too many people she's trampled on over the years for her to be a viable candidate. You would think the Democrats would learn at LEAST one fucking lesson over the past 8 years.
The Democrats could probably nominate anyone else almost and have a great shot at getting back into the Presidency. Dean, Kerry, Gore and Clinton should be left off that list.
Despite all that, she IS a viable candidate. She also has to realize she has absolutely no shot beyond 2008. This is her only shot at running for president and I think she will go all out.
Edited to add that I do not now or ever forsee her winning.
There are far too many people she's trampled on over the years for her to be a viable candidate. You would think the Democrats would learn at LEAST one fucking lesson over the past 8 years.
The Democrats could probably nominate anyone else almost and have a great shot at getting back into the Presidency. Dean, Kerry, Gore and Clinton should be left off that list.
Who does that leave? Who do you think they should nominate if they want to win?
Parkbandit
05-30-2006, 04:05 PM
Who does that leave? Who do you think they should nominate if they want to win?
There are plenty of non-hollywood crazed liberal loons in the political arena right now. Problem is, they don't have the air time that the freaks in your party do.
There are some Democrats that I would vote for before most of the Republicans that will inevitably run.
There are plenty of non-hollywood crazed liberal loons in the political arena right now. Problem is, they don't have the air time that the freaks in your party do.
There are some Democrats that I would vote for before most of the Republicans that will inevitably run.
My party?
Despite all that, she IS a viable candidate. She also has to realize she has absolutely no shot beyond 2008. This is her only shot at running for president and I think she will go all out.
Edited to add that I do not now or ever forsee her winning.
Agreed, this is her only shot since she's a focus of this sub-era. Soon she'll be old news for good, which definately limits her presidential candidacy viability.
If that is his strategy, it is a risky move. Hillary is a shrewd political animal herself and she can change her political stripes at will or as they media dubbs it she repositions herself on issues.
If Hillary moves to the centre which she seems to be doing she could be a threat. I also wonder how much she will resonate with female voters that could be the deciding factor in an election.
I dont think females will be a deciding factor in the election. They represent a powerful voting block, but history has yet to show them acting in unison on any significant issues, Gloria Steinem or no.
I do see Hillary shifting her focus more towards the center, excellent point. Which is scary in that it belies no loyalty to those which she previously identified with in her earlier political career. She's out for the highest bidder. I hope that others will see that when we all get to take a closer look at her record if and when it comes up for the 2008 ticket.
I dont think females will be a deciding factor in the election. They represent a powerful voting block, but history has yet to show them acting in unison on any significant issues, Gloria Steinem or no.
It has been a long time since a woman ran for President. It could be a unifying factor among women.
CrystalTears
05-31-2006, 04:35 PM
Like I'd want a woman for president. Those political bitches scare me. I'd hate for them to make any decision during their crimson wave.
Atlanteax
05-31-2006, 04:57 PM
It has been a long time since a woman ran for President. It could be a unifying factor among women.
Nah, women can be especially vicious to each other, even more so than men are (to each other). It's just not as noticed as men usually do it face-to-face.
There will probably be a significant amount of women who would support Hillary for president, and another that is against it, and another block that won't say.
It has been a long time since a woman ran for President. It could be a unifying factor among women.
It didnt work for Ferraro, it wont work for Hillary.
HarmNone
05-31-2006, 05:45 PM
Aside from individually held prejudices, I've never been able to fathom what difference gender makes in this issue.
Apathy
05-31-2006, 06:02 PM
Gender or sex?
In the ideal world, male or female really shouldn't matter, and it is slowly becoming so. Gender has huge implications in everything it is involved in.
HarmNone
05-31-2006, 06:15 PM
I think that's my point, Apathy. People are people. All are equipped with a brain. Whether a person is male or female has absolutlely nothing to do with that person's ability to perform all the tasks associated with being the leader of a country.
Gender, as a social construct, has far more power than it should have, in my opinion. So, you can use the word sex, or you can use the word gender. Biologically or socially, the fact that a person is male, or female, has little to do with that person's ability to lead, as I see it.
Hulkein
05-31-2006, 06:24 PM
I'm surprised you're able to type that much all while doing laundry and preparing dinner, HN.
:)
HarmNone
05-31-2006, 08:05 PM
It's known as multi-tasking, Hulkein. No real difficulty there. ;)
Time will tell whether woman vote en masse for Clinton. I hope I am wrong.
TheEschaton
06-05-2006, 07:20 AM
Howard Dean would have won the '04 election big time. The Democrats should run him in '08 unless theEschaton perfects his birth certificate forgery skills.
Even if I did manage to perfect those forging skills, in 2008 I'll only be 27, and you gotta be 35 to be President. Which leaves me in prime position for 2016.
Anyways, the following is a story of an Upstate NYer, IE, me. While most of you think "NY" and "crazy liberals" are synonymous, it's not true in the least, especially upstate. Buffalo, my home town, is a mix of moderate-to-conservative Republicans and labor, union supporting blue collar Rust Belt Dems. (I had to go to university in Boston to gain my true liberal craziness ;) ) When Hillary ran in 2000 for the Senate, it was widely accepted that she would lose, badly, to Rudy Guiliani, who ended up dropping out. Even Rudy's replacement, Rick Lazio, was thought to stand a fair chance. Hell, even I voted for Rick Lazio, even though a) I'm a Democrat, and b) I hate Long Island.
And yet Hillary destroyed him. I think she probably would of beat Rudy too.
I've met Hillary Clinton when she's come to speak in Buffalo, and she comes across as a genuinely warm, caring person. What's more, she's won over NYers, across the board, upstate and in The City, but especially upstate, as there is a general feeling that she truly works "for the people".
That being said - if she had run for President in 2000, I wouldn't of voted for her. I didn't vote for her in 2000 for NY Senate, why would I trust her as President? However, over the past six years, she's won me and many NYers over.
If she can translate that perception of her to the national stage, I think she's got a shot. I'd vote for her.
The problem is, the Democratic campaigns themselves have been utterly useless now for a long time, whereas their Republican counterparts have been efficiently ruthless. If she does run, Republicans will have the most weapons against her. They'll bring up Vince Foster, Whitewater, all the old Clinton scandals, accuse her of being a lesbian bitch carpet bagging/munching dyke. Then they'll tie on the flip-flopping charge, and the fact that she's never been in the Armed Forces (even though women weren't allowed into battle in any war she's been age-worthy to serve in), and then lastly, there'll be subtle innuendo that we shouldn't trust a woman who'll be on the rag once a month, even though Hillary's probably approaching menopause.
Alfster
06-05-2006, 07:22 AM
There will probably be a significant amount of women who would support Hillary for president, and another that is against it, and another block that won't say.
No way. So you're saying some are for it, some against it, and some that aren't decided? Wow! Whoda thunk?
Warriorbird
06-05-2006, 03:45 PM
Alfster wins the thread.
Parkbandit
06-05-2006, 07:45 PM
They'll bring up Vince Foster, Whitewater, all the old Clinton scandals...
Then they'll tie on the flip-flopping charge...
All valid things to bring up imo.
TheEschaton
06-07-2006, 07:49 AM
And all proven to be nothing but hot air coming from the mouths of various Republican blowhards.
How many millions of dollars did they spend? And what did they find? A blowjob that Bill lied about. They were cleared in Whitewater, Travelgate, all those ridiculous scandals (my personal favorite - the trashing of the White House right before the Bushies moved in)....Their "role" in Vincent Foster's suicide was so laughable on its face that no one except Matt Drudge (and apparently you) thought it was true....
...on second thought, even Matt Drudge probably didn't think it true, he probably just wanted to smear the Clintons.
-TheE-
Sean of the Thread
06-07-2006, 07:52 AM
You just just joined the ranks of liberal blowhards. Congrats on the successful "Culture of Corruption" campaign btw.
TheEschaton
06-07-2006, 07:58 AM
Always been a liberal blowhard, and damn proud of it. ;)
Congrats on the Culture of Idiocy campaign, to your side.
Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal, FTW.
-TheE-
Atlanteax
06-07-2006, 10:23 AM
Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal, FTW.
-TheE-
And look what it got him...
Dead!!
The delusional fool...
Sean of the Thread
06-07-2006, 10:33 AM
Wasn't he more of a "Bleeding from the thorax and wrists" liberal anyways?
Parkbandit
06-07-2006, 03:40 PM
And all proven to be nothing but hot air coming from the mouths of various Republican blowhards.
How many millions of dollars did they spend? And what did they find? A blowjob that Bill lied about. They were cleared in Whitewater, Travelgate, all those ridiculous scandals (my personal favorite - the trashing of the White House right before the Bushies moved in)....Their "role" in Vincent Foster's suicide was so laughable on its face that no one except Matt Drudge (and apparently you) thought it was true....
...on second thought, even Matt Drudge probably didn't think it true, he probably just wanted to smear the Clintons.
-TheE-
You make it sound like this bullshit only comes from one side of the isle. Please tell me you believe this so I can laugh at you.
Warriorbird
06-08-2006, 04:14 AM
Funny seeing you use a tactic you attacked me for, Parkbandit.
Parkbandit
06-08-2006, 08:28 AM
Funny seeing you use a tactic you attacked me for, Parkbandit.
I can do a search, but I'm fairly certain that I've never accused you of being unbiased. Ever. You simply do not have that ability... or at the very least demonstrated to have that ability here.
Warriorbird
06-08-2006, 12:26 PM
Losing touch with reality? I mean, wtf did that have to do with anything?
You've said that the "but your side does it too!" Tactic is problematic. You just used it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.