NationStates Jolt Archive

Hillary has more than 50% in an opinion poll among Democrats with more than 2 candidates. As many polling and statistics junkies know, getting above 50% in a crowded field is VERY GOOD. I fear for this country.

A few months ago I made predictions similar to this and would bet money that it would end up Hillary vs. Rudy. It's not there yet, but it's sure looking close.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071005/pl_nm/usa_politics_giuliani_dc)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The best thing to happen to Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign could be the rising fortunes of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

The former first lady's position as front-runner among Democrats seeking the party's presidential nomination, and the growing sense that she is cementing that No. 1 slot, powers the former New York mayor's argument that he should be the Republican nominee because he alone can beat her, experts say.

A poll this week showed Clinton ahead of her Democratic rivals with 53 percent support, compared with 20 percent for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, in the 2008 presidential race.

She raised $27 million in campaign funds, the most among Democrats, in the latest quarter. Well behind her but ahead of other Republicans, Giuliani pulled in $11 million.

"The perception is that Rudy knows how to handle the Clintons," said Lee Miringoff, pollster at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York. "It's an excellent strategy. The message is 'I know Hillary. I know how to beat her. I know her weaknesses."'

Giuliani and Clinton competed in 2000 in the U.S. Senate race from New York before he withdrew, citing his prostate cancer. She went on to win and has been a U.S. senator since.

This week, his presidential campaign released its strategy in a memo that put it simply -- "Mayor Giuliani is clearly the strongest candidate to run against Senator Clinton in the general election and is likely the only Republican candidate that can beat her in 2008," it said.

If Giuliani convinces Republicans that only he can defeat Clinton, the right wing may overlook his less-than-conservative views on such issues as abortion and gun control, experts say.

"The specter of Hillary Clinton is enough to have Republicans overlook things," said Miringoff. "That buys him some leeway in their estimates."

President George W. Bush added fuel to the fire recently when he predicted Clinton would win her party's presidential nomination but lose the November 2008 election.

"She's got a national presence, and this is becoming a national primary," Bush said.

CLINTON THREAT

Painting himself as the antidote to another Clinton presidency and her as an ultra-liberal threat, Giuliani took a recent poke at Clinton by aligning her with an anti-war advertisement by the activist group MoveOn.org.

"By linking that to Hillary, he did an effective job of establishing, in conservative voters' minds, two things -- first that she is the mortal enemy to be feared and second, that he is the man to take her on and beat her," said Michael Tomasky, editor of Guardian America, the soon-to-be-launched U.S.-based Web site of The Guardian newspaper.

Feeding that view is a perception that it will take a tough New Yorker to beat another tough New Yorker, he added.

But the specter of Giuliani as the Republican nominee has some conservatives, who vow they could never vote for a politician that supports abortion rights, threatening to back a third-party candidate. That divided Republican vote would benefit Clinton, experts say.

"Their fates are tied to each other," said Miringoff.

And the 'only-Rudy-can-beat-Hillary' tactic has drawbacks in places such as New Hampshire, one of the first U.S. states slated to choose the presidential nominees, said Jennifer Lucas, who teaches politics at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"The electability issue is not the kind of thing New Hampshire voters prioritize," Lucas said. "New Hampshire voters really want to get to know the candidates, they want to see them face to face."

"I don't think electability really is a good enough reason to vote for someone," she said. "It's a reason, but you don't want that to be the only reason."

:headbang:

So it's a Bush's Clone Giuliani Vs. "I hate Video Games" Clinton?

I hope they both lose to a third party.

Doesn't mean anything. if you remember 2004, Howard Dean was leading through the race, but then John Kerry took it.

Speaking as a Scotsman, completely outside of the American voting system but nevertheless doubtlessly affected by it.

Dammit.

You foolish Americans why can't you submit to your rightful ruler Queen Elizabeth II and return to the Glorious Empahr?!

In all serious, please elect Obama. He seems like a decent chap, wot.

EDIT: DAMMIT THE VIDEO GAMES! I completely forgot! Don't vote for that madwoman!

Wait, I agree! lets return to the crown!

Speaking as a Scotsman, completely outside of the American voting system but nevertheless doubtlessly affected by it.

Dammit.

You foolish Americans why can't you submit to your rightful ruler Queen Elizabeth II and return to the Glorious Empahr?!

In all serious, please elect Obama. He seems like a decent chap, wot.

EDIT: DAMMIT THE VIDEO GAMES! I completely forgot! Don't vote for that madwoman!

Could be Clinton vs Thompson. :eek: But if it's Hillary and Rudy, can you pronounce "President Rudy?"

:headbang:

So it's a Bush's Clone Giuliani Vs. "I hate Video Games" Clinton?

I hope they both lose to a third party.

just curious, but which republican (that has a chance at winning) isn't a bush clone (or worse)?

seriously, from what I hear I wouldn't vote for a republican simply because it would be like getting bush for a 3rd time.


and "I hate Video Games" is that really the worst you could think of for clinton? really? Liberman Hates VG's as well, and you saw what happen when he went indy after losing the ability to run under democrat...

Doesn't mean anything. if you remember 2004, Howard Dean was leading through the race, but then John Kerry took it.

He didn't have more than 50%. And Hillary hasn't had any BYAAAAAHHH! moments yet.

Could be Clinton vs Thompson. :eek: But if it's Hillary and Rudy, can you pronounce "President Rudy?"

Doubtful. I'd say Clinton-Obama vs. Rudy-(Conservative). Clinton wins unless third parties make a good showing.

can you pronounce "President Rudy?"

Yes. now I challenge you to do it without laughing. (not that there is no possibility of him winning. It just sounds funny.)

just curious, but which republican (that has a chance at winning) isn't a bush clone (or worse)?

Ron Paul baby!

and "I hate Video Games" is that really the worst you could think of for clinton? really? Liberman Hates VG's as well, and you saw what happen when he went indy after losing the ability to run under democrat...

Here's a list of reason not to vote for Hillary

She supports NCLB (which was a dismissal failure)
She actually wants to take the profit away from oil company (yea that'll solve our energy crisis Ms. Clinton ) :rolleyes:
She supports the Patriot Act
She was for the Iraq war before she was against it.
She's not for Same Sex Marriage, but for Same Sex Civil Union
plus the $10 BILLION health care system will send our taxes through the roof, and fork over even more power to Gov. Co.
Plus add to the fact that she hates video games.

Ron Paul baby!

That why I said chance to win. :p



Here's a list of reason not to vote for Hillary

She supports NCLB (which was a dismissal failure)
She actually wants to take the profit away from oil company (yea that'll solve our energy crisis Ms. Clinton ) :rolleyes:
She supports the Patriot Act
She was for the Iraq war before she was against it.
She's not for Same Sex Marriage, but for Same Sex Civil Union
plus the $10 BILLION health care system will send our taxes through the roof, and fork over even more power to Gov. Co.
Plus add to the fact that she hates video games.

"I support the Patriot Act" Clinton sounds much worse than "I hate Video Games" Clinton imo.

Yes. now I challenge you to do it without laughing. (not that there is no possibility of him winning. It just sounds funny.)
P r e s i d e n t R u d y. And I just might vote for him if he wins the Republican nomination. If McCain wins the nomination I will vote for a third party candidate or "none of the above," :eek:

seriously, from what I hear I wouldn't vote for a republican simply because it would be like getting bush for a 3rd time.


Time to get your hearing aid checked. :eek:

Democrats, of all the candidates you could choose, you pick quite possibly the worst and least appealing of all of them. I mean, I'd rather vote for Edwards than Hillary, and definitely Obama over Hillary.

Hell, I'd vote for Kucinich over Hillary...

Hell, I'd vote for Kucinich over Hillary...

Um, why?

*starts to work on plan to get Neal Boortz to run on the Libertarian ticket*

Democrats, of all the candidates you could choose, you pick quite possibly the worst and least appealing of all of them. I mean, I'd rather vote for Edwards than Hillary, and definitely Obama over Hillary.

Hell, I'd vote for Kucinich over Hillary...

Would you vote for Rudy over Hillary? Would you vote for Fred over Hillary?

*starts quietly and slowly and builds going faster and louder each time*

ruuuuuuudy, ruuuuuudy, ruuuudy, ruuudy, rudy, Rudy!, RUdy, RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY! RUDY!

http://www.cyber-cinema.com/original/rudyRep.jpg

Would you vote for Rudy over Hillary? Would you vote for Fred over Hillary?

Rudy yes, Fred no. I'd rather have Rudy there than Hillary any day...hell, I'd rather have Ted Stevens than Hillary.

Speaking as a Scotsman, completely outside of the American voting system but nevertheless doubtlessly affected by it.

Dammit.

You foolish Americans why can't you submit to your rightful ruler Queen Elizabeth II and return to the Glorious Empahr?!


QFT

Rudy yes, Fred no. I'd rather have Rudy there than Hillary any day...hell, I'd rather have Ted Stevens than Hillary.

So if Hillary and Rudy both get the nominations, Rudy can count on two votes. YES! GO RUDY GO!

God help us all.

No God.[scary voice/]

+1 for anyone who gets the movie reference. Hint: the movie isn't out yet.

God help us all.

No God.[scary voice/]

+1 for anyone who gets the movie reference. Hint: the movie isn't out yet.

Barney the big purple dinosaur gets put to sleep?

You foolish Americans why can't you submit to your rightful ruler Queen Elizabeth II and return to the Glorious Empahr?!
Because being our own lap dogs would get confusing, as well as involving a hell of a lot of contortion.

In all serious, please elect Obama. He seems like a decent chap, wot.

He's also leading the polls in Iowa, where the first primary vote happens. Since later votes always seem to be very much affected by the primaries, I think he really has a chance. I wouldn't count him out yet.

Barney the big purple dinosaur gets put to sleep?

What!? try again my friend.

Ron Paul baby!

The one Republican candidate who, while different from Bush, may very well be worse, and certainly wouldn't be better.

Mike Gravel ftw!

Sadly, that won't happen. I agree with Obama on more issues than Hillary, but I'm not too well informed on his political experience than with Hillary's, so I'm still skeptical of Obama in that respect.

Why can't we abolish the two party system in America. It creates a Bi-polar political climate which is bad for innovation and means people are forced to pick between one bad philosophy and another. So Vote for an independent.

Why can't we abolish the two party system in America. It creates a Bi-polar political climate which is bad for innovation and means people are forced to pick between one bad philosophy and another. So Vote for an independent.

Because the Democrats and Republican are keeping the doorway to power under lock and key, and they won't let anyone else in. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the only two parties that don't have to go from state to state to collect signatures to get their party on the ballot.

Stupid anti-video game bitch.

On that subject, I'll vote for anyone who would execute Jack Thompson.

I'll support anyone who supports the Fair Tax Plan.

Speaking as a Scotsman, completely outside of the American voting system but nevertheless doubtlessly affected by it.

Dammit.

You foolish Americans why can't you submit to your rightful ruler Queen Elizabeth II and return to the Glorious Empahr?!

In all serious, please elect Obama. He seems like a decent chap, wot.

EDIT: DAMMIT THE VIDEO GAMES! I completely forgot! Don't vote for that madwoman!

Nope, I will vote for Thompson, he is small government and lower taxes mixed with nationalism and stay out of globalism.

Mike Gravel ftw!

Sadly, that won't happen. I agree with Obama on more issues than Hillary, but I'm not too well informed on his political experience than with Hillary's, so I'm still skeptical of Obama in that respect.

I don't really understand this argument against Obama, particularly if you prefer his ideologies and vision to that of another canidates. Shouldn't you vote for the person who may take you where you want, rather than the person who will take you where you don't want to go?

Nope, I will vote for Thompson, he is small government and lower taxes mixed with nationalism and stay out of globalism.

Yeah, and then we can break the US off of the Earth and launch it into space. Then we can be truly isolated.

No God.[scary voice/]

+1 for anyone who gets the movie reference. Hint: the movie isn't out yet.
+1 is over paying for that, those ads for 30 Days of Night are fucking endless. Anyone with a TV in the states got it. Anyone without one or not in the states wouldn't care.
Why can't we abolish the two party system in America. It creates a Bi-polar political climate which is bad for innovation and means people are forced to pick between one bad philosophy and another. So Vote for an independent.
Well, not that I'm buying into this 'sky is falling/the election is decided months before even the first primary' nonsense, but if Rudy gets the Republican nomination the religious base that's been bolstering that party has threatened to run a third, and since Hillary, despite the laughable rhetoric to the contrary, is really just 'right light' and might prompt a second 'third' (man that's fun to say...) on the left hand side-so then the stage is set for the only real chance of breaking the hold...because here in the states we've locked ourselves into a binary so third party candidates have only managed to draw from whatever 'side' their closest to and thus throw the election to the other party. But if there is one each on either side with equal pull, then that might break things up.

But in order for that to happen I'd have to buy into this whole 'the nominations are already decided' paranoia, and I don't.

EDIT: Oh my, that first sentence in that paragraph is a doosey. I'm not changing it. A knot like that takes skill...

Doesn't mean anything. if you remember 2004, Howard Dean was leading through the race, but then John Kerry took it.

Howard Dean? You mean...

BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since Howard Dean isn't going to be elected, I hope it is a Rudy/Hilldog race.

This would ensure the presidency goes back to the democrats, and in some far-fetched scenario where Giuliani won, at least he wouldn't be that bad of a republican.

We need more politicians from New York and new england, and fewer from the south and midwest.

Hillary is quite popular, and it would be good to have Bill - the most popular president in recent times - back in the white house.

Ron Paul's popularity and funds are snowballing. Ron Paul vs. Hillary is great for us--what idiot would vote for someone who won't get us out of Iraq until 2013, proposes a flawed, socialistic healthcare/welfare program, and has no plans to elminate the federal deficit; over a OBGYN with a perfect voting record?

We need more politicians from New York and new england, and fewer from the south and midwest.

No, we do not need more people like Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank in Washington.

+1 is over paying for that, those ads for 30 Days of Night are fucking endless. Anyone with a TV in the states got it. Anyone without one or not in the states wouldn't care.


I haven't seen any ads for that...

Nope, I will vote for Thompson, he is small government and lower taxes mixed with nationalism and stay out of globalism.

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist that stands for smaller government and lower taxes. Also, if you choose him over Fred Thompson, you don't get the side effects of a theocracy and continued war in the Middle East.

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist that stands for smaller government and lower taxes. Also, if you choose him over Fred Thompson, you don't get the side effects of a theocracy and continued war in the Middle East.

Well, here is how it stacks up now for the Democrats
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

And here is how it stacks up for the Republicans
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

Hillary has an average 21 point lead over Obama while Giuliani has only an average 7 point lead over Thompson.

Ron Paul isn't even in the running.

I'm not too well informed on his political experience than with Hillary's, so I'm still skeptical of Obama in that respect.

I really don't understand people who take that position. Obama's served longer and more honorably in elected office than Billary.

Hillary has more than 50% in an opinion poll among Democrats with more than 2 candidates. As many polling and statistics junkies know, getting above 50% in a crowded field is VERY GOOD. I fear for this country.


You 'fear for this country' because... it looks like the most popular candidate is the most popular candidate?

Or - just because the most popular candidate is making a strong suggestion that she might not be easily beatable by a token moderate?

You 'fear for the country' because a popular candidate might get in?

You might want to get a grown-up to explain to you how 'democracy' (even the American attempt at it) works.

If Hillary or Romney gets elected, I'm hoping that Texas will suceed from the Union.

Secede, maybe?

Regardless of who wins, I wouldn't cry into my beer if most of the Southern states chose to secede in protest...

If Hillary or Romney gets elected, I'm hoping that Texas will suceed from the Union.

I thought for a while that I didn't want Hilary for President because I was sexist. But I thought, "I'm not usual sexist, why don't I like Hilary?" Then I remembered that I really like Angela Merkel as German Chancellor. So I've come to the conclusion that I don't like Hillary because she's a retard.

And she speaks so highly of you.

I thought for a while that I didn't want Hillary for President because I was sexist. But I thought, "I'm not usual sexist, why don't I like Hilary?" Then I remembered that I really like Angela Merkel as German Chancellor. So I've come to the conclusion that I don't like Hillary because she's a retard.

I'd prefer a progressive like Kucinich in office, but if it came down to Obama and Hillary, I'll take Obama. I'd take Ron Paul over Hillary.

And she speaks so highly of you.

Hey, anybody who's anti-video games just for the point of being anti-video games is an idiot, plain and simple.

Hey, anybody who's anti-video games just for the point of being anti-video games is an idiot, plain and simple.

Well, with such a considered opinion, it's hard to argue with you.

And - one could say - if you think Hillary is anti-video games for the sake of being anti-video games... I have a nice bridge you might be interested in.

+1 is over paying for that, those ads for 30 Days of Night are fucking endless. Anyone with a TV in the states got it. Anyone without one or not in the states wouldn't care.



I only saw the preview because I went to the movies, I haven't seen them on tv.

At least someone else agrees with me on that.
I haven't seen any ads for that...

Hey, anybody who's anti-video games just for the point of being anti-video games is an idiot, plain and simple.

What about someone who is anti-[anti-video games] just for the point of being anti-[anti-video games]?

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist that stands for smaller government and lower taxes. Also, if you choose him over Fred Thompson, you don't get the side effects of a theocracy and continued war in the Middle East.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. He can use the term "non-interventionist" all he likes, but his policies are actually isolationist.

He also is perfectly alright with breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution when it suits his personal ideology.

He's also a racist bastard.

And he's proposed legislation that would have bankrupted most of the US in one fell swoop.

I honestly can't think of anyone in the running I'd want to see win the presidency less.

Mitt Romeny for president.

You 'fear for this country' because... it looks like the most popular candidate is the most popular candidate?

Or - just because the most popular candidate is making a strong suggestion that she might not be easily beatable by a token moderate?

You 'fear for the country' because a popular candidate might get in?

You might want to get a grown-up to explain to you how 'democracy' (even the American attempt at it) works.

She's popular because of her husband. Clinton is a brand name like Tyson's chicken or Planter's Peanuts. It's a popularity contest, not an election. I'd almost rather have Bush again for 4 years.

She's popular because of her husband. Clinton is a brand name like Tyson's chicken or Planter's Peanuts. It's a popularity contest, not an election. I'd almost rather have Bush again for 4 years.

*hits Sel Appa on the head*

No! Don't ever say that again, Now you've given terrorist an idea to launch a major attack on US Soil that'll force Bush to declare Marital Law.

We're screwed either way just with Hillary it'll be over a lot quicker when our country wakes up $12 trillion in debt on February 1, 2009 and my paycheck is now 60% lighter versus 30%.

Well, 08 is gonna be a good year for third parties. In truth, Rudy really ain't that bad when it comes to Republicans. If it's a race of Rudy vs Clinton, you're going to have basically two mirror images competing for the same office. It won't matter who wins.

So, I think we should take this opportunity and all vote third party. I'm hoping Stewart Alexander gets the Socialist Party USA nod. But, since I live in Montana, the only alternative I'm going to have is the Green Party if I'm lucky. In that case, I'm voting Green.

Y'know, I just don't trust either Clinton or Guliani to provide any deviation from the pro-corporate party line.

The problem is: Ron Paul. He sounds good, in fact he sounds like exactly what the country needs. But anyone who thinks that their vote counts needs to do some more research. Anyone who opposes the international financial interests, who own the companies who make the mass media as well as the US's voting machines, will never get to power. So even if the guy wins, I fear for the US goverment.

Best case is that none of the independent candidates win and we get to keep the illusion that freedom of election exists. That sounds cynical and paranoid as hell, I know. But the worst case is that we're betrayed, that a candidate promised to be the savior of the american political system turns out to be just another patsy.

Ron Paul baby!
You're right, he's not like Bush. Bush isn't racist.


She's not for Same Sex Marriage, but for Same Sex Civil Union

Ron Paul isn't even for civil unions.

She's popular because of her husband. Clinton is a brand name like Tyson's chicken or Planter's Peanuts. It's a popularity contest, not an election. I'd almost rather have Bush again for 4 years.

Because name recognition is bad, but re-electing a President who served two-terms off a combination of name-recognition and capitalising on tragedy... would be good?

How is 'Clinton' a brand name, and 'Bush' not?

Sounds to me like your 'name recognition' argument is a cover for some deeper issue.

We're screwed either way just with Hillary it'll be over a lot quicker when our country wakes up $12 trillion in debt on February 1, 2009 and my paycheck is now 60% lighter versus 30%.

What are you talking about? Our current regime is increasing our national debt by 2 billion dollars a day, and cutting taxes on the wealthiest.... that's fiscal responsibility?

Where has Clinton said she intends to double taxes, or increase national debt?

I don't get it... how do people keep attacking Democratic taxation and spending... under the current circumstances? Hands pressed over eyes? La-la-la-la?

Don't love Hillary, don't hate her. My only problem with her getting the Dem nomination is that I still don't feel like folks will elect a woman to the top post. Or a black. So I don't think either of the Democratic frontrunners have a chance. Which might lead to Guliani as the least objectionable frontrunner.
*sigh* I'm not real excited about any of the prospects. Someone convince me to excited about the elections next year.

Don't love Hillary, don't hate her. My only problem with her getting the Dem nomination is that I still don't feel like folks will elect a woman to the top post. Or a black. So I don't think either of the Democratic frontrunners have a chance. Which might lead to Guliani as the least objectionable frontrunner.
*sigh* I'm not real excited about any of the prospects. Someone convince me to excited about the elections next year.

I fear you are right.

America has a fundamental gynophobia, I think. Probably rooted in their heavy immersion in Pauline Christianity.

Even female voters oppose Clinton because 'she wants to be the first woman president'. Like all the other candidates are running for the sake of kittens and christmas...

No God.[scary voice/]

+1 for anyone who gets the movie reference. Hint: the movie isn't out yet.


30 days of night is the movie. And I didn't read ahead so if someone else answered it I didn't cheat.

Secede, maybe?

Regardless of who wins, I wouldn't cry into my beer if most of the Southern states chose to secede in protest...

Oh God, I've been waiting for this all my life. I hope Texas succeeds, then we can attack it as part of the war on terror and take over tier oil fields and refineries. Oh, and the Houston Astros.

Better someone as president who hates videogames than someone who hates humans, Arabs, French, Europeans, scientists and atheist ones.

And it is not that she hates it, that she'll forbid videogames.

Oh God, I've been waiting for this all my life. I hope Texas succeeds, then we can attack it as part of the war on terror and take over tier oil fields and refineries. Oh, and the Houston Astros.

More likely, if we allowed Texas to secede, Mexico would reclaim it.

More likely, if we allowed Texas to secede, Mexico would reclaim it.

now that would be Ironical, wouldn't it?

That why I said chance to win. :p





"I support the Patriot Act" Clinton sounds much worse than "I hate Video Games" Clinton imo.

Not to me. I would far prefer the Patriot Act be reinstated, then have video games banned.

You know, if Hillary wins the Presidency, I will have lived over 90% of my life under a Clinton or a Bush by 2012? And I will have lived for 27 years at that point. That's kind of ridiculous.

You know, if Hillary wins the Presidency, I will have lived over 90% of my life under a Clinton or a Bush by 2012? And I will have lived for 27 years at that point. That's kind of ridiculous.

Are you not including Bush Sr. as VP under Ronnie, then?

You know, if Hillary wins the Presidency, I will have lived over 90% of my life under a Clinton or a Bush by 2012? And I will have lived for 27 years at that point. That's kind of ridiculous.

And fundamentally undemocratic.

"C'mon guys, time to exercise your god-given right: blue smarties or red smarties? Take your time."

You know, Hillary is not my favorite choice for president by a long shot, but reading the protests from people whose best arguments against her are "she wants to be the first female president" and "she hates video games" almost makes me want to vote for her out of spite.

I mean, seriously, people. There are so many huge, important issues out there worth your time and effort, and the best things you can come up with to worry about are the fact that politicians with vaginas are just as ambitious as politicians without vaginas, and some of them think selling violent games to kids is a bad idea? Seriously?

You know, Hillary is not my favorite choice for president by a long shot, but reading the protests from people whose best arguments against her are "she wants to be the first female president" and "she hates video games" almost makes me want to vote for her out of spite.

I mean, seriously, people. There are so many huge, important issues out there worth your time and effort, and the best things you can come up with to worry about are the fact that politicians with vaginas are just as ambitious as politicians without vaginas, and some of them think selling violent games to kids is a bad idea? Seriously?

Do people just ignore my list of reasons not to vote for her beside the video game one?

Do people just ignore my list of reasons not to vote for her beside the video game one?

I don't know about "people," but I didn't ignore them. You were, however, practically the only person in this thread who came up with any other arguments against voting for Clinton.

You know, Hillary is not my favorite choice for president by a long shot, but reading the protests from people whose best arguments against her are "she wants to be the first female president" and "she hates video games" almost makes me want to vote for her out of spite.

I mean, seriously, people. There are so many huge, important issues out there worth your time and effort, and the best things you can come up with to worry about are the fact that politicians with vaginas are just as ambitious as politicians without vaginas, and some of them think selling violent games to kids is a bad idea? Seriously?

I think it would be refreshing to have a president that has a vagina, in place of one that IS.... nevermind.

You're right, he's not like Bush. Bush isn't racist.

Neither is Paul.


Ron Paul isn't even for civil unions.

Correct. It is his position that marriage/civil union/whatever is none of government's business altogether.

Ron Paul baby!
Here's a list of reason not to vote for Hillary

She supports NCLB (which was a dismissal failure)

How is the fact the shrub didn't fund it properly her fault?


She actually wants to take the profit away from oil company (yea that'll solve our energy crisis Ms. Clinton ) :rolleyes:

And yet leaving them with the profit is not solving the energy crisis....


She supports the Patriot Act


A valid reason and yet probably politics as there are more then a few conservatives (my relations included) that suggest it's needed.

She was for the Iraq war before she was against it.
So?

I was a luke warm supporter on the idea of "ok? If Sadaam is going to cause some crap, then let's get him" Now that we know the "evidence" was pretty much fabricated, I am against the war.

She's not for Same Sex Marriage, but for Same Sex Civil Union
Again politics. How many Bible thumpers have problems with the use of the word marriage?

plus the $10 BILLION health care system will send our taxes through the roof, and fork over even more power to Gov. Co.

Versus leaving it to the "free market" where the premiums are going through the roof. My monthly insurance has increased $300 and it covers less.

Plus add to the fact that she hates video games.

Probably doesn't care about them and it's a political carrot for the conservatives that support that stuff.

So far you have painted her a politician.

And yet leaving them with the profit is not solving the energy crisis....


Irrelevant.

It's theirs; that's all that matters.


Versus leaving it to the "free market" where the premiums are going through the roof. My monthly insurance has increased $300 and it covers less.


Free market? In medicine? When you have licensing laws, require government product approval, and have government assistance, it's absurd to call it a "free market".

And yet leaving them with the profit is not solving the energy crisis....


Absolutely... price at the pump doubles or triples, oil companies declare record profits. A slight inconsistency?

Any politician that thinks that's worth a good looking at... is hardly the enemy of the people.

Maybe stockpiling profits isn't the best way to encourage companies to look for alternatives...?


I was a luke warm supporter on the idea of "ok? If Sadaam is going to cause some crap, then let's get him" Now that we know the "evidence" was pretty much fabricated, I am against the war.


A lot of people were misled. A lot of those who bought the initial story, regret their decisions now.


Versus leaving it to the "free market" where the premiums are going through the roof. My monthly insurance has increased $300 and it covers less.


Absolutely. My insurance goes up year on year, at the moment. It offers less, yet demands more. I don't think Clinton's plan is the best way out of the problem... but it ain't like she's approaching a perfect artifact to start with.

Irrelevant.

It's theirs; that's all that matters.


The question of ownership was not mentioned. It was a statement about solving the energy crisises.

Free market? In medicine? When you have licensing laws, require government product approval, and have government assistance, it's absurd to call it a "free market".

Hence the quotes.

Regulation exists for a reason. Study the last 150 years of business practices and you will see why "draconian ebil government" laws exist.

Neither is Paul.

Correct. It is his position that marriage/civil union/whatever is none of government's business altogether.

If that's how you believe, that's fine. But you're forgetting one important thing: marriage is one of those few things that gives you the right to hospital visitation, or inheritance and co-ownership. For ten thousand dollars in legal fees, you can get the same agreement as a private contract, but good luck ensuring its recognition at the doctors office, or you can spend 40 bucks and get a marriage license, and save everyone a bunch of red tape.

Irrelevant.

It's theirs; that's all that matters.

You just keep on thinking that. When fossil fuel prices skyrocket because of diminishing supply, and there's no alternative, you keep on thinking that. When the Greenland glacier melts, and the entire country of Bangladesh is flooded, you just keep on thinking that. When the North American great plains turn into a desert, or the Asian rice crop fails because of climate change, you just keep on thinking that. When the biosphere collapse, and human civilization goes with it, you just keep on thinking that.

The question of ownership was not mentioned. It was a statement about solving the energy crisises.

Which is none of government's concern.


Regulation exists for a reason. Study the last 150 years of business practices and you will see why "draconian ebil government" laws exist.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with those practices.

Ron Paul's popularity and funds are snowballing. Ron Paul vs. Hillary is great for us--what idiot would vote for someone who won't get us out of Iraq until 2013, proposes a flawed, socialistic healthcare/welfare program, and has no plans to elminate the federal deficit; over a OBGYN with a perfect voting record?

What, exactly, IS a "perfect voting record"?

Y'know, General, I find it laughable that anyone thinks there's anything but a difference in paint job between the leading Republican and Democratic models. Quoth Bill Hicks:

"I think the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs. Well I think the puppet on the right shares MY beliefs. HEY! Both puppets are being controlled by the same pair of hands--GO BACK TO SLEEP, AMERICA. HERE, WATCH AMERICAN GLADIATORS AND GET FAT AND STUPID."

This country was bought and paid for a long time ago. If the difference in candidates is really coming down to things like guys kissing and abortion -- social issues which should be left as far away from the federal level as possible -- then we really ARE screwed, and NOT because Hillary or Rudy gain the Presidency. More Hicks:

"I think that when the new guy gets elected, they take him on a tour of the White House, and they end the tour in a basement you've never seen or heard of before. They take the new President through a door and in this dark room there's an old movie projector and a screen. They all sit, and the projector starts up -- and it's film of Kennedy assassination... ...but it's film taken from an angle that nobody has ever seen before. The film stops, and one of the men asks the new President 'any questions?' And the President replies the same way they have since 1964: 'Uh...just what my agenda will be....' "

Is that cynical and even paranoid? Yes it is. But that's all I have left after voting in elections since 1988 and having only a Bush or a Clinton win the damn thing (that's 20 years), and in a ridiculously convoluted sham of an election in 2000 and an only slightly less convoluted sham in 2004. When I found myself NOT voting my conscience in 2000 just because I DIDN'T want W to win, I realized that my vote was essentially meaningless.

I am sick and exhausted of having to listen to candidates "court" certain factions only to leave them behind once elected (R = fundamentalist Christians; D = commie environmentalists). I am sick of "gotcha" politics where anyone can come out and say anything about someone's past and it gets taken seriously (Bush = National Guard hooky; Kerry = Swift Boat Veterans For A Few Bucks). I'm sick of the worst kind of cronyism -- the kind that gets people into positions of importance who have no business being there (Bush = "Heckuva Job" Brownie; Clinton = Berger/Hubbell). Overall, I'm sick of the influence money has on the whole process. It now costs something over $100M to even RUN a campaign that has a chance in hell, and then some folks complain that someone using their own money is trying to "buy the office".

I'm sick of Church and Hollywood continuing the false dichotomy of social issues and deliberately polarizing the nation.

I'm just sick of the whole damned mess. But -- as I always say when I reach this point -- it's the only mess we've got. Short of some kind of actual revolution that is somehow resistant or even immune to money and corporate interest.

Don't love Hillary, don't hate her. My only problem with her getting the Dem nomination is that I still don't feel like folks will elect a woman to the top post. Or a black. So I don't think either of the Democratic frontrunners have a chance. Which might lead to Guliani as the least objectionable frontrunner.
*sigh* I'm not real excited about any of the prospects. Someone convince me to excited about the elections next year.

If everyone refuses to vote for a female or black president because of others' racism, we won't ever have either.

I don't condone voting for either of them specifically because of their gender or ethnicity. However, if you choose not to vote for either of them because of those traits, even if you see them as a good candidate, how are you really different from those other people you think won't do it?


Neither is Paul.

Do your research. Yes, he is. He has point-blank stated that he thinks black youths should be treated differently by the courts than white youths. He has point-blank stated that he thinks only 5% of black people have reasonable political views. And more.

Look up the Ron Paul Political Report and find the article entitled "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism."

Correct. It is his position that marriage/civil union/whatever is none of government's business altogether.

He says that. He says a lot of things - like saying that abortion should be a states' rights issue. But when it comes down to his own prejudices and ideology vs. what he says in in the constitution, he picks his own views. And he personally voted for a law meant to block homosexual couples from adopting children in D.C. - one that only very narrowly failed - so his prejudice against homosexuals is very clear.


How is the fact the shrub didn't fund it properly her fault?

NCLB is horrible policy, funded or not. It's simply worse if it isn't funded.

She was for the Iraq war before she was against it.
So?

This one really wouldn't be so bad if she weren't trying to run form it. She keeps trying to claim that she wasn't really voting to go to war. She was voting for more diplomacy. Kind of like the people who all now claim they were somehow tricked into voting for the Patriot Act. If she couldn't even pay attention to what the bill was authorizing, I certainly don't trust her to be running the country.

Plus add to the fact that she hates video games.
Probably doesn't care about them and it's a political carrot for the conservatives that support that stuff.

To be fair, she supports all sorts of "nanny state" laws. That is a big part of my problem with her. I don't want a government that's going to poke its head further into my life or try to raise my kids (when I have them) for me.

And if she supports bad policy as a "carrot" for others, I don't want her in office.

over a OBGYN with a perfect voting record?

You mean the OBGYN who voted for a law he specifically stated was unconstitutional - a law that will do absolutely nothing but endanger the lives of pregnant women?

Yeah, that's the kind of OBGYN I'm going to trust, let me tell you.....

Which is none of government's concern.

:D

Ok I am game. Let's here your story about how the government doesn't need to be concerned about the energy crisis.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with those practices.

Really.

Do you even know why the SEC came into existence?

What about the early practices of the Rockefeller's and the Getty's?

NCLB is horrible policy, funded or not. It's simply worse if it isn't funded.

Oh I know that actually. One of my in-laws works at a district and complains bitterly about it. The lack of funding being the biggest. I was just curious to his response. ;)


To be fair, she supports all sorts of "nanny state" laws. That is a big part of my problem with her. I don't want a government that's going to poke its head further into my life or try to raise my kids (when I have them) for me.

And if she supports bad policy as a "carrot" for others, I don't want her in office.

Ah! I have to admit to not following all her actions. I only knew about the videogame stuff. If she has a record for such actions, then yes that is an area of concern.

Because name recognition is bad, but re-electing a President who served two-terms off a combination of name-recognition and capitalising on tragedy... would be good?

How is 'Clinton' a brand name, and 'Bush' not?

Sounds to me like your 'name recognition' argument is a cover for some deeper issue.

I was making a separate point. Hillary is so bad Bush looks good by comparison.

Better someone as president who hates videogames than someone who hates humans, Arabs, French, Europeans, scientists and atheist ones.

Who are you refering to?