I now also question if Hillary Clinton would eagerly choose Barak Obama as a runningmate.
You guys are over-thinking this. Hilary is a power-luster. She isn’t going to tolerate anyone who would steal the spotlight from her. You can tell living in Bill’s shadow drove her off the deep end (to whatever extent she wasn’t already…); she isn’t going to want to repeat that in the least.
I am currently kinda excited about Mike Pence for President.
Whose self-professed primary virtue is being Christian, thus anti-abortion (he acted on his faith). A strong advocate of farm subsidies, also a supporter of prescription subsidies and Social Security. In other words, a typical neo-con.
You guys are over-thinking this. Hilary is a power-luster. She isn’t going to tolerate anyone who would steal the spotlight from her. You can tell living in Bill’s shadow drove her off the deep end (to whatever extent she wasn’t already…); she isn’t going to want to repeat that in the least.
That’s at least a portion of my theory as to why I don’t think she’ll pick Obama. Unfortunately, she’s an absolute shoe-in for the Dem nomination. The Clintons are a crafty bunch and I doubt the Republicans have a candidate up to the task of taking them on.
Thanks David for taking all the fun out of it. 
That’s at least a portion of my theory as to why I don’t think she’ll pick Obama. Unfortunately, she’s an absolute shoe-in for the Dem nomination. The Clintons are a crafty bunch and I doubt the Republicans have a candidate up to the task of taking them on.
I’ve always thought it inaccurate to talk about “the Clintons.” There is Bill Clinton. And there is Hillary Clinton. They are not a pair, either matrimonially or politically. Bill, for all his many faults, was a liberal who could be moderate or even conservative when he needed to be. Hillary is a hardcore leftist who will do anything to attain power and, when she gets it, use it to ruthlessly crush her enemies.
Perhaps, but they’ll come into office as a team, which is what Hillary told the world when Bill was elected. I don’t recall her exact comment, but she said something to the effect that she was part of a package deal.
Does anyone else find it disconcerting that by the time Jeb Bush leaves office in 2024, there will have been a Bush or Clinton in the White House for 36 years? If Chelsea ever runs, it’ll be 44.
Perhaps, but they’ll come into office as a team, which is what Hillary told the world when Bill was elected. I don’t recall her exact comment, but she said something to the effect that she was part of a package deal.
God, I remember that. I was like, “No you’re not. You haven’t been elected to anything, you scary so-and-so. Now sit down and shut up.” But in her delusional world, she was elected.
God, I remember that. I was like, “No you’re not. You haven’t been elected to anything, you scary so-and-so. Now sit down and shut up.” But in her delusional world, she was elected.
Yeah…that was messed up. Putting her office in the east wing(policy end) of the white house. What the hell was that? Was she appointed to a cabinet position? I don’t remember. I wonder if Bill is every bit the man I think he is and will put his office in the west wing. I’d LMAO.
I don’t know that any of them are worthy of support, but some are less worthy of condemnation than others. I will end up voting for whoever isn’t Hillary Clinton, unless that person happens to be John McCain. If the choice is between McCain and Hillary, I’m moving to North Korea where my rights will be at least somewhat protected.
Out of curiosity, why the strong aversion to McCain?
Of those currently in the field, Mitt Romney is the best by far.
http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Stop…unaway_Spending
Someone who knows the “community” will hate him for doing the right thing, but does it nonetheless, and is proud of having done it–this is the kind of statesman America sorely needs.
Romney?.. They guy who wants to destroy women’s lives by dictating that they carry a fetus to term?
The only one of the the Big Three that I could even consider voting for in a general election would be Giuliani. He has his flaws, but they are greatly outweighed by the flaws of Hillary. And he has the additional advantage of not being a member of the religious right. McCain and Hillary’s flaws balance each other out. Both are dishonest, fascist, and opportunistic. I know of no reason to vote for one over the other. I don’t think Giuliani’s support for gun control can possibly outweigh the flat-out evil positions of Hillary Clinton.
What’s so bad about Giuliani?
Well, I hope you’re right about Paul and Romney having more of a chance, but I think all the signs are pointing to it being between McCain and Guiliani.*
And I don’t think you can call someone anti-Semitic just because he doesn’t support Israel. I fully support Israel and think that those who don’t are wrong, but thinking that Israel is too aggressive and that we should not be funding its war does not make one anti-Semitic.
*What is the correct way to spell that man’s name?
Why would you want a pro-lifer and a libertarian to have more of a chance than Giuliani? (correct spelling)
Out of curiosity, why the strong aversion to McCain?
http://z7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad…?showtopic=1054
Be sure to follow the link to Myrhaf, as well. McCain suffered for his country… and if he gets his way then all of us will, too. That’s what he stands for in a nutshell.
The way forward for Giuliani is to promise to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court (the actual term preferred by Scalia, I believe, is “textualist”). That might placate the conservative base which views court appointments, not the presidency, as the key to social issues, and which might give a pro-choice candidate a pass on that basis. I don’t know much about Giuliani but so far he seems infinitely preferable to Hillary Clinton who is simply a great big bundle of lies piled atop lies. Uggggh. All this could change as more details about Giuliani are revealed, of course, but up front I’d say he could be a winner.
The way forward for Giuliani is to promise to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court (the actual term preferred by Scalia, I believe, is “textualist”).
That’s the way forward in terms of getting more conservative votes. To my mind, it would be a huge negative. (Not that Guiliani will ever get my vote, ever.)
Indeed, in the 2008 election, I can see myself voting Democrat simply on the argument that we need to keep balance on the court and allow some of the left-wingers to retire and be replaced by other left-wingers.
http://z7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad…?showtopic=1054
Be sure to follow the link to Myrhaf, as well. McCain suffered for his country… and if he gets his way then all of us will, too. That’s what he stands for in a nutshell.
To list McCain’s negatives, I take it, 1) he is an environmentalist (and who knows what that means in terms of public policy), 2) he’s pro-mandatory service? (2) is a big problem and keeps me from voting for him, but in those links I see little else that is solid.
The way forward for Giuliani is to promise to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court (the actual term preferred by Scalia, I believe, is “textualist”). That might placate the conservative base which views court appointments, not the presidency, as the key to social issues, and which might give a pro-choice candidate a pass on that basis. I don’t know much about Giuliani but so far he seems infinitely preferable to Hillary Clinton who is simply a great big bundle of lies piled atop lies. Uggggh. All this could change as more details about Giuliani are revealed, of course, but up front I’d say he could be a winner.
And that’s exactly what he’s doing.
That’s the way forward in terms of getting more conservative votes. To my mind, it would be a huge negative. (Not that Guiliani will ever get my vote, ever.)
Indeed, in the 2008 election, I can see myself voting Democrat simply on the argument that we need to keep balance on the court and allow some of the left-wingers to retire and be replaced by other left-wingers.
(Not that Guiliani will ever get my vote, ever.)
Indeed, in the 2008 election, I can see myself voting Democrat simply on the argument that we need to keep balance on the court and allow some of the left-wingers to retire and be replaced by other left-wingers.
I assume that you do not wish to vote for Giuliani for the same reasons expressed here. I may try to borrow that book you mentioned from a library.
What candidates, if any, seem to be the best amongst the given choices in your opinion and why?
- You want activist judges?
To me, “activist” is a non-essential in our current situation. Scalia will use his textual-ism to achieve his aims and someone else will use revisionism to achieve theirs. If there is a judge who will say: individual rights form the foundation of the constitution, he gets my vote. Unfortunately, short of that, I view the Supreme Court as more of a super-senate type of legislative body. Viewing it that way, I want to see political “balance” in the form of near SCOTUS-gridlock.
- Why would you not vote for Giuliani?
In him, I see a success-hating mediocrity who is very much in the vein of people like Hillary Clinton. (I do not detect that same attitude in Bill Clinton, nor in Bush.)
Romney?.. They guy who wants to destroy women’s lives by dictating that they carry a fetus to term?
Does he? I know he is not pro-choice, but that does not mean the same.
Besides, carrying a fetus to term (and then having it adopted) does not really destroy a woman’s life. If you do not want a child at that point, it effectively makes you work for the government for … how long? two months? As 29-year-old taxpayer, I have worked for the government for somewhere near two YEARS by now.
But even that is moot because, as I hinted above, Governor Romney is hardly likely to prevent you from having an abortion overseas. If you don’t tell him, he doesn’t even have the means to find out you had an abortion overseas. So if you don’t want to work for the government for two months, you’ll have to take a vacation somewhere in the Caribbean for the government. An inconvenience, I grant it–but is this really the greatest inconvenience threatened by politicians today?
But even that may well be moot. We have had “pro-lifers” in power in the Federal Government almost uninterrupted since 1981. Taking into account the two-year interruption, that’s 24 years. They don’t seem to be in a hurry, do they?
Out of curiosity, why the strong aversion to McCain?
The only reason I need is Campaign Finance Reform, but there are a host of other reasons.
To list McCain’s negatives, I take it, 1) he is an environmentalist (and who knows what that means in terms of public policy), 2) he’s pro-mandatory service? (2) is a big problem and keeps me from voting for him, but in those links I see little else that is solid.
Of course there is campaign finance censorship, but I thought that too obvious to mention. The point is that all three show the man doesn’t have even the slightest hesitation to initiate force using the government. It’s the principle of the thing. Someone like that, cloaked in the auspices of “conservatism” can stand to do a lot of damage. He is also well known to “work with” the democrats to push “compromises” where the dems and republicans find their common goal of statism. As president, he would have a big platform for this.
He has the will, and he has demonstrated the ability to create coalitions to push bad legislation through. It’s the worst possible combination out there. At least Hilary might provoke opposition.
Of course there is campaign finance censorship, but I thought that too obvious to mention. The point is that all three show the man doesn’t have even the slightest hesitation to initiate force using the government. It’s the principle of the thing. Someone like that, cloaked in the auspices of “conservatism” can stand to do a lot of damage. He is also well known to “work with” the democrats to push “compromises” where the dems and republicans find their common goal of statism. As president, he would have a big platform for this.
He has the will, and he has demonstrated the ability to create coalitions to push bad legislation through. It’s the worst possible combination out there. At least Hilary might provoke opposition.
You just nailed my other reason for disliking him right on the head. He goes out of his way to appease the Democrats. Whenever the Republicans have enough votes to break a Democratic filibuster, McCain decides that he would rather compromise with them, rather than defeat their filibuster.