Jump to content

Will Hillary Clinton win the presidential election?


michaelskis

Recommended Posts

When you think about it, Hillary really is a radical. She has been a long time advocate of putting children and families first. Instead of spending $300 billion on the Iraq War, she would have probably spent the money on better education, hospitals, caring for people. What a waste of $300 billion that would have been!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

When you think about it, Hillary really is a radical. She has been a long time advocate of putting children and families first. Instead of spending $300 billion on the Iraq War, she would have probably spent the money on better education, hospitals, caring for people. What a waste of $300 billion that would have been!

but the iraqis are free, man! :P

i do think hillary's thinking is quite a bit more radical than people would like to think. in fact, whenever she speaks, it's usually about children and families... the future of this country, not the future of some other country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you think about it, Hillary really is a radical. She has been a long time advocate of putting children and families first. Instead of spending $300 billion on the Iraq War, she would have probably spent the money on better education, hospitals, caring for people. What a waste of $300 billion that would have been!

I think that is one of her better points. As far removed as she seems, she does have a great connection on real life and what needs to be done with families and education.

By the way, thank you for bringing this thread back onto topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the pool of remaining democrats the best chance for beating republicans in 2008 is for John Edwards to run. Some might say he lost in 2004. But the reason the ticket lost was because Kerry was on the ticket. Many thought Kerry was too liberal. Edwards will win the democratic nomination this time in my opinion because I really dont see anyone thats better at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be quite honest... as liberal as I am... I think John McCain would be an alright president.

I would probably vote democratic, (I like John Edwards), but it wouldn't be the end of the world if John McCain won. He is not all conservative and he has a knack for being indepedent... something we desperately need in politics today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the Reps would just LOVE it if Hillary is the Dem's nominee.

Just like the Dems would be ECSTATIC if the Reps would nominate Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson! lol

I don't think we'll see a Hillary vs. McCain election. The Dems are "dating" Hillary now, but they will "marry" someone else later. Kinda like they dated Howard Dean at first in 2003, then married John Kerry later on. If everyone remembers, it was said the Dems nominated Kerry because he was "electable".

Hillary is about as electable in 2008, as Kerry was in 2004. Most likely less~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, while Bush is busy down in New Orleans today kissing Black babies on the head to celebrate all of the good work he has accomplished down there, he did an interview with the NBC nightly news.

He again is trying to link Iraq to the 9/11 terrorists. His explaination. "No the 9/11 terrorists were not Iraqis but it is the same struggle against terrorism". (One of the best cases of doublespeak that I have heard lately) Of course Brian Williams did not press him on the issue. I've come to expect no less from our media. Along with that today, Rumsfield said that people who were critical of the administration and their policies, were no better than the people who wanted to appease the Nazi's in WWII. He is talking about his fellow Americans.

It will be interesting to see if this continued strategy puts the Republicans over the top or how many of them go running in the other direction come November and in 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that would be quite a matchup---Hillary vs. Pat Buchanan!

or

Hillary vs. Pat Robertson

or

Hillary vs. Jesse Helms!!!!

Pat Buchannan isn't anything like jesse helms or pat robertson... sure he's a christian and holds many beliefs that are influenced by his faith, but he is not a one issue candidate. I'm sure that most of you cannot stand his social positions, and I'd like to point out that congress would never allow for him to do what he wants to do on that front.

He actually holds many views that you guys do, and would fight tooth and nail to see that policies reflecting these views pass (it would be a much easier battle than the social front). Immigration reform, reversing the free trading trend, reversing the imperialistic tendencies of bush.

Seriously... How is a guy who favors fiscal responsibility, avoidance of war, and enforcement of immigration laws such a lunatic vs. people who support expanding social programs (again, i know it's sad that I get annoyed by such a thing... but they really should switch the colors back), continuing racist policies such as affirmative action, or simply would like to pull out of Iraq almost immediately (making a bad situation worse imo). Need I not remind you the cost that medicare and social security already have on the budget? We'll probably not get rid of the entitlement programs at any time in our lives, but why should we continue to expand them when the ones we have now are inefficient money pits? Yeah, our military budget is high, but look at how many free countries either don't have a military or don't take the need for one seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Pat Buchanan because he's too conservative... but that's just it.. he's a conservative.. not whatever Bush is.

He is more in line with Barry Goldwater than with any Republicans we have now days, and I can bet you while Pat doesn't like the Clintons, he probably doesn't like the Bush's much either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously... How is a guy who favors fiscal responsibility, avoidance of war, and enforcement of immigration laws such a lunatic vs. people who support expanding social programs (again, i know it's sad that I get annoyed by such a thing... but they really should switch the colors back), continuing racist policies such as affirmative action, or simply would like to pull out of Iraq almost immediately (making a bad situation worse imo). Need I not remind you the cost that medicare and social security already have on the budget? We'll probably not get rid of the entitlement programs at any time in our lives, but why should we continue to expand them when the ones we have now are inefficient money pits? Yeah, our military budget is high, but look at how many free countries either don't have a military or don't take the need for one seriously.

Expanding social programs is preferable to expanding corporate handouts, affirmative action prevents racist actions, and our presence in Iraq is the single greatest catalyst to the violence there. Medicare and Social Security cost a pittance compared to the war. Many free countries have little more than a basic homeland defense force, and we spend more on our military than the next twenty or so largest spenders combined.

Buchanan fully supports Bush's policies, and his preference would be to institute even more draconian social restrictions. He is a lunatic, and if he is nominated, Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT?!?!?!?!?

Buchanan was the only person in all of politics against the war in Iraq from the beginning! Clinton was for the war, as were most of the democrats in the house and Senate. He says the Republicans "worship the church of the GDP" and that "America is a good country before it is a rich country".

He started a magazine called the American Conservative the day the call for war was begun. He is one of the most consistent and harshest critics of the Bush administration in the US. Bush support amnesty. Buchanan calls this treason. Buchanan has called Bush a traitor, which is much worse than saying he should be impeached. He is against NAFTA and has a very strong populist streak. He doesn't support Isreal and calls out the adminstration on every contradictory move they make in the Middle East.

While I've donated heavily to Buchanan's American Cause, I don't agree with every issue he presents. He's just one of the more honest politicans in the US today. I know he's honest partly because the positions he takes are so outrageously unpopular and they have such a strong backing of the facts.

Does this man sound like a Bush and neocon ally?

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_09_11/buchanan.html

Read all of his articles, there is nothing in there that would suggest he is on the side of the neocons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding social programs is preferable to expanding corporate handouts, affirmative action prevents racist actions, and our presence in Iraq is the single greatest catalyst to the violence there. Medicare and Social Security cost a pittance compared to the war. Many free countries have little more than a basic homeland defense force, and we spend more on our military than the next twenty or so largest spenders combined.

Buchanan fully supports Bush's policies, and his preference would be to institute even more draconian social restrictions. He is a lunatic, and if he is nominated, Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

Where do you get your information from? Buchanan is fully against Bush's policies. Which ones does he support? The war? Immigration reform? Katrina? Social issues? Government spending? Social security and medicare/medicaid each amount to more moneys spent than the DOD. I'm no budget expert, so I'll just go ahead and give another $100 million towards defense considering the Iraq war. The entitlement programs are still wayyyy over what the defense budget is. What do you think will happen now that we're in Iraq if we just up and leave them? To use a soundbite commonly heard, it's will embolden our enemies. To use another soundbite I hear a lot of, give me a break.

Your argument about the lack of military budgets in other free countries is a big reason why it's so necessary that we maintain such a large one.

chart.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And without social security and medicare, just how do you figure seniors who didn't have enough income to save up for retirement will live when they retire?

From the generous donations provided by the billionaires of America? Please.

I'm not saying that we should just up and get rid of them. They're entrenched. We should at least stop the expansion of these programs, something I don't agree with Bush on. I'd be willing to accept a program wherein people my age pay into the system (along with the employers, of course), with half going into the trust fund and half going towards an individual savings account with the money going to the trust fund never coming back to me but there just to pay for benefits already promised to older people. Something like this would be a great idea IMO, and I would hope that given that most younger people don't vote and enough young people aren't selfish aholes this kind of idea could possibly pass. Something needs to be done. This system is broken. It would have taken longer to get to this point had congress not raided the fund for years, but it was coming no matter what. Birth rates have declined while life expectancies went up.

Sometime in the future, and there will probably always be something of a safety net, people need to start thinking for their own futures again. How hard is it to not get that Big Mac, not get that starbucks coffee, not spend money on useless crap and just save some money every week and put it into an IRA? Most people can afford to save, too many people don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that we should just up and get rid of them. They're entrenched. We should at least stop the expansion of these programs, something I don't agree with Bush on. I'd be willing to accept a program wherein people my age pay into the system (along with the employers, of course), with half going into the trust fund and half going towards an individual savings account with the money going to the trust fund never coming back to me but there just to pay for benefits already promised to older people. Something like this would be a great idea IMO, and I would hope that given that most younger people don't vote and enough young people aren't selfish aholes this kind of idea could possibly pass. Something needs to be done. This system is broken. It would have taken longer to get to this point had congress not raided the fund for years, but it was coming no matter what. Birth rates have declined while life expectancies went up.

Sometime in the future, and there will probably always be something of a safety net, people need to start thinking for their own futures again. How hard is it to not get that Big Mac, not get that starbucks coffee, not spend money on useless crap and just save some money every week and put it into an IRA? Most people can afford to save, too many people don't.

It's easy for you to say. "Just don't get that extra Big Mac or that Starbucks Coffee"...

Yeah, that's what my late grandparents squandered their incomes on that led them to rely on Social Security for their income in later years. My grandma ruined her retirement on Mochas and Happy Meals...

Every country in the world that has a better quality of life than the U.S has an extensive pension/social security system for their seniors. The U.S system is NOT broken, it simply needs to be revamped and maybe the age needs to be raised.

I agree that private IRAs are fine for those who can afford to save every week, but you know Americans. They couldn't budget properly if it meant their life. And in this case, it would mean their life... and the rich would laugh all the way to the bank while seniors suffered needlessly.

I think social security should provide a minimum of the poverty line in wages to seniors and then move up from there as a percentage of average income with a cap.

Medicare should be expanded to cover all youth under 21 and those in college over 21 and under 25. People aged 25 to 64 that are not disabled or working poor should have private insurance. While a single payer system would be a great thing in my opinion, it would ultimately have to be phased in over a long period of time, as the insurance industry does provide a lot of jobs that would be lost as public health care is much more efficient than private, eliminating jobs.

I agree Somad that we need efficient programs that are held accountable for every dollar. But it is irresponsible to advocate cutting the deficit on the backs of the elderly, veterans, and the poor. I think if we spent more time defending ourselves and not offending everyone else, our defense budget would be a fraction of what it currently is. That money could certainly be returned to the tax payers in the form or given to the states as "state aid" so states could effectively end the property tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you get your information from? Buchanan is fully against Bush's policies. Which ones does he support? The war? Immigration reform? Katrina? Social issues? Government spending? Social security and medicare/medicaid each amount to more moneys spent than the DOD. I'm no budget expert, so I'll just go ahead and give another $100 million towards defense considering the Iraq war. The entitlement programs are still wayyyy over what the defense budget is. What do you think will happen now that we're in Iraq if we just up and leave them? To use a soundbite commonly heard, it's will embolden our enemies. To use another soundbite I hear a lot of, give me a break.

Your argument about the lack of military budgets in other free countries is a big reason why it's so necessary that we maintain such a large one.

I was mistaken about Buchanan's support for Bush. I apologise for that, but I still feel he is far too conservative. Electing him will do little to repair the damage that has been done to this nation. His rhetoric on foreign policy is far, far preferable to that from the Bush administration.

If you include the hundreds of billions being spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, and homeland security, as well as veterans benefits to military spending, you're well above the cost of the entitlements you mention. That doesn't even take into account the bloated contracts given to defense contractors from all areas of government. The entitlements are expensive, sure, but at least they benefit the average citizen. Defense spending at such high levels only serves to line the pockets of the billionaires running the government, and is unnecessary to defend the nation.

Removing our troops will end the insurgency, which is made up mostly of Iraqis defending their homeland from outsiders, despite what the neocons like to tell you. The internal civil war that is already under way will continue, of course, but it will eventually be worked out, either through splitting the country or one side acheiving dominance. It isn't our fight, and out presence there is only making things worse.

Why are we spending billions to defend other countries? Cut military spending to a reasonable level necessary for defense, and let other countries increase spending if they feel the need. It is called the "Department of Defense" for a reason. Use that money to give our citizens affordable, quality education, healthcare, energy, and transit networks like all those other countries enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy for you to say. "Just don't get that extra Big Mac or that Starbucks Coffee"...

Yeah, that's what my late grandparents squandered their incomes on that led them to rely on Social Security for their income in later years. My grandma ruined her retirement on Mochas and Happy Meals...

I graduated from high school 5 years ago... You should see how many people are now making sh*t for money ($12/hr and under) yet still able to afford vacations, ipods, to eat out whenever, to drink every weekend, to wear new clothes, etc. The ones still living at home usually have new(er) cars. It's not that all low income workers can't afford to save, most of them can. They simply don't. How much of that complacency is there because they know the government won't let them spend themselves to where they become dirt poor and desparate when they get old?

I'm speaking from where we are now, not 50 years ago. Maybe there should be a good system to protect those who are well advanced in age or who fall under extreme circumstances that impair their ability to work and/or cost a huge amount to treat, but for most people a market based system would work. If Chile could create a successful retirement system, why not us? The market has outperformed what social security returns would be on a consistant basis. If we have another Great Depression, the government wouldn't be able to afford all these handouts anyways. It would be in the best interest of Americans to switch this system now. I like to compare social security with those pensions that have been bankrupting old establishment businesses in the airline and automobile industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we spending billions to defend other countries? Cut military spending to a reasonable level necessary for defense, and let other countries increase spending if they feel the need. It is called the "Department of Defense" for a reason. Use that money to give our citizens affordable, quality education, healthcare, energy, and transit networks like all those other countries enjoy.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick"... Sometimes you have to use that stick, otherwise it's meaningless

It has historically been the Department of War.... DOD is recent, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.