You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 04:40:09 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Moondazed

  • Hmm... plot or pleasure? Perhaps a bit of both...
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2006
  • Location: Virginia, US
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a switch, name your pleasure...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #175 on: January 13, 2008, 09:15:28 PM »
I believe that there are just some republicans that are more ambivalent, given the republican candidates that are running for the nomination. It's been admitted by many in the GOP that this year's bunch of potential nominees aren't 'conservative' enough (with the exception of Huckabee who won't get the nomination) to the point where the potential for many republicans to stay home on election day exists. One thing above all others will get them to go out and vote, and that is Hillary. I've heard it too many times from people I know who are republicans, and in the press. My boss is a conservative republican, and even he is considering not voting because there isn't a decent, across the board conservative candidate for him, but if Hillary gets the nomination he's going to vote for what he calls the 'lesser of two evils'.

Sadly, all it will take is another last minute cry of, "Gay Marriage!" to get their judgmental, self-righteous asses to the polls :(

Offline LancisTopic starter

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #176 on: January 13, 2008, 09:43:54 PM »
geez what a fine can of worms I opened up here ! lol :)

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #177 on: January 13, 2008, 11:24:32 PM »
geez what a fine can of worms I opened up here ! lol :)


yup... worms a plenty  ;D

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #178 on: January 16, 2008, 02:17:48 PM »
Ok I have some questions on those that hate and bash Hillary and i.e. the Clintons overall.   

First on the moral aspect of her husbands adultery.

#          When Conservatives demonized Bill Clinton for his "scandalous" immorality, I couldn't help but wonder how Christians who should be familiar with the story of King David and Bathsheba, the mother of King Solomon, (2 Samuel, 11:2-25) ) could possibly be so upset with Bill Clinton.  Looking back at the original story, I was struck by how much worse David's behavior was, and ended up with some very disturbing questions, not just about him, but about the other actors in this story, i.e.: How could the scriptures give such honor and deference to such a despicable adulterer and murderer?
# . If Bathsheba resisted, then wasn't David a rapist as well as an adulterer?
# . If she cooperated, then wasn't she an accomplice to the murder of her husband as well as adulteress ?
# . When his defenders say that God made him (and Bathsheba) pay for his (their) sin, by taking the life of the child, what kind of justice is that?  What kind of God takes the life of a totally innocent child as payment for the horrendous sins of the child's parents?
# . If David was truly repentant, why wasn't he required to stop taking his stolen woman into his bed and making babies with her?

But then an editorial in Australia sums it up best.

"Thank God we (Australia) got the criminals and they (America) got the Puritans."

Now onto the witch hunt of the neo-conservative right, in the crusade to find something to take down the Clintons.    Here is some simple facts that have played out in the end. 

Bill Clinton inherited a mess after the "most scurrilous administration in history", per Haynes Johnson in his Sleepwalking Through History on the eight Reagan years, and his Vice President's 4 year extension of those years.
        He has assembled a list of 75 members of Reagan's administration who were charged with criminal behavior.  Others list as many as 245 who were investigated and 145 who were charged with crimes by Justice and "Independent Counsels".

While on the other hand.

# Republicans in Congress spent $110,000,000 trying to prove illegal activites.  Result -- One person was"convicted" of a "felony" commited while working in the Clinton administration.  The evil fellow took $12,000 in trips to sporting events, etc.  OIC Smaltzsmear concluded that they had been no "quid pro quo", i.e. no public benefit given in exchange for any gift given him.  Yet, the man could not afford to fight the charges, so he pled guilty.
# Newt Gingrich and CBO Director June O'Neill said Clinton budgets were honest.  No b.s.  like Bush who has lied several times over his budgets and tax cuts.

First, when Clinton won the White House, the federal budget deficit was at a historic high of $290 billion, 10 million Americans were out of work and the nation's economic growth rate under the outgoing Republican administration was the lowest in more than half a century.  Clinton introduced his controversial economic plan that raised the income taxes of the richest 1.4 percent of Americans.  We immediately heard from the Gloom and Doom congressional Republicans, every one of whom voted against the Clinton plan.  Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, announced, "This tax bill is a one-way ticket to a recession." House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich predicted, "This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable."
        What followed is unarguable: creation of more than 22 million new jobs; the nation's lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the lowest unemployment rate among women in 40 years; and the lowest Hispanic and African-American unemployment rate in history.  The nation went from the largest budget deficits in history to the largest budget surpluses in history, while the average family's income went up more than $5,000.

That recession never came instead;

The federal budget deficit had gone down each of the Clinton years and the cascading tax revenues generated by the prosperity led in 1998 to the first balanced budget in 30 years.


Yet this one person can be so polarizing.   Why is that is that, why do people not look past the rhetoric that comes on both sides.  An just looked at the over all facts. 

Finally onto the biggest scare subject that is laid upon Hillary.  That being socialize medicine.   How, will this doom us as a country with capitalist free markets.   Socialize medicine in Great Britain, seems not to have doomed them.  Seeing that the Pound is much stronger then the Dollar on world markets.    Or the simple facts, Amoco (American Oil company) is owned by British Petroleum.

I mean if socialize medicine for the American people will doom are free markets as suggested.  Then how come it hasn't doomed Great Britain. 





Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #179 on: January 16, 2008, 08:28:13 PM »
 I did not pay much attention to politics in the Clinton years, especially the stuff that came out of the White House then. I paid more attention to some of the economic stuff though.

 
Quote
First, when Clinton won the White House, the federal budget deficit was at a historic high of $290 billion, 10 million Americans were out of work and the nation's economic growth rate under the outgoing Republican administration was the lowest in more than half a century.  Clinton introduced his controversial economic plan that raised the income taxes of the richest 1.4 percent of Americans.  We immediately heard from the Gloom and Doom congressional Republicans, every one of whom voted against the Clinton plan.  Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, announced, "This tax bill is a one-way ticket to a recession." House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich predicted, "This is the Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable."
        What followed is unarguable: creation of more than 22 million new jobs; the nation's lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the lowest unemployment rate among women in 40 years; and the lowest Hispanic and African-American unemployment rate in history.  The nation went from the largest budget deficits in history to the largest budget surpluses in history, while the average family's income went up more than $5,000.

That recession never came instead;

The federal budget deficit had gone down each of the Clinton years and the cascading tax revenues generated by the prosperity led in 1998 to the first balanced budget in 30 years.


Yet this one person can be so polarizing.   Why is that is that, why do people not look past the rhetoric that comes on both sides.  An just looked at the over all facts.

Finally onto the biggest scare subject that is laid upon Hillary.  That being socialize medicine.   How, will this doom us as a country with capitalist free markets.   Socialize medicine in Great Britain, seems not to have doomed them.  Seeing that the Pound is much stronger then the Dollar on world markets.    Or the simple facts, Amoco (American Oil company) is owned by British Petroleum.

I mean if socialize medicine for the American people will doom are free markets as suggested.  Then how come it hasn't doomed Great Britain.



 The Clinton tax increase came very soon after he took office. He 'worked as hard as I ever have on this', but just couldn't find the way to cut government services, so he raised taxes instead. The tax raise on the top 1.4% of the income earners was not a good idea. They are the ones who pay the most in taxes.

 The balanced budget was not a Clinton thing. That was from a Republican controlled Congress. They are the ones that got the budget leveled. They also pushed thru welfare reform, which got people, able to work, off their asses. not so much of a free ride anymore. If Clinton would have had his way, he would have raised a lot more taxes.

 The 'worst economy in 50 years' is what was he said in his first election. It wasn't.

 The deficit went down despite what he did. A good portion was from the Dot.com bubble that popped in the latter part of his second term. Proving the surplus that he was touting, was nothing but a mirage. It was a 10 year projected surplus. If the money had kept coming in, and governmental spending had not increased. If it had happened, and the Demos were in charge, they would have spent the surplus.

 Since Bush got his tax cuts through, the amount of revenue coming into the CBO (Congressional budget Office) has increased. What the government would have lost in taxes was more than made up by increased volume. The tax cut 'for the wealthy' was good for the economy. It helped all of those who were in the stock market (which includes a huge number of the elderly.  ::) guess they are among the wealthy too ). they were able to keep more of the money that they earned.

 Who would spend money better? The person who earned it or the government which essentially took it?

 Socialized medicine. That one would have put 1/7 of the US economy under the control of the federal government. Not even members of her own party wanted that and it was overwhelmingly voted down in Congress. It would have put your health care under the control of a bureaucracy. If you thought insurance bureaucracies were bad, try the government. It would have mandated what professions doctors could take. To fill quotas of 'needed' professions.

  The government can do very few things efficiently. spending our money is one of them. I do not trust the government to run health care well. I don't trust the to tie their shoes..

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #180 on: January 17, 2008, 01:05:02 AM »
October 11, 2007
HP-603

Joint Statement of
Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury,
And Jim Nussle, Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
on Budget Results for Fiscal Year 2007

SUMMARY

The Administration today released the September 2007 Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government.  The statement shows the actual budget totals for the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2007, as follows:

    * A deficit of $163 billion;
    * total receipts of $2,568 billion; and
    * total outlays of $2,731 billion

Yes much more responsible I can see.  An this is straight from the U.S. Government.  Not a Right or Left wing agenda.   

Here is a in depth tax analysis of the Bush tax cuts.  It also details the past dating back to Carter.   It is not a select this, or show this.  It shows it all.   

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #181 on: January 17, 2008, 08:47:10 AM »
 *blinks* I have got to get my browser fixed. It's making this site hard to read. all of the printed words are large like in a children's book.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #182 on: January 30, 2008, 08:41:14 AM »
Hillary just got a huge boost last night by winning Florida just as she did Michigan. The prevailing thought is that the DNC will reverse course eventually and allow the Michigan and Florida Delegates to be seated during the convention. She's already working behind the scenes to try to make that happen. Florida is worth 185 and Michigan 128. It will be interesting to see what happens, but if the DNC changes their mind, you can bet Obama will be furious.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #183 on: January 30, 2008, 11:56:09 AM »
I think the DNC is crazy to not sit michigan and florida delegates. I mean gee, those states sure didn't matter at all in the last two elections did they?

I feel like the democrats are going to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of what should be a cake-walk election.

Offline VandalSavage

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #184 on: January 31, 2008, 09:01:22 AM »
I think the DNC is crazy to not sit michigan and florida delegates. I mean gee, those states sure didn't matter at all in the last two elections did they?

I think it would be insidious if they did sit them.  The campaigns all made a pledge not to campaign there months ago.  Hillary broke it, and did campaign there - she was the only major candidate even listed on the ballot in Michigan.

The result was that less than a third of the voters in other Democratic parties even turned out in Florida, and that is with the extremely provocative Amendment 1 on the ballot there.  Hillary has, predictably, talked up both incidents as part of a chain of victories.

But when you run in a contest after promising not to, against other opponents who did not show up, and win, did you really win?

That kind of cheating, in my opinion, should get you viewed harshly.  And insisting that the delegates be counted at the Convention?  That should get you kicked out of the competition.  How can we be incensed about the voter manipulations in Florida 2000, and not be about what Hillary has done in Michigan, Nevada and Florida?


Also, let us not confuse one thing - this is the primary election, not the electoral college.  Refusing the Florida and Michigan delegates only has a bearing on who becomes the Democratic nominee; it has no direct effect on the general election in November.

If you want to talk about seizing defeat from the jaws of victory, take into account the countless articles now written by people across the political spectrum that talk about how a McCain-Clinton ticket would surely result in McCain, or the polls that indicate he trounces her in a general election.


Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #185 on: January 31, 2008, 01:08:55 PM »
Yeah Vandal, that's all well and good, but honestly, if I were a Florida democrat, I'd be more than a little pissed that my vote doesn't count in deciding who is going to be the candidate my party is going run for the office of president.

I still think it was a mistake not to allow them to swicth their primary dates without punishing the state parties.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #186 on: January 31, 2008, 01:18:17 PM »
Does this really matter it looks like this could be John "just like President Bush" McCain and Hillary "the elephant in donkeys clothing" Clinton that is such a yes person for Bush she might as well be Republican.

If those are my only choices then I will again vote for my Libertarian Party nominee when they are selected this year. I will vote my conscious and will not sully my vote with an evil choice even if my one vote doesn't really matter. Its one not going for one of these two and I won't vote to further kill my rights, keep us in a useless war overseas and even more Federal control over our lives.

Offline VandalSavage

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #187 on: January 31, 2008, 01:37:31 PM »
Yeah Vandal, that's all well and good, but honestly, if I were a Florida democrat, I'd be more than a little pissed that my vote doesn't count in deciding who is going to be the candidate my party is going run for the office of president.

I still think it was a mistake not to allow them to swicth their primary dates without punishing the state parties.

Yes, the DNC's policy was idiotic.  They should have, in my opinion, just let them hold the earlier primaries with official approval.  The GOP had no problem with that.  Barring that, forbid them entirely from running a primary. 

This half measure has created only confusion and disenfranchisement.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #188 on: January 31, 2008, 01:41:46 PM »
My biggest problem with the Florida votes was not even half the people bothered to vote  :'( , not the outcomes or party politics.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #189 on: January 31, 2008, 01:44:21 PM »
Not even half the people come out to vote in a general election usually, even less than that for most primaries.

Most people just don't give a damn.

And honestly, given that my state's primary isn't till... may or june, the candidate is pretty much decided by then, so hardly much point in going out to the polls for that. Though if its close this year, I'll be out.

Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #190 on: January 31, 2008, 02:38:01 PM »
I love how they do things in Australia.  Voting is mandatory, required by laws, with fines for those that don't show up at the polls.  Election days are on the weekends, and, as I understand it, open for the entire 24 hour period of the election day.

As a consequence, much less of the political campaign in Australia is spent encouraging people to come out and vote on election day, and more of an effort into explaining why the voting public should vote for this candidate or that one, not whether or not they will vote at all.

Offline VandalSavage

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #191 on: January 31, 2008, 03:36:24 PM »
Most people just don't give a damn.

And honestly, given that my state's primary isn't till... may or june, the candidate is pretty much decided by then, so hardly much point in going out to the polls for that. Though if its close this year, I'll be out.

No doubt it will be close this year. 

Yet not only has this year been a lesson in voter apathy - much less than previous years, but the usual general statement American democracy conveys - it is a reminder of how arcane the Primary systems are.  I had to brush off the old political science texts on two occasions already.


Offline LancisTopic starter

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #192 on: January 31, 2008, 05:00:42 PM »
Down to four

Hillary
Barack
Romney
Mccain

Tho to my understanding huckabee isnt out... these are the four viable candidates according to cbs and nbc

Offline Sakujo

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #193 on: January 31, 2008, 05:16:30 PM »
Huckabee isn't out yet, but that isn't my concern.

This is:

Whachoo guys think?

Offline VandalSavage

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #194 on: January 31, 2008, 08:21:20 PM »
Whachoo guys think?

Yes, this is precisely what I was mentioning above.

And I think it's reprehensible.  "Rove" is an excellent analogy, though the student is surpassing the master in many regards.

For this is not apocryphal.  And it isn't rumor.  There is little subjective about it.  It is a blatant violation of the rules and manipulation of truth, and as self-respecting Democrats - as Americans - we need to take action against those kinds of politics.

I say this not so much as someone opposed to Clinton in particular, but as someone who is sick, sick, sick of this kind of Bush-era conniving.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 08:27:18 PM by VandalSavage »

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #195 on: January 31, 2008, 11:09:46 PM »
Okay, I watche dthat video, and while it sounded interesting and like something I'll probably follow up on when I actually have some time, the thing is, there was a lot of talking and accusation and it sounded great, but I didn't see or hear any real evidence of wrongdoing. Oh sure, there was hearsay, inadmissible in a court of law! But where were the hard facts? Maybe there was some manipulation in New Hampshire, maybe not, I don't know. I want to find out more info before I can pass any judgment myself, as I tend to follow the innocent until proven guilty rule, not the guilty because someone on the net with an obvious agenda says so.

Second, I think the whole way delegates are awarded is really confusing. Clinton won Nevada's popular vote by about six percent, yet she was awarded less delegates than Obama. In NH, though she won the popular vote by 3 percent she and obama both recieved 9 delegates. How? I suppose I could dig into the way it works, but right now I barely have the energy to get out of bed some days. It just seems silly to me. Why can't the parties have a simple popular vote to decide their candidate, and let the states open their polls on a single uniform day nationwide. That way if you're in Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota and your primary is on June 3rd, you're not wasting your time since in all liklihood, by that point one of the candidates will have a clear and insurmountable lead.

Anyway, just my 2 tired cents.

In the end really, I'm starting not to care who the dems run. I'll vote for Hillary or 'Bama at this point.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #196 on: February 05, 2008, 04:51:08 PM »
Itís wonderful an American. Yes only here in the good old USA can receive a call from Stevie WonderÖ he just called to say I love you and to ask me to vote for his friend Barack Obama.

Now ya, it was a recorded message, but was coolÖ except now I got that song stuck in my head.


Offline Rydia

  • Jenova's Witness; First Church of the One-Winged Angel
  • Deverified
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2006
  • Location: East Coast United States
  • Gender: Female
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #197 on: February 05, 2008, 08:34:15 PM »
Second, I think the whole way delegates are awarded is really confusing. Clinton won Nevada's popular vote by about six percent, yet she was awarded less delegates than Obama. In NH, though she won the popular vote by 3 percent she and obama both recieved 9 delegates. How? I suppose I could dig into the way it works, but right now I barely have the energy to get out of bed some days. It just seems silly to me. Why can't the parties have a simple popular vote to decide their candidate, and let the states open their polls on a single uniform day nationwide.

Because each states' political parties gets to determine how and when that state will hold its primary elections.  Is it going to be a primary or a caucus?  An open primary, or a closed one?  Winner take all, or proportional delegates based on percentage of vote or along congressional district lines?

If the national parties attempted to dictate how each state was to conduct its elections, it wouldn't be likely to go over so well.  Autonomy at the level of the state political party is a very, very strong sentiment, and even if it means that we have to break out our political science textbooks to comprehend the system, I think it's better than mandating the nature of party elections.

As to a single nationwide primary day, this isn't a good idea because it would change the system from one in which it is possible to run for the nomination of your party without a lot of money (as Edwards, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson did) and have a serious chance of winning, especially in the small, early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.  The candidates also have to go out and meet the voters in small settings -- town halls and diners and whatnot which gives the electorates of those states a great deal of time to vet them, talk with them about issues important to them, etc.  All of this goes away with national primaries.

Granted, you can make the case that the values and concerns of New Hampshire and Iowa aren't reflective of national or regions outside of their zone.  I'm not saying I'm not in favor of a different system; perhaps a rotating regional primary system, but I am absolutely not in favor of the national parties mandating a format for the primaries, nor would I support simultaneous national primaries.

Offline LancisTopic starter

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #198 on: February 11, 2008, 09:38:04 PM »
So they are saying Hillary and Obama may tie...

Leaving the DNC 2 options that I know off

1. Release the delegates from Michigan and Florida

2. Use Super Delegates (itd be the first time in 30 years)

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #199 on: February 13, 2008, 06:40:17 AM »
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-rules-by-digby-there-is-lot-of.html

Here is a good post by Digby that basically says that the issue with the super delegates deciding the nomination is what the democrats get because their system of awarding delegates doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and that to suggest that the way things have been done all along is all of a sudden wrong simply because their is such a close race is a cop-out considering the Dems have basically forced themselves into this corner.