It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton leading all Republicans by double digits

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Tusks




Clinton leads in new 2016 poll
Beyond Bush and Romney — the two Republicans who have made the firmest moves toward a 2016 run



Wait a minute is he actually going to run again???

I thought the talk about him running again were just people joking around. I don't even see how he can poll at 40% hell I can't even see how he polls at all.

The Republicans are going to throw this one as well I guess.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
The idiots elected shrub twice .. obumma twice .. this is the one that guarantees americans the crown for idiocy in the world once they elect clinton ..

Be afraid.. be very afraid .. the world is about to be royally fooked by heretofore unseen monumental levels of american idiocy being inflicted upon it ...



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Expat888
The idiots elected shrub twice .. obumma twice .. this is the one that guarantees americans the crown for idiocy in the world once they elect clinton ..

Be afraid.. be very afraid .. the world is about to be royally fooked by heretofore unseen monumental levels of american idiocy being inflicted upon it ...


What is your suggestion?

Those who oppose, must have some solution.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Leave the whitehouse empty for four years ..or everyone write in for a homeless person to fill the whitehouse for the next four ..



Better yet .. just do away with the job entirely .. the world cant afford anymore of your politicians .. get yourselves leaders that actually represent you .. NOT a damn one of the politicians there does that...
edit on 23/1/15 by Expat888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   
To Quote:

"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

I never thought I'd see the day Lyndon Johnson would be getting a third term...



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Considering the efficacy of Congress lately, we could go 4 years with a puppy as U.S. President and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

I propose that we have a new puppy leader every 4 months. No election is needed because the puppy will be cute no matter what.

The news can have special events where they show the puppy having dinner, getting baths, playing with toys, and taking little puppy naps. We can all gather around the television to collectively "AWWWWWW!!" at the puppy.

For once, we'll all be able to love our President.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WP4YT
If rand Paul were to get the gop nomination, he'd best Hillary.

Otherwise, Hillary will win, no doubt.


Rand Paul is too extreme.

I don't think he has a chance.


To jump in; explain "too extreme". I think that is a good point to being discussion.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Expat888
a reply to: Annee

Better yet .. just do away with the job entirely .. the world cant afford anymore of your politicians .. get yourselves leaders that actually represent you .. NOT a damn one of the politicians there does that...



Thank you so much for this right here!

I can not believe that people actually believe that any of the people chosen by our ruling oligarchy are "qualified"

It blows my mind that people are as naive as they are.

What choice do you have?

For starters look into 3rd parties and give them your vote.

Talk about the corruption of both the Demonazis' & Republifacsists and their connections to corporate/private wealth.

And for the love of god stop acting like there is a damn difference between the two!!
edit on America/ChicagoFridayAmerica/Chicago01America/Chicago131amFriday3 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

Rand doesn't know how to compromise.

By compromise, I mean completely abandon his entire ideology and adopt the correct (progressive) one.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TurtleSmacker

Politics is compromise though. The United States is 300+ million strong, with no clear ideology nor culture. With that, our political landscape is a minefield of compromise; be it with others or ourselves.

Even the champions of the past compromised. Jefferson compromised his own stated principles by stating "all men are created equal" while holding slaves and John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   
If the republicans field another Bush then I see no chance in hell for them.

The Bush brand is toxic.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Just crazy no? I mean, Clinton is enough but another Bush? I would hope my fellow citizens (no we are not just taxpayers) would recognize that dynasties are not our cup o' tea. Bush? Clinton....so 1996



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

Yes indeed it is compromise however, compromise these days tends to mean:

Republicans - Give us everything we want and more.

Democrats - Give us everything we want and more.

In the end, they only thing they agree on is how to expand the scope of their respective powers.

Each side views each other's plans for the future as the road to dystopia.

How anyone could see Rand as extreme compared to establishment folks like Bush is beyond me.
edit on 23-1-2015 by TurtleSmacker because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TurtleSmacker

It is only extreme because we allow the media (I refuse to call them "press") to do so and do so without a whimper of discontent.

Given our vast spectrum (thank you 9th Amendment) of beliefs; we are a country of extremes; as intended. Each State being an engine of free thought; ideas, new ways of governing, laws, etc. Each beholden to the People who inhabited the boundaries set could determine their fate at a very local level.

Those thoughts are diminished and lost among our greatest leaders of today. Today, we are just plebeians of a leviathan that will continue to grow.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: crazyewok

Just crazy no? I mean, Clinton is enough but another Bush? I would hope my fellow citizens (no we are not just taxpayers) would recognize that dynasties are not our cup o' tea. Bush? Clinton....so 1996


I find it ironic that you fought a war to get rid of dynasty rule yet your presidents are more uniform than our prime ministers now.

George washington is likely spinning in his grave and george III laughing his head or skull off.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

He has been spinning in his grave I would guess since the early 20th century. Hell my countrymen fought over a minuscule tax on stamps....most States have a sales tax that dwarf such a notion and we pay without a whimper...



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Well, unless you're planning on doing something stupidly life-threatening within the next decade, you'll pretty certainly see another Republican president. It's just the way american politics do. We have this funny conceit where we basically get "bored" with one party and hand it off to the other party, just for the entertainment factor of it.

And i'm not surprised Clinton is leading the republicans - she's the best Republican in the field currently. Just like she was in 2008.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

So you're saying the nation could be a place where libertarians, socialists, democrats and republicans could choose their way of life without this constant tug of war at the federal level?

Where each system might be attempted without forcing it upon everyone, everywhere?

Collective farms and free markets all within their own respective communities, hmm.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

Actually no, the Stamp Act was a decade before the Revolution. And it wasn't a tax on stamps, it was a trade protection for papermakers in England; Basically if you used paper for anything in the colonies, even playing cards, it had to be on paper produced in england. This paper was marked with a stamp, thus "stamp act." There was a high tax on the stamped paper, which was directly funneled to British troops stationed in North America, which the colonies felt was unnecessary in the first place. There was of course, the problem of the colonies having no parliamentary representation as well.

It's really nothing like a sales tax, except in the loosest imaginable way.

1) You can buy pretty much whatever you want, wherever you want, from wherever you want, and are not forced to support businesses that you do not want to support, or that would go under against competition without protections.

2) The level of taxes you face is decided by representatives you elect to positions at county, state, and federal levels. You have representation, and those representatives can be "traded off' if you dislike their performance.

3) Your taxes don't fund and arm an essentially foreign army that has its eye on you in your own home. Rather they go to things like road construction and your congressman's coc aine habit.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TurtleSmacker

Very much so if the Federal Government recognized the sovereignty of each State.

States are to be the breeding grounds for new and innovative thought; instead they must conform with the Central Government -- may it be via the highway funds or any other blackmailed idea.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join