Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is Hillary Clinton going to be President?

page: 15
5
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
As much as I don't care for her, I do admit that a lot of things are ascribed to Mrs. Clinton that are unlikely to be true. The same can be said of all Presidential candidates. I as I was watching today's stock market plunge (-280 points) and wondering how she'll handle that sort of thing when its her turn.

Then, I got to see the press conference of one Senator Larry Craig (R, Idaho). We are none of us perfect. Love 'em or hate 'em, we need to look past the personal qualities of our leaders and ask one question. What are they actually gonna do?

Larry Craig will soon be retired. Hillary Clinton may very well be our next President. Craig can't hurt anybody any more. He's done. Hillary, on the other hand...is just getting started, and I'm not liking those policy initiatives that I see on her horizon.




posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

3. Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush are both Grande Damme's of the Mothers of Darkness group, but they don't have the power to rule over the entire occult world What more excuses do I need?


Absolutely no more! PS. I have also heard that Hillary is actually Joan d’Arc reincarnated? That Charles deGaulle was her father. And that she is on a secret mission for the Pope who quietly named her Chancellor of Opus Dei. WoW!

You are on to something here, Mr O/S/B.

[edit on 8/28/2007 by donwhite]


The voracious claims of the millions will never cease to amaze me. I honestly believe shes being elected for the bidding of the Neo-Cons in power. Doesnt it make you bleed out of your eyeballs donwhite?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
In what way will the Dem candidates be able to profit from the Larry Craig fiasco without appearing to be too ghoulish? This scandal seems ready made for Hillary. What says you?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



[sarcasm ] Gee another Gay Republican who has been living in the closet who would have thought ? [/sarcasm]

Given that the case against him was weak if Craig had nothing to hide his lawyer should have been able to win the case with ease. But that clearly isnt the case in order to keep the political damage to a min and avoid the religious right being shown for the corrupt hypercritics that they are he plead guilty.

No doubt that there would have been some embarrassing testimony about his sexual orientation had he not pleaded guilty. Sure the Dems will get some mileage but no were as much as they would of if the full truth had come out.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


xpert11: Given that the case against him was weak if Craig had nothing to hide his lawyer should have been able to win the case with ease. But that clearly isnt the case in order to keep the political damage to a min and avoid the religious right being shown for the corrupt hypercritics that they are he plead guilty.

It did not come off like that to me. Yes, at trial it would have been a one on one swearing contest. However, it is a rule of law that the policeman is assumed to be telling the truth and does not need corroboration as you and I do. So a cop’s testimony is enough to sustain a conviction in a one on one case. A rebuttable presumption.

This kind of enforcement comes only after several complaints by ordinary citizens. I am sure no one knew that Senator Craig was on his way through Minneapolis. CNN reported the policeman was signaled by Mr Craig when Mr Craig intentionally moved his foot closer to the policeman's foot. I did not know grown men played "footsie." Apparently this is a well known signal - unknown to me until now - somewhat akin to the prancing of a bantam rooster bird wanting to copulate with another chicken? Jay Leno said it best last night. He said Mr Craig ACCIDENTALLY handled the policeman’s penis thinking it was his own?

In any case the original charge was “lewd conduct” which must be defined by in the Minnesota Criminal Code. An offer of or a solicitation of illegal conduct? Illegal in a public place. To avoid taking proof in open court, Mr Craig accepted the traditional reduction in the charge to the vague and general “disorderly conduct” and paid a fine of $500 and costs. Frequently $150. The offer to reduce the charge is made to every first time offender regardless who he is. That was not special treatment.

He may be stingy? Craig avoided the cost of a good lawyer; in his case, probably $5,000. The outcome would have been the same IMO. You and I would pay a lawyer about $1,500 without a trial, $5,000 with a jury trial. And in court, you never have better than a 50/50 chance. There is always one winner and one loser.

Craig obviously thought this incident would go unnoticed. He should have known better. In every courthouse in every large city, someone is in the pay of the local newspaper as a “stringer” and got $50 to $500 for this story. In cash. Denialability. IMO.

Do you think Larry Craig should resign NOW?

[edit on 8/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I've had a chance to be around several multi-term Senators and Representatives. All have shown signs of being addicted to politics. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I speculate that Mr. Craig thinks of himself as a bi-sexual. His body language during that ill-advised press conference was strongly suggestive of a man who is lying. Did anyone take note of his wife? She has clearly lived with this secret for quite some time.

Mr. Craig's poliitcal career is over. He will not be re-elected in 2008. He may very well be "counseled" to NOT run. I think his pride will make him just stubborn enough to stay in office until the end of his term. Bear in mind that all he's done is put his own spin on something that has already happened. He has NOT been charged with anything new.

As you may recall, the Mark Foley scandal popped up before critical electiosn ,and it did do some harm to the GOP. this new scandal comes dangerously close to the '08 primaries, and it will do some damage to the GOP...again. Unlike Foley, Craig has tried to own his scandal. He has failed to do it, but he did try. I don't actually think he will be counseled to resign. He will most likely be told to keep a low profile and go home at the end of his term.

It's worth nothing that Mr. Craig will retire with the full Senate benefits package.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I say Ron Paul 08 all the way! With the wonderful Alex Jones as secretary of Defense!



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Justin Oldham: I've had a chance to be around several multi-term Senators and Representatives. All have shown signs of being addicted to politics. As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mr. Craig's political career is over. He will not be re-elected in 2008. As you may recall, the Mark Foley scandal popped up before critical elections ,and it did do some harm to the GOP. this new scandal comes dangerously close to the '08 primaries, and it will do some damage to the GOP...again. It's worth nothing that Mr. Craig will retire with the full Senate benefits package.

We are strange people. There are 540 - including 5 delegates - Members of Congress. Out of 300 million people. We pay them a paltry $175,000 or so a year. Although the Republican controlled Congress refused to raise the minimum wage for 10 years, they themselves get a bi-annual raise avenging $3,000. In the year 2000, the Congress had 38,000 employees, some of them making as much as the Congresspersons but most, not.

I have tried to work out a way to keep elected persons honest. The only method I could devise that promised to work was this: Pay every elected official - including the local dog catcher - $1 million tax free on his or her swearing in. Then, a squad of ‘honesty police’ would lurk in the background and if an official was seen taking even a cup of coffee or a free ticket to a ball game, SHOOT him dead on the spot! As in China, leave his body for the dogs to eat.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Hm. I would almost fee sorry for the dogs who would have to eat the deceased. Would they get free health care for being forced to live in such rich food? For the reasons I've already given, I would be for term limits. Public service is only possible when our leaders can hold out against temptaiton. Fewer terms means fewer temptations.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
Hm. I would almost fee sorry for the dogs who would have to eat the deceased. Would they get free health care for being forced to live in such rich food? For the reasons I've already given, I would be for term limits. Public service is only possible when our leaders can hold out against temptation. Fewer terms means fewer temptations.


Too much democracy? Once in Ky we decided to stop nepotism.

But we also like to elect our public officials. In my county, we had the chief executive officer we call a county judge. Our Fiscal Court is made up of 3 commissioners elected from designated districts so each person gets to vote for one. We have a Circuit Court Clerk who does those clerical functions you see on Court TV. We have a County Court Clerk, an old title left over, but his job is to record deeds and other official papers.

Then we have a sheriff. He collects taxes and furnishes bailiffs for the courts. Then we have a jailer who is in charge of confining some of our citizens. Then we have Tax Assessor. Now called PVA - Property Valuation Administrator. Obvious job. Wait! There are 2 more jobs. The Country Coroner. And last, we have a County Surveyor.

So now the Circuit Clerk - 300 employees - cannot hire his wife or children. The County Clerk - about 200 employees - cannot hire his wife or children. But who says the Circuit Clerk can’t hire the County Clerk’s family members and vice versa? Clerking is clerking. Problem solved, NO more nepotism!

Isn’t democracy wonderful?

[edit on 9/17/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I wasn't in town to see it, but I did get it on re-wind. Did you see that Hillary media blitz this weekend? Very nicely done from the comfort of her N.Y. home. I had somebody here in town tape stuff like that while I was gone. Holy cow, and yikes. Now THAT's a campaign strategy.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Y E S!

I saw Hillary! Poised. Cool. Informed. Cheerful. Sense of humor. All that and more, in near-perfect balance and timing. I'd rate the parts I saw on CSpan as a 9.7 on a 10 scale, or an A+ in college lingo. She reminded me of the old 1992 Bill Clinton! If the election had been held Tuesday following, she’d be taking the oath of office right now.

Now, Rudy OTOH, greatly disappointed me. He is adding Crime Fighter to his Nine Eleven Disaster Manager repertoire. From the time to took office to the time he left office, crime in NYC - serious crime - was down by nearly half, 47%. If he did something that is logically responsible for any reduction in crime, then he deserves credit, but I recall that until 2005, the FBI national crime stats have shown an overall reduction in violent crime, albeit not 47%.

I hate that Law and Order style of campaigning. Maybe its Rudy’s reply to newbie Fred Thompson? No mention of health care. No mention of immigration. No mention of Iraq. No mention of education. No mention of globalization. No mention of foreclosures. Only stress and re-stress CRIME. I guess now Rudy is a two issue candidate, crime and disaster relief.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Time and time again, Giuliani has demonstrated that HE wants the job more than his competition. I'm still convinced that he's the GOP's sacrificial lamb for '08, but I do wish him well. The simple truth is that he's having to do very little to counter Fred Thompson. I don't know what Fred's people are telling him, but somebody needs to be...unemployed.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Justin Oldham (1) Giuliani has demonstrated that HE wants the job more than his competition. I'm still convinced that he's the GOP's sacrificial lamb for '08, but I do wish him well. (2) The simple truth is that he's having to do very little to counter Fred Thompson. I don't know what Fred's people are telling him, but somebody needs to be...unemployed.

1) I agree Rudy is showing the greater sense of urgency. For any person in his spot - Eastern big city mayor - he needs to keep on the move. A moving target is hard to hit! Extra wives and lackluster past performances tend to stay in the gossip pages and not on the front page - and he so much needs to win (big) in Iowa and NH. If he can do that, then he can relax for the big Super Tuesday of Feb. 5.

2) I don’t know what to think of Fred. He mentioned in general terms 3 or 4 worn out Reagan-esque themes good for the ‘80s but not likely to resonate in ‘07- ‘08. Maybe he is on his bus in Iowa and whizzzing into the lead like the voters ask “Fred, where have you been?” I understand his “trophy” wife may be running the campaign? If I was in charge, I’d take him off the Viagra until after the Iowa caucus.

I don’t like actors for my leaders. You can't be sure when they are acting. I admit my leaders do act, but they are coming from a wholly different perspective. An actor is proud if he LOOKS good but a politician is PROUD if he does good (even if I don’t agree with him). There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary is doing a lot of acting, but she is no actress.

[edit on 9/25/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
There is going to be another Democratic debate on t.v. tonight. Might be worth looking at to see who does the better acting job. I've heard it said that part of being the U.S. President involves putting on a good show.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Justin Oldham Don is going to get his wish. With few exceptions, the Dem candidates sent a loud and clear message. A vote for them is a vote for open borders. I'm not wild about that, but there it is. I'll have to give them credit for being not even a little wishy-washy on the topic. I don't care about ideology. I do care about what politicians actually say.

Borders? Well, there are no borders for money. You want to buy stock in a French company? Get on the internet and buy it. Daimler-Benz thought they could make money in the American auto market. Instead of making a better mouse trap, they bought Chrysler Corp. No borders for big business but for little people, we want BORDERS! There is a disconnect here.

We all know there is a genuine need for some border control measures. The measures need to be realistic. There are at least 2 major problems border control forces must confront. 1) Vast numbers of undocumented persons entering the country apparently at will. 2) Potential for terrorists to enter our country meaning to do us harm.

It was decided at the highest levels of government to merge the TWO enforcement agencies, customs and immigration. I disagree with that decision. There are no similarities between goods entering our country and people entering our county. Bad thinking at the top and bad initial decisions are unlikely to ever produce a good outcome. Let’s go back to the OLD INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service - and the old US Customs Service. Each task has its own difficulties and never the twain shall meet. Except at the borders.

America must not become a police state. We have taken several steps in that direction. We do not need a Commander-in-Chief on permanent duty. Especially not one who believes the office of C-in-C is UNLIMITED. That any act HE ALONE determines to take, ostensibly to preserve the nation, is LEGAL. Seig Hiel!

Justin Oldham I'm sorry to see that our politicians jumped in to the electoral 'fight' so soon. I think it was a real mistake to start the '08 race so early. I hope that nobody does this again.

Oh how I do agree! Time = money. Money = time. Why has no one explained this outrageous mess that we have worked ourselves into? This did not happen by itself. I have the feeling it came as an unintended and unforeseen consequence of the latest bumbling effort at CFR - Campaign Finance Reform.

How can the candidates keep from being boring? How can the public keep its interest up for the long campaign? How can it possibly be beneficial? Why do we want to be the FOOLS of the World? To label this asinine is to elevate the scheme. Who planned this? Is it some kind of conspiracy to sate our appetite for tomfoolery?

Is is a giant conspiracy to make us think we have anything to do with what the Power in W-DC decides?

[edit on 9/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Maybe Hillary will wind up as President. It is possible. However, it will not be handed to her on a silver platter, as Obama's big win in South Carolina yesterday (2/26/08) attests to. Her campaign is stalling and needs to be jump started immediately to get back on track or she won't get the Democratic Party nomination. One thing that has hurt her so far is all those personal attacks that her ad Bill have been making against Barack Obama. People are sick of that s**t and want to hear about what she'll do IF elected. Or maybe its possible that she is making all these personal attacks because she HAS NO PROGRAM to run on.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Conley
 


Maybe Hillary will wind up as President. It is possible. However, it will not be handed to her on a silver platter, as Obama's big win in South Carolina yesterday (01/26/08) attests to.


Remember SC was the fist time American blacks got to vote for one of their own to be president! (Who was also taken seriously by whites). Yes, I have said his performance in SC guaranteed him the VP slot on a Clinton ticket.


Her campaign is stalling and needs to be jump started immediately to get back on track or she won't get the Democratic Party nomination.


OK, she did not run $1 worth of ads in Florida, but she got 50% of the votes cast! Would that qualify as a JUMP START? Florida: Clinton, 857,000 (50%) Obama 569,000 ((33%) NOTE: John McCain who is ballyhooing his BIG WIN in Florida and spending millions of dollars, polled 693,000 votes! Barely 80% the number Hillary polled and she DID NOT RUN in FL. Thanks to Jeb Bush. Romney got 5,98,000.

In SC, Obama polled 295,000 (55%) to Clinton’s 141,000 (27%). In Michigan, Clinton polled 328,000 (55%) and Obama 237,000 (33%) I believe she is going into Feb. 5 with a full head of steam! Riding a wave!

www.cnn.com...=FL






top topics



 
5
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join