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.

 

Will Hillary Clinton Be The Next U.S. President?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
If it takes the different thinking of a woman’s brain to change direction, then I’m ready for it.

Brent

personally...i have NO problem with the idea of a woman president. i really dont.

just not THAT woman.

its like when jesse jackson ran for pres all those times. i dont have a problem with a black man as president..just not that one.

i firmly believe that the democrats will be in the white house next term, unless of course they deliver osama 4 days before the election..well, 2 (we do seem to have short term memories collectively dont we?) but i just hope to GOD that the dems dont select hil as their candidate.

i mean, i wont run to canada or anything drastic if she wins. if she does win ill assume that the majority know something i dont. but dear god i hope she doesnt win.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
OK, Justin. I’ve watched you work this board with your Political Science Degree. I hope you’ll pardon me for having less experience with politics than you have, since my major was Computer Science. I don’t agree with you, to be blunt. Although I do enjoy reading the posts of someone who is obviously educated and intelligent.


Your compliments are much appreciated, as is your alternative point of view. Thre's another post that appears just about this one that makes my point nicely, so I'll paraphrase. I don't objest to a women being President, but I do object to this particular woman. In my opinion, she and her husband represent a real threat to the future and well-being of America.


Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
I am a 47 year old father of five and a grandfather of three. I work in robotics and automation as it relates to manufacturing. I have personally witnessed the gutting of good paying, middle class jobs since, not NAFTA, but CAFTA.


You'll get no argument from me on those points. NAFTA was launched on Bill Clinton's watch, and I've held it against him ever since. I think that both political parties are guiltiy of selling us to our competitors and enemies one piece at a time. The examples you cite are all of them symptomatic of the larger problem which I have talked about in other threads. Let's hit the re-wind and have a look.



Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
I watched the hands of Insurance companies and big business be greatly strengthened against the common working man and laborer since the Newt gang‘s, so called, “one term”. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. I’ve watched co-workers who made good wages and paid plenty of taxes be replaced by “temporaries” who made half the pay and had no healthcare, all in an effort to compete with China’s thirty-seven cent and hour pay wages. And, even though China does illegally adjust their exchange rates, Mr. Free Trader still believes and still doesn’t care about the American middle class or the working poor of this country.


I think you might be under the misguided assumption that I'm carrying water for the Republicans. I've made every point you just did on this and other web sites. I routienly bring these matters up whenever I get a chance to play radio commentator. Being opposed to Hilary doesn't automatically make me FOR anyone else. You'll find a lot of smart and artculate peole here on ATS who hold the same if not similar views.


Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
If someone would say, “Hillary speaks coldly or as one looking down at people”, I wonder what their thoughts were when Bush’s mother said of the victims of Katrina, “those people have never had anything anyway, they’ll be better off in the long run”? I wonder if the Americans who were clogging up the drain pumps with their dead bodies will be better off? So, is a vote for Hillary just a rejection of an out-of-touch idiot from Texas?


The sad fact of the matter is that, in my own opinion, we lack good choices. As a body politic, we the voters have demanded so little from our leaders that they've finally gotten wise to our inattentiveness. When the lie to us, we're getting just what we deserve because we haven't demanded honesty. When they swindle us and line their own pockets, we are once again getting what we deserve because we stopped asking these guys and gals to be 'really' honest decades ago.

Your vote can be cast for any reason you so desire. The whole point is to do so without being mad, or uninformed. Our votes would matter more if we insisted that the people who lead us were more like us. If you got caught snitchin' parts from work, you might be fired. If your projects kept coming in late and over budget, you might be fired. Today's politicians take avery liberal view of the the "might be fired" thing, and it shows.


Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
It’s a vote against an unholy alliance of those who want a Theocracy coupled with those who want a Plutocracy. It’s a vote in favor of those who would have a Democratic Republic exist in this country where everyone has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A place where a president is everyone’s president, not just those of a very narrow fifty-one percent.


As a purely practical matter, you're not wrong to vote for the other guy when you're not happy with the political party that holds the majority. That is actually how it's supposed to work. I've made this point in other threads on ATS, and on other sites that i contribute to. Your goal is understandable, and commendable. Even so, I'll stand by every typographical error I've made here. I've made my case for the why's and wherefore's of Hillary, and I'll stand by them. The Dems have other options open to them just now, and one of this is named Barack Obama.



Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
It comes down to equal representation and the fact that Americans are made up of all races and religions or non-religious and no one group of Americans should have the right to subjugate other Americans when every taxpaying citizen of this country is protected by the same rights and freedoms that are afforded under our Constitution and Bill of Rights! A Democratic vote is a denunciation of the mob bosses who used the pretext of a war to “patriot” away our rights and freedoms and it’s against the ones who waited for their Pearl Harbor event to set their plan in action.


The social equality you're asking for requires a national journey towards those goals. We can take the journey if we put civic-minded people in office. The "real" civic mind souls among us will most likely NOT be known for their abuses of professional power, nor will they be noted for their misuses of public monies. They might even be known for the family values that make it possible for a hard working person to have five kids.


Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
It’s a vote to show the American public that a building can not fall at free-fall rate unless the bottom floors are being blown out before it as it is with all controlled demolitions. It’s a vote to show the American public voting machines that started out with minus forty thousand votes against Kerry and districts that had more Republican votes than they had people in that district. It’s about fraud, lies, deception and hypocrisy from, so-called, “religious” people.


You're asking for just and righteous penalties that cannot be meated out through a vote. Before you reach for that keyboard, stop and think about one thing. Most of the people who read your response to this will not disagree with you. they'l want everyting you've jsut outlined. Trouble is, they won'tget it with their votes. Not when the only choices are the same people who've been doing everything you've just accused them of. the only way to make your vote generate penalties will be to choose candidates who will actually make reforms that will bring about those penalties.


Originally posted by Brentzxturbo
It’s about the thousands and thousands who have now died to ensure oil and oil companies remain the chief recipient of all our energy dollars. In Short, how many times have we been told to vote for a change, only to get more of the same? We’re headed for destruction. If it takes the different thinking of a woman’s brain to change direction, then I’m ready for it.


My speculation is that Hillary Clinton will be guilty of everything you've just outlined by the end of her first term. If I took a poll, I'd probably be able to figure out that most of the people reading this post agree with you. Most of us want what you ask for. We're just not going to get it from this person.

The truth is that...as you say...the system is broken. Even if we assumed that Obama was as clean as he portrays himself to be, he's just one man and he can be bought or coerced by the present plutocracy that you've so concisely outlined. Until we send enough good peole to Congress to tip the balance, we're going to get what we deserve. Before they can be Deomcrats, or Republicans, they need to be good citizens. Until they are good citizens, people like me and the others you see posting here will keep talking about them and all the rotten things they're going to do to us.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Okay, I think I've waited long enough for a response. Let's move on to other things.

The House of Representatives is about to strap on their armor and go to battle with the administration. their plan to break the Republicans is simple enough.

The President has asked for 124 Billion dollars in new war spending. The Dems will send a bill to the Senate conference committee that will grant that money...but...it'll have 20 Billion dollars in pork and a timetable for troops withdrawl from Iraq.

This is political had ball at its most extreme. Remember that bills leave committee in the House and go straight to the floor for an up or down vote. Senate rules allow for ammendments during debate. The House bill will be as is until it goes to the conference committee where compromises could be made.

If the President signs the bill in to law, he gets his money but he risks being saddled with a timetable for withdrawl. If he chooses to veto this item, he is effectively having the war de-funded.

I told you guys this kind of gladiator stuff was coming. It remains to be seen how it plays out, but one thing is for sure. The Republicans will be shamed and the forces of Hillary Clinton will be one step closer to the White House.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I thought F. Roosevelt was the last President to serve three terms in the White House, and the law had now changed.



[edit on 3/21/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I thought F. Roosevelt was the last President to serve three terms in the White House, and the law had now changed.


You would be referring to the 22nd amendment that limits a President to just two terms in office. I'm not sure what your point is, but that's the item you are referring to.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
It was a joke. I'm sorry if that is not permitted in this thread.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The President has asked for 124 Billion dollars in new war spending. The Dems will send a bill to the Senate conference committee that will grant that money...but...it'll have 20 Billion dollars in pork and a timetable for troops withdrawl from Iraq.



Thanks for your responce. And the paragraph above does kind of touch on the point that I made at the start of this thred. It will be the money and who controls it that gets Clinton in the white house.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
It was a joke. I'm sorry if that is not permitted in this thread.


I think you'll find some humor in here.
No offense was intended. That must've been a very small joke. Slay on.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I honestly think that the race between Clinton and Obama is a lot closer than people think. It will be close but hope that Obama wins. IMO whoever wins the Dem ticket will win the presidency, the republicans might put up a fight but i think they are pretty much out of the race



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
None taken. I was referring to the possible election to a third term by Hillary Clinton. Wasn't she President from 1993-2001? Or was that her husband? Hell, I used to have a bumper sticker on my car back then that said "Impeach the President and her husband too."

No different than saying Cheney runs the oval office rather than Bush now, is it?

Seriously now, I think Hillary has close to a zero chance of winning the Presidential election. Just the opinion of an old man belonging to the most hated political party of all here on A.T.S.

It's getting warmer in Alaska by now I would think. Eons ago, for 16 months, I was a guest slave of the U.S. Army at Fairbanks (Ft. Wainwright) I pulled guard once in the field at the Gulkana Glacier when it was -51 degrees F, and some of that rare for Alaska winter wind was blowing 50 M.P.H.! That redefined "cold" for me forever.

[edit on 3/22/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Nobody wants to be more wrong about the possibility of Hillary as President than I do. As an old school Republican, I'm not thrilled about having a Democrat at the wheel again, but Bush43 has virtually guaranteed that'll happened with his own special brand of bein' the decider.

Not only do we have to worry about the usual Democrat desire for bigger government, but...we've got to worry about...her. Therare aspects of Hillary's personality and ageda that disturb me. You joked about her having a third term, but I do see it as possible that she might be of a mind to give herself a third term.

The prospect of President Hillary bothered me years ago. The first time I saaw her on the national stage, I knew in my gut that we were going to see her again. Here's the thing. American is vulnerable just now. She could just as easily be a "he." My greatest fear is that whoever is our next President will be tempted to do things that they might nother otherwise do under more carefully controlled circumstances.

I'd be quite happy to apologize if she turns out to prove me wrong. My worries inspired a book, and I'd be happy enough to write another book to recant everything I said...if she proves me wrong. So far, every prediction I've made about the rising tide of Federalism and her, in particular, has turned out to be more prescient than I care to admit.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Justin,
I really like everything that you have said. Thanks for taking the time to write it. There does seem to be two different main points of why we think Clinton might get back into the White House. We can both agree it is in part because of what Bush has done while in office, but I see the money issue as being a deciding factor. More to the point is who controls the money. Clinton has a lot of backing behind her when it comes to the money. Do you see this as a deciding factor at all?



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Justin:

I understand what you're saying, and your reasoning is solid. I do think the anti-war bit will backfire on her though.

Do the Hilllary supporters remember how she was detailed to give them national health care in 1993? Where is it? We were "re-inventing" government back then also. Where it it?

Remember these litlle comments chanted by Hillary in 2004? "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you." "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Sounds like a hammer and sickle should be her campaign emblem to me.




[edit on 3/22/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Most of you are aware of my thoughts regarding our future. Federal power has been increasing at a rate that's been hard to miss over the last 30 years.

Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to the monster bureaucracy that confronts us today. Those of you who say that big money is the deciding factor are not wrong. Big money has ascquired undue influence in Washington D.C. Our laeaders have opted to make choices that are good for them and bad for the rest of us.

Some have said that I'm fixated on Hillary. In the novel I am known for, the "villain" is a female President. The truth of the matter is that we are vulnerable to any skilled politician...or group of politicians...who seek the highest offices in our nation. Man or woman, the fact is that we haven't seen people with truely great Machievellian skill in our midst for many decades. They've been there, we just haven't "seen" them.

In today's political climate, these skill practicioners of the art no longer fear the general public. They come to us in broad daylight with smiles and open hands. The simple fact that as abrasive as she is, Hillary packs more political skill than most of her contemporaries. There's a difference between PR and skill. Those of you over the age of 30 know what I'm talking about.

I never epected to be in a position where my 'job' is to talk about these things. Through a few twists in the plot that is my life story, here I am. Life as an indy author is perhaps harder than I'd like, but I feel much more willing to call 'em as I see 'em. If it were Barack Obama who was the real wolf in sheep's clothing, I'd be talking about him instead of Hillary.

I'm not wild about what I see in our future, but I am confident in our ability as a nation to get through it. A lot of things will have to break before we get up the nerve to fix them. The wisdom we inherit from those dark trials will be worth having. In my mind, Hillary is not inevitable. She's just one of many people who will lead us in directions that aren't going to be good for us. As a society, we're not going to know better until we've tasted for ourselves what she has to sell.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
You seem to have some thoughts close to Libertarian. That's not a bad thing, I agree with much of their philosophy myself. I certainly intend to read your book in the near future. Maybe it will be closer to truth than fiction before the next decade passes by.

Glenn

[edit on 3/22/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I find no shame in being compared to a Libertarian. Once upon a time, the Republican Party was in its right mind. If it falls to another political party to pick up the battle standard for small government, I wil at the very least listen to their pitch.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Here's a question for the panel. How does the recent activity in the House and Senate improve Hilary's chances for winning the Presidency? Do those of you who think she will lose still hold that opinion?



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I know it doesn't really add to the conversation much, but my feeling is that the USA is still too racist and sexist to elect other than a male white president.

Let's see - How many female Governors do you have ? What's the ratio of minorities in Governments, State and Federal? Any Muslims? Catholics? Declared Athiests? Gays?

Time will tell, I guess. It will be a test of your maturity as a nation, personally I don't think you're ready for it yet. Over recent years, your level of tolerance, both internally and externally, has become lower, not higher.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
As all good aerodynamic wombats know, we have eight female governors at this time. Federal level government has quite a few blacks, hispanics, and muslims in positions of authority. The governor of my own State, Sarah Palin, is a female.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Well, the Wombat's in Australia, so he didn't really know because although we might follow your politics, we never hear of them (the females and minorities - on CNN International or anywhere else), but consider this....

There has never been a female Vice-President.

I don't think America has ever really considered a female President, shall we say, in its wildest dreams (= Hollywood). Can anyone remember a movie, or TV series including a female US President (Jack Bauer just wouldn't know how to handle it!). I get the impression that Hollywood has not considered it because they imagine it to be too improbable, and Hollywood is, in some respects, a reflection of American attitudes.

Now, I know that Hillary is one tough cookie, but, if elected, would there not be a sneaking suspicion is some peoples minds that Bill Clinton was pulling the strings - or perhaps would some people vote for her because they think just that.

But as I said, time will tell.

By the way - What would Bill Clinton be called - First Gentleman?

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 28/3/07 by The Winged Wombat]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join