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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   



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

The Winged Wombat


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


I would say in Bill's case it would be "first gigalo".




posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
There has never been a female Vice-President.


It's true that there hasn't yet been a female VP. during his 1980 bid for the Presidency, Fritz Mondale (Democrat) had Geraldine Ferarro as his running mate.



Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
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.


Gina Davis recently starred in "Commander in Chief," which was a t.v. show about a woman as U.S. President. The show was plagued with bad writing and it lasted just six episodes. "Air force One" is a famous flick starring Harrison Ford as the U.S. President. In the film, his VP was a woman. I myself have written fiction which features a female President.



Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
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.


Hillary seems poised to win her party's nomination, and the Republicans seem to be utterly disorganized. We've never faced a situation in which a former President was the...First Gentleman. If things go wrong, we may see new laws to prevent such a thing from happening again.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
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.


Actually alot of people thought Hilary was the one pulling the strings during Bil's term b/c she was so outspoken, So idoubt many believe bill will be calling the shots now.
I feel like im in an odd situation a san african american female. Do i vote for the first woman or the first black president?
Well I used to love hillary but to me it seems as if she has become more centrist in order to appease the masses and her political agenda has changed. I really like Obama and what he has to say and I think he is the first african american with a SERIOUS chance of winning..(Most people know jesse jackson and the others were never gonna win) BUT i really hope that who ever wins the nomination (GO OBAMA) takes the other as a running mate. Or John Edwards, he was one of my favorites during the last election. But anyways I love Bill, used to love hillary, She wont get my vote until it comes down to her and some republican. thats my 2cents



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Please correct me if I'm wrong. but my belief was that former Presidents are address as 'Mr. President'. If that be the case and Hillary wins then it will be Mrs. President and Mr. President.

One eminent Australian politician, upon retiring from politics (or perhaps retreating) stated ' It doesn't matter how motivated you are to do good when you enter politics, by the time you get to a position where you can actually do something about it, you owe so much to so many people that you can't do it'.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
It's true that becoming the U.S. President is now harder than it hasever been. You can make the case for the high office in any country, including Australia. Becoming the leader of your nation involves much more compromise than most people think it does.

Hillary's move to the center is just one example of that compromise. All politicians at the national elvel modify their positions, regardless of the country they live in. The public is often misled in to thinking that "he always held that opinion," but the truth is that most ofthe time, would-be leaders...change their minds...based on which way the political winds are blowing.

I don't care if a Presidential candidate has ovaries or not. Man or woman, I'm interested in policy goals and perspectives on government. If Hillary were a man, I'd still disagree with the direction she intends to take this country. On a more personal level, I do think she has more political skill than her rivals, including Obama.

I too am aware of the rumors that she's always been the brains of the family, but I think we have to face facts. They are both very skilled manipulators and each is willing to put up with a lot to get what they want. Our national history is short, but even so...it was only a matter of time before we faced this kind of 'threat.'

By all accounts President James Madison and his wife Dolly were a similarly skilled politically savvy couple. To this day, historians comb through a wide variety of sources to try and undersand just who was wear the pants in that family. there are some very interesting speculations.

When we look at all this political stuff, we've got to learn how to seperate the purely political from the purely partisan. As my favorite political philospher (Machievelli) points out, sometimes...there's only one way to do some things. Most of the purely political maneuvers we see politicians carry out are just that. Some times, they are the only ways to get what they want. In our case, we're seeing Hillary move to the center on some issues because she has to.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
She will be..any strong challenger will die, or have the skeletons come out of the closet. By this time next year people all think that Rudy in a gay nazi. Obama will probably arrested for terrorism. Paul from Texas will get a grassy knoll.

Hillary doesn't play I'm just going to have to lay low for the next 8 years.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Greetings, royal. Welcome to the discussion. I've been to San Antonio, and I liked it. Those who know are aware that Hillary plays rought when she wants to. having said that, its worth noting that the "best" politicians play to win, no matter what that might mean.

Under the present circumstances, I don't think she'll have to give anyone the Vince Foster treatment. None of the GOP candidates will get enough traction to seriously oppose her. The Republican party is too fractured, and the smart money says you'll see too many voters stay home on election day.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Just to throw in my two cents. No, I don't think Hillary will do it. I do, however, think it will be a Democrat in 2008. Only due to, excuse my cynicism, the political intelligence of this nation as a whole. They have had enough red... So, they will vote for whatever blue candidate is forced their way.

I have talked to enough friends, co-workers, family, associates, acquaintances, etc. about Ron Paul. Of whom which, they completely shrugged off as a typical Republican. Even after explaining a bit about him.

No, there is too much Red vs. Blue in this country in my opinion. Even so, Ron Paul has my support.

cheers

[edit on 30-3-2007 by LostSailor]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Hello, sailor. If it's not going to be Hillary, who do you think it will be? As popular as Obama is, he's not showing any signs of being "the winner."



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Justin,

Obama has a strong young internet crowd behind him. These are the people that want a change in government. Obama has promised them a difference, and they jumped on the band wagon. My only concern being... Of course... That he isn't a guaranteed change. There is not enough information on him for me to trust him.

If it is not Hillary, and Obama, as you stated, is not making much headway. Then I think Bill Richardson shows some strong potential. At least in the various online polls I participate in.

On a side note, can I ask an ignorant question. If you are blind Justin. How do you read these postings? I am honestly just curious.

cheers



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
In just 24 hours, the Presidential candidates are mandated by law to report on how much money they've raised so far. My predictions at this time are that Hillary will have raised close to 50 million dollars. Obama needs to raise atleast 30 million dollars to be 'moderately' competitive.

I'll grant you that Obama is a fresh face with a better attitude, but he's playing a ful contact sport in a very bad neighborhood. At this time, he seems on track to be Hillary's Vice Presidential pick, if he wants it. As you look back at the material in this thread, you'll see that a lot of people have had a lot to say about Obama as the veep.

As for being blind, I am Legally Blind, which means that I've got some vision. In this case, I have just enough (with glasses) to read from a 19-inch computer monitor. I've been like this since the day I was born. I have no difficulties talking about it. I am in fact shopping a book around to publishers that will be for parents of legally blind children. That's how "okay" I am with it.
'



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The Republicans are so fractured at this point that they'll be lucky to have a candidate in the field, much less one capable of winning.


Its still very easrly in the game for the 08 elections...

but their is several possibilities...

But as for the topic: I sure hope not. Its bad enough that the Dems control the house & senate...having the presidency would be the equivalent of just giving ou enemies the weapons they need to kill us.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
But as for the topic: I sure hope not. Its bad enough that the Dems control the house & senate...having the presidency would be the equivalent of just giving ou enemies the weapons they need to kill us.


I can understand your sentiments, but I will beg to differe on one point. It's true that our enemies in other parts of the world will take heart in the rise of the Democrats, but...we we as a society run the risk of doing more damage to our selves in a shorter period of time than they can.

Long before our external enemies get to us, we'll have to face our internal enemies. The political forces which are capable of wrecking this nation are drawn from both sides of the aisle. They are Republicans and Democrats. In some cases, they are nameless bureaucrats. In all cases, they are members of our society who may think they're doing something that's "for our own good."

I do think Hillary is going to be bad for us. It's not her Democrat-ness that will do the harm. She could be a Republican and sitll be capable of leaving a path of destruction in her wake. In her case, I question her civic virtue. I doubt that she has the strength of character to avoid many of the same temptations that have corrupted other Presidents. In her case, I think she's looking forward to doing things to us, "for our own good."

It's been said that the road to heck is paved with good intentions. It's also a known fact that every now and then, the wrong people get in to high office. this happens in all societies. That's not easy to see when you're busy being partisan, but it is something that all good political scientists know. Some times, history can be flaming beach, but she's also a very good teacher when we are willing to listen.

The Republicans don't hold the keys to our future at the moment. A close look at the 2008 GOP Presidential field shows us a lot of ambitious men, but none with any real sense of civic duty. They serve us, or we WIL serve them. That's the lesson of history that we've forgotten. As much trouble as George W. has caused, he's lucked in to a lot of things that he really doesn't know how to use. Hillary, specifically, is a different matter.

The process of writing the book that I am know for did help me put a lot of this in perspective. The partisan stuff is very seductive when you're willing to give in to it. Partisanship has to some extent been responsible for the theft of our civic virtue. Our leaders have encouraged us to be so partisan that we've forgotten that lesson. They serve us, or we serve them. They see to that.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I'm 100% republican...and I just cant wrap my head around how anybody could be a democrat.
They flip flop on all their decisions, the media controls them, if some random CNN poll shows that 51% of America disagrees, they will change themselves to fit the higher portion of the poll.

were at war right now, the last time (again done by dems) we pulled out of a war to soon it was declared a 'loss' for the US....The first time the US has ever lost a war...that simply shouldn't have happened.

I want the US to win the war, and in doing so Iraq will (finally) be a free democratic country....the left just wants us to pull-out and dont even care about the repercussions.


As for the Republican front runner...its still foggy yet, which is likely a good thing, because if their was a clear front runner, the crazy left media would do all out attacks on him trying to make him appear to be an idiot.
Funny thing is that Jeb looks like the best guy for the job....But I know that it would be 100% impossible for another Bush to get into office (despite this Bush, & the last Bush doing a good job).

Maybe Rudy...But there is some things that I dont like about him...Like: He's 'ok' with gay marriages, and in favor of gun control. The second amendment should not be messed with...Its a known fact that cities that are 'pro-gun' has less crimes...I mean, you’re going to think twice about breaking into a house in the middle of the night if you know that the owner has a gun on him. And Gay Marriages...come on, thats just wrong, regardless of any religion beliefs...in which BTW, I'm an Atheist.

As for our borders...the ONLY way to stop the flow of illegal immigrants is a fence...its that simple, China learned a fence works...a long time ago.
And we need a real fence, not some virtual one (aka: poles with a slew of cameras attached to the top of them). Fences work, you dont see the Whitehouse have a Virtual fence, or Fort Knox, because real physical fences are a great deterrence.
The latest proof that fences work can be found in Israel...ever since they began building their fence...attacks their have fell significantly.

Of course Israel is a tiny country...and were big...so a fence to cover the whole US/Mex border would have a daunting price tag...but they could do things to make it reasonable.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Why I’m Proud to Be A Democrat

1) I believe in a strong and efficient central (Federal) government

2) I believe in the graduated income tax, the estate tax and I would repeal any tax concessions to dividends, profits or investments.

3) I believe in the principles embodied in the court cases, Brown v. Topeka, and Roe v. Wade.

4) I believe in affirmative action.

5) I believe in aid from richer states to poorer states, as formerly done in block grants.

6) I believe in universal access to adequate health care.

7) I believe in a conscript armed forces.

8) I believe in a national uniform machinery for conducting elections.

9) I believe in a judiciary that believes in the future of America and is not shackled by the past.

10) I believe in strong labor unions with the corruption of the past kept out.

11) I believe in a living minimum wage

12) To make my life better, I believe in the purpose of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Rural Electric Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Transportation and Highway Safety Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Civil Rights Commission, the National Parks Service, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Corps of Engineers, the National Coast and Geodetic Survey. My failure to enumerate other agencies, commissions bureaus or authorities does not mean I do not also believe in those unmentioned entities.

I could go on, but I wanted to offer a few reasons why I’m proud to be a Democrat.

[edit on 3/31/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Hey, folks. I know that Don's "list" is going to take this debate to a new level, but let's keep it calm and clean. Put your hands down and think before you reach for that keyboard. Best foot forward. If you wanna play with the big boys, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. I'll wait to see what the panel has to say before I make my own response.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Don.....You basically want the government to hold your hand through-out your entire life.
As for minimum wage...In my state is 5.25, and there is VERY few jobs that would pay you that low of a salary...and if you are getting paid that...and if you are getting paid that...I suggest 2 things: 1. Get to work on time, & 2. work harder.
Why do you want government healthcare? Everyone knows that if the government (instead of the private sector) controls it...its going to be a slower process. And if I have a heart attack, I want to be in a hospital right away...not be put on a waiting list and hope I will get admitted in under a month. People bagged on FEMA (& Bush...surprise, surprise) when New Orleans went under....because it took them so long to get their...thats the government for you...it will always be slower than the private sector, and the private sector will always offer things for a cheaper price.
You pay for your car insurance...You value your cars life more than your own!?
And why would you want a draft? We have enough soldiers as is, the yearly recruit number has been over 80,000....which is a more impressive number considering that they are joining at a time when they know were at war.

And judges are constantly over stepping their bounds...and I agree with you about the past...why let those annoying things like the constitution or bill of right get in the way of them making their own rules.


And I dont believe in any "the rich should give to the poor" strategies...and no...I’m not rich. They got rich form working hard (& getting lucky)...they should not HAVE to give to the poor. But the fact is, that the rich (without laws telling them to) already give huge amounts of money to the poor, and research into fighting diseases & cures.


ok. I kinda jumped around through some of your points...but now I have a few questions for you "don".
1. What’s your view on the Iraq war...and if your in favor of a early exit, when? & your strategy?

2. Illegal immigrants? what would you do about them?

3. the possible/probable Iranian conflict...I'm talking about how to deal with them...not about the little hostage thing their doing now.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
DON I for one am very proud to be democrat for the exact same reasons, as i believe in the same things. As faras the draft though. I dont believe in the draft but I believe that if we were to have a draft and some of the cogressmen/womens children had to go to war they would think more carefully about the choices they make.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Here's my short version.


Originally posted by donwhite
Why I’m Proud to Be A Democrat

1) I believe in a strong and efficient central (Federal) government


With all due respect, we've seen unprecedented growth in Federal power over the last eighteen years which has resulted in the exapnsion of Federal bureaucracy to such an extent that 'reform' as we kniw it may not be possible until the whole thing comes crashing down.

Federal level politicians don't seem to be capable of moderate action. The quest for Federal power has now become so pervasive that it seems weare soon to be faced with all all-or-nothing choice. I'm willing to back up on my point with and observation and a prediction. a) The Federal government has a long history of NOT giving back power. b) My prediction is that you won't see the Democrats who rise to a super majority in both houses of Congress make any real moves to give back many of the powers recenty acquired by the Bush43 administration.

Using these recent events my "test," I feel comfortable in making this prediction because it'll be a barometer of things to come that I can't possibly influence. If I turn out to be wrong, it'll be right there for everyone to see it.



Originally posted by donwhite
2) I believe in the graduated income tax, the estate tax and I would repeal any tax concessions to dividends, profits or investments.



This would be the part where I mention the unconstitutional nature of the taces that you support. I'd be a bad small government conservative if I did not bring this up. You are fundamentally arguing for the redistribution of weath. The problem with this policy position is that it relies too heavily on the notion of social entitlements. Because wealth is acrued voluntarily, it would be counterproductive...from the perspective of a small government conservative...to place aritificial limits on its distribution.

This is the part where I use "me" as the example I'm most faimiliar with. As an independent author, I'm taking the risk that I might fail as I struggle to write and get published. I have this in common with any other small business owner. It's a given fact that all massive corporations started out as small struggling businesses. In my case, I do this because I've decided that the rewards excede the risks I take.

If nobody likes my work, and I can't get published, I make "nothing." On the other hand, I could be the next Tom Clancy. I have motivation to take this risk because my earnings potential is not limited. Piling on taxes reduces my potential for reward because I have to sacrifice more to The State for the privilidge of daring to take that risk. When taxes and regulation become too high, I end up paying for the chance to fail...which means I'm less likely to do it all.



Originally posted by donwhite
3) I believe in the principles embodied in the court cases, Brown v. Topeka, and Roe v. Wade.


Equality in all its forms is good. This is an American principle that we've struggled for that goes far beyond Democrat or Republican. As a small government conservative, I'd point out that its unwise to legislate social engineering at the Federal level. On the basis of the examples you've cited, most people will give you no argument. When it comes to abortion, there are Republicans who want to use big government to outlaw the practice for any number of reasons. I contend that this should be be a State level issue.



Originally posted by donwhite
4) I believe in affirmative action.


Affirmative action goes wrong when it ignores merit. This is especially true when it is applied to Federal bureaucracy. It's quite common among the GS grades for persons of skill to be passed over for selection so that affirmative action quotas can be met. This is just one of several examples that could be cited here.


Originally posted by donwhite
5) I believe in aid from richer states to poorer states, as formerly done in block grants.


Income redistribution as a mechanism of social engineering hasn't panned out very well in the last fifty years. As per the example you cite, the poorer States have remained consistently poor despite Federal funds. It's only when the private sector developes those regions that they prosper? Why? Because the wages made by the people in the affected States are spent in a manner that we could call self-determinate.

It's been proven by social scholars that people can't be legislated in to success. They have to work for it. Once they've earned it, they have a better appreciation for it. Entitles might pay out more, but they don't instill work ethics or high minded social values of the type that you are hoping for.



Originally posted by donwhite
6) I believe in universal access to adequate health care.


This could be the ultimate Democrat "thing" for the 21st century. Given that the Federal bureaucracy can't be efficient with what what it already has, I don't see the merit in allowing The System to have control over an even larger slice of the national pie. I find it interesting that universal health care proponents want to put the Federal government in charge of something that could crush our econmy without first opting to enforce the laws we have on the books while at the same time pushing for new laws that reform without expanding Federal control.

As a small government conservative, I'd point out that the Constitution empowers the Fed to do what's good for the economy by way of regulation. The Democrat model for health care would have the Fed participating in the business of medicine. Regulation is not participation. When the enforcers of the law become the financial benefactors of that law, we're all in trouble.



Originally posted by donwhite
7) I believe in a conscript armed forces.


There is just one thing that makes the all volunteer force better than its conscripted counterpart. Motivation. Conscripted militaries are by far more political than their volunteer opponents. Conscripted forces eventually devolve in to just another asset for the ruling party. In the long run, conscripted forces can become enemies of the population they are meant to protect. When they become gatekeepers for the regime, we're all in trouble.



Originally posted by donwhite
8) I believe in a national uniform machinery for conducting elections.


You are, of course, referrring to a Federally supervised uniform 'machine' that would observe, sanction, and approve election results. The very nature of partisanship means that this would only benefit the ruling party. A casual examination of the Federal Elections Commission (Google it) wear bear this out. Recent events such as the November 2006 elections make it clear that tampering would happen on a larger scale if the Federal government had control over the national election process.



Originally posted by donwhite
9) I believe in a judiciary that believes in the future of America and is not shackled by the past.


You're making a philosophical point here, so I'll move on to the next item.



Originally posted by donwhite
10) I believe in strong labor unions with the corruption of the past kept out.


Labor unions, regardless of the extent of their corruption, are a private sector matter. Rather than push for greater Federal involvement, why not push for better law enforcement? Today's unions flaunt Uncle Sam because they can. When somebody gets tough, the union bosses look for another politician to buy. If the Fed can't keep the unions in line now, it will be an accomplis to their corruption once it becomes more intinately involved. Oversight is goo, participation is bad.



Originally posted by donwhite
11) I believe in a living minimum wage.


You're making a philosophical point here, so I'll move on to the next item.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Just remember on thing. This is a general discussion. We're not any of us trying to debate this before the Supreme Court. This can be constructive as long as WE keep it that way.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
James A. Baker (CFR)

Tony Blair (Bilderberg)

Lincoln Palmer Bloomfield (CFR)

Bush Senior (CFR, Trilateral Commission)

Zbigniew Brzezinski (Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission)

Jimmy Carter (CFR, Trilateral Commission)

Dick Cheney (CFR, Trilateral Commission)

Hillary Clinton (Bilderberg)

Bill Clinton (Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commmission)

Dianne Feinstein (Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission)

Henry Ford (Bilderberg)

Gerald Ford (Bilderberg, CFR)

David Gergen (Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission)

Newt Gingrich (CFR)

Porter Goss (CFR)

Teresa Kerry (CFR)

John Kerry (CFR)

Peter Jennings (Bilderberg)

Henry Kissinger (Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission)

Bill Kristol (Bilderberg)

Scooter Libby (CFR)

Paul Martin (Bilderberg, CFR)

Frank McKenna (Bilderberg, CFR)

Rupert Murdoch (CFR)

Colin Powell (Bilderberg, CFR)

Condoleezza Rice (CFR)

David Rockefeller (Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commmission)

George Soros (Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commmission)

Paul Wolfowitz (Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commmission)

Well, as an American. These secretive groups tend to make me wary. The fact that Hilary has been know to attend Bilderberg conferences is something that I think should be taken into consideration.




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join