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? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 36
12
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



I'd like to point out that Republicans and Democrats alike have been critical of this administration. If you go back to the earliest days of this thread, you find that Bush's motivations have played some roll in our speculations about who will be the next American President.


I only hope we have had enough of FAITH BASED GOVERNMENT in the US of A. Faith, which means the ability to believe in the impossible, is not capable of dealing with realithy. It may have a sphere, but it must be set aside for the stumble-bums of religiousity. The thinking people need to get back to work. We cannt resurrect the 4,100 KIA Americans FAITH killed, nor can we undo the 80,000 Iraqi dead for whom we hold no regard - wrong FAITH - and the $1,000,000,000,000.00 the BORN AGAINS blew away, but we can try.




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I think you're going to get your wish. As the Republicans become a smaller minority in Congresss, they will lose their access to the budgetary purse strings. It'll be interesting to me to see what the Dems will do wit hte budget, if they can get supermajorities in both houses. Will we see something that looks like fiscal respoinsibility, or will we see soemthing else?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I think we will get more of the same... to a degree... the priorities will change with less going to big corporations and more to alternative energies and community services (as this recession becomes a depression they will have no choice) but the levels of spending really won't change.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


The only time I've seen fiscal responsibility under a Dem administration in my lifetime was under Bill Clinton (after his first mid term election) when the voters "trew a tantrum' in the words of Peter Jennings. As you'll recall the house and senate were handed to the Republicans and Bill knew to get re-elected he'd need to become much more conservative fiscally and socially. In his first two years we had: tax increases, spending increases don't ask dont tell, The social medicine debalce, and the family medical leave act. After the first mid term we had welfare reform, spending cuts (mostly military) but continued tax increases.

I have no doubt the Dem congress will increase taxes drastically in 2009 under a Dem Pres. If that doesnt suck enough...I'm also sure they will increase spending (probably outpacing tax revenues). Infact, if history is a guide, the tax rate increase will result in a dcrease in tax revenues.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 



I have no doubt the Dem congress will increase taxes drastically in 2009 under a Dem Pres. If that doesnt suck enough...I'm also sure they will increase spending (probably outpacing tax revenues).


I see our differences better expressed as one over the size and its concomitant cost of the central government. Cost equals taxes.

Where the current Commodities and Futures Exchange Commission has 400 employees and futures tradeing on peak days exceed 1 million contracts, I would want the CFEC to go to 4,000 staff and if after 1-2 years if it was still overwhelmed, change the trading rules or raise the size of staff further. A levy on each trade would defray taxpayers costs.

The Department of Agriculture is unable to inspect our meat. The earlier 20 million pound meat recall put an old NJ company out of business. The later 150 million pound meat recall put a CA company out of business. 25% of the CA production was sold to schools under a Federal scholl lunch program. So much for watching over our children!

In neither recall case was the Federal agency charged with food wholesomeness the active agent in the recall. They played catch-up. So again, if we have 500 DoA food inspectors, then I’d bump that up to 5,000 and see how it was working in a couple years. There are just some functions that ONLY governments can do. That's why "governments are instituted among men" to borrow a quote.

Bridges. The fall-down in St. Paul was due to not enough money to repair, rebuild or replace our infrastructure. Before 2003, there had always money for building new roads - but not now what with Iraq soaking up $2 b. a week - but it is harder to get money for replacing old water and sewer lines. They wear out too.

If you want to do those PUBLIC things, then we need more people to get it done! And more money.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by donwhite]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Ah, yes, The question of big government. We will certain be getting to hear this dedete a lot in the coming days.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Justin Oldham]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
It seems to me that we now have the biggest government we've ever seen. All the illegal wiretapping and trampling the Constitution can't be called anything but big government. I think that the Republican ideals have long been forfeited in this quest for safety that so many seem to be so fond of. I can't say that I enjoy paying taxes, but I'm much more disheartened by the increase of executive power in the last 7 years and the fact that the legislative and judicial branches are doing absolutely nothing about these massive power grabs.

But there is a good point here. In his second term, Clinton listened to the people. If only we could say the same for GW.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Hillary Clinton has won the Puerto Rico primary. the Democratic National Committee convened its rules committee yesterday, and the decision was made to seat half of the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Each seated delegate will get half a vote, when it comes time to cast ballots for the party's Presidential nomination.

Senator Clinton stated quite clearly in her victory speech that she intends to go on through Montana and South Dakota, to the very end.

In the event that she wins Montana AND South Dakota, by whatever margin, she will be in a position to argue her case for the Democratic nomination based on popular vote totals.

She can still force Senator Obama to put her on the ticket as his VP. It's unlikely due to the bad blood between their two camps, but it is possible. Past Presidents have taken on VP's that they didn't care for.

Each new primary win continues to enhance Hillary Clinton's prestige while at the same time undermining Barack Obama's public image. A cloud of doubt no hangs over his campaign. We should expect the Republcians to capitolize on that uncertainty during the general election.

Having sewn the seeds of foubt, Mrs. Clinton could deliver the fatal blow by so aggravating Obam that he does NOT offer her the number two spot on his ticket. He'll suffer for it if he doesn't make a show of offering it to her. She may refuse, just to ensure that the Democratic party remains divided.

The possibiity has beenacknowledged in this thread many months ago that Barack Obama could win his party's nomination, and still lose the general election because a majority of voters simply don't feel like he's ready for the job. I made that assertion myself, in my very first post to this thread.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



Hillary Clinton has won the Puerto Rico primary . . Senator Clinton stated quite clearly in her victory speech that she intends to go on through Montana and South Dakota, to the very end. She can still force Senator Obama to put her on the ticket as his VP. It's unlikely due to the bad blood between their two camps, but it is possible.

Past Presidents have taken on VP's that they didn't care for. The possibility has been acknowledged in this thread many months ago that Barack Obama could win his party's nomination, and still lose the general election because a majority of voters simply don't feel like he's ready for the job. I made that assertion myself, in my very first post to this thread.


The outcome of MT and SD is irrelevant. I predicted Obama would carry both states based on his 100% record (so far) in the Upper Midwest. Regardless, there are only 31 delegates in the 2 states.

The rumor mill was busy today. Based on what was “leaked” to the AP early this AM, Hillary will concede tomorrow if not late tonight. Obama has already spoken today saying he’d work with Hillary this fall.

Eisenhower was not happy with Nixon. Kennedy did not like Johnson. Reagan did not like Bush Sr. There is plenty of precedent for a winner choosing the runner-up to be his No. 2.

The Dems have learned (the hard way) the GOP will play the gender card, the GOP will play the RACE card. I’m thinking BOTH will backfire on the GOP! That stuff is passe in America in Century21.

[edit on 6/3/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
The Dems have learned (the hard way) the GOP will play the gender card, the GOP will play the RACE card. I’m thinking BOTH will backfire on the GOP! That stuff is passe in America in Century21.

[edit on 6/3/2008 by donwhite]


Repectfully disagree. The only cards the GOP will need to play are the policy card(s): foreign, economic, social, energy, environment .... and the experience card, or should I say, "in"experience?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


The Republicans have no cards to play other than race and gender... they are currently bankrupt... it will take them years to recover from the damage jr. has done to their party.

McCain might, just might squeak out a one term victory but he will be facing a veto proof Democratic congress who after bush minor, won't be in the mood for pussy footing around.

And in my humble opinion, its about time.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Hmm it is still possible that the Superdelegates could still do a flip flop at the Convention otherwise the way the race has ended strikes me as odd. Its like the dems have run the marathon only to stop 100M from the finish line and cede a tactical advantage to the Republicans . Well that is my 10 cents .



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I'm just checking in briefly to report that Clinton won South Dakota, and Obama won Montana. Obama now has enough delegates and super delegates to claim his party's nomination. Mainstream media sources are reporting that Senator Clinton is open to the idea of being Obama's VP.

Let's see what this looks like in 24 hours.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I'm just checking in briefly to report that Clinton won South Dakota, and Obama won Montana. Obama now has enough delegates and super delegates to claim his party's nomination. Mainstream media sources are reporting that Senator Clinton is open to the idea of being Obama's VP.

Let's see what this looks like in 24 hours.


I am wondering if Clinton will actually win the Democratic parties Presidential nomination now that she seems to keep inserting her foot in her political mouth constantly.

I noticed you did not include McCain's name in the main topic of the thread. Is that because you do not see him as a viable option anymore?

Personally, I don't want any of these political options, as they are all bought and paid for by lobbyists, or some other faction within Government and do not represent or think on behalf of the people who are supposed to be electing them.

Politicians are a lot like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reason.

Also, a question for you on the title of Conspiracy Master.

Do you enjoy the rank or title of Conspiracy Master, and what do you enjoy most about it, as well as what are the down sides to you?

[edit on 3-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 



I am wondering if Clinton will actually win the Democratic parties Presidential nomination?


Your question was rendered moot tonight when superdelegates put Obama over the 2,118 delegate count needed to win.

ONLY the Dems can bring forth a WOMAN and an AFRICAN AMERICAN to be our leaders! The Republicans are LOCKED into the rich old white man theme.



I noticed you [Justin Oldham] did not include McCain's name in the main topic of the thread. Is that because you do not see him as a viable option anymore?


Actually, I started this thread and I was concerned only with the Democratic nominee. Another thread started about the same time was for conservatives and Republicans. I thought McCain would loose but I believe he and Huckabee struck a deal to get rid of the most POTENT candidate, Mitt Rommey. The Huck began an attack on Mitt’s religion and after 3 weeks, Romney ducked out.

For this supposed reason I have guessed McCain will put the Huckster on his ticket as his VP. McCain's wiser choice would be Romney but I’m not sure Mitt needs all the bad mouthing for a job “not worth a bucket of warm spit!” J. Nance Garner, VP 1932-1940.



Personally, I don't want any of these political options, as they are all bought and paid for by lobbyists, or some other faction within Government and do not represent or think on behalf of the people who are supposed to be electing them.


Until the American public consents to genuine Campaign Finance Reform - CFR - which means NO private money in PUBLIC elections! We pay for it all! Until then, the cost of campaigning puts all main line candidates at the mercy of the R&Fs. Rich and famous. Powerful. Special interests. And etc. It’s our choice. Cough up or shut up.

[edit on 6/4/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Well, that's quite an answer to My queries. I didn't edit that so it was directed to both donwhite and Justin Oldham, so for that I apologize.

Put up or shut up? I think not. I think politicians should not get paid in any way, shape, or form by anyone, public or lobbyists.

If they get paid at all, it should be based on them actually keeping to their campaign promises and listening to the people who elected them, as well as we the American citizens voting on their pay raises, not them doing it every six months or however often it's presented to them, or however often they decide the need to rip us off even more.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Greetings core members of this thread! Its been about a week since Ive had internet access.. But not here to talk about me.. Lets get down to brass tacks here.

So Obama Wins the nomination.. Hmmm, this is going a bit unexpected. But never the less I still am steadfast in my thinking that Hillary will be the president sooner or later.

This is how its going to go down now. Obama is going to win, and take Hillary as his VP. Then Obama will be assinated, or gunned down by some type of extreamist. And then Hillary will become President by default.

I really didnt want it to come down to it being this way.. And I honestly hope nothing happens to the man. I really think he is a good man, and could be good for us.. But then agin, I dont trust any of them!

However its my feelings now that things are being set into place where Obama will get taken out some how, and Hillary will become the president.
Ive had this gut feeling for the past 3 days now.
I just thought Hillary was going to be a shoe in.. And with those thoughts I was wrong.. And some of my posts where off base..
However the baseroot of my posts in this thread still stand.

And in no way was I ever cheering for Hillary or wanting her to win..
I really didnt want any of them to win. As I know its a rigged game here.
And now that this has played out, its a shame that they are going to Kill this man, just to not only prove a point. But to have Hillary president by default.. As HIllary being VP.. The job will go to her with no questions..

I really hope this doesnt come to pass.. But time will tell..
I had to get online, and get into this thread so I could post my thoughts here before it happens..
This way its put down in writing.. And if I am wrong.. Well than thats a good thing.. But as for right now, this is the way I see it happening.

When and where, I dont know, But I do know this whole play of events stinks really bad..

Edit--Spellcheck

[edit on 3-6-2008 by zysin5]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
I am wondering if Clinton will actually win the Democratic parties Presidential nomination now that she seems to keep inserting her foot in her political mouth constantly.


Now that the results ofthe primaries are in, we can say with a 100% certainty that Senator Clinton WILL NOT get her party's nomination for President. She does lead in the popular vote, but she trails in State delegates and in party Super delegates.

The question to ponder now, is whether or not she will want to be Vice President. Prevailing wisdom says , "no." We should expect Obama nad Clinton to meet privately before any such offer would be made. She may want a very public opportunity to turn it down.


Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
I noticed you did not include McCain's name in the main topic of the thread. Is that because you do not see him as a viable option anymore?


Don White Started this thread, so you'll have to take that issue up with him. In light of current political events, I have to say that it doesn't look good for McCain. The best case scenario for him is to run against Obama and anyone else except Hillary Clinton. If, for example, he faces off agaisnt an Obama-Edwards ticket, his chances do improve considerably.

Having said that, let's remember that he got a very steeep climb. Not only does John McCain have to overcome the "third term curse," but...he's also got to overcome the Bush backlash, the war, and the failing economy. All of those negatives piled on at the same time make it highly unlikely that McCain will be our next President.


Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Do you enjoy the rank or title of Conspiracy Master, and what do you enjoy most about it, as well as what are the down sides to you?


This was something I walked in to, by accident. I never thought I'd end up being a nationally recognized conspiracy theorist. Success for ATS has translated in to success for me. The mainstream media regards me as a political analyst, or an author/essayist.

I do still run in to people who don't take it well. "Ah. I see. You're one of...those." I don't sound like a conspiracy theorist. The label isn't a big negative like it used to be. I don't talk about UFO's, which is the number one reason why I get treated differently. That, and the fact that I am also known for other things that don't relate to ATS.

There is no down side to this. At least, not to me. I get my fair share of challenges, just like anyone else on this board. I wouldn't be worth talking to, if I could explain myself. Compared to some of the other things I do, this is easy.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zysin5
When and where, I dont know, But I do know this whole play of events stinks really bad..


I'm not ashamed to admit that I failed to see the rise of Obama for what it was. An event like this is so rare that none of us could fortell it.

I don't want Senator clinton to be President, ever. I have just one reason for this opinion. I don't like dynasties. If I had been alive at the time, I would have objected to the Kennedy family's dynasty. I was not in favor of Bush43 for that same reason.

In my own way, I campaigned agaisnt Senator Clinton, starting in 2004. In many respects, the political fiction I am known for was inspired in an effort to stop the Clinton dynasty. All of the fiction that's out there under my name contains populist anti-dynastic messages.

We may not like certain people who hold high office, but we also don't want to see any of them fall to hostile intent. It would be hurtful to the psyche of the nation. It would also be morally 'wrong' to wish for such a thing. Even so, we understand that its a real possiblity for any sitting President.

Obama will take office with a lot of promises to keep. A lot will be expected of him, and he won't be able to deliver on most of it. No President has ever kept more than a few of the promises they made during the general election. Reality and bureaucracy take their toll on the most ambitious of agendas.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 



So Obama Wins the nomination.. Hmmm, this is going a bit unexpected. I am steadfast in my thinking that Hillary will be the president sooner or later.


I believe Obama is 48 and Hillary is 60. Should they win in ‘08 and she serve “well” then it is logical she would run in ‘16. She would be 68, getting a bit long in the tooth. OTOH Golda Meir was 71 when she became Israel’s 4th prime minister. Margaret Thatcher was 64. Although Queen Elizabeth II inherited her position as Queen on the death of her father, she was crowned in 1952 some 56 years ago and she is loved more each year.



This is how its going to go down now. Obama is going to win, and take Hillary as his VP. Then Obama will be assassinated, or gunned down by some type of extremist. And then Hillary will become President by default. However its my feelings now that things are being set into place where Obama will get taken out some how, and Hillary will become the president.


I just finished the book “Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield” by Kenneth D. Ackerman. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers 551 pp., ISBN 0-7867-1151-5, May 2003. There are so many similarities to the politics of today that it becomes eerie. If you want a good read, this will be deja vu to most of us. It is also encouraging (in offering relief) because politics today cannot be worse than politics of yesteryear.

Garfield’s assassin, Charles J. Guiteau, was distinctly a mental case. Nevertheless, he was promptly hanged after a 53 day long trial. Sadly, Guiteau’s defense was that his gunshot did not kill Garfield, but medical malpractice killed him. Although he was right in his claim, the law imposes liability on outcomes on the villain who brought the deed on. The real law of unintended consequences.

America has a terrible history of presidential assassinations and attempts. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, attempt on Theodore Roosevelt, attempt on Franklin Roosevelt, attempt on Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, two attempts on Gerald Ford and the attempt on Ronald Reagan. The sad outcome of this is we can no longer have close contact with the president of the United States of America. Once he or she is elected, they are REMOVED from public touch or closeness. From then on they live in a cocoon. They know only what their aides report to them. And if they hand pick their aides to tell them nothing, then they know nothing.



I really don’t want it to come down to it being this way . . And I honestly hope nothing happens to the man. I really think he is a good man, and could be good for us . . But then agin, I don’t trust any of them!


I don’t know if we can go back. They say you cannot. Looking forward is not too reassuring. But forward we must look because it is the only time we can do anything with. We are stuck in the present, and can’t undo the past. Only we can hope not to repeat all the mistakes of the past. It’s too bad GOD is so soundly asleep just at a time when we could use HIM most.

[edit on 6/4/2008 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join