Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Donwhite: This is from another post on cannibis; I think it will answer your questions.


"As far as I am concerned, the bottom line is this, despite the problems, if alcohol and tobacco are legal, pot should be as well.

If fact I am in favor of legalizing ALL drugs and selling them through state sanctioned ABC stores and use the money earned for education and rehab.

Are there problems with this? Of course there are but it has 2 major pluses on its side.

(1) Consistent quality without additives or cuts or weird chemicals added. A specific standard would have to be set by growers and manufacturers before it could be sold. That is a huge plus. Quality control.

(2) And I think this is the most important; it would undercut and curtail the gangs and cartels like nothing else. Why would anybody buy from a gang, not knowing what they are getting when they could go to the local ABC store and get decent quality and quanity at a decent price. Point by point the gang wars over drug turfs mirror the gang wars over turf during probation and as far as I can tell, the same thing would happen after drugs were legalized as well as it did during probation; it knocked the winds right out of the gangs.

Really... people are going to use if they want to and no matter how strong the government crack down on it is, they are still going to use. So the best approach is to co-opt the gangs and control whats out there by making it all legal."

Fred Thompson will never be president because he doesn't want it bad enough... his is just a vanity run and nothing more.




posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Hello darkheart, glad to see you here.


Originally posted by darkheartrising
FRED THOMPSON will be our next president..
(and smile when you say that)


There's no denying that Fred has a very good PR footprint, but his timing is band and he's very much out of position for this 2008 decision. With five million dollars or less in his bank, and no talent on staff, he would have to wage a very fast and furious guerila campaign. I might enjoy working on such an effort, assuming that he could afford me.


If I were in Hillary's camp, I'd already have Mr. Thompson's profile on my hard drive...waiting. His public image is delicate. Everything turns on his media presence as a star on Law & Order, and his stand in work for Paul Harvey. When you get right dow nto it, he'd be more effective as a campaign stumper for the the GOP than as an actual candidate.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

posted by grover
Donwhite: This is from another post on cannabis; I think it will answer your questions. "As far as I am concerned, the bottom line is this, despite the problems, if alcohol and tobacco are legal, pot should be as well. If fact I am in favor of legalizing ALL drugs and selling them through state sanctioned ABC stores and use the money earned for education and rehab. Are there problems with this? Of course there are but it has 2 major pluses on its side.

(1) Consistent quality without additives or cuts or weird chemicals added. A specific standard would have to be set by growers and manufacturers before it could be sold. That is a huge plus. Quality control.

(2) And I think this is the most important; it would undercut and curtail the gangs and cartels like nothing else. Why would anybody buy from a gang, not knowing what they are getting when they could go to the local ABC store and get decent quality and quantity at a decent price. Point by point the gang wars over drug turfs mirror the gang wars over turf during probation and as far as I can tell, the same thing would happen after drugs were legalized as well as it did during probation; it knocked the winds right out of the gangs.


Grover, I can’t agree with you more. We launched a “War on Terror” on the same misguided principles. Americans seem to love Wars! One of my uncles had a new 1941 Chevy on which he mounted a “War on Crime” shield. In 1964 LBJ launched the “War on Poverty.” Nixon launched the War on Drugs” in 1969. Bush43 launched the “War on Terror” in 2001.

We have not a single victory in any one of these ‘Wars’ yet we are spending billions and have over 2 million Americans in prison, more than any country in the world. Most recently we have essentially destroyed Columbia and Afghan. Our methods do not seem to work. Yet we use the same methods anywhere we go. Cruise missiles. Agent Orange. Create a network of culture destroying informants. Train native armed forces to kill their fellow citizens. Despite repeated failures, there is never a call for an independent Commission to examine the cause of failure after failure after failure. This does not bode well for the Republic.

[edit on 8/2/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I say Clinton is the candidate and presidential winner over the Republicans with Obama the VP candidate.

www.belowtopsecret.com...'



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Mrs. Bill Clinton's Democrat nomination has been decided since 2004, when she threw John Kerry to the wolves.

Obama will be dealt with if he makes too much trouble. But he has got to put on a show, and give her a battle, to make it look like she earned it.

Don't worry about ALGORE showing up, the Clinton's have him in their back pocket.

John Edwards, AKA the Breck Girl, has as much chance as Ron Paul on the Republican side.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

J/O Posts: There's no denying that Fred has a very good PR footprint, but his timing is bad and he's very much out of position for this 2008 decision. With five million dollars or less in his bank and no talent on staff, he would have to wage a very fast and furious guerilla campaign. I might enjoy working on such an effort, assuming that he could afford me.


I guess those jobs are obtained through networking? Which I guess means he will have old fat white guys from the country-club set. I’d like to see you get such a post, J/O, and Fred might give the top 2 a ride they would not soon forget! But if you were to budget Fred out to Feb 5 nearly 6 months, you’d need $3K a day not counting ads or ad time. Time buys in CA and NY would be hugely expensive. $10K to $50K per 20 seconds, depending. I cannot image a serious candidate with less than $20 million in the bank to spend between now and Feb. 5. My CFR plan would put both Fred and Ron Paul on equal footing with Hillary and Rudy. But who wants that?

I’m thinking what you are calling guerilla I’m calling dirty tricks. While both add spice to any boring campaign, I don’t think either can carry the day. The best thing about this over-long campaign so far is the INCLUSION of all tiers of candidates in the debates. I hope that continues even though I support the Clinton Obama ticket.

[edit on 8/2/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
A guerilla campaign doesn't have to be dirty. As a matter of record, it usually isn't the poor candidate can't afford dirt, and the best of the dark arts can cost big bucks. No, when I say 'guerilla,' I mean without conventional support. A peripheral effort in which hte candidates time is their best asset. I wrote a proposal on such a thing ten years ago for a local fellow who had national ambitions, Might still have it around here some place. Something done on a typewriter, and not on disk.

The insurgent campaign can be done. I've had to be more of a self-promoter than I ever thought possible. What I know now could save a lot of candidates a lot of money.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



Well, just as we thought Mrs. Edwards would get back to her family and friends after making some “policy” remarks, we now have Mrs Obama offering advice on how to run a family. She later denied she had anyone in mind and was most certainly not taking pot shots at the Dems Front Runner!

Advice? Mrs Barack you are taking on a lady who knows how to duke it out with the best! You will likely get your comeuppance from Hillary. And what the hey, she and Bill have been married nearly 40 years, and have a beautiful daughter who has never been arrested for drunk in a public place nor for possession of a fraudulent drivers license. And who knows what else? An honors student invited to study at Oxford and not low balling it at Texas Tech. Hmm? How do you measure a family anyhow? What works for one may not work for another. I recommend you stick to political issues and leave family values to the individual voter.

[edit on 8/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I think it's safe to say that Eleanor Roosevelt forever broke the mold of the silent politician's wuife. The old saying is true. Behind every strong man you will find a strong woman. Ego motivates some of what we see just now. The rest is...a lack of prudence.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Clinton? Obama? Edwards?


Clinton.

Of those three choices ... Clinton. She is the most qualified, most experienced, and understands the world better than the other two.

RICHARDSON is the best candidate for the dems. But unfortunately he doesn't have the star power and so he has been overlooked.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
if alcohol and tobacco are legal, pot should be as well.

I agree.


Fred Thompson will never be president

Probably not. But I betchya a box of donuts he'll be the republican nominee.


Originally posted by donwhite
Could you lay out a thing or two about each of those potential candidates that you find worrisoime?

Not directed at me ... but I'll pipe in anyways


HILLARY - No matter what she tries to pretend to be these days (and yes she is pretending to be middle of the road) ... she hates the US military and all things relating to it. She's a proud marxist ... those TWO things are worrisome to me.

OBAMA - absolutely NOT qualified. He meets the basic requirements (so do I), but he's not qualified. His MANY recent stupid remarks about policy and his (mis)understanding of how to deal with the world reflect that. He's running on 'hey, I'm half black, vote for me'. That's it.

EDWARDS - Breck boy and ambulance chasing opportunist. He's Bill Clinton but without the brain to back it up.

My guess at this point - Hillary/Richardson vs Thompson/Guiliani.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well, F/F, I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I have it somewhat differently? Whatever you and I think about Obama’s amateurish-ness, the real fact is he has run a strong #2 to Hillary in the polls for months and he has raised more money that she. I’d say the Dems must put Barack on the ticket if he wants it - and what junior senator from Illinois does not want that slot? Barring some huge mis-step by either, the Dems base would not stand still for one more slight. Therefore, I see the Dems team as Clinton and Obama.

Despite Fred T’s strong showing in the polls, he is a “single issue” kind of candidate. He preaches the same worn-out politics that got John McCain broke and looking for a honorable way out of the race. There are 4 issues that will be decisive. 1) the war in Iraq. 2) health care. 3) immigration. 4) infrastructure. IMO.

Unless somehow the Shia and Sunni come together the war in Iraq will still be on-going on November 4, 2008. That will get very few Pro GOP votes. 2) Hillary is the only candidate to have tried to deal with our overly expensive but under productive health care system. A plus for her and the Dems. 3) like it or not, we cannot criminalize 10-12 million people who came here for a better life. Not a one ever arrested for being a terrorist! And to propose a $5,000 fine for a minimum wage worker must be a bad joke? Amnesty and fast track to citizenship but call it what you will. 4) we must divert some of the money now going to Iraq to do much needed work on our infrastructure but with a caveat that NO contracts go to Halliburton now hiding off-shore in Dubai, UAE.

Giuliani has held steady and Mit Romney, like Barack, has consistently been #2. And has his own money. Rudy and Mit.

Versus Hillary and Barack.

Wild card? Mike Bloomberg.

[edit on 8/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Mrs. Clinton might pick Bill Richardson to be her running mate if she feels that Obama can't be controlled.


I believe the House of Clinton will take the White House thereby insuring the Clinton Dynasty for at least another term. You are spot on about her choosing Bill Richardson. If you are Hillary Clinton you don't want to have a Vice-President who is too charismatic or prone to gaffes.

That said, may a miracle of galactic proportions take place and may Ron Paul become the next President.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Personally I think it will be Clinton..
I was right about Bush for the last many years, and its pretty clear to me anyway that Hill. C will be the next stage in the greater plan.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkheartrising
Barackomuslim, Hillariously, John gaywards..
who cares who wins the Duhmocratic nomination..

FRED THOMPSON will be our next president..
(and smile when you say that)


I agree that if the Democrats go with those three they do not have a chance in hell.

Hilary has too much baggage and is she ultra liberal or ultra conservative who knows and so 30% of the democratic base that would vote will stay home if she runs.

Obama is just too new at this game call politics and proves it in every other speech, he is not winning any new votes.

John is old news and just doesn’t have it whatever it is.

I see Hilary and Obama on their ticket but it really cannot work.

On the republican side I see Romney going all the way…



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Well now, I'm glad to see you all here again. For the sake of discussion, how do you all think the Republicans can overcome their handicaps? Don and a few of us have been kicking this around for a while now, so be precise. If you could give advice to the GOP, what would it be?



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Well in military terms you might compare the 08 election in a small force that must attack an enemy who has superior numbers and training. When you are the smaller force you have two choices withdraw to a safer base and regroup or attack. The Republican party doesn't have the option of a withdrawl other then maybe cutting back on costs if they simply write the election off. So that only leaves the option of attacking when you are the smaller force the element of surprise is vital . If the element of surprise is lost then the smaller force has lost the tactical advantage .

So if the Republican party has something up there selves they are going to have to time the ambush to perfection. If they spring the ambush to soon any damage inflicted will be repaired unless it is a mortal blow. Launch the attack to late and there wont be enough time to inflict enough damage.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I have it somewhat differently?

Actually, that's what makes it so much fun!


Obama’s ... he has run a strong #2 to Hillary in the polls

He may be #2 in the polls, but he's still just running on 'I'm half black .. vote for me." He brings no experience, no expertise, and no common sense to the race. With some time I have high hopes that the dems will see that and come to their collective senses about him.


I see the Dems team as Clinton and Obama.

Hillary will get the nomination. Generally, the nominee will pick someone who fills in the holes that they have. Obama would bring the black vote .. but the dems have that anyways. Obama would bring in Illinois .. but the dems have that anyways. Hillary doesn't 'need' Obama.

Think about what she needs and then fill that hole. What big state is teetering? What demographic? She has California and Illinois in her pocket. She has the North East and the West coast. She needs a Catholic or someone the military likes (she's notoriously anti-military). She needs Texas, or New York, or Florida. Perhaps Ohio. Hey .. perhaps someone from Hawaii ... get the 'Asian vote'. She also needs someone she can control and someone who won't outshine her. That's her personality quirk.


we cannot criminalize 10-12 million people who came here for a better life. Not a one ever arrested for being a terrorist!

Oh Don White. The 12 million that have illegally crossed the border made themselves criminals .. all on their own. They are NOT all here looking for a better life. The prison stats from California attest to that. And even if SOME are looking for a better life, then they need to do it legally. Their illegal activities cost this country billions upon billions every year. Middle Class America is supporting them ... and we shouldn't have to. Our hospitals are flooded causing REAL AMERICANS not to be able to get health care - and the unpaid bills end up getting paid by middle class Americans through higher costs etc etc. Our schools are flooded. Our jails are flooded. The ILLEGALS cost us ... and they are all criminals.

You'd know that if you had read the links that I have provided for you in the past ... but you said you didn't want to read them. (you ostrich you!
)

And I am sure that law enforcement, as well as most US citizens, consider the M13 gangs that are here illegally from Mexico to be terrorizing.


Wild card? Mike Bloomberg.

Bloomberg wouldn't even get out of the gate. He's a no show and a nothing.


[edit on 8/23/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I didn’t read the links for several reasons. OTOH, I’m familiar with the illegal immigrant problem in America. I first read about it in the 1950s. On visits to Los Angeles in the early 1970s it was “joked” that the Mexicans “staffed” the car washes. That only the white owner spoke English. I was among those who wrote letters to Congress to bring health, education and housing to immigrant families that started each spring in Florida and ended in Wisconsin in the fall, picking our crops along the way.

Although it is strictly the rich and famous who hire illegals, it is all of us who benefit from lower priced food. As our minimum wage fell further and further behind reality - it ought to be $10 an hour – more and more jobs went unfilled. Single men from poor countries could fill those jobs and by living 5-6 to a room, be able to send money home. Americans were not willing to do that. It was foreign to our culture.

We consciously set up the circumstances that brought them here. I don’t give a rats *** about crossing the border. I want as many border crossing points as the traffic demands.

I don’t expect any of your links would support my views and I do expect they would ignore the underlying issues. Which is why I did not have time to read them. I want to live in a FREE country and that means the people who are here are FREE. If our rules cannot keep up with reality or the demands, then it is the rules that need to be changed.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Well now, I'm glad to see you all here again. For the sake of discussion, how do you all think the Republicans can overcome their handicaps? Don and a few of us have been kicking this around for a while now, so be precise. If you could give advice to the GOP, what would it be?


A while ago I put my money on McCain, but he has basically screwed up any chance he had. He actually went from the front runner to out of the race in a very short period of time. Even though I had some personal short comings with his temper, he would have pleased a large chunk of the middle across both sides.

Giuliani has some great ideas, and if he did become the republican pick I would vote for him, but I would not be totally happy, and I do not think he can win. I’m a governor type of guy, and mayor of NY is close, but for every idea that I like about this guy there is one I do not like.

At first I put little interest in Romney, but the more I see him and read about him the more I like him. Being a successful republican governor in the state where Kennedy comes from is like super in my books and shows me he can look good to both sides.
I also have not read or heard anything about his views that I didn’t like. I think this guy has the best chance right now of going all the way, and possibly do a good job.

Ok back to your question. The republicans will need to be firm on 4 major issues of health care, the war, the border, and diplomacy, that is it, and so very simple.

Health Care: They need to prove how private health care is leaps and bounds better than socialized medicine. Romney has a successful program in his state, so he can fall back on how it worked for him as a governor, big plus. Big negative for Democrats is socialized medicine really doesn’t work that well throughout the world i.e. poor service and huge taxes. To show that EVERYONE can have health care coverage under a private health care program at a huge cost savings would be a torpedo in the democratic battleship.

The War: They need to get a good exit plan going, plain and simple, that the majority of America sees as doable with an end state.

The Border: The American people want control of it but both parties just can’t figure it out. If the Republicans would push hard to secure both borders with an alien identification program and have a plan for the 12 million in the country already that doesn’t piss off every Mexican American, but doesn’t offer easy citizenship they will win the election.

Diplomacy: After eight years of aggressiveness we need to back off and let the world play their hand out for the next eight years or so. This doesn’t mean to get soft on terrorist but we need to refocus and I would shift it back to Afghanistan as my theater of operation and Northern Iraq with the Kurd and let the rest of Iraq equalized in what every direction it may go. We also need to just let the UN, EU etc. no matter how ineffective they may be handle world view on world matters and we take a more back seat to it all. Americans would welcome this change of pace and so it should be a big factor for the Republicans to go in this direction.



[edit on 23-8-2007 by Xtrozero]





new topics




 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join