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.

 

Hillary can't make it

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I don't think that Ms Clinton can be US next president because of many reasons. As I read in the following link
www.radiodijla.com...
Ms Clinton is facing a society which can understand the women roll yet.




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Greetings, sadek.

You may be right, maybe America is not ready for a woman leader. Especially during a time of war.

But we may not be willing to accept a black leader either, yet Obama is also at the head of the Democratic pack.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sadek
 
It is true to a certain extent. Women not all contries view women as we do. Some may not even want to negotiate with her because of their beliefs, but in my opinion we can' t let the incomptent, outdated thinking of other society's beliefs stop our will for progress. If they have any doubt to a women's competence they should look to today's American women leaders, they have also come from opression and totally flipped the coin to produce some of the more visionary leaders of our time. I put Hillary on this list. Besides, I know it's wrong but I'm voting for her just to get Bill involved again, He was the economic savior of our country and the best at handling foreign policy. I can remember that dude looked like he had stayed up for days mediating between countries and did his best to advance relationships worldwide. Then along came the Bush grenade, thrown into the crowd of Asian nations. Maybe Billary can salvage our nation.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by azblack
If they have any doubt to a women's competence they should look to today's American women leaders, they have also come from opression and totally flipped the coin to produce some of the more visionary leaders of our time. I put Hillary on this list. Besides, I know it's wrong but I'm voting for her just to get Bill involved again, He was the economic savior of our country and the best at handling foreign policy. I can remember that dude looked like he had stayed up for days mediating between countries and did his best to advance relationships worldwide. Then along came the Bush grenade, thrown into the crowd of Asian nations. Maybe Billary can salvage our nation.

Well, thankfully those that view women as too weak to rule are a very small minority in ther US.

But I do not want to see her as president. It's amazing to me that in a country of over 300 million people, we have gone nearly 30 years with either a CLINTON or a BUSH as the number 1 or 2 politician in our country. Have we no other qualified candidates, other than these 2 families?

Besides, Hillary is a socialist in every sense of the word. Her and her husband's records are tainted, with many skeletons having been buried over the years. Very slimy family.

As for Bill Clinton being an "economic savior", sorry, he wasn't. He was just lucky enough to be in office during the dotcom boom. He had about as much to do with it as Alfred E. Neuman did.




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 
I don't see how the dot com era had anything to do with the numerous instance he"shut down the government" for budgetary reasons or, how he was the only president in years to balance our budget and economy, This was an attempt to lead us away from the way our system was set up. In that respect I mean our use of debt as a way of life. I believe if he would've stayed a couple of more years he would've shut down our national bank, in favor of a gov. controlled one with accountability. People who say he was just there when things were good don't ever provide a logical argument about it, they normally just insult.

What people don't really talk about is in years of overwhelming debt our taxes don't go to the govt., they go directly to the Federal Banking system mostly to pay intrest. We pay intrest every day to fund our govt. operations.

The only pres. I remember taking such a stand was Andrew Jackson when he shut down the 2ND National Bank. We need to stand up for the people again.

By the way he started the democratic party at that time and his opponents who reopened the bank right after he left were the Republicans. At that time it was coined "The Democracts VS The Aristocrats". This seems like a partisan argument however I am for whoever will take a stand for the people. I think John Mccain could do alot of good. This is way off subject, sorry. I still don't believe Hillary would have any problems, but maybe it is time for new blood.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by azblack

 
I don't see how the dot com era had anything to do with the numerous instance he"shut down the government" for budgetary reasons or, how he was the only president in years to balance our budget and economy,

Shutting down the gov't and then paying the federal employees to sit at home cost us $750 million bucks the first time he did it.

And balancing the budget on the backs of the taxpayers - remember the tax hikes of 1993?

Truth be know, the balanced budget was a result of Reagan's policies and the fact that the Republicans regained control of the Congress.

The dotcom era was a time of great growth, and nothing Clinton did had anything to do with it. He was just lucky to be in office at the time. Him taking credit for it would be like John Kerry taking credit for the RedSox' World Series Championship in 2004.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Besides, Hillary is a socialist in every sense of the word.


I think Hillary may have had some socialist ideas when she was very young, before Bill became governor of Arkansas, but there's very little socialist about her now. Even her health care proposal would privatize large portions of the plan and make millions for the insurance companies. It's not at all like the single-payer systems that exist in Canada and many European countries which are more left-leaning than this one.

She's very much a capitalist. It's a measure of how far right this country is when you hear her called a socialist.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 

I personally don't velieve Ronald Reagans budget propasals VS Clinton's would prove to be more fiscaly responsible but I will look over the documented facts to detemine this. I personally believe Reagan contributed most to the industrial complex build up of the govt. overspending military budget. But this admitedly doesn't reflect total budgetary purpose but I can't find any proof of fiscal responsibilty per se. I would love to compare the policies if you're game. If you have any info. please disclose, I just can't find compelling evidence as to this theory.

People get in party motivated arguments but I would really like to discuss the actual pro's and con's of what each party historically has to offer fiscally, and what the projected future policies of the parties would be. I.E. The military build up of the Rep. Vs the social overspending of the Democrats either way I seek the truth. Would this be the proper thread or do you know a better forum to discuss in? I believe it pertains to whether Hillary could make it or not . Especially with Bill's first lady-or man-designations. Who do you think wears the pants?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join