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 Clinton most popular national political figure: new poll

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


In the first one she says that Americans have the right to debate and disagree with any administration and in the second she says she considers herself a modern progressive.

Her hero is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Depending on your viewpoint, that could be called the worse thing about her, e.g. the support of abortion, birth control and negative eugenics. (Note: its not the same as Nazi style "positive eugenics", e.g. negative eugenics forbids euthanasia of dysgenic persons, working instead to help mothers prevent pregnancies that could lead to dysgenic births.)

If Sanger could only see how that turned out, instead of stopping dysgenic births, abortion clinics have served to slow down the birthrates in the middle and upper classes, killing genetically healthy babies, while a welfare class has had a population explosion.

To me that is the biggest mark on Clinton, but its a minor one in terms of control and reponsibility. She doesn't control it and isn't responsible for it.

There are other liberals who appear to support more positive eugenics policies, like Al Gore. Promotion of population control, forced birth control/abortions, is far more dangerous than giving a women the voluntary right to take birth control or have abortions. It was something that Sanger fought against.

In this light, this makes Clinton more "conservative" than Al Gore and his cult of earth worshippers.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The world always gets it wrong.

Just a couple of years ago it was Obama getting this praise. Now Mrs. Bill Clinton?

The world will never learn.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Sounds like a joke. I have yet to meet anyone who gives a damn about Hitlery Clinton.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Obama isn't too bad actually.

Polling against the Republican candidates...he is about even... to head is is still beating all of them. On a generic "Obama vs Republican"...it is dead even.

The way I see it...no where to go but up.


Clinton running with him would be HUGE. Can you say first female VP? She already has a ton of support...and the women vote will FLOCK to the ticket. The Republicans only have Palin and Bachmann to fight against the women vote factor...and let's face it...they are duds.


Obama/Clinton 2012!



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


With the way the economy is going I don't think up will be the way Obama's rating goes. In the past few weeks his points continued to drop.

Unless there is a dramatic shift in the economy, his numbers are going to rival Johnson's back in 68.

Meanwhile Clinton's has held steady. She wouldn't be dead even like Obama, she would have a clear lead over any Republican rival.

James Carville has already anticipated that Obama's approval rating is going to continue to free fall and the White House needs to go into panic mode if it wants to survive. If Obama fails to follow Carville's advice and doesn't panic, I will not be surprised if Carville pleads with Clinton to run.

The nation might be in pretty bad shape after Spring 2012 and Obama will be the focal point of the anger. Clinton needs to steer clear of it. Once things really start to go south, she needs to resign and challenge him, even if its after the deadline to run in the primaries.
edit on 16/9/11 by MikeboydUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
buyers remorse... or rather, voters.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by beezzer
 


I wouldn't say she was worse than Obama. Heck she was even Republican at one time. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater in the 1960s. She only left the party in 1968 due to racism within it, something that still to this day eats at the Republican party.

She has been far more conservative than most democrats on foreign policy as a major supporter of the Global War on Terror, including the surge in Afghanistan, which VP Biden fought against. She has fought against the closure of military bases. She has also fought for veteran's benefits.

She is liberal on social issues, especially as a major supporter of women's rights in the Islamic world.

In my own view she is quite different than Obama, especially on foreign policy, the US military, and human rights.

Between Perry and Obama, I wouldn't vote for Obama. I don't care for Perry. Between Perry and Clinton though, I would be more inclined to support her based on her record in regards to the US military. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a more pro military Democrat. With me being in the military, that is a major factor in deciding my vote.



Definitely a case of "voter's remorse" (like buyer's remorse) from people who vote in the democrat primaries being expressed in these polls.

If only, followed by a big sigh ...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Don't forget all of the superdelegates that voted for Obama and all of the votes the DNC took from Clinton and gave to Obama in the Democratic primaries.

I'm sure they feel they made a major mistake now, but at the time they were more concerned about electing the first black POTUS.

Hindsight is always 20/20.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
well people seem to be forgetting something of historical significance.

no sitting president has ever had a challenger from the same party

its like the unwritten rule democrats do eat their own and they do throw each other under the bus

but not when they got the whitehouse.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
well people seem to be forgetting something of historical significance.

no sitting president has ever had a challenger from the same party

its like the unwritten rule democrats do eat their own and they do throw each other under the bus

but not when they got the whitehouse.


Ted Kennedy to Jimmy Carter 1980 (Carter managed to win the nomination, but not by much)

Robert Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson 1968 (Johnson actually dropped out after RFK entered)

So you might want to read up on your Presidential Primary history.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


over 30 years recent history

proves that



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Pat Buchanan challenged George Bush in 1992.

Want to change it to ten years or just admit the mistake?
edit on 16/9/11 by MikeboydUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
She's slimy. It's one thing to bang an intern in the Oval office. It's another to be knee deep in Whitewater. This was her deal, And it turned bad, real bad. Here are two incedences from a time line found here.
www.washingtonpost.com...

June 1993
Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster files three years of delinquent Whitewater corporate tax returns.

July 1993
Foster is found dead in a Washington area park. Police rule the death a suicide. Federal investigators are not allowed access to Foster's office immediately after the discovery, but White House aides enter Foster's office shortly after his death, giving rise to speculation that files were removed from his office.

I will say it again. She's just slimy.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Bill Bradley challenged Al Gore in the 2000 election. It's happened other times too, according to a few posts above me.



new topics




 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join