Get Ready For A Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
4 more years of Obama, followed by 4 years of Hillary.

I literally can't think of anything worse for the USA.


I do. Ron Paul.

I don't go backwards in time.

Since we are headed off a cliff, going backwards won't be so bad.

Perfectly put. Bravo!




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


She should be running on her own ticket.
It won't help him get re-elected...only a brain dead psycho-sociopath would vote for him regardless of whether they like Hillary (I do, and I won't be voting for them!)


Well then I guess I am a brain dead psycho-sociopath.


If you like Clinton...I really don't know why you would hate Obama so much. They are political twins...except one is a black man and the other is a white women. The agree on almost everything politically.

I don't understand how you can be in support of one and hate the other so much.

Care to explain???



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 
Ah, si. My apologies, I was caught on discussion of the 2012 run. Thanks for clarifying (next time just draw me a "Captain Obvious" sign pointing back to that section of the OP).



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
4 more years of Obama, followed by 4 years of Hillary.

I literally can't think of anything worse for the USA.


I do. Ron Paul.

I don't go backwards in time.


How so? Please explain why you say this?^
How is he moving backwards? Ending the Fed that has done nothing but ruin our lives and livelyhood? Basing our money again on something more valueable and actually physical besides debt ie, GOLD, stopping excessive government defense spending? All this seems like a GOOD thing to me and not at all moving backwards, well maybe a little, but can you honestly say the stuff we've done has worked for us? It seems the gold standard worked, why was it changed? To make us serfs to debt, that is why, nothing more, nothing less, so like one poster said, maybe when standing on a cliff the best move is to go backward to save our butts!!!
edit on 29-12-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
This means that Obama has incredibly bad judgment to select a VP that is so ineffectual (or unelectable) that he has to dump him 4 years later. That or he has no conviction and will do whatever improves his poll numbers. Fact is, his policies and ideas are why people dislike him, not his joke of a VP.


No, it means Obama is a very good strategist.

He picked who he needed to bolster his weaknesses in the last election...and now this election is different. So he should adjust his strategy and pick someone who will fill in the gaps in his support.

Obama, Biden, and Clinton all share the same political ideaology...they just appeal to different groups of voters.

I don't see it as anything but making an intelligent choice if he ends up doing it that is.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
4 more years of Obama, followed by 4 years of Hillary.

I literally can't think of anything worse for the USA.


I do. Ron Paul.

I don't go backwards in time.


How so? Please explain why you say this?


Can't go into depth/detail - - - too much off topic.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


It was a close race...but every Presidential race is going to be close.

For as much as people on ATS say that "no one is going to vote for Obama"...his approval rating average is at 46% right now....that is a very good position going into the election...and he hasn't even started campaigning yet.

So this election will also be close, I think even closer than last election.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


She should be running on her own ticket.
It won't help him get re-elected...only a brain dead psycho-sociopath would vote for him regardless of whether they like Hillary (I do, and I won't be voting for them!)


Well then I guess I am a brain dead psycho-sociopath.


If you like Clinton...I really don't know why you would hate Obama so much. They are political twins...except one is a black man and the other is a white women. The agree on almost everything politically.

I don't understand how you can be in support of one and hate the other so much.

Care to explain???


What? They are political twins? WHAT?

Obama may say he supports the same things, his actions have proven otherwise.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Hillary Clinton has kept her respectability and garnered more support and fans by her hard work and dedication.

I find Obama very intelligent and methodical in his approach to solving problems. Not every one needs a "Rah! Rah! showboater to fill their emotional "needs and greeds".


I 100% agree.

The best and most respectable thing Hillary did was take the job as Secretary of State.

To me this is a no brainer decision...I have no idea why they wouldn't make her VP.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If you like Clinton...I really don't know why you would hate Obama so much. They are political twins...except one is a black man and the other is a white women. The agree on almost everything politically.I don't understand how you can be in support of one and hate the other so much.Care to explain???


Not directed at me but I'll tell you why I think she'd be a good POTUS while Obama sucks. It's because she has the experience and the qualifications to be able to do the job. She has proven herself as being totally engaged and knowledgable in all areas. She's presidential. She doesn't make amature mistakes. Obama is just the opposite. He hasn't got the experience. Even after 3 years in the white house the guy still strolls through the job, totally disengaged. He's clueless ... she's on the ball.

Night and day difference. It has nothing to do with one being black and the other white. It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with ability and being engaged in the job and experience. She's got it. He doesn't.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



blacks=Obama
females=Clinton
wise ones=Ron Paul


I love how Ron Paul supporters think they are the only smart ones


Do you honestly believe that?

Do you not recognize that people have different beliefs and opinions???



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If the democrats wanted to put their best forward ... they'd kick Obama the hell off the ticket and put forward Bill Richardson/Hillary Clinton. Anything other than that isn't the best they've got. Richardson and Clinton are both VERY qualified and could do the job. I wouldn't agree with everything they did, of course, but at least we'd have people in office who knew what the hell they were doing and could actually be counted on during a national crisis.


Again...how does Richardson or Clinton differ from Obama on policy???

I don't understand this...they are all identical...they all support each other...and yet some of their supporters despise the other two people.

And exactly what national crisis has Obama not dealed with to the best of his ability???



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
4 more years of Obama, followed by 4 years of Hillary.

I literally can't think of anything worse for the USA.


I think you meant 4 more years of Obama, followed by 8 more years of Hillary.


Oh...and maybe 8 more years of Richardson after that.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


But Obama has pretty much gone and flip flopped on almost everything he's said, I don't think Hillary would. First of all OBama's Healthcare Bill is a bunch of hooey, taking a good idea and then turning it into a bstardized corporate money bag to make insurance companies loads of cash while the people will STILL be denied lots of services because we all know how insurance companies get out of paying almost half the time (probably far above that) it should have been NATIONALIZED NOT CORPORATIZED!!!! Hillary would probably fix this and tell the insurance companies to take a flying leap and that those with money to afford such a luxury as PRIVATE INSURANCE CAN HAVE THAT choice, but she would never force us to have to buy their lousy luxury, yes, to me private insurance should be considered a LUXURY, basic healthcare SHOULD BE A GIVEN!!!! That's just one of my reasons.
He's a corporate puppet and he should have just trashed the bill altogether and let someone with a brain fight for it since he proved he can't he doesn't have the intelligence to go against these people obviously or he's just one of them too.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





I love how Ron Paul supporters think they are the only smart ones

Do you honestly believe that?

Do you not recognize that people have different beliefs and opinions???


Disclaimer: Not advocating any particular candidate. Having said that...

Statistically speaking, morons will always outnumber the intelligent. In a political contest, in our system, the morons have the advantage due to their numbers.

True?
edit on 29-12-2011 by kawika because: 42



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 



How so? Please explain why you say this?^
How is he moving backwards? Ending the Fed that has done nothing but ruin our lives and livelyhood? Basing our money again on something more valueable and actually physical besides debt ie, GOLD, stopping excessive government defense spending? All this seems like a GOOD thing to me and not at all moving backwards, well maybe a little, but can you honestly say the stuff we've done has worked for us? It seems the gold standard worked, why was it changed? To make us serfs to debt, that is why, nothing more, nothing less, so like one poster said, maybe when standing on a cliff the best move is to go backward to save our butts!!!


Yes, ending the Fed is moving backwards...since it would be reverting to an old system. Trying to go on the Gold standard is moving backward....because it is reverting to an old system.

And neither of them would work. How much Gold does the US currently have??? No one really knows...but everyone knows that it is a lot less than our current money circulation.

If you go back to a gold standard now...you are instantly poor. There could be nothing worse for the middle and lower class than going back to the gold standard. Third world country overnight.

I bet you think it would stick it to those rich folks huh...not quite...since they are all invested in foreing money markets as a back up to something happening to the dollar. The Rich would be fine...they would just move to other countries. The middle and lower class that don't have the means to move out of the country are screwed.

I guess Ron Paul never told you that though.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 



What? They are political twins? WHAT?
Obama may say he supports the same things, his actions have proven otherwise.


Please provide proof of where Obama and Clinton differ.

And provide proof where Obama's actions have proven otherwise...keep in mind he isn't a dictator with absolute power.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


That argument may have been made 4 years ago...but not today.

You can't say that 3 years in the WH hasn't given him more experience for the job...Hillary really doesn't have much more experience than Obama does.

Please give me some examples of Obama's "amateur mistakes"...I'd love to hear about them.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


And costs would go down, not quite third world, but things would be awfully more affordable, So how's that sticking it to the middle class? This would balance the market, IMO. And no, I think that rich people would have a lot more things as well, since they will be cheaper to buy, but along with this artificial scarcity also has to be resolved, and I really don't know where RP stands on that or if he's even acknowledged it...the only scarce thing we have right now is Oil, but if there were more alternative fuels created there would be no issue with that either. Plus I hear hybrid cars are going down in cost too, so this could be a start, JMO.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


But Obama has pretty much gone and flip flopped on almost everything he's said,


This is just 100% false.

www.politifact.com...

Like I said...he isn't a dictator that can do anything he wants...he has to compromise to get some of his agenda through.

If Ron Paul were ever elected...his supporters would be in for a huge surprise as he gets nothing done when he refuses to compromise.


First of all OBama's Healthcare Bill is a bunch of hooey, taking a good idea and then turning it into a bstardized corporate money bag to make insurance companies loads of cash while the people will STILL be denied lots of services because we all know how insurance companies get out of paying almost half the time (probably far above that) it should have been NATIONALIZED NOT CORPORATIZED!!!! Hillary would probably fix this and tell the insurance companies to take a flying leap and that those with money to afford such a luxury as PRIVATE INSURANCE CAN HAVE THAT choice, but she would never force us to have to buy their lousy luxury, yes, to me private insurance should be considered a LUXURY, basic healthcare SHOULD BE A GIVEN!!!! That's just one of my reasons.


Are you sure about that???

Because the core to her 1993 health care plan was to mandate EVERYONE TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE.

en.wikipedia.org...

The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely regulated health maintenance organizations.
...
The Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan and forbade their disenrollment until covered by another plan. It listed minimum coverages and maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for each plan. It proposed the establishment of corporate "regional alliances" of health providers to be subject to a fee-for-service schedule. People below a certain set income level were to pay nothing. The act listed funding to be sent to the states for the administration of this plan, beginning at $13.5 billion in 1993 and reaching $38.3 billion in 2003.



Wow...that sounds so very familiar...OMG...it's EXACTLY like the bill Obama passed.




He's a corporate puppet and he should have just trashed the bill altogether and let someone with a brain fight for it since he proved he can't he doesn't have the intelligence to go against these people obviously or he's just one of them too.


I think you need to look into it some more. Go look at Hillary's position on healthcare in the 2008 campaign. She was the one pushing for a MANDATE for individuals to buy insurance. Obama was pushing for UNIVERSAL healthcare. Yes, he didn't get it...but don't act like Hillary didn't support the EXACT bill that Obama ended up passing.

Hillary Clinton would of done the exact same thing....you have no argument here.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join