Get Ready For A Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket

reply to post by kawika

More important to know his past, what has he done

I know his past...which is a big reason why I don't support him.

And I know what he has done...absolutely nothing...I even made a thread on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ron Paul is a small govt guy. That is really the choice, you want them all in your business, or you want to minimize govt. Close big agencies.

I'm not a small govt. guy...I don't believe that Corporations will regulate themselves...Ron Paul does.

I don't believe the "free market" will regulate environmental issues...Ron Paul does...hence him wanting to get rid of the EPA.

People say he is against Corporations...and yet he would give them everything they want...no or low taxes and zero regulations.

I don't suppor that...I never will.

reply to post by WhiteDevil013


She is actually the most powerful and influential woman in the western hemisphere for sure. I can't stand her but she has more experience than any other member of his administration. When Bill Clinton was in office I think she was unofficially the VP and Gore was the first lady. She was well known int tight gossip circles to push Bill in many directions and make a lot of decisions unknown of by first ladies.

She scares me more than the rest of the lot combined.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Keep in mind that after the primary they all have to say things to win the moderate (fall for anything) voters. It may be necessary to keep the faith and vote for your guy (or gal) because you know they don't mean it. You know who they really are.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Well, then no problem making a decision...

Vice Presidents are practically useless. This would however set Hillary up to run for President in 2016. Am I the only one who would rather see an end to end the Clinton political train? The last thing we need is another political dynasty like the Kennedy's or the Bush's. Hillary comes with a lot of baggage and very little to offer the American people except more corruption and socialism.
Just my thoughts....I wont be voting for anyone anyway.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


He wants to give control to the seperate states...what's wrong with that you don't like things where you are, you move to a state that is more matched with your needs. Simple really...I don't think we would have a problem without the EPA, we know what's bad in our air and states will take the right measures, I think most people today are more green wise for lack of a better word...That many states will follow these same guidelines because everybody is about keeping our environment safe then are not. That's my opinion, and if states held the same kind of voting as congress uses today, that most people would vote to keep the environment relatively safe. I don't think that would go ramshod...however, I do agree with the corporation end of it, but there again, if states have issue with the corporation, they can force it out...hell half of them moved to China anyway, would we really care if those not following state regulations did the same? Not me. Who cares, so long to bad rubbish.
I can use Florida as a good example, there are no vehicle inspections for emmissions here, the air is better than NJ where there is vehicle emmissions inspections. They still have crap air cause they are allowing the corporations to toxify the air...so what has the EPA done for NJ really? I'd say absolutely nothing, the state already uses it's right to do whatever the heck they want, so I moved. And that is why I say handing it over to the states really won't change too much except we may have a better say in things in our state that affect us directly (if bringing in a vote).

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Again...how does Richardson or Clinton differ from Obama on policy???

Again ... it's ABILITY and EXPERIENCE and STEADFASTNESS in times of problems.

...they are all identical...

Political rhetoric and desires wise maybe ... but NOT ability wise .. NOT experience wise .. NOT in willingness to engage .... NOT in being able to hold oneself up as presidential with foreign powers ...

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

Here's something for ya' ... not a 'crisis' ... but something that required immediate go/no-go...

We've known for years and years that UBL was probably in Pakistan. A good administration has plans for every possibility - right down to war with Canada if need be. But when the word came that we had found UBL in Pakistan, Obama said he had to sit on it for hours and hours to 'think about the ramifications'. That was bogus, inept, and wishy-washy disengagement. All supposed 'ramifications' should have been already thought about and examined. This wasn't some big surprise .. it was known for years and years. He should have been sitting on a go/no-go order this whole time. But instead he was VERY disengaged and VERY undecisive and VERY unpresidential.

It was pathetic to listen to him later say 'I directed the operation ... blah blah blah ...' when he clearly didn't direct anything. And seeing pictures of that group of people (you know .. the ones with them around the table with Hillary sitting with her hand on her mouth) ... he was like a little kid sitting at the side of the adult table .... out of place.

I tried to post the picture but I can't get it up ...

Seals gave 'go' order to kill UBL - not Obama

The only person worse than a Clinton (Bill & Hilary) is Nancy Pelosi. Witch....

Originally posted by Sparky63
Vice Presidents are practically useless. This would however set Hillary up to run for President in 2016. Am I the only one who would rather see an end to end the Clinton political train? The last thing we need is another political dynasty like the Kennedy's or the Bush's. Hillary comes with a lot of baggage and very little to offer the American people except more corruption and socialism.
Just my thoughts....I wont be voting for anyone anyway.

Well, we're already partially socialist already, only you gotta belong to certain groups to get the help regardless if you need it. It doesn't matter it is solely based on what "GROUP" you are in, so give it for everybody or take it away for everybody. I, for one, am tired of seeing my tax dollars go to these "Special" groups but when I need it and I mean desperately need it I cannot get crap so end it or make it complete socialism...JMO... I'd like to see at least healthcare socialized or nationalized for everyone, I am sick of my kids having no healthcare and seeing illegals pour into the clinics and get everything. And paying for them too, I should be able to get it for my kids as well, because we are poor, and we are citizens. I am definately for the healthcare. But end the welfare and foodstamps and social security for drunk or drug addicts or "psychological" issues unless the psychological issues really interfere with working, being a drunk or drug addict is not something that you have, it's something you CHOSE! In other words, only really disabled people should be getting SSI OR SSDI and those that are too old to work. Period!

reply to post by FlyersFan


And yet he got OBL

That was a pretty weak example.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


She's no longer interested. Can't say that I blame her.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Annee

 

Hey Annee - you wouldn't happen to have those quatrains tucked away in your browser favorites or referenced somewhere otherwise, would you? I haven't heard of that one before, but it would line up kind of close with Malachy's prophecies suggesting we're getting near the end.

Would appreciate anything you can provide, thanks.

Ahhh, I think Annee may have been kidding you. Nostradamus died well before America gained independence and didn't speak - at least in terms that are unambiguous - about America having any presidents, never mind a last one.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all. I thought that in 2008. It's a game. It's strategy. Obama failed miserably so the only thing that he can do to save himself, is something radical. And that's: team up with a female. That will at least insure many female votes.

Hardly anyone votes for political platforms anymore. They vote for who looks the best and/or who they can identify with; i.e.

blacks=Obama
females=Clinton
wise ones=Ron Paul

You ask the average Obama or Clinton supporter: what do they like BEST about their candidate and I bet you, 9 out of 10 won't have a clue.
What a farce. The entire political system is on par with an E! Hollywood mentality.

edit on 29-12-2011 by Human_Alien because: grammar

Hmm, how to lose friends and alienate people. So, only people who are not black or female can be wise? And by saying wise that means they will vote for Ron Paul. I don't think I need to comment further on what you have just said, would you like to have a little bit of time to think this through and perhaps counter your own racist and sexist comments?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

I'm not a small govt. guy...

Thank you for saying that. Neither am I.

"Small Government" - - sounds good on an emotional level - - but is very impractical for the needs of today.

If God is for us, who can be against us? GO RON PAUL!

Originally posted by ldyserenity

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?

Because the gold standard certainly did NOT work and resulted in large booms & busts more regularly (until the latest bout of 2000's deregulation) and concentrated power and money in the truly private banks back then.

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

A gold standard made people even more serfs to debt, business loans were callable on demand in those days (because of the need for banks to preserve gold in fractional reserve). Thus there was widespread speculation, probably true, that bankers intentionally manipulated boom-bust cycles, or at least took advantage of them, so that in the busts, the banks could seize productive land and businesses from the people who had previously owned and built them.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all. I thought that in 2008. It's a game. It's strategy. Obama failed miserably so the only thing that he can do to save himself, is something radical. And that's: team up with a female. That will at least insure many female votes.

Hardly anyone votes for political platforms anymore. They vote for who looks the best and/or who they can identify with; i.e.

blacks=Obama
females=Clinton
wise ones=Ron Paul

You ask the average Obama or Clinton supporter: what do they like BEST about their candidate and I bet you, 9 out of 10 won't have a clue.
What a farce. The entire political system is on par with an E! Hollywood mentality.

edit on 29-12-2011 by Human_Alien because: grammar

Hmm, how to lose friends and alienate people. So, only people who are not black or female can be wise? And by saying wise that means they will vote for Ron Paul. I don't think I need to comment further on what you have just said, would you like to have a little bit of time to think this through and perhaps counter your own racist and sexist comments?

Actually, outcast searcher was right. It true, majority of people vote the way he said, statistics are statistics friend, it's only racist if you make is racist. It's not a competition, it's not about pissing people off, it's about statistics and numbers.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Annee

 

Hey Annee - you wouldn't happen to have those quatrains tucked away in your browser favorites or referenced somewhere otherwise, would you? I haven't heard of that one before, but it would line up kind of close with Malachy's prophecies suggesting we're getting near the end.

Would appreciate anything you can provide, thanks.

I read it somewhere. Don't remember where. Probably somewhere on ATS.

Don't have a clue if its accurate or not.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by jude11

 

Ron Paul supporters have no say in who Obama chooses for his VP.

And I believe that Clinton would bring a lot of the Dems and Independents back that are looking for something new and exciting on the Dem ticket.


You talk as if the election is already decided, and already making excuses if Ron Paul loses. I think you are greatly over estimating his support.

Yeah, I don't understand that sentiment. As a current Ron Paul supporter and a former Obama supporter, I'd be thrilled if the two went head-to-head. I wouldn't be too heart broken no matter who won which would be the opposite of most elections where there's one totally scary guy running.

Also, Clinton was the other big advocate on universal health care when Bill was in office so I imagine the two of them would try to bring back a public option which would be pretty interesting. No matter what happens, this election's gonna be a wild one.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by ldyserenity
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.

How would costs go down???

Everything becomes way more expensive over night...costs more to make things, costs more to ship things and cost more to make a profit.

Costs would go up...income would stay the same or drop.

If you decrease the amount of money (this is effectively what the Gold Standard would do)...things become more expensive. Companies have less money to work with...they still have to pay their employees pre-conversion incomes (until those adjust), and then they have to try to make the same pre-conversion profits. Prices would skyrocket.

Besides that...loans would stop over night...most companies run off of loans...that means companies close down overnight.

PLUS...unless the whole world switches over to the Gold Standard....WE CAN'T. Because once we do, anyone holding an American dollar can ask the US government for it's value in gold...meaning China can request payment on all our debt in gold.

The Gold Standard is never going to return...not in the foreseeable future...it's just not possible.

Please...go look into it for yourself...don't just listen to what Ron Paul and his supporters are trying to sell to you. THey are selling a utopia that doesn't exist.

However he is wrong here. The Utpoia already does exist. In our minds, and in the hearts of the American people and our brothers and sisters in the rest of the world. If we believe and at least change the direction of our goals, we will be in the Utopia some day, we are already developing technology exponentially, the possibilities for how happy and exciting our lives could be are endless.