Author
|
Topic: Hillary bashing (Read 18379 times)
|
Razorback
Frungy champion
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 99
We are all *happy campers*
|
Anybody but her, please! Hell, I'd run for the job first! Her problem can be summed up in one sentence. She is the most polarizing, devisive American converting food to poop. Pres. Bush is also polarizing, but not nearly as much as she is. You would have 4 - 8 years of party politics that were a half-breath away from a shooting war.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fsi-Dib
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 182
The Crimson Corporation
|
I find it misguided, if someone votes for Hillary just because they liked how her husband did the job.
And it wouldn't look good for USA, if for 20 years there has been 4 presidents, all from two families. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. I mean, really, what?! Democratic nepotism?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 07:49:29 am by Fsi-Dib »
|
Logged
|
The unofficial music critic.
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
Heck, Hillary's ticked me off so much at this point I might very well vote for either McCain or Romney if she's the Democratic nominee. (I'm a registered independent.)
I hope you don't mind when either of those Republicans stuff two more of their guys on the Supreme Court and overturn Roe vs Wade.
I find it misguided, if someone votes for Hillary just because they liked how her husband did the job.
It's just as misguided for a Democrat to not to vote for her in the general election just because she gives off a bad vibe. In any case, you guys who have a beef with her best not forget to vote in the primary. Obama's gonna need it.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 08:12:18 am by Shiver »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dancing Fungus
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 150
Armor always looks cool with extra techno...right?
|
The Republicans:
Mitt [or Mittens] Romney: This candidate is a strong believer of Mormonism! [Also known as Moronism] He believes that all Americans should wear funny underwear, worship Satan as the brother of Jesus, think of themselves as gods, and become polygamists.
Ron Paul: He is mostly insane, has support from maybe 23 people in each state, he spent huge amounts of money on a blimp, and he looks like a bug-eyed little Ploxis. No other sane Republican wants to be associated with him.
Mike Huckabee: This former baptist minister wants the United States of America to become a Christian theocracy. All freedoms of religion and teaching could be suspended so we can all go to mandatory church sermons! Just like Iran, only not Muslim.
John McCain: As mentioned before, he is totally evil.
Rudy Giuliani: He has the hardest to spell name of all the candidates, but it doesn't matter because he has already committed political suicide! Say bye-bye to one more clown!
The Democrats:
Hillary Clinton: She is the center of almost every controversy imaginable, so what does she do? She starts crying on live T.V.! [also known as having a televised *quickbaby's sadtime*] This move actually rallies support, or at least from guys who wear "Hot For Hillary" t-shirts.
Barack Obama: He says he can bring [spare] change to America! But are his capabilities possibly enough to correct all of the various problems caused by the Bush Dynasty? I rather doubt it.
John Edwards: Don't vote for him, because he already lost the election!
Wow. With all of these losers to choose from, I'd rather elect a parakeet.
But I'm too young to vote. Mmmmmm that's good democracy.
EDIT: grammar and spelling are not with me today
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 06:24:28 pm by Dancing Fungus »
|
Logged
|
Thrice thy blinded cat hath mewed....
|
|
|
|
|
Defender
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 817
|
You guys can say what you want about Hilary, she has my vote because:
I like how Bill ran things in the 90's. I would likely suspect the same out of her. And yes, this is quite logical.
She has the experience being that she was once first lady and was involved in her husbands politics. She's the only one, I think, that can fix the Bush Dynasties screw ups. Obama doesn't even come close.
So what if she plays dirty...It's politics...were you expecting a clean fight? ha! Towards the end we'll see ad after ad of mud slinging form all sides. I guarantee.
She's a liberal and that's fine with me. No more neo christian republican crazies for me...no thanks.
Like I said... say what you want...with what we have to choose from... she's are only hope.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 07:35:40 am by DEFIANT »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
RTyp06: Hilary Clinton is a far cry from being the "experience candidate". I don't believe anyone is actually voting for her based on experience anyway. There's a better word for what her main appeal to voters is and it's called nepotism. If people wanted experience above all, they would have voted for Bill Richardson or Joe Biden.
Are you seriuos dude? Who was behind the health care plan that almost passed during the Clinton administration? What does Obama have? I'm not saying Hillary is super experienced anyway, just that obama is less so.
Obama would be my second choice then Edwards. The only problem I had with obama was an interview I saw with him on the Jon Stewart show. Unless I misunderstood what obama said, he mentioned somthing about looking into our " nuclear options" with regard to Iran. There is no military nuclear option with Iran in my book. I'm very anti-war, and was so even before Iraq. I saw that episode of the Daily Show and that was never brought up. He might have said something about 'keeping all options on the table' in a debate or stump speech, but you'd have to be retarded to think that any serious presidential candidate (Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo does not count) would be serious about using nuclear weapons on Iran. It sounds to me like your union told you to vote for her and you didn't really bother to research anything yourself.
Well you can draw whatever conclusion you like, because all you are doing is speculating. You don't know me. And yes he said keep all options on the table, including nuclear. btw Fire calling the kettle black, what do you know about hillary? Have you even looked at her record, or did you just decided you liked obama and never bother to look at the other one? How's that for speculation?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 01:42:09 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
xenoclone
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
As an independent, I don't see either either main Republican candidate as super-conservative. McCain's pretty liberal for a Republican. And so is Romney... even if he's trying to pander to the dissatisfied far right. So in that sense, I'm not worried about how they'd pick justices.
On the flip side, obviously the Repub's have been major screw-ups lately. No arguing that in the slightest. So I'm also strongly inclined to just vote Democrat period as a punishment, so to speak. With that said, I agree with most people's assessment that Obama and Hillary would be very similar in what policies they'd pursue.... just that people like Obama more. 
I'm a little bit afraid we'll get a repeat of 2000. I think Nader stole the election from Gore, the far better candidate.... but who was a little less likable than Bush. We might get a case where this happens again, because Hillary isn't super likable, and McCain wins. Overall, I think Obama just has a better chance of winning because people aren't as biased against him (rational or not).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 06:57:52 am by xenoclone »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
Are you seriuos dude?
Off coarse! I am deadly seriuos.
btw Fire calling the kettle black
Fire isn't black. This fire is now calling the kettle lazy for not even bothering to use the correct expression.
Well you can draw whatever conclusion you like, because all you are doing is speculating. You don't know me. And yes he said keep all options on the table, including nuclear. btw Fire calling the kettle black, what do you know about hillary? Have you even looked at her record, or did you just decided you liked obama and never bother to look at the other one? How's that for speculation?
The various policies of the three (now two, I guess) front runners have been very similar. For instance, all of them seem intent on fixing health care, not just Clinton. If I had a major problem with Hilary Clinton's stated policies I would let you know right now, but I don't. She pissed me off pretty bad when she said "lobbyists are people too!" during a debate, which leads me to believe she'd capitulate to corporate lobbyists under the slightest amount of pressure. How does one fix anything in government if they don't show backbone against this kind of influence? You can't fix health care if you're afraid of losing the support of the pharmaceutical lobby. You can't defend net neutrality from telecommunication companies if you refuse to step on their toes. But that's just me reading heavily into a single statement.
The thing I like least about Clinton is her penchant for hitting below the belt. Her campaign tells outright lies about her opponent's track record. Let's watch a video:
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&eurl=http://www.youbama.com/newest/
This woman was previously the head of NOW in Chicago and has been a Hilary Clinton supporter since forever. She finally defected to Obama recently after becoming fed up with Clinton's sleaziness. Clinton had announced multiple times that Obama was not pro-choice when that is entirely false. And what's with Clinton stirring up all of this ruckus anyway? That's the kind of thing you'd expect from Karl Rove. If more people in this country had a basic grasp of ethics this kind of shit would not fly at all.
As an independent, I don't see either either main Republican candidate as super-conservative. McCain's pretty liberal for a Republican. And so is Romney... even if he's trying to pander to the dissatisfied far right. So in that sense, I'm not worried about how they'd pick justices.
You should be. Both McCain and Romney are on shaky ground with the Republican base. They will have to do quite a bit to stay on good terms with these people if they want to win an election, let alone a second term.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 12:56:28 pm by Shiver »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Overall, I think Obama just has a better chance of winning because people aren't as biased against him (rational or not).
Interesting, but I think the opposite and here is why. Obama, is very articulate,likeable, moderate, and his political views are really not that much different than Clinton or Edwards. I just don't think he has the best shot at winning an election for the dems. I believe he will pull most of the ethnic minority vote and may even coax out first time voters. But this will still be a small percentage of voter turnout and historical always votes democrat regardless of the candidate. Hillary on the other hand will pull the women's vote, both minority and otherwise. How many women can identify with her regarding a cheating spouse? That factor alone, I believe, will bring out women voters in record numbers if she takes the democrat nomination. Hell, I could see republican moderate women voting outside party lines if Hillary takes the nomination.
So..
Obama: Record number of minority voters yes, election factor marginal. His votes will be from people who traditionally vote dem anyway.
Clinton: Record number of women voters and minority women. Election factor large. Female factor cuts across party lines.
Oh and shiver, I'll check out your propoganda video later.. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 11:53:00 pm by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
I think an Obama vs McCain race would be really interesting because its basically giving the American public an up or down vote on the occupation of Iraq. If it came down to Hillary vs McCain I'd be enormously disappointed, because it would follow that the American public had no choice in the matter...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
So..
Obama: Record number of minority voters yes, election factor marginal. His votes will be from people who traditionally vote dem anyway.
Clinton: Record number of women voters and minority women. Election factor large. Female factor cuts across party lines.
I like how you're hypothesizing over the effectiveness of presidential candidates in the US general election entirely by a comparison of "WHITE WOMAN vs BLACK MAN" as if that were the only difference between the two which the general public is astute enough to pick up on. That enormous difference in charisma between the two candidates? Better pretend it's not there. Barack Obama can't win any white votes, just look how he got steamrolled in Iowa. Durrrr...
You speak of crossover appeal. Go to an Evangelical Christian church and ask the women there what they think of Hillary Clinton. Really. Go on, try it and report back with what they say to you. Clinton might pick up a few women with no political allegiance, but conservatives hate her universally.
Oh and shiver, I'll check out your propoganda video later..
Let me know when you have something of substance to add to the debate then.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
So your opinion trumps my opinion how?
An opinion can't be measured for quality, but an argument can. My argument has so far trumped yours every time.
How can you criticize me for "substance" when you yourself provide none?
No, that's wrong. I gave you substance and you chose to ignore it. The Clinton campaign has lied about Obama's positions many times. The example I gave you was of a former supporter defecting based on Clinton's fabrications regarding Obama's position on abortion.
And was I responding to you with my post in the first place?
"But I wasn't talking to you" is invalid here because you mentioned me by screen name in your last post. Yes, you were talking to me. You can't ignore someone and take little potshots at the same time without getting called out.
You've made it clear where you stand and your hatred for hillary and the clintons in general.
No. Again your reading comprehension is laughable. I've been arguing in this thread from the start that if Hillary wins the primary, people should vote for her in the general election. I honestly thought I would be doing a lot more of this since the thread is titled "Hillary bashing".
Fortunately most voters are smart enough to see through the mud slinging crap similar to what you are promoting.
Mudslinging applies when a political campaign besmirches another campaign. I am not affiliated with any campaign. It's a very long stretch to say that somehow Obama's campaign is going negative because I think you're an idiot.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 02, 2008, 03:12:19 pm by Shiver »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
