Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32

    Hilary for president?

    Though Hilary Clinton is yet to declare her candidacy for Democrat nomination for the white house but political analyst are saying she will definitely be running given the war chest of almost 100 million dollars her supporters has raised for her re-election to the senate. It is argued that the money is more than enough for campaign to enter the senate that the fund is really for white house.
    I wonder if you think she would make a good president if elected or US is not ready for a woman president?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Cloud of Unknowing
    Posts
    17,425
    Well, as a non-US-citizen, I am not too fond of the Democrats or the Republicans. My vote does not count anyway.

    Elections like this are not about what is best for the country, nor about what most people believe is best for their country, but how to get the majority of the electoral college.

    Sadly, it is a big mistake to assume that the most "qualified" person automatically will have a decent shot at winning the office. And as elections, worldwide (let me be clear about that) have become mudslinging contests above all else, that she is a woman may work against her, the fact that her husband was Bill Clinton will work against her, et cetera.

    I can't comment on her credentials, but I know there are a lot of talented people in the US who will never have a shot at running for office, even though many of those people would be (objectively speaking) better in the office.
    The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore

    Keep true to the dreams of your youth. - Friedrich Schiller

    The only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. - Theodor Adorno

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Under your bed.
    Posts
    27,811

    Re:

    Personally I think she's a knucklehead so I'd hate to see her in the Oval Office. The only problem is, who do you vote for President in the US? I may get beat to a pulp over my opinion but I have to admit, I actually liked Bill.
    My Daughter Rules!

    Band of Others: Are you a Gamer looking for a home, look no more bro!

    Ofear.com: Confronting fears, phobias, and panic attacks, in a friendly online community.

    Movie Talk: Like discussing movies, tv and streaming media, well so do we.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The center of the Universe; Toronto
    Posts
    3,126
    Me too, but we're canadians and apparently all of us liked him.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Under your bed.
    Posts
    27,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Weiser
    Me too, but we're canadians and apparently all of us liked him.
    I think it's because none of us felt he was going to blow up the world unlike Psycho-Bush. I have to admit, this nutcase actually scares me because he's a war monger and he's proud of it.
    My Daughter Rules!

    Band of Others: Are you a Gamer looking for a home, look no more bro!

    Ofear.com: Confronting fears, phobias, and panic attacks, in a friendly online community.

    Movie Talk: Like discussing movies, tv and streaming media, well so do we.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    6,161

    Re:

    i think hilary will get the nomination, there are not any other nationally known democrats with experience, i think barack obama will get a nomination sometime down the line. the party is weak though, even with what a lolt of people see as bush's mistakes the GOP is the stronger party.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32

    Re:

    Quote Originally Posted by darkangelism
    the GOP is the stronger party.
    Not well versed in US politic either, I know the Democrats and the republicans but who are GOP?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Cloud of Unknowing
    Posts
    17,425
    It is a common reference to the Republicans.

    But depending on what happens in Iraq, and a few other "Wars on/of Terror" (depending on your political stance of cours), the candidate of the Democrats may almost become completely irrelevant. Not that people would be voting for the Democrats, but against the Republicans. Likewise, the opposite could happen too.

    Sort of the same thing happened in England, with the re-elections of the Labour Party under Tony Blair. It is not that the majority of people are necessarily happy with Labour, but they thought they would be unhappier with the Tories.

    Elections nowadays are nothing more than letting people decide between two evils, so they can pick the lesser evil. At least for most people. Half of the US population does not even bother to vote (/register). That in itself is telling.

    I don't know who will get the nomination. It will also depend on the situation at the moment the candidates would be running for their party's nomination. And whether or not W. can address those issues that the Democrats would be running on.

    In case of the War on / of Terror, especially in Iraq, I would not be surprised if W. would install or silently support a stable dictatorship, just to get rid of the problems there. Which begs the question of freedom. That does not really matter, at least for the elections. There are numerous dubious ways of winning votes, none of which have anything to do with sound policy, or sound proposals.

    Any musician with an IQ of above 130 could run the country at least as well as any candidate of the Democrats or the Republicans. At least that is what I think. Plus, it would be more entertaining .
    The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore

    Keep true to the dreams of your youth. - Friedrich Schiller

    The only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. - Theodor Adorno

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32
    Thanks for shedding light on that, I did not know Republican are also know by that acronym.
    You are absolutely right about election being having to choose between two evils, in UK the two most likely persons to become our prime minister are not that appealing but the 3rd candidate comes from very small party that has never won a general election in UK.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Cloud of Unknowing
    Posts
    17,425
    Quote Originally Posted by temi
    You are absolutely right about election being having to choose between two evils, in UK the two most likely persons to become our prime minister are not that appealing but the 3rd candidate comes from very small party that has never won a general election in UK.
    Ah, the Lib-Dems. At least in the UK there is the option to vote for a party, yet that the party's leader may not be elected at all, depending on the vote in his / her own constituency. Happened a few times, if I am not mistaken.

    In the US "the wall" is such a bizarre issue. It is supposedly meant to keep illegal immigrants out. Yet the same people who support these measures, often depend on illegal labour (lower prices for products and services, more labour per paid dollar, little or no rights for the employee). Undoubtedly some "legal" Americans lose their job because of illegal labour. But is the "Mexican" the only one to blame? What about the corporation that chooses to do the illegal act? Certainly, those corporations who use illegal labour don't have "clean hands." Yet at the same time, they feel justified for the sake of competition, to do so. In short: a lot of corporations don't want the issue solved. It would be bad (in their reasoning) to solve this problem, for the U.S. economy. So necessarily, it would be best for the US (again, in their reasoning) to let the problem persist.

    A tough stance on the subject will of course draw a lot of votes, although parties have to be careful not to alienate minority members in swing states against them. Now, as corporations are major contributors to political campaigns, expecting some reward in return for their support, it is not hard to see that it is not unlikely that political parties sometimes have different opinions on matters than the attitudes they proclaim to stand for. There are dozens more effective ways to deal with illegal immigration, yet none of them are actually pursued. There are reasons for that.

    And undoubtedly the Democrats have a similar hypocritical stance on other issues. That is not what I want to discuss. I just want to show that political parties come up with a "solution" that is more often than not a solution at all, or which they are not really intending to put to practice, yet if it serves to gain popular support, it will draw a lot of votes. The result may well be that political campaigns prevent solutions from being applied to a problem. And to clarify, similar things apply to other countries than the US.

    That is one big problem with directly electing one's Head of State, even moreso if he has a lot of executive powers (unlike for instance Germany and Israel).

    Now what does this mean? It effectively boils down to a negative selection. Candidates need to muster all the support they can get, through making "reasonable" promises, and whether or not those promises are put to practice, may well be irrelevant. There are other requirements as well.
    The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore

    Keep true to the dreams of your youth. - Friedrich Schiller

    The only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. - Theodor Adorno

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow!
    Posts
    26,558
    I guess it is a Canadian thing; I like Bill Clinton, too!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    6,161

    Re:

    temi where are you from?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Under your bed.
    Posts
    27,811

    Re:

    I think Bill must have been really drunk when he married Hilary.
    My Daughter Rules!

    Band of Others: Are you a Gamer looking for a home, look no more bro!

    Ofear.com: Confronting fears, phobias, and panic attacks, in a friendly online community.

    Movie Talk: Like discussing movies, tv and streaming media, well so do we.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    At Home
    Posts
    12,071
    I hate the idea of Hillary being president mostly because she ran the white house when Bill was in office. It isn't that she is a woman but she is such a bitch. I am sorry Duke. Bill sucked. If he would have done something sooner, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened. He was a weak pres. Bush at least has some guts. I don't agree with all he is doing and I wish to God we would just let Iraq do themselves in and get our troops home but at least he does what he says.
    The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to the office. (Robert Frost)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Cloud of Unknowing
    Posts
    17,425
    That leads to the questions of:
    a) who was responsible for funding the Taliban?
    b) who was responsible for training OBL?
    c) who have supported dictatorships throughout the Middle-East, provided they agreed with American interests?
    d) who have put Saddam in power in Iraq?
    e) who put various countries on the axis of evil, thus promoting interest in developing countries' own nuclear defence system?
    f) who promoted the "President" of Pakistan from dictator to "President"? Why does Mr. Mubarrak, get the same preferential treatment?
    g) who was responsible for funding the Muhjahedeen?
    h) who relied on the most biased information "to justify" a war with Iraq?
    i) why is Israel allowed to have its own nukes, even though that country did not sign the non-proliferation treaty? And why are other non-signatories not allowed to have their nukes? Different standards do tend to lead to trust issues, and accusations of hypocrisy. Not to mention increase the perceived need of nukes.
    j) what did happen with the tons of warnings that were there before 9/11?
    k) what did really happen on 9/11?

    To name but a few issues. I am not going into those, but it is impossible that only one man's actions or inactions led to 9/11, to the war with Iraq, and even to the tensions with North-Korea, Iran, et cetera. Sure, Clinton could have done more.
    But so could Bush sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson. So could have the CIA, so could have done the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs. The list is nearly endless with people who could have done more to ensure that 9/11 would not occur. It was simply not in US interest to do so at the time, or it was conflicting with other priorities.

    Perhaps, if the full extent of Bush sr. 's actions and inactions in supporting dubious groups, and other non-preventative measures of terrorist groups growing was known, junior may well have never been elected in office, because his father had not done enough (in public perception) to prevent terrorist groups waging a major assault on the US.

    Likewise, political success can be impossible because of perceived contagion with someone who did not do enough. However, anyone who is willing to make such an argument will need to look at the longer history of support for dubious groups. All countries (to a greater or smaller extent) support dubious groups. And see whether there is such a major difference between candidates on those issues.
    The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore

    Keep true to the dreams of your youth. - Friedrich Schiller

    The only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. - Theodor Adorno

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32

    Re:

    Quote Originally Posted by darkangelism
    temi where are you from?
    I am from England, United Kingdom.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by tkdlady
    I hate the idea of Hillary being president mostly because she ran the white house when Bill was in office. It isn't that she is a woman but she is such a bitch. I am sorry Duke. Bill sucked. If he would have done something sooner, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened. He was a weak pres. Bush at least has some guts. I don't agree with all he is doing and I wish to God we would just let Iraq do themselves in and get our troops home but at least he does what he says.
    I could be wrong but I read somewhere that when Bill Clinton handed over power to George Bush, he told the new Bush Government that Bin laden and other terrorist should be prime security concerns but the Bush government focused on China, North Korea etc (Bush axis of evil speech) until 9/11 happened so I don't think Clinton should be blamed.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32
    [quote="Vautrin"]That leads to the questions of:
    a) who was responsible for funding the Taliban?
    b) who was responsible for training OBL?
    c) who have supported dictatorships throughout the Middle-East, provided they agreed with American interests?
    d) who have put Saddam in power in Iraq?
    e) who put various countries on the axis of evil, thus promoting interest in developing countries' own nuclear defence system?
    f) who promoted the "President" of Pakistan from dictator to "President"? Why does Mr. Mubarrak, get the same preferential treatment?
    g) who was responsible for funding the Muhjahedeen?
    h) who relied on the most biased information "to justify" a war with Iraq?
    i) why is Israel allowed to have its own nukes, even though that country quote]
    Very good point Vautrin, answer to most of the question is USA

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Cloud of Unknowing
    Posts
    17,425
    The answers (who exactly) do not really matter. But it does point to a problem that Western countries have when dealing with the rest of the world.

    Or any great power, for that matter.
    The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore

    Keep true to the dreams of your youth. - Friedrich Schiller

    The only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. - Theodor Adorno

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Vautrin
    The answers (who exactly) do not really matter. But it does point to a problem that Western countries have when dealing with the rest of the world.

    Or any great power, for that matter.
    I think who does matter to some extent because there isn't that many countries with huge powers in the world today, of the few with such power only one seem to be hell bent on making everybody else do what it wants.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Cloud of Unknowing
    Posts
    17,425
    Belgium had some nasty dealing in Congo. France, in many of its former colonies. I could list quite a few countries with bloody hands.

    Those countries effectively claim the right to deal with internal affairs of other countries. Yet insist, that their own internal affairs are no reason for other countries, to put the pressure on them. Why is Chechnya considered to be an internal affair, and Kosovo much more than that?

    Of course the people in those countries are affected by the selective meddling. And because of the selectivity in the meddling, it is much easier to justify terrorism. What is done to those people is perceived by those people to be terrorism. If terrorism is a justified means for the opposing party, it is also justified for one's own party. Moral warfare does not exist anymore.
    The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore

    Keep true to the dreams of your youth. - Friedrich Schiller

    The only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. - Theodor Adorno

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    6,161

    Re:

    Clinton had 4 chances to stop bin laden but he didnt, there were 5 terrorist attacks in his 8 years in office.

    Bill was liberal for the US, however he was normal for canada and europe, so thats why a lot of those citizens liked him.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    32
    Somehow I still do not think Clinton should be blamed, Bush who is not 'normal' for Canada and Europe stilll has not managed to catch Bin laden.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The Cloud of Unknowing
    Posts
    17,425
    And what about the American "hero" Timothy McVeigh? If Americans cannot even decide not to attack home soil, then there is something seriously wrong within the country itself. And no President alone can be blamed for that - unless one is willing to assume that all Americans are terrorists. Pretty tough stance for an American to make, it would appear. Even GWB does not make such a stance.

    Plus, the Republicans chose to go for Monica-gate. If lying in the Oval Office is such an offense, GWB should have faced impeachment procedures on the matter of Iraq alone. And if the political parties in the US were consistent for a change, the Foley affair would have decimated politicians' presence in the House. But no ...

    Without doubt there would be quite a few people who would do a better job at running the US if they were a dictator than actually elected "representatives." There are no real representatives in either House, at least not for the majority of U.S. citizens.
    The butterfly counts not months but moments, and has time enough. - Rabindranath Tagore

    Keep true to the dreams of your youth. - Friedrich Schiller

    The only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. - Theodor Adorno

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    At Home
    Posts
    12,071
    None of our presidents have been saints. As far as Timothy McVeigh, where did that come from? What country doesn't have their own internal problems? No single president is to blame for our problems. They have all added to the issues but some are still better than others and I would still take George Bush over Clinton anyday.
    The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to the office. (Robert Frost)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Schwarzenegger for President?
    By Luba in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-03-2010, 05:39 PM
  2. Obama President
    By Duke in forum Politics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 12:27 AM
  3. French President Weds Former Model
    By Luba in forum The World around us
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-03-2008, 12:27 PM
  4. Barack Obama for President?
    By Luba in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-29-2006, 05:45 PM
  5. Mr President, I'm Headed to Mexico (LOL!)
    By Merika in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-23-2006, 09:31 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •