seremtan wrote:oh this is hilary pretending to do something that the common people do so as to get elected
as much as I like the Clintons, I'm also guessing that the whole GTA thing thats been in the news lately also deals with her boosting her "moral" presence in politics.
Chupacabra wrote:the whole GTA thing thats been in the news lately also deals with her boosting her "moral" presence in politics.
And by her you mean her political strategists.
Hannibal wrote:If the dems nominate that soulless cunt, I'll vote for John McCain without hesistation (assuming he wins the republican primaries).
McCain is a douchebag. I know. Besides that, why would you trust a guy who Bush said fathered a black baby, and then four years later he's buddy buddy with Bush? Talk about no tact, no accountability, and no balls.
McCain is the type of guy who has sympathy for the kid that gets beaten up all the time but at the same time remains friends with the big bully and praises them.
seremtan wrote:oh this is hilary pretending to do something that the common people do so as to get elected
as much as I like the Clintons, I'm also guessing that the whole GTA thing thats been in the news lately also deals with her boosting her "moral" presence in politics.
And at the same time loosing my vote. Read my footer to see hiw will be on my ballot
[size=92][color=#0000FF]Hugh Hefner for President[/color][/size]
rep wrote:
Talk about no tact, no accountability, and no balls.
Your incisive analysis of McCain's balls aside, Hillary would be an absolute disaster for the dems...translation: they'll probably roll over and nominate her and fuck us for another 8 years.
rep wrote:
Talk about no tact, no accountability, and no balls.
Your incisive analysis of McCain's balls aside, Hillary would be an absolute disaster for the dems...translation: they'll probably roll over and nominate her and fuck us for another 8 years.
Oh yeah, we sure got FUCKED from 1992-2000... Clinton pulled us out of the shit economy we had due to Vietnam, Reagan, and Bush Sr. We had the best economy in American history, and now we're in the second worst.
I'd argue that it is the worst because during the Great Depression they didn't have the technological resources and B2B capabilities that we have now. Now, we can produce probably fifty times more efficiently any product than we could in the Twenties.
We could fix the economy and our debt if we pulled out of Iraq and sealed the Mexican border. My plan would knock off $.7Trillion in national losses yearly. The up front cost for building a proper wall, and set up the proper UAV systems would be somewhere around $70B and it would take seven years to complete. During those seven years, illegals would be hunted and deported. After that, $700B yearly saved. What's wrong about kicking out illegals?
If she lands just left of center, makes the right promises and pulls in a majority of the fence sitters, which is a lot of people now-a-days, she might do quite well.
It should be perfectly clear from my last two posts what I meant: Hillary is nominated---Hillary loses--republicans win in 2008 and have the incumbency advantage for 2012 (hint: incumbent presidents win more often than they lose).
Your point was crystal, but I think you're wrong because I believe it's all a matter of contingency. As I see it, no democrat has a chance to win an election on reputation alone, but Hilary has managed to position herself closer to the center where the majority of voters lie. The last election was close and unless Bush pulls off a miracle in the next couple of years, those votes in the middle are up for grabs.
