Will you vote for Hilary Clinton?

[macr0]

Well, here it comes. We might get our first female president.

It was funny watching CNN this morning giving Hilary 80% of the air time. I saw a 1 minute info-bit on Fox News about it.

http://news.google.com/news?q=hilary+clinton+president

[Randomnity]

Will you vote for Hilary Cliton?
Is Hilary Cliton the porn star version of Hilary Clinton? I'd vote for that.













Great, now I have that image in my head. Thanks...

[MacGuffin]

No, I don't like or trust her. There are far better and more qualified women out there.

[Conan]

Yes, because another polarizing president is exactly what this country needs.

[Wolf]

Never. I would never vote for Hillary, ever, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

I think it'd be funny to watch the republicans if they could somehow persuade Condi to run. That would be quite the scene - a white woman from a wealthy background against a black woman from a poor background, where the black woman from a poor background is smarter, better educated, and more conservative than the white woman. Man, that would be comic relief from beginning to end. How politically incorrect would it be to vote against a black woman? I mean, the democrats and the republicans would have to eat their words...

Curiously, I see the republicans as the only one of the two groups that would be progressive enough to make such a bold move. The democrats could surprise me with Obama, but I highly doubt it - he isn't from the right family tree or background for them to truly support him, he'll just maintain his small-time supporters. He's also not white, which will never fly in the highly racist democratic party (hey, they're the ones that constantly push affirmative action and hate crime legislation - they believe white people are so superior that every other race needs them to be hobbled if they ever hope to compete, which means the democrats believe non-whites are inferior to whites).

[Jivinjeffjones]

Don't vote. You'll just encourage them.

[Zergling]

Against most republicans I've heard are running, I'd go with Hillary Clinton. To me she just seems like the most well known of the standard congressional democrats.

[MacGuffin]

Is Hilary Cliton the porn star version of Hilary Clinton? I'd vote for that.
I changed my mind. I'd vote for that too.

[ben from below]

NO, not even if Chelsea sits on my face.

[joft]

she's too conservative

[NightCrawler]

Is Hilary Cliton the porn star version of Hilary Clinton? I'd vote for that.
Thinkin' the same thing.

[Wolf]

she's too conservative
She's a radical authoritarian socialist, have you lost your mind? You're so far left you can't even see center. That's scary.

We don't need any more authoritarian socialism, we need do reverse it, but I don't think this will happen without a revolution, so for now, I just want to watch the fireworks.

[booyalab]

1. fuck no

2. the last option is worthless. Obviously people that "dont vote" will not vote for Hillary and non-Americans dont need to participate in the poll.

[digesthisickness]

"The Cliton" isn't a porn star version of anyone. she's clearly a sex titan. a massive creature that wouldn't wait to be voted in, but would, instead, just dare anyone to oppose.



clinton, the puny human? no, i wouldn't vote for her. even if i did vote.

(btw, i like how it gives the option of "don't vote" then immediately says, "vote now")

[booyalab]

She's a radical authoritarian socialist, have you lost your mind? You're so far left you can't even see center. That's scary.

We don't need any more authoritarian socialism, we need do reverse it, but I don't think this will happen without a revolution, so for now, I just want to watch the fireworks.

you obviously haven't seen many of his posts.

[starla]

It's kind of hard to say if I'd vote for her or not, considering I don't know what her platform is or who she'll be up against. But if she gets the Democratic nomination, it's pretty likely I'll end up voting for her.

I'm keeping an open mind for now.

[venerationOFrabbits]

Never. I would never vote for Hillary, ever, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

I think it'd be funny to watch the republicans if they could somehow persuade Condi to run. That would be quite the scene - a white woman from a wealthy background against a black woman from a poor background, where the black woman from a poor background is smarter, better educated, and more conservative than the white woman. Man, that would be comic relief from beginning to end. How politically incorrect would it be to vote against a black woman? I mean, the democrats and the republicans would have to eat their words...

Curiously, I see the republicans as the only one of the two groups that would be progressive enough to make such a bold move. The democrats could surprise me with Obama, but I highly doubt it - he isn't from the right family tree or background for them to truly support him, he'll just maintain his small-time supporters. He's also not white, which will never fly in the highly racist democratic party (hey, they're the ones that constantly push affirmative action and hate crime legislation - they believe white people are so superior that every other race needs them to be hobbled if they ever hope to compete, which means the democrats believe non-whites are inferior to whites).

this post is terrible in so many ways, but for now I'll keep it to a minimum and voice my opinion concerning both Hilary and Condi.

Condi is terrible. She has a proven track record of incompetence. I can't stand hearing her voice anymore defending all the terrible mistakes made by that administration.

Hilary may not win because the majority of the voting public doesn't trust her, they have been programmed to fear her already, i.e. guns and socialized health care and so on, as if these were the real monsters. I think she has the smarts to grease the right wheels and has access to the money needed to win, and if by some miracle she does win, I'd hope she turns out to be the kick in the ass this country needs.

[Madrigal]

She's a radical authoritarian socialist, have you lost your mind? You're so far left you can't even see center. That's scary.

We don't need any more authoritarian socialism, we need do reverse it, but I don't think this will happen without a revolution, so for now, I just want to watch the fireworks.

I like it when people are so far right they think Hillary's a Bolshevik. :lol:

[macr0]

2. the last option is worthless. Obviously people that "dont vote" will not vote for Hillary and non-Americans dont need to participate in the poll.

It must be difficult to be so ornery and unique like everyone else, digging for something after the clit reference.

[Geoff]

(btw, i like how it gives the option of "don't vote" then immediately says, "vote now")

Ya, me too. I want to register a protest vote, but I feel like one of those robots - you know the sort, some clever geeky type gives them an impossible logic problem and their head explodes.

-Geoff

[Wolf]

this post is terrible in so many ways, but for now I'll keep it to a minimum and voice my opinion concerning both Hilary and Condi.
Hey, this is an opinion thread. Remember that I'm a libertarian, I dislike democrats more than republicans, and Shrub as much as any democrat.


Condi is terrible. She has a proven track record of incompetence. I can't stand hearing her voice anymore defending all the terrible mistakes made by that administration.
Wow, that's a really great reason to passionately dislike someone. Nothing else really matters, above all, their voice is annoying.

And while I understand your taking issue with her defense of the mistakes of the administration, she is certainly not incompetent, and I'll only say that I think she could argue any point regardless of whether or not she believes it is correct. At the very least, she's definitely not an authoritarian socialist.

I like her because she's intelligent and I'd like to watch the political fireworks. I wouldn't vote for her, either.


Hilary may not win because the majority of the voting public doesn't trust her, they have been programmed to fear her already, i.e. guns and socialized health care and so on, as if these were the real monsters. I think she has the smarts to grease the right wheels and has access to the money needed to win, and if by some miracle she does win, I'd hope she turns out to be the kick in the ass this country needs.
"Programmed"? By whom?

The real monster is that she is a severe authoritarian that wants to take away our rights (just like Shrub, only worse. Who resisted the PATRIOT Act? One out of over 300 democrats... On a related note, I wish I could thank all the librarians that refused to cave in to the PATRIOT Act) and tax us to death (us being the majority, not the wealthy minority, which the democrats resist taxing harder than the republicans, since prominent democrats are more likely to be from wealthy families, rather than from families that built wealth through businesses (reducing taxes on business is good for everyone that works, reducing it on the wealthy is good for the wealthy alone)) because she lacks any grounding in reality. From that standpoint, Condi beats her in every possible way.

They'd both be sub-optimal choices, but since when have we had an optimal choice?

[Wolf]

I like it when people are so far right they think Hillary's a Bolshevik. :lol:

Right? I'm center, but anti-authoritarian. You have to be pretty freaking left and authoritarian to look like one to me. No wonder the republicans don't even acknowledge her existence, they're centerists, but a bit to the right of me. Democrats are out of touch with reality.

Yes, I know it's hip to be an authoritarian socialist, and I had that crap rammed down my throat in college, but I realized that it was total foolishness to follow for the sake of social conformity. It's a flawed and senseless system.

[Conan]

I don't understand where Hillary's supposed base comes from. I don't think I've ever met a passionate Hillary supporter in my entire life.

[abathur]

Obama is polling a good bit under her, but a lot of the polls indicate a large portion of those polled don't feel they know enough about him to make a decision. If Obama makes a strong run and really lets people get to know him, I don't think he'll have a problem bumping her. Amusingly, despite being black and having, well, the name he has, the polls I saw had him running more favorable than hillary among republicans.

[songbird36]

Never. I would never vote for Hillary, ever, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

I think it'd be funny to watch the republicans if they could somehow persuade Condi to run. That would be quite the scene - a white woman from a wealthy background against a black woman from a poor background, where the black woman from a poor background is smarter, better educated, and more conservative than the white woman.

Condi wasn't exactly poor. Her family gave her every opportunity (educational, social, financial) you can possibly imagine. The was a rising star from the word go..

["?"]

No, I don't like or trust her. There are far better and more qualified women out there.Oh..... like who? I have argued that since the 2000 election, the bipartisanship has become muddled wherein there is a choosing of the lesser of evils. I would trust her as more or less, as anyone else running

[Krill]

No, I would not.

Doesn't mean I'd vote Republican, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary.

[Marston]

She's a radical authoritarian socialist, have you lost your mind?

I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight, buddy. I mean, if Hillary is a radical socialist, I must be so left that it wraps around to the right.

[venerationOFrabbits]

I'd think after the Bush disaster, the thing to focus on would be competence in both getting elected to office and running the office once there.

I would say Hilary is politically astute and up to the task, true she may have made mistakes in the past, but I think she corrects nicely.

Obama I don't think has the experience, first off and second hasn't proven he has the expertise that Hilary does.

[Jennywocky]

It really matters who runs against her.

I don't think she'd do a worse job than anyone who has already been elected in the last 20 years or more; and I certainly think she would have been better than GWB. (Both are stubborn, but she actually uses her brain to figure out how to resolve issues.)

In the end, it all matters who the main choices are.

Obama is young and perhaps seems not as "savvy" because of that; but he has some momentum because he's personable, passionate, and (I hate to say it) is an African-American, and the possibilities of that excites people... similar to how some people are excited that Hillary, a woman, is a viable candidate.

[Madrigal]

Right? I'm center

That's what they all say. :)

[venerationOFrabbits]

It really matters who runs against her.

I don't think she'd do a worse job than anyone who has already been elected in the last 20 years or more; and I certainly think she would have been better than GWB. (Both are stubborn, but she actually uses her brain to figure out how to resolve issues.)

In the end, it all matters who the main choices are.

Obama is young and perhaps seems not as "savvy" because of that; but he has some momentum because he's personable, passionate, and (I hate to say it) is an African-American, and the possibilities of that excites people... similar to how some people are excited that Hillary, a woman, is a viable candidate.

I'm not just excited, but ecstatic that Bush is on his way out and the Right-Wing-Authoritarians are finally going to get their due. :banana:

[Tayshaun]

The Clintons are very popular in Europe. Hilary maybe benefits from even a greater popularity than her husband's. When she crossed the Atlantic to promote her book, she was received as a queen. Her election would bring the hope, maybe naively, for Europeans to restore the strong ties between [Old Europe] and the US.

[Wolf]

That's what they all say. :)
You're mistaking my anti-authoritarian leaning for being conservative, it's a common mistake much of the population makes (both left and right leaning people think I am right or left of them, respectively, and since democrats tend to be more authoritarian, my views are more foreign to them).

It's more that I am opposed to socialism and authoritarianism, and both sides embrace them, just the republicans embrace both less (and are therefore closer to center) than the democrats.

Mattering on your opinion of the political compass, I come in along the center horizontal line two clicks to the left side of the center point, and on online Nolan charts I come in as highly libertarian with a slight preference for personal liberty over business/group liberty.

Basically, all that means is that I'm strongly anti-authoritarian and close to the center on the democrat/republican left/right scale (with, curiously, a preference for the theoretical views of democrats). So, if you disagree with me and see me as a republican/conservative, it means you're either left, right, or an authoritarian, and probably a mix of two of the above.

[Wolf]

I'm not just excited, but ecstatic that Bush is on his way out and the Right-Wing-Authoritarians are finally going to get their due. :banana:
Right wing? You must be kidding. Authoritarian Socialists, aka, Democrats or post-9/11 Neocons.

[Wolf]

The Clintons are very popular in Europe. Hilary maybe benefits from even a greater popularity than her husband's. When she crossed the Atlantic to promote her book, she was received as a queen. Her election would bring the hope, maybe naively, for Europeans to restore the strong ties between [Old Europe] and the US.
If they're popular in Europe, they're bad for the US...

[Tayshaun]

If they're popular in Europe, they're bad for the US...

YIKES! :eek:
I'm afraid you're not helping the US by believing this...

Back to isolationism? (Woodrow Wilson would be sad)

[Wolf]

YIKES! :eek:
I'm afraid you're not helping the US by believing this...

Back to isolationism?
The world would be better off if the US and UN quit meddling in the affairs of others. Like I said once before - that would be the best thing for both the US, and more importantly, the rest of the world. When the US wasn't meddling in the affairs of others, nobody complained about the US doing things that were seen as bad.

The difficult thing will be trying to get the world to accept that the US will no longer be involved in things the world doesn't want to deal with themselves.

[Madrigal]

You're mistaking my anti-authoritarian leaning for being conservative, it's a common mistake much of the population makes (both left and right leaning people think I am right or left of them, respectively, and since democrats tend to be more authoritarian, my views are more foreign to them).

It's more that I am opposed to socialism and authoritarianism, and both sides embrace them, just the republicans embrace both less (and are therefore closer to center) than the democrats.

Mattering on your opinion of the political compass, I come in along the center horizontal line two clicks to the left side of the center point, and on online Nolan charts I come in as highly libertarian with a slight preference for personal liberty over business/group liberty.

Basically, all that means is that I'm strongly anti-authoritarian and close to the center on the democrat/republican left/right scale (with, curiously, a preference for the theoretical views of democrats). So, if you disagree with me and see me as a republican/conservative, it means you're either left, right, or an authoritarian, and probably a mix of two of the above.

You are making a mistake in the way you apply terminology, mainly the use of "socialism" with regard to a bourgois party such as the Democratic one.

The term "Authoritarian Socialism", in reference to a non-bourgeois political party, can only be understood under the (IMO skewed) perspective of an anarchist who claims to be a "libertarian socialist" while labeling marxists "authoritarian socialists" - as if socialist revolution actually had a choice not to be authoritarian towards a class it aims to seize power from. As if you cannot be libertarian and authoritarian at the same time. But whatever. That is the only way I've heard of "authoritarian socialism" used incorrectly, though to an extent, understandably (Anarchist idea: State = authority over the masses).

Then there are the right-wingers who think the Democratic Party can actually have socialists in it, which is just plain deluded.

[Wolf]

I am not a socialist.

While you're correct, their preference is to advance socialist ideals in an authoritarian manner. You're mistaking authoritarian for totalitarian later, though. They do idealize totalitarian socialism, however.

[Madrigal]

I am not a socialist.

Eh. No kidding.


You're mistaking authoritarian for totalitarian.

No, but maybe you are mistaking stalinism for marxism and democrats for socialists. Discussion is impossible that way.

[slacker]

If I vote for it off, am I voting for Bill?

[aether]

No.

Bill Richardson is the man for the Democratic party. Think about it.

[Tayshaun]

The world would be better off if the US and UN quit meddling in the affairs of others. Like I said once before - that would be the best thing for both the US, and more importantly, the rest of the world. When the US wasn't meddling in the affairs of others, nobody complained about the US doing things that were seen as bad.

The difficult thing will be trying to get the world to accept that the US will no longer be involved in things the world doesn't want to deal with themselves.

Is this a consequence of the mediatic (EDIT:that's not an English word, I forgot media can be used as an adjective) drama around the war in Iraq? :cry:

Of course most countries know the US is their most important and overall, a great ally. They don't forget about the Marshall Plan, the Second World War, Kosovo, Camp David, the First Gulf War etc. After all, which country in the world would you rather have as the biggest power? Despite all its quirks, the US should be seen as an overall stabilizing and reassuring force. It is only recently that this image has changed because of diplomatic crises and a shift in foreign policy. Instead of being a peace-keeping presence like in Kosovo, the US began to project the image of a conflict instigator. In this way, sure, the US would benefit in keeping their foot near the break.

Granted, during the Cold War, the CIA initiated putsches are unpardonable, what happened in Vietnam as well. It was the Cold War, not an excuse, but overall, The US are seen as what they should be: a usually formidable ally.

It would be sad to revert to isolationism (as in abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations) which would obviously be bad for the US for economic reasons and political reasons. It was unilateraly waging a full-blown war which worried the world. What happened when the League of Nations was dissolved because of a return to an isolationist stance in foreign policy? World War 2. When did the US prosper the most? The same period it helped Europe get back on its feet with the Marshall plan. The US cannot afford to return to the self-sustained cocoon stage. Not with China becoming what it is, not with Europe becoming what it is, not for the crises where allies will be sorely needed. With great power comes great responsibility. Point is, closing your eyes to the world will not help you.

[Lurker]

Yes, as long as she doesn't cater to the center like she has been doing. She's sneaky and smart, and I like a sneaky, smart person to promote an agenda I agree with. I want her to bulldog through all the righties.

[Conan]

Just what we need, another sneaky president.

[nfinityi]

No. I will be voting for the Democratic candidate.

[Samurai Drifter]

Nope. I think a woman as a president is probably a bad idea. Not because of the quality of job they would do... rather the perception other nations would have of the world's number 1 superpower.

But gender has little to do with it in this case. She's been a persecutor of violent video games while soldiers are dying in Iraq. Somehow I think there are more important fish to fry.

[nfinityi]

Nope. I think a woman as a president is probably a bad idea. Not because of the quality of job they would do... rather the perception other nations would have of the world's number 1 superpower.
I agree, like Cleopatra of Egypt.

Isabella of Spain.

Victoria of England.

Elizabeth of England.

Hell, any ruling queen of England.

Hold on. Did I seriously just compare Hilary Clinton to Cleopatra, Isabella, Victoria and Elizabeth I? Someone please slap me. I've just insulted not only four of history's greatest rulers, but two of my ancestors' greatest rulers.

[outmywindow]

Hold on. Did I seriously just compare Hilary Clinton to Cleopatra, Isabella, Victoria and Elizabeth I? Someone please slap me. I've just insulted not only four of history's greatest rulers, but two of my ancestors' greatest rulers.

It's okay; the point you were trying to make is/was an admirable and valid one, and someone had to do it.

[nfinityi]

It's okay; the point you were trying to make is/was an admirable and valid one, and someone had to do it.
:D

[sassafrassquatch]

I'm registered independant and I'm sort of a liberal-libertarian.

I'd rather have Obama even though he's a religious pandering tard. If it comes down to Hilary vs the republican I'll hold my nose and vote for her. I don't like her becaue Hilary does what's good for Hillary. She's not a principled liberal, she panders to whoever she needs to get elected. She voted for the Iraq clusterfuck, panders to the religious nutjobs, doesn't support full reproductive rights for women. I don't know where she is on gay marriage but then I don't give a shit about it because I think everyone should get civil unions and do away with legal marriage.

[booyalab]

It must be difficult to be so ornery and unique like everyone else, digging for something after the clit reference.

aw, did the forum meanies hurt your feewings?

[booyalab]

btw, i think Obama is more of a girl than Hillary

[Conan]

btw, i think Obama is more of a girl than Hillary

Yeah but if we had to have a female president, I'd hope she'd be a lesbian.

[C.J.Woolf]

Hillary is damn smart and probably tough enough, but I want a progressive. So I won't vote for her in the primary, but if she wins the nomination I will vote for her. I'm more an anti-Republican than a Democrat.


I don't understand where Hillary's supposed base comes from. I don't think I've ever met a passionate Hillary supporter in my entire life.
One of my coworkers had her Hillary 2008 sticker up months ago, but I know what you mean. It looks to me like her support is among the center-right Democratic (i.e., Democratic Leadership Council) elite rather than the grassroots. They have money, but money alone doesn't do it in Iowa and New Hampshire; organization does.


I agree, like Cleopatra of Egypt.

Isabella of Spain.

Victoria of England.

Elizabeth of England.
You forgot Maria Theresa of Austria, Elizabeth of Russia, Catherine of Russia, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher.

[Wolf]

You forgot Maria Theresa of Austria, Elizabeth of Russia, Catherine of Russia, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher.
Did you just compare some great women to Hillary Clinton? She is not and never would be considered "great" like these women, she's too weak and has no strength of character.

[nottaprettygal]

Did you just compare some great women to Hillary Clinton? She is not and never would be considered "great" like these women, she's too weak and has no strength of character.

Can you really determine the "greatness" (or lack there of) of Hillary Clinton at this point? How do you know she's weak? I mean, she could be, but it's silly to think that you could possibly know how her presidency would play out at this point in time.

[euterpenc]

She seems naive, or dumb, or both.

[euterpenc]

Can you really determine the "greatness" (or lack there of) of Hillary Clinton at this point? How do you know she's weak? I mean, she could be, but it's silly to think that you could possibly know how her presidency would play out at this point in time.

Perhaps, but there seems a rather large discrepancy between Mother Theresa and Hilary Clinton.

[Wolf]

Can you really determine the "greatness" (or lack there of) of Hillary Clinton at this point? How do you know she's weak? I mean, she could be, but it's silly to think that you could possibly know how her presidency would play out at this point in time.
Look at how she acts in the senate. Women that are world leaders through democratic processes are hard as nails, usually harder than the males they replace, they're also invariably rabidly conservative, because of the women are weak mentality of leftists makes it effectively impossible for them to truly support a female.

[C.J.Woolf]

Did you just compare some great women to Hillary Clinton?
*sigh* NO. Just adding to the list of great female national leaders. I already said she's not my choice, fercrissakes.

With Clinton it remains to be seen, as it remains to be seen for anyone who has never been a national leader.

[PonderBee]

I won't know who I'll vote for in 2008 for some time to come. Hillary and B. Obama are purposely being shoved in our faces right now - not necessarily for or to their benefit. I will vote for the lesser of two evils on election day as the third party candidates only serve to support the greater of two evils at this time in history.

[nfinityi]

You forgot Maria Theresa of Austria, Elizabeth of Russia, Catherine of Russia, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher.
Damnit! Well, that's what happens when you post at 6 AM and haven't slept.

fercrissakes.
:rofl:

Yeah, Wolf, and I already mentioned that comparison thing in my post.

Perhaps, but there seems a rather large discrepancy between Mother Theresa and Hilary Clinton.
Maria, not Mother.

[FranG]

Voting for Hilary will be an extension of the Bush/Clinton dynasty for at least another 4 years. Bush was the man running the show in the Reagen years starting the dynasty in 1980. Despite the political show they put on, the Bushes and Clintons are very close and have the same goals of running this country in the dirt. A Clinton or a Bush is a no no.

[Lurker]

I should probably clarify my position. I don't think she's the best choice for a Democratic candidate (but then, who is?), but I will vote for her if she is nominated. Naturally! Obama is promising, too, and I would also vote for him. Naturally! I mean, there's not a lot of choice here. The Democratic Party is the lesser of two evils, and although they aren't left enough for me, I have to make do with what I'm given. That's how politics in the U.S. goes. You're told you make an impact with your choice, but it's not true for the most part. Your vote doesn't make much difference statistically, unless you live in a purple state, and even then it's just a drop in the ocean. You have a choice between two parties that aren't radically different from each other in operation, because the political system demands certain behavior from all politicians in order to maintain the status quo. Basically, the U.S. has a very stable (read: stagnant) political machine in place. For that reason, you can't go too much by what politicians say - they have to pander to the middle, or they won't be elected. It's just pragmatic to do so. This is why I don't hold Hilary's centrist statements against her. After all, she wants to be elected, right? She's already fighting an uphill battle being a woman AND a Clinton...I say she should play the game during her campaign, then let the dogs loose once she's elected.

[FranG]

^^^^
Not the lesser of two evils, one of two equal evils. I've said this before, Democrats and Republicans are one in the same, despite the different rhetoric that they utter. They play good cop bad cop with us with the Democrats being the good cop and Republicans being the big old meanies. Their actions are always the same if you look deep enough. With Democrats in Congress and in the White House, more of our civil liberties will be trampled on than with the Republicans (who are supposed to reduce government right?). And the war will still go on (despite Democrats being liberal and antiwar right?). It's all a game man.

[euterpenc]

Damnit! Well, that's what happens when you post at 6 AM and haven't slept.

:rofl:

Yeah, Wolf, and I already mentioned that comparison thing in my post.

Maria, not Mother.

Whoops. Well either way... hilary still blows. Have you seen her campaign site?

Hilary vs. Cleopatra. I think cleopatra wins on all grounds, including looks and intelligence. Hilary is an old hag who, frankly has no place in the presidency. If we had an intelligent and balanced woman running, more power to her. Unfortunately, Hilary doesn't fit this bill.

[euterpenc]

^^^^
Not the lesser of two evils, one of two equal evils. I've said this before, Democrats and Republicans are one in the same, despite the different rhetoric that they utter. They play good cop bad cop with us with the Democrats being the good cop and Republicans being the big old meanies. Their actions are always the same if you look deep enough. With Democrats in Congress and in the White House, more of our civil liberties will be trampled on than with the Republicans (who are supposed to reduce government right?). And the war will still go on (despite Democrats being liberal and antiwar right?). It's all a game man.

That being said, all I want is to be free to smoke pot. Is that so much to ask?

[Lurker]

^^^^
Not the lesser of two evils, one of two equal evils. I've said this before, Democrats and Republicans are one in the same, despite the different rhetoric that they utter. They play good cop bad cop with us with the Democrats being the good cop and Republicans being the big old meanies. Their actions are always the same if you look deep enough. With Democrats in Congress and in the White House, more of our civil liberties will be trampled on than with the Republicans (who are supposed to reduce government right?). And the war will still go on (despite Democrats being liberal and antiwar right?). It's all a game man.

I disagree that they are one and the same. There are differences, but they can't be fully expressed politically because of checks and balances and the current political machine. I would bet that there are Conservative Republicans who would love to see a completely free market with no government oversight. I also think that there are many who would also love to abolish entitlement programs or bring back segregation. Will they ever say that? Of course not, it's political death.

Same with liberal Democrats. It's probable that many support gay marriage or a Social Democracy. Again, they will never say that in public (on a national level) for the same reason - political death. When the parties are working in a narrow political system that discourages progression and innovation, they must pander to the middle. If they don't, they will never even have a chance at reforming the system.

Politics in the U.S. is a game of telling people what they want to hear. Once a politician is elected on these grounds, then it is up to them to try to buck the system to implement their plans. And by the way, this isn't an easy task in a system that supports conformity and the status quo.

True, this can be used for ill purposes (i.e., conservatives suppressing minorities), but it can also be used for good. I don't trust the general public to know what's best for them - let's face it, an "average" IQ is pretty dumb - plus, people are so brainwashed by the Great American Myth that they can't see reality. Also, people are selfish by nature, and this culture encourages selfishness and perversely transforms it into a virtue. Real life examples: victims are victims because they chose to be, working hard will get you ahead (not always true), etc. The masses aren't a very analytical bunch.

[Anonymous]

Hell no. If all the options are as bad as her, though, I guess I'll just have to not vote.

[dunee]

http://www.alternet.org/story/46237/
^^ interesting article talks about "Why we love to hate Hillary."

I have great respect for Hillary. However I would not vote for her (barring an extreme change in political climate.) Since I tend to the libertarian sides of things, I find many of her views abhorrent (gun control, "it takes a village," etc), and I have no doubt she'd be proactive in getting some of these views to become public policy should she take the white house as president.

[slacker]

Hillary & Bill are rare political geniuses. I'd easily vote for Hillary - none of her likely opponents come close to her in terms of political intellect and experience. You want your state to be lead by the brightest, the most devious.

I generally care a lot less about a politician's voting records or stated idealogical beliefs, which are poor guides to a politician's actions at the very top - it's politics, after all.

[rawr]

Oh great, we get to pick our rapist again in 2 years.


Money and influence is always going to gravitate twards those in power. Those who stive for such goals, like becoming president, are already to cocky and self absorbed to take such a powerfull posistion.

Im just glad I get to hear "professionals" argue like children and take cheep shots to catch the attention of the american public. Then, we get to hear the general publics take on the situation at hand and their completley off the wall logical reasoning that news stations LOVE to air. I missed it so much.

Please just rip my fucking brains out of my skull now, kthnks.

[Samurai Drifter]

I agree, like Cleopatra of Egypt.

Isabella of Spain.

Victoria of England.

Elizabeth of England.

Hell, any ruling queen of England.

Hold on. Did I seriously just compare Hilary Clinton to Cleopatra, Isabella, Victoria and Elizabeth I? Someone please slap me. I've just insulted not only four of history's greatest rulers, but two of my ancestors' greatest rulers.
Times have changed. The middle east is a main player in world politics now, and given their highly male-dominated society, a woman as a president would cause them to lose respect for the US. It could endanger relations with our few allies as well as give the insurgents another "reason" to fight us.

Note that these are all possibilities and not givens. I'm sure that a woman could prove her worth to them, however, if there's an equally qualified male candidate, it would be best to avoid the trouble. No point in arousing another national debate when the country is already split on a dozen issues. Not to mention, in this case, the woman candidate is an idiot, so it's an irrelevant debate to begin with.

[ptide]

I find many of her views abhorrent (gun control, "it takes a village," etc)

Why is gun control abhorrent? Take all the guns out of the country.. it will be safer!

I'm not american, but in Australia we have good gun control.. all guns (including air rifles and paintball guns) must be liscensed and you have to have a clean record and be of a certain age to get one. Furthermore automatic and semi-automatic weapons are illegal to possess.
There are no gun shops, and only the police and military have them (most of the time they don't carry them either).

Basically getting shot here in Australia never really happens. And we don't have the same levels of violence as America according to statistics.

I'm in no way miffed that I don't have a gun, because i've never had to look down the barrel of one and I don't need to worry about that ever occuring.

Gun control is good. It makes the world safer.

Put implements of bloody murder out in the marketplace and people will start getting ideas.

Also I looked up the 'it takes a village' speech and i saw nothing wrong with that. A society that is uncaring and doesn't look after it's citizens is a society that collapses.

If a government is apathetic towards the individual, then the individual will become apathetic towards the government and law (law and government is the same thing).

[Spring]

I'm sick of the Conservative minority running this country. I'm also sick of the pansy ass Liberals doing nothing. I'll vote for whoever isn't an ideology driven idiot with an obvious vendetta meant to cash in on their position and hurt the other side. So...it's likely I won't be voting.

[MasterMerk]

You are making a mistake in the way you apply terminology, mainly the use of "socialism" with regard to a bourgois party such as the Democratic one.

The term "Authoritarian Socialism", in reference to a non-bourgeois political party, can only be understood under the (IMO skewed) perspective of an anarchist who claims to be a "libertarian socialist" while labeling marxists "authoritarian socialists" - as if socialist revolution actually had a choice not to be authoritarian towards a class it aims to seize power from.


That argument is flawed for the simple reason that anarchism isn't concerned with "seizing power" from a ruling class in the first place.



As if you cannot be libertarian and authoritarian at the same time. But whatever. That is the only way I've heard of "authoritarian socialism" used incorrectly, though to an extent, understandably (Anarchist idea: State = authority over the masses).


How can the ideas be compatible? The state is a coercive, compulsory entity which goes completely against the notion of individual liberty by its very existence.



Then there are the right-wingers who think the Democratic Party can actually have socialists in it, which is just plain deluded.

And stupid. -_-

[Skydiver]

No. Not only wouldn't vote for her, but would actually inspire me (I think) to get out and pound the sidewalks for *anyone else*. Though I hesitate to say that as then I sound like all the pre-election liberals who were going to leave the country each time Bush won...and never did. So yeah, I'll revise that to I'd consider actively making an effort to block another Clinton White House.

[Jennywocky]

I find many of her views abhorrent (gun control, "it takes a village," etc),

What was your basic problem with the notion that we are not islands, but that community is the building block of what will make this country work?

(The general idea seems good to me. Was there a specific point of issue in the book that you didn't like?)

[INThoughtPolice]

What was your basic problem with the notion that we are not islands, but that community is the building block of what will make this country work?

(The general idea seems good to me. Was there a specific point of issue in the book that you didn't like?)
Individuals are what made this country possible and what make this country work.

[ptide]

Individuals are what made this country possible and what make this country work.

A community is a group of individuals that work together and cooperate to achieve their shared goals.

When talking about communism and socialism often those goals are set by a few, and noone else really cares for them.

A more liberal government instead of having goals for their country, will still gather taxes and enforce the same old laws, but doesn't strive for improving the quality of life for it's citizens and instead trusts business corporations to look after us all through employment opportunities and fancy new electronic gadgets.

A balance is important.. but the more liberal we go, the more we get for ourselves as individuals, but shared resources then get reduced to next to nothing, and we end up paying for everything in life.

[INThoughtPolice]

A community is a group of individuals that work together and cooperate to achieve their shared goals.

When talking about communism and socialism often those goals are set by a few, and noone else really cares for them.

A more liberal government instead of having goals for their country, will still gather taxes and enforce the same old laws, but doesn't strive for improving the quality of life for it's citizens and instead trusts business corporations to look after us all through employment opportunities and fancy new electronic gadgets.

A balance is important.. but the more liberal we go, the more we get for ourselves as individuals, but shared resources then get reduced to next to nothing, and we end up paying for everything in life.
Individuals acting within a society whose economy and laws are designed for mutual benefit= succesful America. Hilary and the rest of the left do not understand what this means. They emphasize "equality" and "fairness" over economic growth and its subsequent benefit for everyone. Hence the arguments against outsourcing and globalization.