I just got a call from Hillary Clinton..
- Thread starter Mem
- Start date
B_RedDude
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Posts
- 1,929
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 89
- Points
- 183
- Location
- California
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Mem,
I feel the same way, I don't particularly like her, but I don't hate her. BUT, I can't see myself voting for a republican any time soon.
Plus I like her and trust her more than Bush.
Plus she can LICK Bush...or so goes the rumour.
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Bush sucks and I'm all for teaching the Republicans a harsh lesson, but one thing's for sure - it's crazy to vote for someone you're certain is a liar consumed by powerlust. Which is what Hillary is.
I plan to vote for the person most qualified for the job Guess this means there is no reason to vote from the current list. If I have to be forceed to vote Democrat I would go with this Obama fellow From what I have seen he is borderline Repubican and he is better than Guiliani Then again who isnt?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
dcwrestlefan
Sexy Member
i don't care what party you are from, this taped telemarket thing blows chunks. i never got one from john kerry and al gore - hence they got a contribution.
I think you just as well vote for Hillary and contribute to her campain if you can afford to do so, because barring some really surprising circumstance, she's going to win. At least then you'd have some influence?
The nomination system has become machine controlled in both parties to the point that the power brokers decide who is nominated. They have thousand of local "party managers" who push for the candidate that they are told should win. Their support is rewarded once the election is over. The Clintons and the Bushes will choose who comes in first and second in their respective party nominations. I have been surprised that the Bushes don't really seem to be that certain who they want on the republican ticket, more who they know they don't want (read McCain). He tried to find common ground with them, but something must have went wrong because now he's out. If they continue to hold back support for any particular candidate like the major dems did in '92 making way for Bill, then they may get a populist candidate that their chosen successor can not beat. That would be nice. It's not hard to see why they don't like any of the current Republican front runners.
As you can imagine, if the Bushes can get a complete unknown, inexperienced, and frankly completely unprepared candidate like Dubya nominated, then the Clintons will surely have no problem putting Hillary on the Dem ticket. They just had convince the middle Dems that she could win a general election, which the polls have done for them.
Whether anyone (especially Reps) like it or not, people seems to like Hillary the more they get to know her. As someone said to me the other day, she isn't at all what they thought she was. These silly attacks on her about hairstyles and airplanes, etc. by the Reps rumor machine will certainly fade by Nov '08. As far as her personal ambitions, no one runs for President of the United States unless they are at least clincal-level egomanical.
All that being said, I don't like her politics. In some ways she will be beneficial for the US, but she falls into the socialistic answer to a problem way to quickly (read It takes a Village - no really read it). Some problems are best solved by the federal government, and even some can only be solved by them. I would strongly prefer a candidate that looks for the least invasive means to acheive the needed resolution.
I can only hope that her years in Washington have taught her the importance of balance and mutual respect. I will give her credit for one thing. Most candidates that were leading the polls of the opposition party when the sitting President barely has favorable ratings IN HIS OWN PARTY, would be throwing the feces like a crack-addicted monkey. She has shown wise restraint. I may be overly optomistic here, but i believe she has made the decision that doing so would hurt the US in long run, even if it helped her. Is is possible that she is not selfish enough to take advantage where she can for the good of the country, even the world?
The nomination system has become machine controlled in both parties to the point that the power brokers decide who is nominated. They have thousand of local "party managers" who push for the candidate that they are told should win. Their support is rewarded once the election is over. The Clintons and the Bushes will choose who comes in first and second in their respective party nominations. I have been surprised that the Bushes don't really seem to be that certain who they want on the republican ticket, more who they know they don't want (read McCain). He tried to find common ground with them, but something must have went wrong because now he's out. If they continue to hold back support for any particular candidate like the major dems did in '92 making way for Bill, then they may get a populist candidate that their chosen successor can not beat. That would be nice. It's not hard to see why they don't like any of the current Republican front runners.
As you can imagine, if the Bushes can get a complete unknown, inexperienced, and frankly completely unprepared candidate like Dubya nominated, then the Clintons will surely have no problem putting Hillary on the Dem ticket. They just had convince the middle Dems that she could win a general election, which the polls have done for them.
Whether anyone (especially Reps) like it or not, people seems to like Hillary the more they get to know her. As someone said to me the other day, she isn't at all what they thought she was. These silly attacks on her about hairstyles and airplanes, etc. by the Reps rumor machine will certainly fade by Nov '08. As far as her personal ambitions, no one runs for President of the United States unless they are at least clincal-level egomanical.
All that being said, I don't like her politics. In some ways she will be beneficial for the US, but she falls into the socialistic answer to a problem way to quickly (read It takes a Village - no really read it). Some problems are best solved by the federal government, and even some can only be solved by them. I would strongly prefer a candidate that looks for the least invasive means to acheive the needed resolution.
I can only hope that her years in Washington have taught her the importance of balance and mutual respect. I will give her credit for one thing. Most candidates that were leading the polls of the opposition party when the sitting President barely has favorable ratings IN HIS OWN PARTY, would be throwing the feces like a crack-addicted monkey. She has shown wise restraint. I may be overly optomistic here, but i believe she has made the decision that doing so would hurt the US in long run, even if it helped her. Is is possible that she is not selfish enough to take advantage where she can for the good of the country, even the world?
Similar threads
- deleted25880241
- Erotic Stories