Why Hillary Should Be Winning

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
30
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
getting back to the issues, proposed healthcare policies seems to be the greatest delineation among the candidates

not a particularly strong issue for me, but wondered how the rest of you thought about it

I've talked about this before, but I don't think many people really understand so it bears repeating.

The President of the USA does not have the power to rule by fiat. I know that seven years of a GWB administration have confused a lot of people on the veracity of that statement, but it remains essentially true.

Presidents don't get to walk into the Oval Office, sit down, and declare, "OK, now I'm the boss and this is how it's gonna be!" They don't have any hammer like Hephaestus to birth their plans, fully formed, upon the nation.

Hillary has a health-care plan that she wants to force onto everyone so that everyone will be covered. It's DOA. It will never pass the Congress in that incarnation, because it's unpalatable to too many people. She feels her idea is the only way, and will cajole her circle of power elites to use their influence to try to force the issue. So, in essence, Hillary has no health-care plan.

Barack Obama also has a plan for health-care that is similar in many points. The differences, however, are greatly reflective of his leadership and experience in working with the people. Rather than force a mandate down the throats of everyone, he has not only anticipated the people who won't want to participate in his plan, he has respected this sentiment. I'm not suggesting that his plan will sail through the Congress unmolested, but coming as it does from a mindset of inclusion and understanding, it has much better odds of its core principles being carried into law.

This is why I feel it's ultimately foolish to vote for a candidate based solely on their specific policy issues. Think back...how many particular pet issues have presidents been successful in enacting as they campaigned on them? You can probably count them on one hand, and that's only if you're fairly long in the tooth.

No, I place a greater weight on those somewhat ephemeral leadership qualities demonstrated by the candidates...because we're electing a leader, not a monarch. We're holding up the person whom we believe will direct the operations of our nations with a set of guiding principles that best matches our own.

Maybe its an indictment of our society that we've had exactly that in our current administration...a greedy, self-interested liar with all the statecraft of a five-year old in a sandbox. Personally, I don't see Hillary as being any different...time and again, she's been caught in chicanery and outright lies. Her approach to foreign negotiations has been made clear multiple times...she takes the same imperialist attitude sitting in the White House right now, that our President is above other world leaders and won't deign to grant them an audience until they've sufficiently prostrated themselves. Her approach to domestic policy isn't much different...she knows what is best, and everyone else needs to just get on board her wagon or get run over. The cast of characters might change, but the show would remain the same.

Barack Obama represents a vision of political processes that break with this tradition...a more inclusive government that doesn't operate in oligarchical self-interests. His experience as an organizer are reflected in his policy statements, all crafted around the best interests of the USA as a whole. He speaks of building a working majority, including people from all sides of politics, to make these changes effective. He doesn't promise to lift the burdens of our citizens singlehandedly or in a fell swoop...but he does offer to lead us along a path where we can do this together.

I don't agree with all of his policy positions, and I'm not particularly shot in the ass with what some of his plans will mean for me...but I believe he has his heart in the right place, in working for the interests of the people of this nation. And I believe that his more inclusive approach to statesmanship and policy making is long overdue.
 

D_Thoraxis_Biggulp

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Posts
1,330
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
181
Yeh, it was obvious enough that you were endorsing the electoral college system. My point was that the only reason Hillary should be winning is because of a jacked up system.

We're the same age? I'm 24, yours says 57.

You make some valid points there.

It is time to seriously consider another way to elect our president than the system we are using.

I hope you realize that as I explained the electoral college system, I was endorsing it. It still bothers me that Gore had more votes than Bush but the Supreme Court using the Electoral College system was able to but Bush in office instead of Gore.

We are the same age. I hope we see this change within our livetime.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Yeh, it was obvious enough that you were endorsing the electoral college system. My point was that the only reason Hillary should be winning is because of a jacked up system.

We're the same age? I'm 24, yours says 57.

I'm sure Freddie meant to say he was NOT endorsing the elctoral college system.
It's not you but midlifebear who is Freddie's age.
I'm sure he meant to quote mlb's post, which touched at some length on the Electoral College ... and grabbed yours instead.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male


Presidents don't get to walk into the Oval Office, sit down, and declare, "OK, now I'm the boss and this is how it's gonna be!" They don't have any hammer like Hephaestus to birth their plans, fully formed, upon the nation.

sorry... but amazing this myopic thought that Bush had just run roughshod with no checks and balances.... especially with a democrat-led congress the past 2 years... where the F is the excuse there?

me thinks many of you give the presidential powers too much credit...

the way I see it... Daffy Duck could win the president position... and umemployment will be between 4.5 and 7.5%, the S&P 500 will run it's course, not much will get done on city street potholes, congress will get fatter and more nepotistic, rhetoric will continue... yet action/results will be minimal, the HIV will continue to propagate due to misbehavior, everyone will talk about education... yet firefighters will continue to make 5 or 6,, if not 10 times as much as teachers... yet teacher have the degree and firefighers... (roughly 50%+) will get in to their roles due to "equal rights", nepotism, or just becuase.... and that's a handful of random (but correct, whether you care to admit it or not) thoughts.

so regardless... don't sweat it if McCain the liberal, Obama, the ultra loony liberal, or Hillary the career backstabbing nepotistic candidate gets the nod.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
thanx! I understand your opposition, now, including their intensity



I've talked about this before, but I don't think many people really understand so it bears repeating.

The President of the USA does not have the power to rule by fiat. I know that seven years of a GWB administration have confused a lot of people on the veracity of that statement, but it remains essentially true.

Presidents don't get to walk into the Oval Office, sit down, and declare, "OK, now I'm the boss and this is how it's gonna be!" They don't have any hammer like Hephaestus to birth their plans, fully formed, upon the nation.

Hillary has a health-care plan that she wants to force onto everyone so that everyone will be covered. It's DOA. It will never pass the Congress in that incarnation, because it's unpalatable to too many people. She feels her idea is the only way, and will cajole her circle of power elites to use their influence to try to force the issue. So, in essence, Hillary has no health-care plan.

Barack Obama also has a plan for health-care that is similar in many points. The differences, however, are greatly reflective of his leadership and experience in working with the people. Rather than force a mandate down the throats of everyone, he has not only anticipated the people who won't want to participate in his plan, he has respected this sentiment. I'm not suggesting that his plan will sail through the Congress unmolested, but coming as it does from a mindset of inclusion and understanding, it has much better odds of its core principles being carried into law.

This is why I feel it's ultimately foolish to vote for a candidate based solely on their specific policy issues. Think back...how many particular pet issues have presidents been successful in enacting as they campaigned on them? You can probably count them on one hand, and that's only if you're fairly long in the tooth.

No, I place a greater weight on those somewhat ephemeral leadership qualities demonstrated by the candidates...because we're electing a leader, not a monarch. We're holding up the person whom we believe will direct the operations of our nations with a set of guiding principles that best matches our own.

Maybe its an indictment of our society that we've had exactly that in our current administration...a greedy, self-interested liar with all the statecraft of a five-year old in a sandbox. Personally, I don't see Hillary as being any different...time and again, she's been caught in chicanery and outright lies. Her approach to foreign negotiations has been made clear multiple times...she takes the same imperialist attitude sitting in the White House right now, that our President is above other world leaders and won't deign to grant them an audience until they've sufficiently prostrated themselves. Her approach to domestic policy isn't much different...she knows what is best, and everyone else needs to just get on board her wagon or get run over. The cast of characters might change, but the show would remain the same.

Barack Obama represents a vision of political processes that break with this tradition...a more inclusive government that doesn't operate in oligarchical self-interests. His experience as an organizer are reflected in his policy statements, all crafted around the best interests of the USA as a whole. He speaks of building a working majority, including people from all sides of politics, to make these changes effective. He doesn't promise to lift the burdens of our citizens singlehandedly or in a fell swoop...but he does offer to lead us along a path where we can do this together.

I don't agree with all of his policy positions, and I'm not particularly shot in the ass with what some of his plans will mean for me...but I believe he has his heart in the right place, in working for the interests of the people of this nation. And I believe that his more inclusive approach to statesmanship and policy making is long overdue.
 

D_Kaye Throttlebottom

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Posts
1,536
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
123
side note:

The candidates have until the 21st of the month to submit their completed campaign finance reports from the month prior. That means the final campaign report for the month of March has been filed and is available for viewing with the Federal Eelction chair.

Hillary finished out 8.7 million in the red for the month of February (not including her 5 million dollar loan to her campaign) and that included a 229,000 bill for her employee healthcare to Aetna. Yet she had 20 million for a general primary - that she cannot touch for pimary races or primary incurred expenses. Which means she tapped out her donors that could give her the max contribution of 2300 for primary and 2300 for a general election (if she doesn't get the nomination - she has to give the general election fund money back to donors).

ANyway - good news. The report for April shows that she paid her employees healthcare bills.

Bad news... she finished march 10.3 million in the red.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Yeh, it was obvious enough that you were endorsing the electoral college system. My point was that the only reason Hillary should be winning is because of a jacked up system.

We're the same age? I'm 24, yours says 57.
Well there was some poster who was my age earlier and my memory told me it was you.

(Of course I am YOUR age.This is my story and I am sticking to it.):wink:

Originally Posted by Freddie53

You make some valid points there.

It is time to seriously consider another way to elect our president than the system we are using.

I hope you realize that as I explained the electoral college system, I was endorsing it. It still bothers me that Gore had more votes than Bush but the Supreme Court using the Electoral College system was able to but Bush in office instead of Gore.

We are the same age. I hope we see this change within our livetime.


A small word missed getting in my quote some how. That word is NOT. I have strong reservations about the electoral college. I've heard various reasons explaining why our nation has been better off with the electoral college than doing away with it. I'm not at all convinced.

My biggest problem though is coming up with a system to replace it. A simple majority won't do as the top candidate might have 13 percent, the next candidate 12 and so on down the line.

Just a two man run off still isn't enough as the 13 % guy and the 12 % guy with jsut 25 % of the votes are running against each other. Seventy-five percent of the voters may be strongly, strongly against both of them.

It would take a constitutional amendment to change the electoral college, something not easy to do, that is, ratify a new amendment to the US Constitution. I've mulled it over and haven't come up with another system that there isn't a drawback.

My problem is that I want to do away with "this convention with multiple primaries and caucuses" that string out for a year as well.

Whatever someone comes up with, there has to be a mimum percenet of the vote that can elect a president. It doesn't have to be 50, but it can't be lower than 40 % for sure. (If there are six candidates on the national balot, then it might be hard for anyone to get 50 %.

The experts need to take every election in our history and play it out how it would have turned out if this set of procedures were followed or another set of procedures were followed and see what the results are.

I have no doubt we can find something better than the electoral college. It iws not right that on several occasions, the candidate with the top number of votes didn't get into office.

How anyone could say that the present electoral college system isn't flawed is beyond me.

However, in starting my thread, I didn't mean to imply that I favored the electoral college, only that the two major parties have no choice but consider it as they plan their strategies around it.

Again, to my point which I may not have stated all that well in the opening of this thread. If you are a super delegate, do you make your choice based on (a) who you want to be the nominee. (b) who the majority of those voting in all the Democratic primaries (total national voite) want to be the nominee. (c) the candidate who won the primary for the state you represent or (d) the candidate that you believe has the best chance of winning?

The only other choice would be (e) some body else for whatever reason we haven't quite figured out.

There it is. I would most likely vote for the candidate I thought had the best choice of winning if that was also my first choice or it didn't matter that much to me.

Otherwise, it can be sticky as any defense you give for making any choice can be shot down by a different argument.

There isn't a universally agreed to right or wrong answer. There is just a "This is how I would vote" answer.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Today on the presidential campaign trail

By The Associated Press – 7 hours ago
IN THE HEADLINES

AP-Ipsos poll finds Clinton with better chance than Obama of beating McCain ...

Obama's pastor says criticism of his sermons is an attack on the black church ... Clinton focuses on Obama's opposition to suspending federal gas tax for summer driving months ... McCain criticizes Democrats' health care plans, says families should pick own care ... House Republicans see Obama as less of a threat to McCain than Clinton



The Associated Press: Today on the presidential campaign trail
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
More Sowell on Barry:

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.



One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.
The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.




[author is a veteran, an african-american, and grew up under class decades back... feel the burn]
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well there was some poster who was my age earlier and my memory told me it was you.

(Of course I am YOUR age.This is my story and I am sticking to it.):wink:

Originally Posted by Freddie53 http://www.lpsg.org/images36/buttons/viewpost.gif
You make some valid points there.

It is time to seriously consider another way to elect our president than the system we are using.

I hope you realize that as I explained the electoral college system, I was endorsing it. It still bothers me that Gore had more votes than Bush but the Supreme Court using the Electoral College system was able to but Bush in office instead of Gore.

Why does it bother you. The point is moot... had the general election mattered, Bush would of spent more $$$ and time on states like California... in other words, why bother with !0 vs 20% of the votes in those states, when in the end... those votes won't count.

Interestingly, and yet again the "mainstream" media decided to not make it an issue... California pushed to not be a winner-take-all state. The Democrats VEHEMENTLY blocked it... seems they don't want all votes to count.. even though 50 hanging chads were constituting the human balance in the Western Hemisphere in 2000.
 

D_Martin van Burden

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
3,229
Media
0
Likes
42
Points
258
If I had it my way, I'd keep it really simple. I think I would take more solace in knowing that all votes cast were genuine and authentic and submitted with the equal right for everyone to have them count equally, rather than worrying about a percentage majority. I would entrust votes to the most secure processes possible -- whether we're still depending on electronic machines or have created better measures -- and I would tolerate cries of recount. But, let each vote stand on its individual own. That's real democracy. That really gives meaning to "one voice, one vote."

You know, I remember Tom DeLay getting into a lot of trouble for engineering the redistricts in Texas. Redrawing boundary lines to get more votes. And I would wonder why people would stoop to such crap -- because that's what they have to do to win elections. Not because they say the right things or mean to do well when they ascend to the state offices, but because politicians necessarily resort to trickery in order to get votes. And then what? It's just a stepping platform to some other political aspirations, and the rest of us who put faith in our leaders become left behind.

And that's what makes me sick. To think that politics is little more than some name-dropping, resume builder. It's time to reform and to gut out the crap. I think people will learn to talk, think, and love politics again when the gridlocking issues and partisanship are drawn to a close.

Plug: Divided We Fail
 

saabman

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Posts
254
Media
0
Likes
50
Points
163
Location
Connecticut
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Today on the presidential campaign trail

By The Associated Press – 7 hours ago
IN THE HEADLINES

AP-Ipsos poll finds Clinton with better chance than Obama of beating McCain ...

Obama's pastor says criticism of his sermons is an attack on the black church ... Clinton focuses on Obama's opposition to suspending federal gas tax for summer driving months ... McCain criticizes Democrats' health care plans, says families should pick own care ... House Republicans see Obama as less of a threat to McCain than Clinton


LOL! Look out brother! I can't wait to see how the Obama Zombies sink their teeth into this one and spin it into some four page anti-Hillary rant, LOL!
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If I had it my way, I'd keep it really simple. I think I would take more solace in knowing that all votes cast were genuine and authentic and submitted with the equal right for everyone to have them count equally, rather than worrying about a percentage majority. I would entrust votes to the most secure processes possible -- whether we're still depending on electronic machines or have created better measures -- and I would tolerate cries of recount. But, let each vote stand on its individual own. That's real democracy. That really gives meaning to "one voice, one vote."

You know, I remember Tom DeLay getting into a lot of trouble for engineering the redistricts in Texas. Redrawing boundary lines to get more votes. And I would wonder why people would stoop to such crap -- because that's what they have to do to win elections. Not because they say the right things or mean to do well when they ascend to the state offices, but because politicians necessarily resort to trickery in order to get votes. And then what? It's just a stepping platform to some other political aspirations, and the rest of us who put faith in our leaders become left behind.

And that's what makes me sick. To think that politics is little more than some name-dropping, resume builder. It's time to reform and to gut out the crap. I think people will learn to talk, think, and love politics again when the gridlocking issues and partisanship are drawn to a close.

Plug: Divided We Fail

Actually re-districting is needed in most states. Many of the original "lines" were drawn to favor a particular party (both Dem and Repub). It amazes me we still stick with some of the "drawings" of districts.

Just like the "winner take all" system of the electoral college (esp. California). There was a measure to not make California winner-take-all within 2008, but split the electoral votes... but it got blocked quick stylee. Sure you point out Tom DeLay, but this exists 50/50 on both sides of the aisle. Shame, we don't have a viable third party.