Sign in to follow this  
Spacko

US Presidential Election

74 posts in this topic

Ignorant Republicans fall back on making a big deal about such things when they don't have anything else to criticize about her.

Ignorant? There are PLENTY of things to criticize Hillary for, but since the media made such a big deal about how awesome it was to see Hillary show her softer side then I'm going to continue to complain about the staging of it. Sure, it might make her look more human and caring instead of the shrew she usually comes off as but in the end I don't want a female President that can't control her emotions... even the fake ones.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignorant Republicans fall back on making a big deal about such things when they don't have anything else to criticize about her.

 

What is an ignorant Republican?

 

I guess Rudy Giuliani has the best shot at being elected president. Giuliani might be appealing to Democrats since he is quite liberal as far as Republicans go and allegedly he still is his party's favorite, isn't he? Also, John McCain seems to be back on track, but I still see Giuliani leading the race.

 

I doubt Mitt Romney stands a chance, he is too much of a flip-flopper and the other candidates don't appear really appealing so far.

 

Aflac!

 

Still, I doubt the GOP will win this election, too much went wrong over the past couple of years. As far as Hillary and Obama go, I guess Hillary is the more experienced politician and Obama the more progressive. Haven't made up my mind yet who would do a better job.

 

Lol! If either Hillary, Obama or John Edwards get nominated to run for President, I predict a Republican will win the Presidency in 2008.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he used the word ignorant for people who make a big deal about such superficial non-issues.

I wonder why she did it if it's such a superficial non-issue?

 

I don't mind so much that she cried because I know what her real intent was....kind of like women that get pulled over for speeding and then cry their way out of it. Hillary crying was manipulative, plain and simple. BTW - it wasn't Republican candidates making all the hay over her crying....it was media playing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over .

 

Funny how most of the left wing news media (CNN and MSNBC especially) blasted her for it.....clearly they are pulling for Barack Hussein Obama.

Edited by RXS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignorant? There are PLENTY of things to criticize Hillary for, but since the media made such a big deal about how awesome it was to see Hillary show her softer side then I'm going to continue to complain about the staging of it. Sure, it might make her look more human and caring instead of the shrew she usually comes off as but in the end I don't want a female President that can't control her emotions... even the fake ones.

Even better said. :P

I think such stage acting bs shall go in the backways. The important thing is what she can do for you, her country and not what she can do in order to become a president. When she had to decide what to on some important issue as budget, taxes and other stuff.... would you likee an ignorant Republican or would you preffer some lady that will burst down in cry's when she had to choose what political decision she will make on issues as global terrorism. :cry2: When shew is like that now on the elections, think about how much unstable she could be in the presidential chair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
would you likee an ignorant Republican or would you preffer some lady that will burst down in cry's when she had to choose what political decision she will make on issues as global terrorism. :cry2:

 

I think I'd definitely prefer someone who shed a tear, but proceeded to make a rational decision, over someone ignorant.

 

I'd hate to be Hillary Clinton, though. She's damned no matter what she does. Cry and you're a calculating shrew or a damsel in distress, but if you don't show emotions, you're an insensitive political machine. Stand by Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky affair and you're a door mat, leave him and you're a heartless, unforgiving witch. And then all these pundits and commentators chirping the 'unelectable' song... Well maybe she is, but I really can't see anyone else so far in this race who has the skills, the experience and the political clout that she has. How I wish we could cut the crap about Giuliani's marriages, Romney's mormonism, Hillary's laughter and tears, etc. etc. etc. and just get down to issues and politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI, the woman who asked Hillary the question that made her "cry" ended up voting for Obama.

ROFL! I did hear that mama...I just didn't know if it was true. Oh the Irony. :wacko:

 

I think I'd definitely prefer someone who shed a tear, but proceeded to make a rational decision, over someone ignorant.

 

I'd hate to be Hillary Clinton, though. She's damned no matter what she does. Cry and you're a calculating shrew or a damsel in distress, but if you don't show emotions, you're an insensitive political machine. Stand by Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky affair and you're a door mat, leave him and you're a heartless, unforgiving witch. And then all these pundits and commentators chirping the 'unelectable' song... Well maybe she is, but I really can't see anyone else so far in this race who has the skills, the experience and the political clout that she has. How I wish we could cut the crap about Giuliani's marriages, Romney's mormonism, Hillary's laughter and tears, etc. etc. etc. and just get down to issues and politics.

Oh yes Mari. Poor, poor, pitiful Hillary. And yet again Mari my point stands. It's all part and parcel. If a candidate cannot conduct him/herself in life, How the hell are they supposed to lead the world Superpower? Mari I understand you tend to sway more toward the Republican party, And that's what makes the world go round :), But Hillary Clinton doesn't have the skills. She only pretends that she has the experience. She has changed her beliefs so many times, I feel if we elect her President, we might as well go get a Magic 8 ball from Toy's R Us, Because we'll get a more steady opinion from it. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Apparently no one here knows anything about politicians. I'm sorry, but if you're a politician trying to be president, there's already something wrong with you. I don't know why that's so hard for you guys to see. Just about every president I can think of has done something to "manipulate" their way into office.

 

Firstly, let's look at the fact that no one but the rich people in this country can ever hope to be president in this country because you can't run a campaign on food stamps. It's a corrupted game from the beginning. If you don't see that, then the joke is on you.

 

Stand by Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky affair and you're a door mat, leave him and you're a heartless, unforgiving witch.

 

That's all a game too. By staying with him and putting up with his crap she gains benefits from him that will help her become president. It's all about the game and if you can play it. The minute you think these people we're electing into office need to be perfect in every way morally, is the minute you get a poor president. I want a president who can run the da#% country, not one that I like because they know how to make public speeches and believes in this religion, and combs their hair to the right or wth ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is definitely a double standard for Hillary because she is a woman.

 

I only brought up the point about the woman voting for Obama to show that it was not a planted question.

 

All politicians change their minds....just like rational people.....The people who never change their minds because they are too stubborn to listen or weigh facts are the scary ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to get an idea from the Republicans here...

 

Who do you think is gonna win the nomination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to get an idea from the Republicans here...

 

Who do you think is gonna win the nomination?

 

 

Impossible to say. I used to think it would be Rudy easily. But he's playing a very different strategy than has ever been played before -- namely, ignoring the early primary states and kicking off his bid in Florida. Will he have ceded too much ground by then? Only time will tell. Looks like Huckabee's Iowa win might have been a fluke, thank God. The only conservative thing about that man is his Bible-thumping. McCain's New Hampshire win came on the backs of GD Independents and crossover Democrats. Few other states are likely to have that kind of thing happen. if McCain wins the presidency, you can rename this country Northern Mexico. I'm hoping Fred Thompson comes on strong when he kicks off his push in South Carolina, but I'm not really expecting him to get it. For now, I'm hanging my hat on Romney, and I was so glad to see my state give him the nod last night! Go Mitt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like Huckabee's Iowa win might have been a fluke, thank God. The only conservative thing about that man is his Bible-thumping.

 

Indeed. From a recent speech before the Michigan primary: "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." Trying to flush the separation of church and state, it's no wonder he didn't get out there too well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oops....double post

Edited by RXS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm hanging my hat on Romney, and I was so glad to see my state give him the nod last night! Go Mitt!

 

 

GO MITT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question: will the number one in the primaries always select the number two as running mate?

 

Because it seems to me that in the case of the democrats, their roles seem already defined. Obama the charismatic inspiring frontman, Clinton the competent well-connected VP. Front office and back office. Would be weird if it ended up the other way around, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question: will the number one in the primaries always select the number two as running mate?

 

Because it seems to me that in the case of the democrats, their roles seem already defined. Obama the charismatic inspiring frontman, Clinton the competent well-connected VP. Front office and back office. Would be weird if it ended up the other way around, wouldn't it?

 

No, no, no, and no. They'll choose whomever they think will benefit them on the ticket. Usually they try to get someone who will balance them out. For example, if they're weak on foreign policy (or at least *perceived* to be) they'll choose someone who's strong in it. Just as a recent f'rinstance, President Bush chose Dick Cheney, who had never even run for prez before. Hillary will likely chose Evan Bayh. How does that provide balance? Well, for one, she's universally despised...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There haven't been a lot of posts here recently, so I thought I'd add this. There's an article in a recent issue of the magazine Monocle that talks and about the branding of nations, which includes the US. The actual article is subscribers only, but here's an interview that addresses the same thing. Very much in line with what Obama is trying to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this