ALL Hail President Clinton 2008

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:01 pm

Blitzkreig wrote:God forbid any Clinton hold the presidency. Who would SHE have a sex scandal with?

Bill?

morph · Post by **morph** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:54 pm

i almost shot one of my female friends because she wanted hilliary for president just because she wanted a female, and i told her as my mother said "any female but that female" i added in "if she is a women" just say no to hillary...

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:39 pm

Yeah I hate the fact that she will get the Woman's president vote but in some places where working wives are all but unheard of she will get the opposite.

cowshrptrn · Post by **cowshrptrn** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:03 am

I really dont' liek Hillary Clinton because she's waay to fickle, and doesn't stand by her decisions. She just takes the path of least resistance (and most votes). Of course every politician is slimy like that, but usually not as blatant.

I tihnk Barak Obama is a much better candidate.

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:08 am

My friends think that he will win the democratic vote. I don't know that much about him so I really couldn't care less.

cowshrptrn · Post by **cowshrptrn** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:19 am

Barack Obama really ahs a lot of promise, he's a lto more charismatic than the last two democratic candidates.

I agree w/ my comparative politics teacher in that we shdoul switch to a proportional representation system liek Germany or Italy, or at least ditch the Single Member District Plurality. If it weren't for Duverger's law, Single Member District Pluralities (our system) would acutally end up with an effective government.

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:26 am

Truth is that it's outdated and when there's a tie they have a stupid way of dealing with this. Bear with me because this goes way back, 1824, Andrew Jackson wins popular vote but ties with Quincy Adams for Electoral, the decision goes to the House. My point? Instead of letting the tie breaker be the popular vote they go to the house.

Secondly, the system was developed before tv, before radio, when communication was a problem. The system was developed as a way to counteract this problem. Now in the days when there's a tv in every household, we don't have lack of communication as a problem.

cowshrptrn · Post by **cowshrptrn** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:44 am

You'd be surprised. Voters in the past have been much more informed than current voters. Newspapers realy helped with spreading the word, whcih si why colonists were very active in uprisings that led to the revolution.

The main problem with our system is that it hinders the growth of third parties and new ideas. With a proportional representation (which woudl also get rid of gerrymanderable districts) people woudl vote for parties, and depending upon the percentage of votes the parties get thats who many people they would send to the legislature.

I gues i'm jsut pessimistic, but prime ministers + parliament is looking more and more appealing. wikipedia a parliament adn prime minister adn you'll see the difference. I'm referring to the British way, in which the prime minister is always aligned with the parliamentso they pass almsot all of their bills, which means they have no one to point the finger at when things go wrong except themselves.

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:48 am

cowshrptrn wrote:You'd be surprised. Voters in the past have been much more informed than current voters. Newspapers realy helped with spreading the word, whcih si why colonists were very active in uprisings that led to the revolution.

True. Don't really have much to say on the parliament system, but the way things are going right now I can't imagine it being worse. I mean it's not a dictatorship. I'll have to look more into really.

Econ2000 · Post by **Econ2000** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:30 am

strike wolf wrote:
cowshrptrn wrote:You'd be surprised. Voters in the past have been much more informed than current voters. Newspapers realy helped with spreading the word, whcih si why colonists were very active in uprisings that led to the revolution.
True. Don't really have much to say on the parliament system, but the way things are going right now I can't imagine it being worse. I mean it's not a dictatorship. I'll have to look more into really.

very true

happysadfun · Post by **happysadfun** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:31 pm

2008- Obama-McCain
I vote McCain, he has more experience

2012- Rodham Clinton-Rice?
Condy Rice would win landslide

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:45 pm

i'm not so sure that Obama will make it to the balot in 2008
but it is too early to really tell...

cowshrptrn · Post by **cowshrptrn** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:25 pm

happysadfun wrote:2008- Obama-McCain
I vote McCain, he has more experience

2012- Rodham Clinton-Rice?
Condy Rice would win landslide

2012 is nearly impossible to predict, we're gonna have different political leaders. Thats 5 senate votes between now and then.

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:39 pm

who knows Obama may decide to stay out of the 2008 election and run in 2012. No guarrantee anyone mentioned will even run.

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:29 am

It disgusts me to say it, but whoever the Democrats put up will win because people are so sick of Bush, again the parties screwing us over.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:09 am

happysadfun wrote:
2012- Rodham Clinton-Rice?
Condy Rice would win landslide

Incorrect... EVERY pole as of now shows a 70-30 advantage for Clinton in that possible battle.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:45 am

Condi versus Clinton?

I'll tell you one thing, that will be on election that I'll be staying home for.

Either vote for a woman who has no real convictions and no firm standpoint on anything, or a woman who will say whatever you tell her to say but when she gets caught in a lie she passes the buck faster than you can say What the f*ck?

And happysadfun, you'd vote for this?

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:54 am

Well from what I've seen the democrats don't have a clear leader and the republicans don't have a good leader to put up.

happysadfun · Post by **happysadfun** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:34 pm

strike wolf wrote:who knows Obama may decide to stay out of the 2008 election and run in 2012. No guarrantee anyone mentioned will even run.

They both said they would, but poloticians are a lying breed. They've both had "presidential" rallies in Minnesota.

wolf_man · Post by **wolf_man** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:52 pm

Two words: Kathleen Sebelius

A democratic woman in a red state, she won by 19% on tuesday, and ulike Clinton, she has executive experience (8 years by 2008)

Econ2000 · Post by **Econ2000** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:59 pm

u no clinton is not going to run in 2008

cowshrptrn · Post by **cowshrptrn** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:08 pm

I really hope the democrats choose a presidential candidate wisely (third time's a charm) sicen Clinton has proven that she is a vote whore (wow, that sounds offensive when applied to a female candidate, as oposed to funny when applied to a male one...) and has switched sides purely for votes, not for any real political epiphany, or anything resembling it.

I'd move to canada if i wasn't afraid of two things: not beig around to vote agaisnt politicans who have been bought out by big corporations and are willing to turn a blind eye to their violations, and mooses

johnnyrotten · Post by **johnnyrotten** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:49 pm

Gerazan wrote:Its coming

The first woman president

Bills making the rounds in universities across the nation talking about his For The Common Good agenda

Carvells slowly getting back on the circuit

The pubs will probably endorse John Mccain but he doesn't stand a chance.

Hillary will be 64 in 2008 and our president, mark my words its going to happen.

No-one cares. Next please.

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:22 pm

happysadfun wrote:
strike wolf wrote:who knows Obama may decide to stay out of the 2008 election and run in 2012. No guarrantee anyone mentioned will even run.
They both said they would, but poloticians are a lying breed. They've both had "presidential" rallies in Minnesota.

There's no guarrantee for anything for all you know they could both die in a freak accident or be assassinated. Hell, they might get sick of democracy, move to a third world country and become dictators. Likely? No. Possible? Yes.

Machiavelli · Post by **Machiavelli** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:41 pm

strike wolf wrote:
happysadfun wrote:
strike wolf wrote:who knows Obama may decide to stay out of the 2008 election and run in 2012. No guarrantee anyone mentioned will even run.
They both said they would, but poloticians are a lying breed. They've both had "presidential" rallies in Minnesota.
There's no guarrantee for anything for all you know they could both die in a freak or be assassinated. Hell, they might get sick of democracy, move to a third world country and become dictators. Likely? No. Possible? Yes.

Good point

ALL Hail President Clinton 2008

Re: ALL Hail President Clinton 2008