Hillary for PRESIDENT in 2016!

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Yes or no?

I say sure, why not? I want to see a woman in the White House. She has the best chance of getting in. That is unless she doesn't run. (She will, who are we kidding?) Or, also, unless some hot shot female Republican gives her a run for her money. Doubtful.

So, if Hillary runs, I'll most likely support her and even vote for her if she makes it to the general election.



Bear in mind, I am one of the least politically minded people on the planet. I don't watch political news. I keep abreast of what is going on in the world by reading Slate online, listening to Slate's Political Gabfest, and watching Charlie Rose, daily. Every once in a while I will turn on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN. Or watch MSNBC for the lolz. Fox News? No thanks. I do own almost all of Bill O'Reilly's books, however.

Anyhow, I vote with my values and principles in mind rather than according to what my intellectual heroes have to say about it. (Hitchens hated the Clintons. Even wrote a polemical book about them: No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family. There may be more to his disdain than he made public, however.)

So...
 

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.

CrystalGeezer

My secret's my enzyme.
Just wondering what "I'm ready for Hillary" actually means?
We've never had a female president, we're ready for a female in charge.

Hillary should change her middle name to Yes. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
Dunno if gender is the right reason to elect someone President, but hey, the Presidential system is an odd one. How much nicer to already know who your head of state will be in fifty years time... Ahem.

On a more serious note, will Benghazi sink her? It does seem like a monumental f*** up. What about her health? That was an issue a year or so back.

I'd be hoping for a more strident foreign policy from a US President next time. The current guy doesn't seem to know what he's doing, and like it or not it is an important aspect of the job. With China's sabre rattling likely to increase a stronger administration in Washington would be nice.
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Dunno if gender is the right reason to elect someone President, but hey, the Presidential system is an odd one. How much nicer to already know who your head of state will be in fifty years time... Ahem.

On a more serious note, will Benghazi sink her? It does seem like a monumental f*** up. What about her health? That was an issue a year or so back.

I'd be hoping for a more strident foreign policy from a US President next time. The current guy doesn't seem to know what he's doing, and like it or not it is an important aspect of the job. With China's sabre rattling likely to increase a stronger administration in Washington would be nice.
It is NOT the only reason. Or maybe even the best. But if all things are pretty much equal, then I will vote for a woman over a man. You had your Thatcher. We need a woman President. Just like we needed a non-white President. Next, a Jew, atheist, and a gay or lesbian. If we want to be role models for equality and democratic values, then we best practice what we preach.

I agree that foreign policy is important. And I tend to be one that focuses too much on that area, for some reason. But we also need to get our affairs in order, Stateside. The economy is a mess. Among other things. Not saying she is the solution. But who would be?

I don't think Benghazi will sink her. And I bet her health is fair to good. I am betting she will run and make it to the general election.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
It is NOT the only reason. Or maybe even the best. But if all things are pretty much equal, then I will vote for a woman over a man. You had your Thatcher. We need a woman President. Just like we needed a non-white President. Next, a Jew, atheist, and a gay or lesbian. If we want to be role models for equality and democratic values, then we best practice what we preach.

I agree that foreign policy is important. And I tend to be one that focuses too much on that area, for some reason. But we also need to get our affairs in order, Stateside. The economy is a mess. Among other things. Not saying she is the solution. But who would be?

I don't think Benghazi will sink her. And I bet her health is fair to good. I am betting she will run and make it to the general election.
I'm sure she'll run, and barring unforeseen disasters will be the Democratic candidate. Benghazi is a potential campaign killer, and every aspect of her health will be forensically examined, just as the bridge and weight problems of Christie will be.

As the Republicans remain largely a charisma free zone I'd certainly place her as early favourite. Having Bill around will help. He's still very popular over there, isn't he? The closest you have to royalty according to a piece I read in the Washington Post a year or two back. One thing I do find interesting in a country rightly proud that anyone can become President is this... If the odds of a father and son becoming president is astronomical, husband and wife must be right up there too.

She seems a lot more Selena Meyer than Margaret Thatcher though. ;-)
 

MORRIZSEY

Wrong species
That's the end of the thread and foreign policy for this line it can continue on the next page ....
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
I'm sure she'll run, and barring unforeseen disasters will be the Democratic candidate. Benghazi is a potential campaign killer, and every aspect of her health will be forensically examined, just as the bridge and weight problems of Christie will be.

As the Republicans remain largely a charisma free zone I'd certainly place her as early favourite. Having Bill around will help. He's still very popular over there, isn't he? The closest you have to royalty according to a piece I read in the Washington Post a year or two back. One thing I do find interesting in a country rightly proud that anyone can become President is this... If the odds of a father and son becoming president is astronomical, husband and wife must be right up there too.

Yeah, Bill is still liked by many. And respected by many more for his post-Presidency philanthropy. I like him. I like how supportive of Hillary he was in 2008. Made up for his philandering, imo. I believe in forgiveness. They ARE like royalty--certainly a part of the establishment. Some find this problematic. Claiming we need fresh, new blood. Not necessarily. She has inside friends and contacts. And setting Bengahzi aside, a pretty good global reputation. As does Bill. So she may get more done than a newcomer--especially with regards to foreign policy. As far as Christie goes... one word... ugh. He reminds me of a character from the Sopranos. And not because he is from New Jersey.


She seems a lot more Selena Meyer than Margaret Thatcher though. ;-)
:lbf: Yes, she does. Can't wait for season three.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the end of the thread and foreign policy for this line it can continue on the next page ....
Huh? :squiffy:
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
That's the end of the thread and foreign policy for this line it can continue on the next page ....
Would you care to try that again but in English? I mean if you are going to attempt to be unpleasant you might just as well do it right. For a change.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
:lbf:

Selena tells it like it is...

There's a great Veep line in the last series. Selena is due on stage in support of a Governor she can't abide. "Well, I'm a political leper and I'm an emotional time bomb, so here's an idea - let's put me on stage."
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
My remark was not at all an endorsement for the Republican Party.
I did not vote for GW.
I'm not sure if it matters who's in charge. Obama seemed to want to do the right thing when he came to power, he just got consumed by the system as soon as he got in just like every other President. The more elections we have each side of the pond the more will people realize, it doesn't matter who you put in, they won't be able to put things right as the people who really run the show won't let them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm not sure if it matters who's in charge. Obama seemed to want to do the right thing when he came to power, he just got consumed by the system as soon as he got in just like every other President. The more elections we have each side of the pond the more will people realize, it doesn't matter who you put in, they won't be able to put things right as the people who really run the show won't let them.
In general terms, I would agree. The US is run by a plutocracy. Although Republicans get more money from the rich, Democrats also receive a vast sum of money from them as well. Both have to kow-tow to the rich in order to stay in power, which is the name of the game for the politicians.

Nevertheless even though the plutocracy has remained and probably will remain intact for who knows how long, there definitely would've been significant changes within this plutocracy. Or in other words, the US under a Gore Presidency would've been different than a US under a G.W. Bush Presidency. The exponential growth of the federal deficit caused by GWB is one example -- based on two wars, idiotic tax cuts, ridiculous defense spending, etc etc. Another example is the social agenda. Replace Chief Justice Roberts with a non-conservative, then Citizens United isn't the law of the land, consumer rights are protected, EPA rules are affirmed, etc etc.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom