Hillary Clinton for President?

Feelgood

Lux23 wrote: »

To say that the US Election has no baring on the rest of the world just because you don't like America is a tad blinkered.

I didn't say it had no bearing, I was actually asking why it had such a BIG bearing on the rest of the world nor have I said that I didn't like America at all?...

Karoma

Mairt wrote: »

Nope.

Women and queer's, both are too unstable for positions of authority.

Careful now.

Lux23

Feelgood wrote: »

I didn't say it had no bearing, I was actually asking why it had such a BIG bearing on the rest of the world nor have I said that I didn't like America at all?...

Money. Thats why it has such a big baring.

FunkZ

Well you could just send her to hospital and have her filled with morphine for those five days a month. It'd be like having your appendix removed only a lot more fun and less painful...

purplengold

purplengold wrote: »

The “brothers” are suspicious of him; his father is from the wrong side of Africa.

I laughed at this, thank you

thelordofcheese

purplengold wrote: »

The “brothers” are suspicious of him; his father is from the wrong side of Africa.

It's a shame he's not from west philadelphia, born and raised.

lostexpectation

wrong forum

Lockstep

Sorry.

PMRC=Parents Music Resource Council.

Tried to stitch up various musicians for "obscenity" etc.
Also the cause of those "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" stickers etc.


HIllary endorsed the PMRC before the 92 elections.
I have no respect for the woman.


Thats just one of my own personal reasons, I dislike her policies.

nesf

lostexpectation wrote: »

wrong forum

Inflicting this on Politics at this stage would just be wrong.

~Rebel~

One thing that puts me off Hillary, even for one term, is that US would then be run for 30 or 35years consecutively by 2 familys (15under bush's and 15 or 20 under Clintons). Its safe to say she won't have any vast changes of ideology from Bill's reign, which was all well and good, but I just think its time for new blood.

I was wary of Obama at first with his lack of experience, but i have to say he speaks incredibly well and he's growing on me (not literally, like some kind of conjoined twin..though that would be pretty cool - "hey everybody, my shoulders running for President!")

Also on FeelGood's thing, unfortunately we're very economically tied into the American market. For example, we're one of highest exporters in the world of microchip technology. Most of these are to the US so any chance on policy (for instance something encouraging inward development in this area rather then importing) could massively effect us. Our pharma sector seems to b going the same way. Effectively at the moment, when the US goes into a slump, we do too shortly after.

Earthhorse

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I was wary of Obama at first with his lack of experience, but i have to say he speaks incredibly well and he's growing on me

That's just the thing though; the man is a brilliant public speaker and nothing else it would seem. Admittedly, this would be one better than the current president. I'd still prefer to see Hillary take the reigns.

cornbb

BBC News wrote:

Senator Obama's main Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, brought an emotional end to campaigning, choking back tears as she called the poll "very personal".

Seriously, GTFO Hillary. Not very Iron Lady-ish of her to do that, is it :cool:

I hope Obama gets this one

chopperbyrne

Hill-Dawg or Obama, it doesn't matter.

I reckon the republicans are going to get their candidate elected again anyway.

Earthhorse

cornbb wrote: »

Seriously, GTFO Hillary. Not very Iron Lady-ish of her to do that, is it

I've seen clips of this and it's being completely exageratted by the press. She pauses for a moment at a press conference to collect herself, and I mean for the smallest of moments here. You can see she's a little "emotional" but she's hardly on the verge of tears.

Morlar

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Hill-Dawg or Obama, it doesn't matter.

I reckon the republicans are going to get their candidate elected again anyway.

I think so too - unless the republicans put forward a black man or a woman (which is unlikely) I think the democrats are making things more difficult for themselves.

You can imagine the negative campaigning already. Every tv ad will mention Osama and Obama in the same sentence, When pronouncing his name special attention will go on the osama HUSSEIN barrack part, I wouldnt be surprised if the republicans used photos of interracial couples in the background of their adverts too - things like that. Every campaign in recent years that I can think of has had a negative aspect - theres no reason to think this upcoming one wont either. I think the democrats have alienated a chunk of american society who arent ready for either a black man president or a white woman president - granted many of them will be republicans but not all. I think despite what polls say when people come to putting their vote down in the booth there will be a moment when voters prejudices (against black people) and fears (about irrational women in charge) may kick in.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Morlar

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didnt know that - it would be surprising (imo) and interesting if they do select a mormon. If they do let the games begin . . .

ps now I cant get that southpark 'joseph smith' song out of my head - cheers.

Spud83

The only states that would have a problem with a black man, or woman are typically Republican anyway. So the democrats normally lose them, and probably will this time too, not because of the candidate but just because some states are typically republican or democrat.

Every Us election comes down to the same few swing states, and these swing states wont be thrown by the fact it’s a woman or black man. That is why they are typically swing states as the voters are so hard to predict which policies will swing their vote. It normally comes down to one/two issues with each voter.

As for people saying that the republicans are used to using dirty tactics yes they are. But they will be wary of it this time as it back fired against them during the mid-terms when they spent more time insulting the opposition and ignore there own issues. Also most commentators are speculating that it is very hard to run a negative campaign against Obama without there always being an underlining feeling of racism.

The republican race is very open at the moment with Rudy Gullani’s campaign not really getting started till after New Hampshire, while the democratic race seems to be between Clinton, and Obama, however Obama seem to be taking all his votes from Hillary which could leave Edwards as a bit of a dark horse if he can pull the same result as he got in Iowa.
.

Morlar

My money would not be on Guliani - there is a backlash against him using 'just like 9/11' to close every sentence (google '911 tourettes')

Spud83

Morlar wrote: »

My money would not be on Guliani - there is a backlash against him using 'just like 9/11' to close every sentence (google '911 tourettes')

I'm not saying he will win it I'm just saying his campaign hasn't even started as he pretty much wrote off Iowa and New Hampshire from the start. He will become a player later on and will win some primaries etc. Its gonna be who he takes his votes from that will be interesting.


Wait a minute this is after hours, emmm farts, tits, damn immigants, taxi drivers, yore ma etc etc.

Morlar

alanmurphy83 wrote: »

Wait a minute this is after hours, emmm farts, tits, damn immigants, taxi drivers, yore ma etc etc.

& american bashing . ..

Earthhorse

If John McCain can win the Republican nomination then I'll rest a lot easier. Other than that I'd really like to see the Republicans loose and I think there's a good chance they will too.

There's only one person I want to see in power in the White House, and that is John McLane. The fact that he is a fictional character may somewhat hamper his chances of getting in.

Lockstep

Earthhorse wrote: »

If John McCain can win the Republican nomination then I'll rest a lot easier. Other than that I'd really like to see the Republicans loose and I think there's a good chance they will too.

+1.

I differ from McCain on a lot of things but he has a lot of balls. Far more than the likes of Bush who just gets told what to do.
If there's gonna be a Republican president, he's the least of all evils.


I keep getting accused of sexism for being against Hillary and that she could be the first woman president etc.

B*llocks to that, I'm not going to support someone just as they're a woman. She's too indecisive and "moral majority" for my taste.

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

There's only one person I want to see in power in the White House, and that is John McLane. The fact that he is a fictional character may somewhat hamper his chances of getting in.

Are you kidding me? America is the greatest democracy on earth. They'll find a way; all McLane has to do is believe!

Overheal

I never once liked Hillary through all the debates - she's really a two timing bitch and I dont want that at all. Obama is a decent enough candidate as well. And I must admit I like a couple of the Republican candidates like John McCain. So it will be an interesting presidential race but I think I'll run to the bookies with Obama.

Spud83

Overheal wrote: »

I never once liked Hillary through all the debates - she's really a two timing bitch and I dont want that at all.

Thought that was Bill.

FidesEtRobur

What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?

cornbb

FidesEtRobur wrote: »

What's the difference between caucuses and primaries?

There's a good explanation here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7049207.stm

Caucus or primary - what's the difference?

Caucus procedures vary according to state law.

In Iowa's caucuses, voters meet in private homes, schools and other public buildings in more than 1,780 districts, or precincts, to discuss the candidates and the issues.

They then elect delegates to the county conventions. County convention delegates elect delegates in turn to state conventions, where delegates to the national conventions are chosen.

At Iowa's Democratic caucuses, the voters publicly divide into groups, gathering in different corners of a room to show their support for the different candidates, and delegates are allocated accordingly.

Voters at the state's Republican caucuses take part in a secret ballot, the results of which inform the allocation of delegates.

In primary elections, such as take place in New Hampshire, all registered voters in a state directly vote for their preferred candidate.

FidesEtRobur

Thanks. US system can be quite complex and thats before we get talking about Electoral Colleges etc

aequinoctium

i like her anyway....most of the time

Overheal

The US system is admittedly complex alright... part of the reason I dont vote.

Also you still have to worry about electronic voting. Was reading an article yesterday about just how infallible those devices are... its actually fairly horrific.

daveharnett

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
John McCain on his approach to forigen policy:

bom bom bom
bom bombiran

The heir apparent has made himself known.

mickd

RTE doing their bit for Obama

Terry

Meh. Obama won't win.
Everyone knows black people's votes don't count.
Just ask Al Gore.

John Edwards FTW.

kevmy

TBh I see Hilary just about swinging the nomination as a whole. She has more money and has planned this from 4+ years ago. She knew a lot of die-hard Republicans hate her therefore it made no sense to contest primaries last time when they would have crossed sides to vote against her (since Dubya was their candidate). Add in the fact that the Republicans have an open nomination contest Reps have too much on their mind to vote against her.

Obama has really came from nowhere and upset her apple cart a bit but she can still pull through. If she does manage to defeat him it could turn out to be a bonus as she may very well give him the VP slot (unlikely to give it to Edwards again). This ticket would mean the total core vote of Democrats turning out in the presidential elections.

Personally I like both candidates well enough and wouldn't mind either of them getting the nod.

Overheal

I question wether Obama would be her VP. Theyve been having a bitch fest at each other for months.

Of course it could just be sexual tension.

tech77

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Women, know your limits!

Also, Hagar is my new hero.
Top trolling

Manic Moran

Thatcher

Unless my knowledge of military history is seriously deficient, which I doubt, I can't think of any war she started.

NTM

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unless my knowledge of military history is seriously deficient, which I doubt, I can't think of any war she started.

NTM

Fair point.
Not exactly starting a war, but completely overeacting to the falklands situation and questionablle attempts at keeping the peace (rejecting the peace plan of US Marshall Haig for example)

Rather given the sending off of warships, aircraft carriers and troops seemed more of Thatcher's attempt to show the world that England was still a big strong nation.


my own personal opinion is either that:
a) Thatcher was living up to her "I'm only a grocer's daughter" persona and treating the invasion of tiny sheep filled Islands the same as an invasion of the old empire (In the same way a grocer would be angry of the theft of sweets or for a plasma screen TV)
B)GIven the popularity of Thatcher before the war (or lack thereof) the Falkands was her attempt at keeping the nation distracted from it's economic ills, during a war, most don't question their leaders,

Manic Moran

kickoutthejams wrote: »

(rejecting the peace plan of US Marshall Haig for example)

You'd probably want to look that one up.

I'll give you a hand: Look to 28APR82, the day after Haig proposes his final settlement to both nations simultaneously, and the words "'falling short of meeting Argentina's demands regarding recognition of sovereignty and the form of a provisional administration."

If you want, I can provide you with the full diplomatic timescale.

Thatcher's attempt to show the world that England was still a big strong nation.

That was part of it, though you could argue justifiably so. Since the British were rapidly downsizing their military (One of the two Falklands carriers was due to be sold to Australia, for example), you could argue that the reason the Argentinians thought they could win a conflict was precisely because they figured that the UK was no longer a strong nation. They were certainly given all the right signals. The war was a wake-up call to all nations, including the UK. Arguably, had the Argentinians been able to wait a half-year longer, the Falklands would have been militarily unrecoverable by the UK.

a) Thatcher was living up to her "I'm only a grocer's daughter" persona and treating the invasion of tiny sheep filled Islands the same as an invasion of the old empire (In the same way a grocer would be angry of the theft of sweets or for a plasma screen TV)

From the perspective of the Queen's subjects who were living in the Malvinas, I think they're probably rather pleased that Thatcher reacted in such a manner. I'm fairly sure a lot of Irishmen would be pissed if someone invaded the Aran Islands. Then again, the Blasketts, they could probably keep. (May they be thrice condemned in eternity for producing Peig!)

B)GIven the popularity of Thatcher before the war (or lack thereof) the Falkands was her attempt at keeping the nation distracted from it's economic ills, during a war, most don't question their leaders,

That would be even more so the case for the Argentinians. However, it would be reasonable to presume that the British government would fall if they failed to come out with an acceptable outcome, diplomatic or military. Since the Junta didn't seem too inclined to settle for a diplomatic solution (they had even worse domestic problems than the Brits, after all), the military solution came out as the default.

Hagar

tech77 wrote: »

Also, Hagar is my new hero.
Top trolling

Years of practice.
Trolling? Me? Surely you must be mistaken...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Agamemnon

Bad as Thatcher was, the regime in Argentina at the time was much worse. At least the Falklands War hastened its demise. It was still a ridiculous war though - "two bald men fighting over a comb" as Jorge Luis Borges put it.

Acid_Violet

cornbb wrote: »

Seriously, GTFO Hillary. Not very Iron Lady-ish of her to do that, is it :cool:

Mairt wrote:

Women and queer's, both are too unstable for positions of authority.

The women-bashers are out in their droves

I've never seen anything particularly wrong with the woman, no idea why everyone dislikes her so much and I wouldn't consider myself a supporter of her at all. If she seems cold, at the end of the day it's a public persona, a shield so that the press and public can't get under her skin. For all her faults, we don't give out about Mary Harney being calm and collected, why would people dislike Hillary for it so?

the_syco

Acid_Violet wrote: »

For all her faults, we don't give out about Mary Harney being calm and collected, why would people dislike Hillary for it so?

We're a neutral country. The USA invades you if you piss it off.

Jesus Wept

the_syco wrote: »

We're a neutral country. The USA invades you if you piss it off.

That and if you have anything they need/want.

Hagar

Since when does being the wife of an ex-President qualify you to become President?

If boinking the President is all you have to do maybe here running mate should be Monica Lewinsky. After all she has similar qualifications.

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

You'd probably want to look that one up.

I'll give you a hand: Look to 28APR82, the day after Haig proposes his final settlement to both nations simultaneously, and the words "'falling short of meeting Argentina's demands regarding recognition of sovereignty and the form of a provisional administration."

If you want, I can provide you with the full diplomatic timescale.

Interesting. I was unaware of this. I was basing my argument there on a history book I had read.
Can you give me the timescale? I'm interested in looking more into this.

For the rest of it I fully agree that Britain was justified in sending over troops etc, and the Argentinian Junta was far worse than England under Thatcher. I just disagree with the way Thatcher acted. She seemed too posturing in it for my taste. Two years before,hardline Thatcherite Nicholas Ridley had proposed a deal to share control of the islands with Argentina.
The ISlanders were opposed to the idea but Parliment was so incensed by the idea, the Conservatives backed down.


To justify the war the Tories suddenly started raging about human rights and “despicable Latin American juntas”. These same MPs had done nothing when Argentine leader General Galtieri launched a military coup in 1976. The “disappearance” of some 30,000 people provoked not a whimper.

The war was also dangerous at the time. If the Soviets had decided to get involved (as often happened with small wars in the Cold War) things could turned out very dangerously.


Again, I note that I understand why Britain went to war.
I just disliked the way Thatcher postured during the crisis.

kevmy

Apart from the obvious trolling I might as well answer.

She has done more years in the Senate than Obama so she's actually more experienced than him. Apart from that she was a pretty hands on as 1st Lady (probably one of the most in history) and was involved in most policy discussions with Bill and senior staff. Monica on the other hand while having her uses discussing policy was not one of them.

As for her and Obama being the ticket. It's only a possibility and it has often happened that Presidential candidates pick VP's from defeated primary candidates. If they want to maximise Democratic voters and neutrals then that would be that ticket imo. Republicans hate Hilary so they will come out just to vote against her so I reckon she'll want to get out Democrats and undecideds and won't give a toss who her VP is