Presidential crudentials

Presidential crudentials (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MissSCD -> Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 6:36:55 AM)
I am wondering something here. Am I the only person in the entire universe that would not have a problem with Obama or Hillary as president? In this year of 2008, can we not elect a President without judging them by their race of gender? Granted, the three candidates, Obama, Hillary, and McCain are not the best in the world; however, if you look at Obama and Hillary without being afraid of a different type of leader, you may be suprised. *I am not campaigning here but merely making a generalized statement based on what I am seeing.* *Regards, MissSCD*

mnottertail -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 6:41:34 AM)
There is a song in that title. And there is some crudity in the entire thing. Lech Walsea was an electrician before he became President of his country. Nelson Mandela? prisoner. And so on. What I don't think should be elected to the office of president in our country would be an anteater, then you got that age old rivalry between texas and oklahoma rearing its ugly head and tearing our nation apart. Yea, the woman, black, experience, whatever the reason why not is just as laughable as the reason why. Ron

LadyEllen -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 6:45:50 AM)
Not that is anything to do with me - we just get to live with the consequences after all..... But I'd like to see Hilary as president, but I'd prefer Barack. I was against his nomination a while back as I seriously doubted his general experience to do the job, but then I thought "thats what all those advisers and experts are for - to provide that experience". And what he has in buckets is the sort of charisma and power to inspire that not only the US but the West in general needs. E

caitlyn -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 7:17:34 AM)
On the flip side, I think people should stop assuming that all people who oppose Senators Clinton and Obama, do so based upon gender or race. Senator Clinton is a strong leader, but I worry that she would divide more than unite. Her negatives are so high going in ... what would a Clinton Presidency be able to accomplish? Then there is that little matter of a platform that sways in the breeze, from a candidate that has taken money from every special interest known to man, and probably from some we really don't want to know about. Senator Obama avoids that, by having no real platform at all, and trying to make it a campaign focused on "us", when everyone knows it's clearly all about him. "We are, the one's we've been waiting for." ... come on, give me a break. The Obama campaign, is mostly about telling us how great the Obama campaign is. Both "offer" a universal healtcare plan ... that the insurance industry will love ... because their plan to cover everyone, is to make everyone buy health insurance. Both offer a stack of social programs, with no mention on how we will pay for them ... just the kind of candidate the Republican know how to beat. Which will leave us with President Bomb, Bomb Iran ... which just terrifies me.

awmslave -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 7:31:53 AM)
Republican quote: "Democrats are trying hard to loose the election (by putting out two weak candidates) but we do not let them (by putting out McCain)". Hillary and Obama credentials are very weak: can anybody name at least one serious accomplishment? Another note responding to other post: Lev Walesa was anticommunist national union leader and Nelson Mandela was apartheid resistance leader and national (if not global) figure. Mrs Clinton and Obama compare with these people as a microbe compares to an elephant.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Presidential credentials (2/12/2008 7:39:56 AM)
caitlyn, As usual an astute and insightful assessment of what we will be offered in November. I wonder if everyone will be so enamored with 'universal health care' when the mandatory payment for it comes from your pocket. In effect we have the same system in place now for 99.9% of US citizens. You can buy health care but it's very expense for some. The 'nanny' will make buying it required by law. The younger and healthier among us paying and deferring the cost for the unemployed, older, or chronically sick. I guess they are using the 'thriving' social security system as a model, but in consideration of Insurance company PAC money paid into the campaign, they are only making a law making buying coverage mandatory. I suggest buying insurance company stock. On the other side, we have a man who wants to keep salaries down for another generation by legalizing the criminal offense of illegal immigration. It will provide incentive for young men and woman to look toward the military as a 'career'. Serving the agenda of maintaining a US 'police' force throughout the world.

caitlyn -> RE: Presidential credentials (2/12/2008 8:00:13 AM)
I so want to believe we are better than this ... Senator Biden was making a little movement in the polls ... then there was a debate where all the Democrats were lining up to play "can you top this" with how fast we could get out of Iraq, to the point where Congressman Kucinich actually said we could be completely out of Iraq in 30 days. Loud cheers all around. Senator Biden pointed out that if you divide troops by transport ships, the fastest we could possibly be out was eighteen months, if we started today. Senator Biden was out of the race a few days later. Former Governor Huckabee, just about dead in the water, called for forced removal of all illegals, within the first ninty days of taking office. He immediately started winning primaries ... in spite of the fact that an effort of this kind would be an effort amounting to D-Day times ten. Apparently, we are in the business of voting for whomever tells us what we want to hear.

toservez -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 9:13:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave Republican quote: "Democrats are trying hard to loose the election (by putting out two weak candidates) but we do not let them (by putting out McCain)". Hillary and Obama credentials are very weak: can anybody name at least one serious accomplishment? Another note responding to other post: Lev Walesa was anticommunist national union leader and Nelson Mandela was apartheid resistance leader and national (if not global) figure. Mrs Clinton and Obama compare with these people as a microbe compares to an elephant. Well to this the history of leaders in any countries is littered with people considered not to have had worthy accomplishments and it comes from surprise surprise the opposite party people who debate this with historical and partisan blinders on. So Dems can point to King George who was in public service for less time then Hillary was. Republicans can point to Bill Clinton and claim Arkansas was a crappy and small state and so on and so on. JFK got this same crap when he ran and so did Teddy Roosevelt when he was thrust into office. It sounds good when coming out of a mouth or typing but historically shows little merit. In terms of the OP I think that is a too far gross generalization that you are the only one. As a minority and female I would only be kidding myself to think there is a percentage of people that form opinions and will not vote simply because of a candidate’s gender or race but Clinton or Obama would not be where they are if that was truly large scale. If the election is squeaky close then these issues could well have been a deciding factor but we are also going to be able to point to other factors as well.

awmslave -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 9:49:24 AM)
quote: Well to this the history of leaders in any countries is littered with people considered not to have had worthy accomplishments and it comes from surprise surprise the opposite party people who debate this with historical and partisan blinders on. I do not know any such examples for G7 countries. Do you? G.W. Bush and W. Clinton were successful governors and do not count in this regard.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 9:57:22 AM)
quote: Am I the only person in the entire universe that would not have a problem with Obama or Hillary as president? God I hope so!

celticlord2112 -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 10:02:09 AM)
quote: Senator Clinton is a strong leader, but I worry that she would divide more than unite. Her negatives are so high going in ... what would a Clinton Presidency be able to accomplish? Then there is that little matter of a platform that sways in the breeze, from a candidate that has taken money from every special interest known to man, and probably from some we really don't want to know about. What has she led? The healthcare task force that hubby handed her was an abysmal failure and a huge embarrassment to hubby. Senator Clinton is neither a leader nor a uniter--nor even that much of a Senator. She lusts for political power, but has no clue what to do with it once it is within her grasp. McCain has many faults, but a lack of ideas and a lack of vision are not among them.

pahunkboy -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 10:52:55 AM)
a single person cant win. nor could anyone who did not pay tax on the housekeeper. maybe give china a chance to rep the cattle,,,, outsorucing good. Hillary tried to do healthcare. I give her credit for that. but you know what? the lobbiests wont let anything what-so-ever interfer with big money profit. it wont be done.

toservez -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 11:15:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave quote: Well to this the history of leaders in any countries is littered with people considered not to have had worthy accomplishments and it comes from surprise surprise the opposite party people who debate this with historical and partisan blinders on. I do not know any such examples for G7 countries. Do you? G.W. Bush and W. Clinton were successful governors and do not count in this regard. In a round about way you are proving my point. The fact is when Bill Clinton was RUNNING he was constantly attacked by the fact Arkansas was a small populated state with no major cities and a horrible education system. When George W was running he was criticized heavily for bumming around life until people bought him the Governor of Texas and said he did little in his time there. For frame of reference, Hillary has been a senator longer then he was a Governor. My big point is that people decide on who they want to vote for based on if they like the person, their perceptions of the person whether true or not and if they agree with their values and things they want to accomplish. I cannot tell you the percentage of which but probably fluctuates greatly. Then we look at the person we want to lose and come up with reasons we do not like them as some sick way to justify our thoughts or what often comes into to play to boost our self esteem that my choice is right not just my choice so the other choice MUST be wrong. So you get junk like Hilary is not much of a Senator but she was re-elected by a significant wider margin then her initial run and most analysts and fellow politicians seem to think she has done a good job. So you get junk that a report comes out that this candidate has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Isn’t it amazing how a report like this has come out to name all three current candidates in the Senate in the past couple of months? I do not mean to be partisan either. Both sides pull this stuff.

Archer -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 11:56:22 AM)
The difference is being a Senator is not executive branch government experience. While being a State Governor is. It's one reason that so few Senators have ever gotten elected to the office, while multiple former Governors have. Outside the partisan / policy reasons for opposing Clinton there are a number of reasons I think electing her would be a huge mistake. Do you really think that the former Clinton scandals will not be a central issue during the elections and after should she win? Do we really want to return to those days? And believe me the Republicans will when pushed by Hillary. At least with Obama you have a fresh face not involved in the Bush vs Clinton scandal wars. Personally if I never saw or heard of another Bush or Clinton running for office the rest of my life i'd be happier. If we are ready for change why return to the same old battles with so many of the same old players.

toservez -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 12:10:01 PM)
I think that is a valid argument and I am one who wishes not to see another Bush or Clinton in the office as well. But there are beliefs based on projection and facts and people make their beliefs facts and pooh pooh the oppositions beliefs. The fact none of us really know what any of these candidates are going to do. And while I agree with you that Clinton drums too much of the past up, right or wrong who cares, I would point out much in the same vain Bush drums up very much the same feelings and to replace him with a Republican would not help in my opinion help bridge the animosity of self righteousness that the two parties have right now. I also understand the executive argument but since both nominees will have none and are Senators that has no bearing on the election.

Archer -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 12:44:21 PM)
True so if we judge them according to experience , assuming that senatorial experience is equally transferable to executive office, then we have advantage R since McCain has been there for a longer time. However if we judge according to change, then Obama gets the nod as having the least number/ length of connections to the DC elite. But all of this is contingent on ignoring policy differences, which is where the annimosity and entrenched partisanism starts up most of the time. Generally folks agree on what is broken, but not on how to fix it. And thus far I have seen precious little on how to fix things and tons of this that and the other thing are broken.

Termyn8or -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 1:33:35 PM)
I hate the phone ringing but it did. Someone who works for Hillary's campaign. Normally I blow something like this off, but I was feeling froggy at the time.I had one cigarette and no beer and people were waiting for me for the usual store run. But I decided to engage this person, so everything had to wait. I made my case, of course for Ron Paul. I made one cigarette and one beer last almost an hour. This was not like me typing all this, where you might want to interupt with a "Hey what about ?", this was interactive. At the end of it all, this guy who WORKS for Hillary Clinton's campaign does not know who he voting for now. Will he be as convincing now ? Have I created a mole inside that organization ? Have I had a real impact on history ? What if she loses by like 40 votes ? I know my argument stuck to this guy like glue. If you think I am any good at all in print, try me in person, if there was a cold call center around here that would pay me even half what I make now supporting Ron Paul I would do it. The title of this thread is "Presidential credentials" so this is not off topic. Electing Ron Paul means hard times sooner than later, but there would be some ways and means in place to break our fall so to speak. None of the other candidates have much to say at all about the debt, and our looming collapse. They will simply go on their merry way involving the government in more and more things we can't afford. Ron Paul would do something quite different. Any realist knows that it will hurt. But a real realist knows that if it doesn't hurt sooner, it will hurt alot more later. Actually I admire Ron Paul's balls for even wanting the job, knowing what needs to be done. His lack of experience as a CEO of a government doesn't bother me. Everybody started somewhere. If you base your vote on that you might as well vote for the Mayor of Huntsville Alabama. That's my opinion, I assumed you wanted it. If not just roll on by. T

pahunkboy -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 1:39:49 PM)
Ron PAul mentions a walk on Washington. wonder if it will happen

awmslave -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 1:48:13 PM)
quote: The fact none of us really know what any of these candidates are going to do. I agree. It is hard to decode the crossword puzzle the candidates (esp. Democrats) provide as their ideology and policies. Mrs. Clinton is obviously a socialist while his husband was a Wall Street globalist. Probably democrats will withdraw from Iraq whithin a few years. As immigration is concerned both democrat candidates are for open borders and amnesty (all proletariat unite). We will not see unversial healthcare as the cost is simply unaffordable.

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Presidential crudentials (2/12/2008 1:57:30 PM)
i have had to quit thinking of just the candidate, and have started thinking of who do i think is more likely to surround them self with competent people. thank gawd i have til november to figure this one out. the only person i have eliminated is hillary, and that only because she gives me the creeps. i just find her to be....well.....creepy-lol i wish we had more choices.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125