• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton for President

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Link
Hillary Clinton for President - WSJ.com

Quote(America's economy is failing to produce jobs, increase growth or raise confidence, and it will likely get even worse next year. Our federal government's spending has increased to $3.7 trillion this year from $2.98 trillion in 2008. Publicly held national debt is up by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, to about 63% percent of GDP from 40%, and is expected to reach 70% by 2012. Add in the unemployment rate, which has remained above 9.4% for over a year, and America is clearly failing economically.

Next January the economy will be further depressed by increasing tax rates. The top income tax rate will rise to 39.6% from 35%, and the phase-out of itemized deductions and personal exemptions will effectively lift the top bracket to about 40.8%. On New Year's Day the tax on dividends is scheduled to go up to 39.6% from 15%, and come 2013, ObamaCare will add another 3.8%.

Other bad public policies will further drag down the economy. ObamaCare will increase individual costs and expand the deficit. Failing energy policies, from Washington's inept response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to its effort to limit tapping America's oil supplies, will drive up our use of imported foreign oil beyond the current 67% of our country's oil consumption.)

I am not a natural Democrat, I could never support someone like H. Clinton for president as in my own estimation this woman is nothing other than a thief.
Having said that, the twirp currently occupying the oval office in the White House cannot command the respect that should be due to the Holder of that office is causing almost irepairable harm to the US.
Certainly the idea of another 4 years after 2012 is abhorrent, some other person must be elected President, one that can adequately do the job, one that has the experience to be able to tackle that job.
 
I haven't heard the word 'twerp' in a long time. :lol:
 
No, no Hillary Clinton for president. The US could do with more female politicians, but not more Hillary Clintons.
 
Never happen.

In order for that to occur, a large majority of Democrats would have to be against Obama, and that's not the case. Most Democrats still support him by a pretty big margin.

An incumbent hardly ever loses a nomination. The Democrats couldn't even get rid of Jimmy Carter, who was disliked by his own party.
 
yeah. as much as i would be delighted to see this happen; i just don't see the democratic party going down this road. the civil war would be too brutal.
 
yeah. as much as i would be delighted to see this happen; i just don't see the democratic party going down this road. the civil war would be too brutal.

The only way Clinton would run is if Obama dropped out of the race. Any "civil war" scenario is not going to happen.
 
No, no Hillary Clinton for president. The US could do with more female politicians, but not more Hillary Clintons.

Well it's not like they were planning on cloning her.
 
Well it's not like they were planning on cloning her.

I would vote for cloning her. Of course, I have a ton of respect for her.
 
The only way Clinton would run is if Obama dropped out of the race. Any "civil war" scenario is not going to happen.

:shrug: well, it's been said that nobody ever lost betting on the Clinton's self-interest and raw desire for political power. as Bill increasingly becomes the Dem partys' 'Lead Man' again, they repick up alot of legitimacy to provide an inner-party putsch.

again, i don't think it would happen. but the Obama Administration making Clinton into it's Ambassador to the rest of the party does make for a potentially double-edged sword.
 
:shrug: well, it's been said that nobody ever lost betting on the Clinton's self-interest and raw desire for political power. as Bill increasingly becomes the Dem partys' 'Lead Man' again, they repick up alot of legitimacy to provide an inner-party putsch.

again, i don't think it would happen. but the Obama Administration making Clinton into it's Ambassador to the rest of the party does make for a potentially double-edged sword.

It's also been said "never underestimate the rights ability to spin the Clinton's negatively".

Just a challenge, name one president who did not have a ton of self-interest and a raw desire for political power.
 
:shrug: well, it's been said that nobody ever lost betting on the Clinton's self-interest and raw desire for political power. as Bill increasingly becomes the Dem partys' 'Lead Man' again, they repick up alot of legitimacy to provide an inner-party putsch.

again, i don't think it would happen. but the Obama Administration making Clinton into it's Ambassador to the rest of the party does make for a potentially double-edged sword.

I wish Obama would make her the new Chief of Staff. We need someone in the White House with balls.
 
It's also been said "never underestimate the rights ability to spin the Clinton's negatively".

Just a challenge, name one president who did not have a ton of self-interest and a raw desire for political power.

most presidents have a raw desire to do something. obama, for example, i don't think seeks power for it's own sake - he seeks it only as a tool to accomplish what he thinks is best.

the clintons seem to pursue power for the sake of power. a very different equation.
 
I wish Obama would make her the new Chief of Staff. We need someone in the White House with balls.

i don't think they would work well together. having her head a department is a perfect mixture of independence/subordination.
 
most presidents have a raw desire to do something. obama, for example, i don't think seeks power for it's own sake - he seeks it only as a tool to accomplish what he thinks is best.

the clintons seem to pursue power for the sake of power. a very different equation.

And you base this on what evidence?
 
I would challenge people to give me the last time a sitting president lost the nomination of his own party. I can't think of any in the postwar era
 
Back
Top Bottom