• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hillary or Condy?

Who would you vote for in 2008

  • Hillary

    Votes: 11 22.9%
  • Condy

    Votes: 20 41.7%
  • Another Democrat or Republican

    Votes: 10 20.8%
  • Independent/Write-in

    Votes: 7 14.6%

  • Total voters
    48
AlbqOwl said:
I would not vote for somebody brought into New Mexico just to run for political office. I would definitely question that person's motives re having the interests of the state in mind.
We in NY State vote for someone based on the issues and where they stand. I find it incredible that you think it's odd that someone would move to a state and then run for office.

How come you're not complaining about VP Cheney? He "moved" to Wyoming to accommodate election laws. How come you're not whining and condemning him for being a "carpetbagger"?

How come my good friend Navy Pride doesn't call him names too like he does with the Clintons?

Partisanship perhaps?
 
Condy; Bush's paper towel, when he messes up, Condy goes to the news and soaks it all in. She is also known to be Bush's PR person for black people, rather than talk to blacks directly, Bush feels it is more effective to talk through Condy. She is very, very, very smart and a respectable individual, but too much of a pushover for me.

Hillary; the Terminator, I agree with some of her views, but she is way, way too extreme about everything. There are feminists, and then there Hilarists. I don't personally take to extremes of anything, but you gotta love the passion.

All in all, neither would do the country any good, however, if you combined them, they would be super president, or presidentess. Condary, Hillareeza...
 
HTColeman said:
Condy; Bush's paper towel, when he messes up, Condy goes to the news and soaks it all in. She is also known to be Bush's PR person for black people, rather than talk to blacks directly, Bush feels it is more effective to talk through Condy. She is very, very, very smart and a respectable individual, but too much of a pushover for me.

Hillary; the Terminator, I agree with some of her views, but she is way, way too extreme about everything. There are feminists, and then there Hilarists. I don't personally take to extremes of anything, but you gotta love the passion.

All in all, neither would do the country any good, however, if you combined them, they would be super president, or presidentess. Condary, Hillareeza...

I really have seen nothing to suggest she is an uber-feminist. What do you base that on?
 
Kelzie said:
I really have seen nothing to suggest she is an uber-feminist. What do you base that on?

It was just an example, I was just saying that when she takes on an issue, she goes extreme with it, for the most part. Jeez...
 
HTColeman said:
It was just an example, I was just saying that when she takes on an issue, she goes extreme with it, for the most part. Jeez...

I see. So you would rather her half-ass the issues? Jeez?
 
BWG said:
Why would they start now? No, I'm not saying Republicans are prejudiced, they're just not rushing to promote minority candidates to represent them.

Of 3,643 Republicans serving in the state legislatures, only 44 are minorities.
In the Congress, with 274 of the 535 elected senators and representatives Republican, only five are minorities - three Cuban Americans from Florida, a Mexican American from Texas and a Native American senator originally elected as a Democrat.



I could see myself voting for Powell, depending on the circumstances.

The problem is most African Americans are democrats therefore a shortage of candidates............
 
Kelzie said:
I see. So you would rather her half-ass the issues? Jeez?

No, I would rather her be in moderation, "too much of a good thing", etc. But that is who she is, a passionate person, admirable, but not, IMO, good for a person leading a country. R U angry today.....or have I (gasp) lost the passion to argue? Apocalypse is on the horizon.
 
HTColeman said:
No, I would rather her be in moderation, "too much of a good thing", etc. But that is who she is, a passionate person, admirable, but not, IMO, good for a person leading a country. R U angry today.....or have I (gasp) lost the passion to argue? Apocalypse is on the horizon.

I'm angry. Grrr. :shoot I'm a vegan on the war path. :mrgreen:

Seriously no. What's wrong with you? Can't a gal have a little fun?

Besides, that is our future president you are insulting. Gets me a little testy.
 
26 X World Champs said:
We in NY State vote for someone based on the issues and where they stand. I find it incredible that you think it's odd that someone would move to a state and then run for office.

How come you're not complaining about VP Cheney? He "moved" to Wyoming to accommodate election laws. How come you're not whining and condemning him for being a "carpetbagger"?

How come my good friend Navy Pride doesn't call him names too like he does with the Clintons?

Partisanship perhaps?

Last time I looked Cheney was not elected to VP besides he is originally from Wyoming.....Don't think you can say the same thing for the "Ice Princess."
 
you're leaving out one little fact...it is the Democrats from outside the south who effectively ended segregation,

True, but lets level with ourselves here. The election in kennedys time was pretty close. Hence thats why kennedy did what he did only becasue he wanted to attain the black vote to get ahead of the game. If he was winning by a landslide I hate to say it but he wouldnt have released the federal troops to help desegregate the system. The reason why he wouldnt have done it is becasue something like that is costly. It costs lots and lots of money which he wouldnt have done just to do it. Theres reasons for it. Hope you werent intending on leaving that out, buddy.;)
 
Kelzie said:
I'm angry. Grrr. :shoot I'm a vegan on the war path. :mrgreen:

Seriously no. What's wrong with you? Can't a gal have a little fun?

Besides, that is our future president you are insulting. Gets me a little testy.
I don't know, I have lost the will to argue, but I bet it will come back. First week of college, I'm all off. NEway, I insult the current Pres., so Hillary isn't safe. But no one can insult Billy boy, he fell, but he is still my homeboy. Sooooooo, Hilareeza or Condary?
 
SKILMATIC said:
Condaliza rice for president!!! :lol:

For the love of god, none of you will listen. SHE HAS NO EXPERIENCE. Why would you even want to vote someone into the presidential office, who has never been in an elected office before? It's crazy.
 
For the love of god, none of you will listen. SHE HAS NO EXPERIENCE. Why would you even want to vote someone into the presidential office, who has never been in an elected office before? It's crazy.

Why would you want to elect a typical politician? At least this lady hasnt been decimated by typical politicizing. She is innocent and she would prolly be a better candidate then conventional lying, money greedy politicians.

Sorry if im not a clinton fan but clintons were prolly the biggest shame of this country. I still beleive clinton should be shot for treason. I dont even know why he is still living. His wife was prolly an accomplice and she knew about it. This I have no factual evidence but one could question. Sorry I have no faith watsoever in hilary.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No, no surprise. But don't you wonder how out of the entire state of New York, one of the largest populations in the country, there wasn't a single suitable candidate who had paid his/her dues on behalf of the people there? They brought in an Arkansas woman who had never lived there, never held an elected office, much less paid her dues, to be their senator? If I was somebody who had devoted my time, talent, and loyalty to the party there, and I had ambitions along that line, I think I would be really miffed. But it wasn't my call. And it is just an idle observation. And it's safer having Hillary in the Senate where we can keep an eye on her and better monitor her campaign activities anyway.

I would not vote for somebody brought into New Mexico just to run for political office. I would definitely question that person's motives re having the interests of the state in mind.

Yet, as far as I have heard, Hillary has represented the state of New York very well. I understand your cynicism though, believe me, I am not exactly Pollyanna here and I am suspicious of just about everything politicians do, lol.
 
SKILMATIC said:
True, but lets level with ourselves here. The election in kennedys time was pretty close. Hence thats why kennedy did what he did only becasue he wanted to attain the black vote to get ahead of the game. If he was winning by a landslide I hate to say it but he wouldnt have released the federal troops to help desegregate the system. The reason why he wouldnt have done it is becasue something like that is costly. It costs lots and lots of money which he wouldnt have done just to do it. Theres reasons for it. Hope you werent intending on leaving that out, buddy.;)

Dude, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. So you're going to sit there and badly re-write history and say that JFK and RFK had no concerns about civil rights and only sent federal marshals to the South to get black votes? Does anyone else here have this same opinion. Stand up and be counted so I know to "keep an eye on you." Jeesh....

I think you need some serious help. Your partisanship is eating away sense of reality.
 
Here is the ugly truth. Condoleeza Rice will never be elected as President of the United States for one reason.

She loses her cool under pressure. You know what I'm talking about.

It's not that I like the fact that Americans are superficial like that, but its true. We are.

I tend to agree with Kelzie though, she is way underqualified.
 
There is no one in this forum who should support someone who goes on national television and lies to the American people.

I speak of none other than Condelleza Rice, who on Sept 8th, 2002 lied to all of us on 'Late Edition.'

She is not deserving of anyones vote.
 
Hoot said:
There is no one in this forum who should support someone who goes on national television and lies to the American people.

I speak of none other than Condelleza Rice, who on Sept 8th, 2002 lied to all of us on 'Late Edition.'

She is not deserving of anyones vote.

Of course. If she would run, you know these pro-war nuts would indeed vote for her. A vast majority of them wouldn't dare place they're money were they're mouth is and join.
 
Hoot said:
There is no one in this forum who should support someone who goes on national television and lies to the American people.

I speak of none other than Condelleza Rice, who on Sept 8th, 2002 lied to all of us on 'Late Edition.'

She is not deserving of anyones vote.

I am glad to hear you speak for everyone in this forum....

Then why do all you liberals support Bill Clinton? He lied under oath to a federal judge.......:confused:
 
Navy Pride said:
Last time I looked Cheney was not elected to VP besides he is originally from Wyoming.....Don't think you can say the same thing for the "Ice Princess."
What on earth are you talking about? How can you say that Cheney was not elected VP? I can't wait to read your convoluted post that explains this post!

BTW - According to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, a presidential and vice presidential candidate residing in the same state cannot both earn that state's electoral votes. Governor George W. Bush was, without a doubt, a resident of Texas. Since 1995 Dick Cheney had lived in Highland Park (Dallas), Texas.

How do you explain this manipulation? Cheney violated the US Constitution. Hillary followed everything to the letter of the law.

If you want to point fingers at someone Cheney is the person to single out since he most definitely lived in Texas, period. Hillary most definintely lived in NY when she was elected in a landslide by the people of NY. BTW - I do not care where he lived but YOU are making this a big deal about Hillary as if she did something untold when in fact it was Cheney who really screwed with the system.

I seem to recall that Cheney lost the popular vote in 2000 and if not for the Supreme Court he would not be Veep today.

So how come you're OK with Cheney bull$hitting about where he lived in order to get elected but you call Hillary and Bill names regularly when discussing her perfectly legitimate election?

I smell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y from someone who is famous for posting what I consider to be hypocritical posts that often contain untruths and name calling despite the same person attacking other posters when they name call. You know what I mean Mr. "Pride"?

How do you feel abot Cheney's military record? Stellar, don't you think? I seem to recall you writing that President Clinton was a "Draft dodger" yet you didn't make the same accusation of VP Cheney. How come?

I smell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y again...smells really bad too.
 
Last edited:
26 X World Champs said:
What on earth are you talking about? How can you say that Cheney was not elected VP? I can't wait to read your convoluted post that explains this post!

BTW - According to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, a presidential and vice presidential candidate residing in the same state cannot both earn that state's electoral votes. Governor George W. Bush was, without a doubt, a resident of Texas. Since 1995 Dick Cheney had lived in Highland Park (Dallas), Texas.

How do you explain this manipulation? Cheney violated the US Constitution. Hillary followed everything to the letter of the law.

If you want to point fingers at someone Cheney is the person to single out since he most definitely lived in Texas, period. Hillary most definintely lived in NY when she was elected in a landslide by the people of NY. BTW - I do not care where he lived but YOU are making this a big deal about Hillary as if she did something untold when in fact it was Cheney who really screwed with the system.

I seem to recall that Cheney lost the popular vote in 2000 and if not for the Supreme Court he would not be Veep today.

So how come you're OK with Cheney bull$hitting about where he lived in order to get elected but you call Hillary and Bill names regularly when discussing her perfectly legitimate election?

I smell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y from someone who is famous for posting what I consider to be hypocritical posts that often contain untruths and name calling despite the same person attacking other posters when they name call. You know what I mean Mr. "Pride"?

How do you feel abot Cheney's military record? Stellar, don't you think? I seem to recall you writing that President Clinton was a "Draft dodger" yet you didn't make the same accusation of VP Cheney. How come?

I smell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y again...smells really bad too.

I'm so very confused. We elect VPs? Since when? I remember voting for the duo, not for just one.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am glad to hear you speak for everyone in this forum....

Then why do all you liberals support Bill Clinton? He lied under oath to a federal judge.......:confused:

Oh man, lying about sexual relations, that was bad, but now that we look back at that, it was nothing compared to the lies Bush has perpetrated, now is it?
 
26 X World Champs said:
I agree, but you vote for both so you elect both. You can't elect only one, so both were elected, right?

Ah...I see what you're saying. Although I voted for the president. The VP was just the toy you get with your happy meal.
 
Back
Top Bottom