galenrox said:Welcome back!
I pray to God they don't nominate her, cause that means that there's only 1 chance for the two parties to crank out a good potential president. That being said she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Navy Pride said:Thanks, we shall see, although she is pretending to move to the center she is fooling very few people and the left wing base of the party loves her...
I sure would not rule her out if I was you........I do agree that she has very little chance of ever getting elected though.....
Maybe, but consider who many voters (female especially) might turn out to vote for her because she's a woman? In an electorate where there is such a small gap between the two parties a shift of extra voters in either direction might be significant.Middleground said:One thing that has not been discussed here... are Americans ready for a female President?
Personally -- that fact alone -- would completely rule her out, IMHO.
Caine said:Personally, I believe (notice how this is completely my own opinion) that the average Democrat is more of a leftist moderate than anything else.
Im talking about the voter here, not the Democrats in office.
I agree that most people won't find her worthy of being thier Democratic Candidate. Someone like Feingold would be more likely to receive my vote.
Or maybe Joe Biden.
SixStringHero said:I'm already resigning to the idea that I will once again be forced to vote for the lesser of 2 evils no matter who that may be when the time comes.
Since I'm not partisan though, I have no voice on the primaries.
Caine said:Thats your opinion. And your entitled to it.
But, I disagree.
galenrox said:That's a fair stance to take, but I think that the actual amount of people that wouldn't support Hillary due to her gender are VASTLY outnumbered by the ones that don't support her due to her lack of leadership ability, her policies, and her Bush-like machiavellian quest for power.
Caine said:Thats your opinion. And your entitled to it.
But, I disagree.
independent_thinker2002 said:You are not forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. There may be a third party or independent you can vote for. Or else there is always the write-in ballot.
Navy Pride said:Well the facts are Biden Voted to give the President permission to go to war in Iraq and Feingold was one of the few Senators to vote against it....
Biden voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it........you do the math.........
ptsdkid said:Hey McCaine, love those two quotes in red by Savage and Bush. Is this a sign that you're starting to come around to this country's Christian heritage?
Although those two quotes are top shelf--the best by far (and to the point) is "Liberalism is a mental disorder" by Michael Savage. Oh how true that slogan is, and humorous as well.
Caine said:Well, lets see.... Feingold has stuck with his ideas from the beginning then. I don't think voting for or against the war in Iraq or the Patriot act is a good or bad thing. The Patriot Act was a rushed document, the hysteria surrounding immediate post 9/11 forced many people to make decisions they may or may not agree with now.
As far as Biden goes, certain situations can cause someone to change thier position on an issue that they once had the opposite opinion of before.
Example: George W. Bush when running for President in 2000 said that our Military should not be used for "Nation Building". Now with the attack on 9/11 and the poor intelligence that misled all Americans (me included, when I went into Iraq during the "Shock and Awe", I was all about finding WMD's being an NBC NCO and all), I understand how Bush was capable of changing his mind.
With the current situation in Iraq, I understand how Biden would want to change his mind. So situations can cause someone to later change thier stance on a situation, this is true for both President Bush AND Joe Biden.
You can't tell me this doesn't make any sense.
Navy Pride said:Ah but Biden has not changed his mind.......He is for finishing the job there then leaving.......Feingold is for cutting and running now........
Caine said:I disagree.
Show me, without taking someone's words out of context and reading into something that wasn't a part of the original meaning, where any democrat has used the words "Cut and Run" as a part of thier Agenda in Iraq.
This comes from Feingold's Website here.Feingold said:I continue to be deeply concerned about the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq. I believe that the U.S. must clarify the remaining military mission in Iraq and that policymakers must be held accountable for providing our troops the support and resources that they need to complete that mission and to come home. We also need to continue working to support Iraqi efforts to find a basis for political stability in the country, and we need to make the reconstruction effort work by ensuring that we spend American taxpayers’ dollars wisely.
I thank our military servicemen and women and their families for their courage and sacrifice. Their efforts and patriotism are incredibly moving and humbling.
http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_rebuild_iraq.htmlFeingold said:The United States military and other coalition forces have done an admirable job of defeating Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but we are now confronted with new challenges. The tasks involved in transition and reconstruction in Iraq are dangerous, complex, time-consuming, and expensive. A great deal of work remains to be done.
We should welcome burden-sharing in various forms to help us manage this task. International cooperation can help to ease the strain on the American military and American taxpayers. By welcoming burden-sharing, we can also reassure the rest of the world that ours is not a policy of unilaterally imposing our will by force without consultation or cooperation. This is not about wanting to be liked, or about being popular in the halls of the U.N. or European capitals. It is about wanting our troops to be safe, our country to be secure, and our allies to maintain crucial cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
Navy Pride said:You know you don't actually have to say the words to mean that.....When Dean says we can't win the war in Iraq and when Murtha says our military is broken and we should re deploy our troops in other countries, and when Kennedy says our troops are the problem and not the solution what do you think they are saying?
26 X World Champs said:Maybe, but consider who many voters (female especially) might turn out to vote for her because she's a woman? In an electorate where there is such a small gap between the two parties a shift of extra voters in either direction might be significant.
Caine said:Lets see....
Feingold On the War in Iraq
This comes from Feingold's Website here.
So, Feingold supports the troops, supports the mission, and wants us to include our allies in our foreign policy, which is something that Bush has had a problem doing.
Im not defending them shitheads am I?
Im defending Feingold. Stick to the man at hand.
Those are the key words there. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. As I have shown you from his website, As soon as possible to him means, when the Iraqi government is able to stand on its own and protect themselves.Navy Pride said:I wonder what the date was on that...I heard him on Meet the Press say we should pull out as soon as possible............
Nobody is asking foreigners to protect the USA. Terrorism isnt just a problem of the United States. With the help of our allies, we could fight a better war on terrorism. The other junk about the war being a war for our very existance is one of the most retarded things Ive ever heard. Don't get me wrong, terrorism should not be taken lightly, but comments like this are intended to make the people think that terrorists are even capable of completely destroying our country and killing us all. This will never happen. Yes, terrorists are capapble of targeting large amounts of Americans and killing them, but they pose no threat to the existance of the Country. Anyone who falls for Bush's talk of how terrorists are even remotely capable of taking our country down are fools. This country is stronger than that. The people in this country are stronger than that. And like I said, Terrorism isn't just a USA problem. Thats why the Democrats want to urge our allies to fight by our side. We may be able to do it on our own, but it works better if our allies are with us all the way.This president will not ask the crooked french and Germans permission to protect our country like Feingold and the dems want to do.....He believes unlike Kerry that the war on terrorism is a war for our very existence and not to be fought as a police action or in a very sensitive manner as Kerry wants to do.......