Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: Who thinks Hillary Clinton will be a good President?

  1. #1

    Who thinks Hillary Clinton will be a good President?

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20030624.shtml


    Lets face it, going to happen sooner or later, and very good chance she will win.

    Why do I know that?

    Easy, she moved to New York and several months later runs for Senator and actually wins, even though she knows nothing about NY and what NY needs, but wins based upon who she is.

    So if most New Yorkers are will vote for her who says the rest of the country won't

    Only chance I think she won't be able to win is if Colin Powell runs for office.

    Now would that not be a interesting election - Colin Powell vs. Hillary Clinton


    So if she wins do you think she would be a good president and why? Give specific examples of what she has achieved.

  2. #2
    Morterator Immortal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario , Canada. Behaviour : Good
    Posts
    22,673
    if colin powell vs hilary.. I put me life that colin will win.. but.. if it's someone else u might be right..

    I guess it'll be nice as a change.. I don't know much politics..

  3. #3
    ****Colin Powell vs. Hillary Clinton****

    That would be a huge election. I bet voter turn out would be unprecidented. Hell I may get my lazy ass down to the precinct and cast a vote.
    Kinky is using a feather.
    Perverted is using the whole chicken.

  4. #4
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,515
    The determination of whether or not a president is "good" is usually only made once the person has left office.

    It's impossible to tell.

    I highly doubt Hillary Clinton will ever be president, nor will any other woman for the forseeable future.

  5. #5
    meat popsicle Zilog B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,530
    Heck, she can't even keep her husband from cheating, how's she going to manage a whole country?
    My son ... ask for thyself another internet connection, for that which I leave is too slow for thee

  6. #6
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,515
    Originally posted by schlurpee
    Heck, she can't even keep her husband from cheating, how's she going to manage a whole country?
    Bad comparison.

    She has no control over Bill Clinton, and thusly I would not expect her to attempt to keep him from cheating.

  7. #7
    meat popsicle Zilog B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    10,530
    Originally posted by Burke
    Bad comparison.

    She has no control over Bill Clinton, and thusly I would not expect her to attempt to keep him from cheating.

    I take it you've never been married before LOL no control LOL

    My son ... ask for thyself another internet connection, for that which I leave is too slow for thee

  8. #8
    Army of one torsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    55414
    Posts
    2,366
    She'd probably make a good president because of her level of experience (8 yrs in white house, 8 yrs in Senate). She would have observed quite a bit about what works and what doesn't in those 16 years. Also, she has raw brainpower that is equaled by very few, communicates well with the public, and most importantly, seems to have concerns about things beyond the interests of corporations.

  9. #9
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,515
    Originally posted by torsten
    seems to have concerns about things beyond the interests of corporations.
    "Seems" being the operative word.

  10. #10
    Senior Member tao_jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Boondocks
    Posts
    7,253
    i think that she has the skills and intelect to be president but is probably better suited to be vice president i dont think that enough people would take her seriously with what happeed with bill clinton

    Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it. - JP II

  11. #11
    Originally posted by torsten
    She'd probably make a good president because of her level of experience (8 yrs in white house, 8 yrs in Senate). She would have observed quite a bit about what works and what doesn't in those 16 years. Also, she has raw brainpower that is equaled by very few, communicates well with the public, and most importantly, seems to have concerns about things beyond the interests of corporations.
    Name specific examples of what she has achieved besides winning elections?

    I know people who work for 20 years doing the same thing day in day out it does not mean they are good at it, or know what they are doing.

  12. #12
    Army of one torsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    55414
    Posts
    2,366
    Originally posted by Ghosthunter
    Name specific examples of what she has achieved besides winning elections?

    I know people who work for 20 years doing the same thing day in day out it does not mean they are good at it, or know what they are doing.
    It's hard to really mark "achievments" in the Senate other than to look a sponsorship of bills, general leadership, and a lot of work that's behind the scenes and not available for evaluation. But it's that way for most politicians. Still, she's gotten high praise from her collegues.

    Don't forget that when her husband was in the White House, she put together a plan to reform the nation's health care. We, of course, never got to see how it would work because those that are profiting outrageously at the expense of the consumer(insurances companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc.) bought enormous amounts of TV time to lie to the American public about the plan. People, of course, believed it, and consequently Congressional support dropped. Since then, the Republicans have smeared her plan as a "failure." Uh huh, right. We still have 40 million uninsured because they won. And her plan was a failure? Please.

  13. #13
    Originally posted by torsten
    It's hard to really mark "achievments" in the Senate other than to look a sponsorship of bills, general leadership, and a lot of work that's behind the scenes and not available for evaluation. But it's that way for most politicians. Still, she's gotten high praise from her collegues.

    Don't forget that when her husband was in the White House, she put together a plan to reform the nation's health care. We, of course, never got to see how it would work because those that are profiting outrageously at the expense of the consumer(insurances companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc.) bought enormous amounts of TV time to lie to the American public about the plan. People, of course, believed it, and consequently Congressional support dropped. Since then, the Republicans have smeared her plan as a "failure." Uh huh, right. We still have 40 million uninsured because they won. And her plan was a failure? Please.
    You kidding me? Her health plan would have ruined the country, thank god it did not go through

  14. #14
    Army of one torsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    55414
    Posts
    2,366
    Originally posted by Burke
    "Seems" being the operative word.
    Well, the people who represent those corporate interests seem to hate her guts, so...... something's up.

    I do think she's ultimately more of a political pragmatist than a revolutionary true believer. But still, among pragmatists, you get to choose between their directions and preferences. I like hers in comparison to those of the alternative.

  15. #15
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,515
    Originally posted by torsten
    Well, the people who represent those corporate interests seem to hate her guts, so...... something's up.

    I do think she's ultimately more of a political pragmatist than a revolutionary true believer. But still, among pragmatists, you get to choose between their directions and preferences. I like hers in comparison to those of the alternative.
    True, but every politician, regardless of party, gets most of their money from like-minded friends and supporters with deep corporate interests, whether those supporters are CEO's of major media companies or local boys-done-good who own a small chain of supply stores.

    The corporate element -- either on a small or large scale -- is inextricably linked to the political process. Conservative corporate folks will oppose Hillary Clinton, while liberal corporate interests will give her full support.

  16. #16
    Domesticated Primate Bastid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States
    Posts
    8,021
    ooooooooooooo k hillary...president hmmmm something about that bothers me....
    im not a political expert or anything but at one time i did hear a little something about WHITEWATER helloooooo?

    Jeez!!!
    Every normal man must be tempted at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
    I often wonder if the voices in my head ever get frustrated because I'm just too damn lazy to climb that clock tower.
    Click image to enlarge
    click image to view full version

  17. #17
    Army of one torsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    55414
    Posts
    2,366
    Originally posted by Ghosthunter
    You kidding me? Her health plan would have ruined the country, thank god it did not go through
    hehehe.... we don't seem to be agreeing very much today.

    You'll be shocked to hear that I think the plan would have been great for the country. Nowhere near perfect of course, just much better than the system we have, which has little incentive to reduce costs and leaves a large portion of the nation uncovered.

  18. #18
    Army of one torsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    55414
    Posts
    2,366
    Originally posted by Burke
    The corporate element -- either on a small or large scale -- is inextricably linked to the political process. Conservative corporate folks will oppose Hillary Clinton, while liberal corporate interests will give her full support.
    When it comes to "corporate interests" the conservative side pretty much dominates the liberal one. Outside of the entertainment biz, I can't think of many corporate interests that are truly "liberal"?

  19. #19
    Originally posted by torsten
    When it comes to "corporate interests" the conservative side pretty much dominates the liberal one. Outside of the entertainment biz, I can't think of many corporate interests that are truly "liberal"?

    Because most coporations are capitlists which is what our country was founded on. I see nothing wrong with that.

  20. #20
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,515
    Originally posted by torsten
    When it comes to "corporate interests" the conservative side pretty much dominates the liberal one. Outside of the entertainment biz, I can't think of many corporate interests that are truly "liberal"?
    I view it as, if a supporter of either side owns, works for or invests in a corporation of ANY kind, they have corporate interests. If you are defining it as "conservative" CEOs giving massive contributions in order to gain favor, they aren't the only folks sticking their thumbs in the pie. There are surely a great many "liberal" CEOs doing the same thing.

    My point is that the ideology of both sides gets corrupted by the scramble to grab supporters' dollars. It's like the Campaign Finance Reform bill...McCain/Feingold, et. al like to say it's the money that's corrupting politics. It's not. It's the PEOPLE who are corrupt. It happens on both sides, regardless of which camp has the more visible of special interests.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •