The Official ABC thread (Anybody But Clinton)
- Thread starter Emperor2
- Start date
George2816
Emperor
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,230
What is a lot worse?
Bush can with a pen take away anyone US citizenship
Bush can with a pen put you in a hole that you can never get out
Bush attacked 1 country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but he claimed it would be
Bush claimed that iraq and the taliban were the same (and some people still think thats true!)
Bush cuts taxes for the rich (which creates 3-4 trillion dollars in debt and gaining more and more each day)
Bush thinks he talks to god and god talks back to him!
Bush thinks USA owns the world and we can just nuke people that we don't like (or not talk to them and they some how sooner or later will disappear)
Funny, then, that Clinton is trailing in polls against all five major Republican contenders. The Republicans hardly have a lock on the election, and they'll be hurt if Iraq goes further South, but the Democrats hardly are a shoo in either. Especially Hillary. I wouldn't make any spectacular predictions if I were you.
-She has no military or executive experience whatsoever - just a senator for a bit, and Bill's husband. Er, wife.
-She's an extremely divisive candidate that half the country hates.
-She's an extremely sleezy politician and is in the pocket of the unions.
-She wants to establish a federal national healthcare system.
-She's pro gun control.
-She's anti-free trade.
-She's liberal on every social issue out there (Abortion, gay marriage, etc - only a minus if you're a conservative on these issues, of course)
-She's anti-ANWR drilling.
-She's pro-affirmative action.
-She's anti-school vouchers.
-She's pro Kyoto-Protocol.
-She's scary as crap.
Anyone else can feel free to add to this list. I'm sure there's more stuff, that's just a few minutes worth of work.
Just a tad bit off-balance there, don't you think? It isn't possible for it to swing both ways? And it isn't possible for someone to choose not to vote for her based on her positions and/or her prior experience?
So much for any useful debate in this thread. Especially given how the "oral" office was a domestic issue for media outlets and Senators.
I understand a lot of some of the other negatives here, but I'd say her time on the Armed Services Committee is more experience than some of the other candidates in the field could boast.-She has no military or executive experience whatsoever - just a senator for a bit, and Bill's husband. Er, wife.
I think she's done the usual dance of civil unionizing the maybe stance.
I don't remember her out and out supporting gay marriage.That laugh (lampooned after she hit all the Sunday morning shows that week) is pretty creepy.-She's scary as crap.
That could be a plus, when we have more fodder for our Daily Show episodes, should the writers' strike ever end.I didn't say she was the worst candidate.
Just that she isn't, in my opinion, a good one.I think she does support civil unions as a civil right, though, so it amounts to the same thing. She's also very, very pro-choice, which makes her rather unpalatable to social conservatives in general.I think she's done the usual dance of civil unionizing the maybe stance.
Yeah, I can imagine some good satire of her as president. But if "We'll, we could really make fun of him/her when he/she screws up" is the new criteria for selecting a president, then America is totally screwed.That laugh (lampooned after she hit all the Sunday morning shows that week) is pretty creepy.
Ansar
Détente avec l'été
Obama '08
"Anybody but ..." is a very bad reason to vote for someone.
It's better to analyse all the candidates' opnions and then decide on who matches your opinion best. And if it happens to be someone you would "never have voted for"; reconsider why you'd never vote for that person. Perhaps you misunderstood this person all along or you've never voted according to your opinions before or some opinions that you differ on are more important to you than other opinions.
In short: do some work before you decide who deserves your vote.
MjM
Deity
I hope Clinton gets elected over anybody but Obama.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Something that I've mentioned before but never gets any airtime.
Agreed, that strategy failed last election cycle.
Chavez, Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Gravel, Clinton, Tarcendo, Ward Churchill, etc.
As can any president of the United States.
No, he can't and he doesn't. Stalin could do that.
So what?
I'd love to see this with proof.
That seems like a good thing, no? People getting the money they earn. That's not the only reason for debt also.
Proof please.
Proof please.
More crap from George. Why must you make yourself look like an idiot whenever you post?
I love this thread so much. 
PredatorFett
steam user
Is worser a word?
PredatorFett
steam user
Hitler killed 15 million people.
Stalin killed 50 million.
Mao killed an estimated 19 million.
And you say Bush is worse.
Welcome back to reality.
America=
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Personally, I don't like her either, but only because of her appearance (I saw one discussion with her). I don't follow the US politics that much, so I can't really say I know something about her programme.
Is that a problem? As a woman, she's unlikely to be a war veteran.
Well, that is kinda normal in America, or at least that's how it looks from here.
Really? I didn't know about that.
Well, I can't really object to that, as a European
Same as above
How exactly? I mean, what does she propose what would curb free trade?
I can understand that.
You mean that oil project in Alaska?
Now that's something I'd have a problem with.
What is that?
Hm.
-She has no military or executive experience whatsoever - just a senator for a bit, and Bill's husband. Er, wife.
Is that a problem? As a woman, she's unlikely to be a war veteran.
Well, that is kinda normal in America, or at least that's how it looks from here.
Really? I didn't know about that.
Well, I can't really object to that, as a European
Same as above
How exactly? I mean, what does she propose what would curb free trade?
I can understand that.
You mean that oil project in Alaska?
Now that's something I'd have a problem with.
What is that?
Hm.
-She's scary as crap.
You might as well rename this "anyone but a woman". None of you have a good reason to exclusively oppose Hillary other than her gender.
For that to be true, I'd have to be categorically opposed to Condi Rice, Elizabeth Dole, or Kay Bailey Hutchinson for president, as well, and actually I would vote for any of the three. Be careful with your generalizations.
Did I say be careful with your generalizations? This is as utterly goofy and biased a statement I've seen on CFC in quite some time. Some people are voting for her because she's a woman, some people are against her because she's a woman. Some people are for Obama because he's black, some people are against him because he's black. How is this not obvious to you?
I personally am slightly more likely to vote for a minority candidate (whether it be race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or what-have-you) than a traditional WASP candidate "just because", though my judgement of their character, leadership ability, and positions on issues compared to their opponents means that I very rarely get to the "WASP/non-WASP tiebreaker".
Bast
Protector of Cats
I made an observation based on the facts I had. There were people who were saying "anyone but Hillary", without any reasons to back themselves up. So having observed that, what other conclusion could I have drawn at that point other than the fact that they were against her because she's a woman?
Now that you supposedly would vote for Rice and Dole etc... this excludes you from that. Well done. But my observation at that point still stands. Unless if you have a good enough reason to oppose Hillary and only Hillary from all candidates, you are simply against her because she's a woman.
I have read and can provide evidence on this board where people have admitted that they're against Hillary because she's a woman.
Can you provide any evidence on this board or anywhere else where someone has admitted that they'll vote for her purely because she's a woman? People may vote for her because she's a woman as well as for her policies.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
I can't stand her because she's a woman and thus naturally inferior. Women can't lead and have no right to do so either. She should be cooking and cleaning in the kitchens.
What other conclusion could you have drawn? I don't know, maybe that they have various non-gender-related reasons but didn't detail them yet, rather than assume the worst pending further explanation?
In your mind, perhaps. But Hillary has had eight years of FirstLadyship next to a president/husband with a fairly controversial track record, so it is easy for me to see why there would be non-policy-related reasons to dislike her unrelated to her gender.
As have I. I would never claim something as stupid as "no one is voting for/against someone because they're X" - there are voters out there that vote based on some pretty screwy reasons.
On this board? Very few American women here in the first place (women being obviously more likely to vote for someone purely because they're a woman) and the ones that are appear to be politically aware enough to vote for policy/ideology reasons, so no dice there. But as for anywhere else, here's the top result of my websearch: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1204 and I'm sure if you want to broaden out beyond CFC to actually do some introspection on your position, you'll find similar gems elsewhere that also rely on reason and analysis of poll results.
-She has no military or executive experience whatsoever - just a senator for a bit, and Bill's wife.
So no more military leaders
-She's an extremely divisive candidate that half the country hates.
So was Bush
-She's an extremely sleezy politician and is in the pocket of the unions.
Unions are meant to give the weakest what they deserve, don't blame her if they don't always work as intended
-She wants to establish a federal national healthcare system.
Finally public healthcare for the weakest
-She's pro gun control.
So no more free guns to madmen but sports won't be hurt
-She's anti-free trade.
"free trade" has caused a lot of suffering, for example US has agricultural support for american farmers so they overrun locals
-She's liberal on every social issue out there (Abortion, gay marriage, etc - only a minus if you're a conservative on these issues, of course)
Fetuses ain't consious humans, homosexuality is just because of one's different internal structure of brains, reproductive organs and hormones
-She's anti-ANWR drilling.
We should keep some areas untouched. With 200 billion and 20 years we could get unlimited energy from other sources
-She's pro-affirmative action.
[TAB]She supported Iraq war on the basis of the evidence which was only later proven false
-She's anti-school vouchers.
-She's pro Kyoto-Protocol.
So she cares about our children more than those who want to get lots of them ("pro-life", anti-contraception people)
-She's scary as crap.
So the enemies of freedom would be too afraid to attack the US
So are there any bad sides in her?
So no more military leaders
-She's an extremely divisive candidate that half the country hates.
So was Bush
-She's an extremely sleezy politician and is in the pocket of the unions.
Unions are meant to give the weakest what they deserve, don't blame her if they don't always work as intended
-She wants to establish a federal national healthcare system.
Finally public healthcare for the weakest
-She's pro gun control.
So no more free guns to madmen but sports won't be hurt
-She's anti-free trade.
"free trade" has caused a lot of suffering, for example US has agricultural support for american farmers so they overrun locals
-She's liberal on every social issue out there (Abortion, gay marriage, etc - only a minus if you're a conservative on these issues, of course)
Fetuses ain't consious humans, homosexuality is just because of one's different internal structure of brains, reproductive organs and hormones
-She's anti-ANWR drilling.
We should keep some areas untouched. With 200 billion and 20 years we could get unlimited energy from other sources
-She's pro-affirmative action.
[TAB]She supported Iraq war on the basis of the evidence which was only later proven false
-She's anti-school vouchers.
-She's pro Kyoto-Protocol.
So she cares about our children more than those who want to get lots of them ("pro-life", anti-contraception people)
-She's scary as crap.
So the enemies of freedom would be too afraid to attack the US
So are there any bad sides in her?
Similar threads
