The Official Hillary Clinton support thread

[Bill3000]

Libertarian=social liberal on the political compass quiz, so a social conservative might find himself labeled an "authoritarian", even if he has no desire for the government to enforce his moral views. Still, you'll note that even by that flawed definition, he's less authoritarian than everyone except Gravel and Kucinich.

Eh? He is more authoritarian than the average libertarian. He's completely anti-illegal immigration, (an authoritarian stance) considers gay marriage "a perversion of liberty," is completely against abortion, and is against secularism. The fact that he wants to leave stuff to the states doesn't change the fact that those are not very libertarian stances. Besides, more importantly, he's much more libertarian compared to the rest of the candidates.

It's not flawed, either, since there really isn't that much difference in the political opinions of the candidates of the US - two party systems do that.

 

[Norton II]

Eh? He is more authoritarian than the average libertarian. He's completely anti-illegal immigration, (an authoritarian stance) considers gay marriage "a perversion of liberty," is completely against abortion, and is against secularism. The fact that he wants to leave stuff to the states doesn't change the fact that those are not very libertarian stances. Besides, more importantly, he's much more libertarian compared to the rest of the candidates.

It's not flawed, either, since there really isn't that much difference in the political opinions of the candidates of the US - two party systems do that.

I agree with you somewhat there, especially on immigration and abortion (both issues where I disagree with him, except for overturning Roe, which was just bad law no matter what your views on abortion). As for the rest, libertarians don't have to support gay marriage or secularism--we just want the government to stay out of marriage and religion. There's a difference between what you think of something and what you want the government to do about it; indeed, that's where the social axis of the political compass is flawed--it doesn't differentiate enough between the two (the economic axis is much better in this regard). That being said, I'll concede that he's more authoritarian than many libertarians--he's certainly more authoritarian than I am (not that that's hard to manage ).

 

[Bast]

So the latest poll has Hillary struggling against five top Republicans including: Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson and McCain. Which is obviously very bad news for her and really questions her electability. But apparently Obama and Edwards both have stronger chances to beat those Republicans.

It will be sad if Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee but still I like Obama and Edwards.

 

[Murky]

So the latest poll has Hillary struggling against five top Republicans including: Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson and McCain. Which is obviously very bad news for her and really questions her electability. But apparently Obama and Edwards both have stronger chances to beat those Republicans.

It will be sad if Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee but still I like Obama and Edwards.

I don't know if Hillary is really the right candidate in this political climate. Her nomination might be the kind of lightning rod the Republican party desperately needs to re-energize their base. I think Obama or Edwards would be ok but I'd prefer Richardson or even Kucinich to them. If Obama wins the nomination, you'll see a lot of juvenile heckling from the right-wing about his middle-name but it he won't ignite the kind if furor that Hillary could. Edwards also a strong candidate but it seems like he's already had his shot and lost. .

 

[MobBoss]

I have said it before and I will say it again. A lot of people will give Hillary and Obama lip service support right now; but when it comes time to actually vote for them in a booth, they wont do it, or wont even show up OR their actual presence on a ballot will generate such an overwhelming opposition vote that they will go down in defeat regardless.

You simply cant discount the unspoken sexism/racism still inherit in a lot of america. There are millions upon millions of rednecks/common folks out there that simply are not going to vote for a female or black junior senator with not much experience. The closer and closer we get to Nov 08, the more and more Obama/Hillary will poll worse and worse against their various republican counterparts.

Now, do I think a woman or a black man can be elected president? Actually, yes, I do. However, it is going to have to be someone far less polarizing and a lot more respected by mods and libs alike than either Hillary and Obama.

 

[skadistic]

Your use of the term redneck is ignorant and incorrect.

 

[MobBoss]

Your use of the term redneck is ignorant and incorrect.

Uhm....nope. I happen to be a redneck from rural Arkansas and know rednecks very, very well.

 

[Elrohir]

Eh? He is more authoritarian than the average libertarian. He's completely anti-illegal immigration, (an authoritarian stance) considers gay marriage "a perversion of liberty," is completely against abortion, and is against secularism. The fact that he wants to leave stuff to the states doesn't change the fact that those are not very libertarian stances. Besides, more importantly, he's much more libertarian compared to the rest of the candidates.

Wait, how is it particularly authoritarian to be anti-illegal immigration? I can understand how being anti-immigration in general would be authoritarian, but how is not liking a completely open border authoritarian?

For those of you who support Hillary: Do you really think she's electable?

 

[Integral]

Wait, how is it particularly authoritarian to be anti-illegal immigration? I can understand how being anti-immigration in general would be authoritarian, but how is not liking a completely open border authoritarian?

I don't know, but from Paul's website he wants to "physically secure our borders", which sounds like a wall to me. Walls are generaly considered authoritarian tools.

 

[The Yankee]

I don't know, but from Paul's website he wants to "physically secure our borders", which sounds like a wall to me. Walls are generaly considered authoritarian tools.

But not towards (most of) us!

 

[MobBoss]

I don't know, but from Paul's website he wants to "physically secure our borders", which sounds like a wall to me. Walls are generaly considered authoritarian tools.

Well....when they are meant to keep people 'in'...not necessarily when they are meant to keep people 'out'.

 

[Integral]

I'm still struggling to see why we should keep the vast majority of them out.

Keeping out terrorists and criminals I understand. The quotas, I don't.

-Integral

 

[Elrohir]

I don't know, but from Paul's website he wants to "physically secure our borders", which sounds like a wall to me. Walls are generaly considered authoritarian tools.

I have a fence around my backyard. Am I an authoritarian?

No. They're just authoritarian when you're keeping people in, not people out. (At least, if they don't have a right to come in)

I'm still struggling to see why we should keep the vast majority of them out.

Keeping out terrorists and criminals I understand. The quotas, I don't.

-Integral

I agree, the current system is dumb all around. Doesn't mean securing the border is bad, though.

 

[North King]

For those of you who support Hillary: Do you really think she's electable?

Electable? Certainly. The country, as you may have noticed, is rather anti-Republican at the moment. However, she would certainly not be a unifying figure (mostly because people irrationally hate her so much). We'd see a lot of the current partisan politics continuing into the future.

 

[Irish Caesar]

For those of you who support Hillary: Do you really think she's electable?

I don't support Senator Clinton's run for the presidency, but I still think she's electable.

Clearly, she has a lot of popularity among a large amount of potential primary voters, as does Mayor Giuliani. Both could be elected, but I'd rather not see either of them in the Oval Office.

 

[Damnyankee]

I don't support Senator Clinton's run for the presidency, but I still think she's electable.

Clearly, she has a lot of popularity among a large amount of potential primary voters, as does Mayor Giuliani. Both could be elected, but I'd rather not see either of them in the Oval Office.

Agreed, among the Front runners(Sorry fellow Ron Paul supporters, he is not among them, lol), I throw my support behind Barack Obama. Rudy and Hillary represent the totalitarian-esque wings of both parties.

 

[Bast]

Robert Kennedy endorses Hillary!

 

[IglooDame]

Electable? Certainly. The country, as you may have noticed, is rather anti-Republican at the moment. However, she would certainly not be a unifying figure (mostly because people irrationally hate her so much). We'd see a lot of the current partisan politics continuing into the future.

I don't know if she's running her latest commercial in television markets besides New Hampshire, so here it is on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZAuXvbP77c

Is anyone else reminded of a phrase Hillary used a few years ago that has even found its way into a certain individual's CFC nick?

 

[classical_hero]

So the latest poll has Hillary struggling against five top Republicans including: Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson and McCain. Which is obviously very bad news for her and really questions her electability. But apparently Obama and Edwards both have stronger chances to beat those Republicans.

It will be sad if Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee but still I like Obama and Edwards.

Why do you care about this, when it is not your country to decide who runs it?

 

[Bast]

Why do you care about this, when it is not your country to decide who runs it?

As I've expressed numerous times on this board I'm extremely concerned about climate change. US policy on climate change will affect the rest of the world including Australia. And you know that Australia and US are strong allies now and will be in the future. So I think I have a right to be interested.

I like Hillary because I think America under Bill Clinton was great. But I'll be content with any of the Democrats. I think all their environmental policies are sound.

Anyone but Ron Paul who starts talking about property rights when asked a question about climate change. He doesn't believe in it. He doesn't need to, he'll be dead soon enough. We're the ones that are going to be left with the mess.