Hillary For President


DUCKofD3ATH

Suspended
Jun 6, 2005
497
2,379
0
Universe 0 Timeline
does anybody other than me think that if Hillary gets the nomination it will virtually guarantee a Republican win in 2008?
The Democrat bench is extremely thin this year. A liar and a loser and an also-ran.

Hillary won't win because she'll be in jail or because Americans will find her to be completely unlikable.

Bernie won't win because America doesn't want a National Socialist in charge.

Martin won't win because he can't poll above 20% in his home state of Maryland.

Who's left?
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
0
The Democrat bench is extremely thin this year. A liar and a loser and an also-ran.

Hillary won't win because she'll be in jail or because Americans will find her to be completely unlikable.

Bernie won't win because America doesn't want a National Socialist in charge.

Martin won't win because he can't poll above 20% in his home state of Maryland.

Who's left?
Hillary.
 

jblagden

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2013
1,141
633
0
http
You're a few years late to the thread.

The last post before yours was 2006. The topic was Hillary running in 2008.
Oh, okay. I really think old threads should be archived. This is the second time this has happened in a week. I'm just glad you didn't argue with me about for wanting a Republican to win.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,432
5,425
0
OBJECTIVE reality
The Democrat bench is extremely thin this year. A liar and a loser and an also-ran.

Hillary won't win because she'll be in jail or because Americans will find her to be completely unlikable.

Bernie won't win because America doesn't want a National Socialist in charge.

Martin won't win because he can't poll above 20% in his home state of Maryland.

Who's left?
(bookmarks this thread for next November...)
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
0
Somewhere
We can only hope.
In 2008 I highly doubt that anyone that got the democratic nomination would have been able to lose. The Republicans wouldn't have been able to get past Bush's legacy. In retrospect we probably would have been better off with Hillary winning the 2008 election than we have been with Obama, but Obama was still better than the other alternatives.
 

jblagden

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2013
1,141
633
0
http
In 2008 I highly doubt that anyone that got the democratic nomination would have been able to lose. The Republicans wouldn't have been able to get past Bush's legacy. In retrospect we probably would have been better off with Hillary winning the 2008 election than we have been with Obama, but Obama was still better than the other alternatives.
In other words, you only want a liberal president to push your agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meister

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
0
Somewhere
In other words, you only want a liberal president to push your agenda.
I'm good with a moderate, unfortunately most of those have been driven out of the Republican party. Back in 2008 McCain showed that he lacked good judgment with picking Palin for VP. Plus he supported keeping us in the wars while Obama only supported keeping us in Afghanistan. Also at the time Republican policies had pushed us into an economic collapse, and that along with many other things made it almost impossible for a Republican to have had a chance of winning.

This time around I want someone who can work with congress to keep the recovery going instead of reversing it. At this point none of the Republican candidates have anything of substance on that front, it's all more tax cuts that at best might fuel another bubble that will pop towards the end of their term.
 

jblagden

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2013
1,141
633
0
http
I'm good with a moderate, unfortunately most of those have been driven out of the Republican party. Back in 2008 McCain showed that he lacked good judgment with picking Palin for VP. Plus he supported keeping us in the wars while Obama only supported keeping us in Afghanistan. Also at the time Republican policies had pushed us into an economic collapse, and that along with many other things made it almost impossible for a Republican to have had a chance of winning.
Republican policies pushed us into an economic collapse? When both the House of Representatives and the Senate were both under Democratic control? How does that happen? What about checks and balances? The president can’t do anything without the consent of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with the exception of being in a war.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,419
0
United Kingdom
The Democrat bench is extremely thin this year. A liar and a loser and an also-ran.

Hillary won't win because she'll be in jail or because Americans will find her to be completely unlikable.

Bernie won't win because America doesn't want a National Socialist in charge.

Martin won't win because he can't poll above 20% in his home state of Maryland.

Who's left?
Do you even understand what National Socialism is?
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,262
0
UK
Republican policies pushed us into an economic collapse? When both the House of Representatives and the Senate were both under Democratic control? How does that happen? What about checks and balances? The president can’t do anything without the consent of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with the exception of being in a war.
By that logic Clinton isn't at all to blame for Glass-seagel being repealed.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,419
0
United Kingdom
Republican policies pushed us into an economic collapse? When both the House of Representatives and the Senate were both under Democratic control? How does that happen? What about checks and balances? The president can’t do anything without the consent of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with the exception of being in a war.
Republicans controlled Congress from 2002 to 2007. George W. Bush ignored warnings from the FBI about fraud in the mortgage markets. Sub-prime mortgage lending rose dramatically from 2004-2007. The U.S. Government did not intervene when the largest banks took on so much debt that a minute reduction in their assets would've rendered them insolvent. The Government could have intervened in 2004-05 when subprime debt and bank liabilities rose dramatically.

Pointing fingers is easy, though. In reality it started many years before. Every president since Reagan has sponsored legislation that made it easier and easier for more people to become homeowners (read: make it easier and easier for more risky recipients to claim mortgages). Eventually the system would've cracked under the pressure. And it did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead