Originally posted by RocasAtollAre you talking about Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? That's not GTA:4. And if I remember correctly, I believe that Clinton only wanted to restrict games such as GTA😖A to children (which already have an M rating). What's so bad about that?
She went off on the entire industry because GTA:4 had a mod made for it that had a sex scene. Oh no. That's idiotic to say the least. And she also added in comments about video game violence=violence in kids.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Are you talking about Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? That's not GTA:4. And if I remember correctly, I believe that Clinton only wanted to restrict games such as GTA😖A to children (which already have an M rating). What's so bad about that?
This is a STUPID digression.
well?
Originally posted by StrangeloveBy the establishment, I mean the bureacratic nightmares that are poltical parties in a majoritarian system. Those parties spill over into government in speical interests etc. Obama is not really at all a part of that. Clinton could damn well run the democratic party.
Being in the Senate period makes you "part of the establishment", to be technical. What is the "establishment"? The government. Obama is part of the establishment. Clinton is, of course, more a part of the establishment, but that doesn't change the fact that by election to the Senate, Obama is in the establishment.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Examples?
Lets take the Iraq issue. Originally, she passed it off as if it wasn't a big deal, that is was a decision in the past. you can say that Dems jsut wanted red meat...I think that is an oversimplification. So, she doesn't apologize.
Honestly, it was such a simple request. If she's not willing to address teh needs of her party, how is she going to address the needs of the people? Now, what she has done is backed herself into a corner where she CAN'T apologize without giving into political pressure and she will continue to be hammered for not doing it.
Hillary needed that initial flexibility to connect and to sympathize. She chose not to do that. Now she appears with Bush-like pig-headedness beacuse of it. I think she's SO worried about Deaning or mis-steping, everything she does is calculated. To me, she seems to lack the flexibility to deal and the compassion to motivate. That knocks her down from my primary spot.
Hillary is a born and bread democratic candidate...a trained racehorse. Obama comes from community organizing, the real man's politics. Those are vastly different backgrounds. It shows.
Originally posted by Strangelove That is, so far, the only misgiving I have about Clinton '08. But since the office of President is democratically elected, how is it a crappy statement about democracy?
Oh come'on. This is majoritarian...either/or. They can vote for a Bush or a Clinton...every election. Sorry, I wasn't aware that the people really nominated candidates.
I think these arguments only illuminate why neiter serious candidate for first female president and first black president are bad choices.
Barack has been very visible so far, while Hillary has been no where. That will change, I have no doubt. Give it a little time. But neither of them are saying anything very impressive up to this point. Both are betting on issues that are really irrelevant...those being their race and their gender. I honestly think they're red herring issues in our modern political climate.
Originally posted by StrangeloveYou know, I realized that I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to Clinton's position on video games. So I'm going to shut up.
......
But the idea that as President, Hillary Clinton would ban video games is utterly ridiculous and any parroting of the topic will be regarded as an attempt to derail this thread. Good day. 🙂
Originally posted by AllianceHow does having a conversation conflict with her character? You're making assumptions.
She comes off as fake to me. I think she's too busy trying to put up the facade of "lets have a discussion" that she neglects the fact that it conflicts with her character.
Lets take the Iraq issue. Originally, she passed it off as if it wasn't a big deal, that is was a decision in the past. You can say that Dems just wanted red meat...I think that is an oversimplification. So, she doesn't apologize.What she has said is that she voted with what information she had, and knowing what she knows now, she would have voted otherwise (unlike Bush, who has said that knowing what he knows now, he still would have invaded Iraq). Clinton has been consistent in saying that she voted to authorize military force in Iraq in 2002 with the understanding that Bush would only do so after exhausting diplomatic measures.
Granted, I don't understand why she hasn't said she was wrong for voting that way yet either. She recently introduced a bill in the Senate that would de-authorize the military presence in Iraq (essentially a "backsies" on the 2002 vote). I personally don't understand why she won't say she was wrong, but I don't think it's as big a deal as Edwards and other antiwar Democrats do. (I'm an antiwar Democrat as well)
If she's not willing to address the needs of her party,How exactly is apologize for a vote in 2002 a need of the party?
Hillary needed that initial flexibility to connect and to sympathize. She chose not to do that. Now she appears with Bush-like pig-headedness because of it. I think she's SO worried about Deaning or mis-stepping, everything she does is calculated. To me, she seems to lack the flexibility to deal and the compassion to motivate. That knocks her down from my primary spot.Your basis for calling her inflexible and cold towards the people is because she won't apologize for a vote? Clinton has, again, promised that [paraphrasing] "If Bush does not end this war, when I'm in office, I will." How is that not responding to the people? Your position is based on incorrect premises.
Hillary is a born and bread democratic candidate...a trained racehorse. Obama comes from community organizing, the real man's politics. Those are vastly different backgrounds. It shows.Wrong again. When Clinton was young, her only goal was to be a public servant. Not a politician, mind you, a public servant. Out of college, she interned at the Children's Defense Fund and then worked there as an attorney. She also taught law classes as the University of Arkansas. All before she even met Bill Clinton. After she got married, she was appointed by Jimmy Carter to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, was the honorary chair of a children's hospital in Arkansas, campaigned on behalf of children while First Lady of Arkansas, and thousands of other services. Do you call that a "born and bread candidate"? You are sorely mistaken.
In my view, you are simply biased against Clinton because you are biased towards Obama. Get over it.
Originally posted by AllianceYes, because being in first too early means they can't POSSIBLY be in the first later. Gimme a break 🙄
What I fear most is Obama taking the lead too early. I WANT him in second right now.
Originally posted by Burnt PancakesWell, it is my thread 😬
Be regarded by who? You?*shrugs*
I agree that Hillary's inability to really take a stand on matters is her worse atribute. That and banning Video games. Completely ignorant... some of those people out there. And for a supposed "liberal", that's nit very "liberal".Inability to take a stand? Excuse me?
And for god's sake, there is absolutely NO evidence that she has any inclination to ban video games.
Unfortunately 😬
Sure, they're competing, but it shouldn't be about "I want to be President and I'm going to ruin anyone who gets in my way." Because in the end, it is about beating the other party. And once the general election comes, all Democrats (and yes, Republicans) should be united. Assuming that they believe in their candidate, of course.
Originally posted by Strangelove
How does having a conversation conflict with her character? You're making assumptions.
I'm making evaluations of a disjuction I percieve between her personality and her campaign.
Originally posted by Strangelove
What she has said is that she voted with what information she had, and knowing what she knows now, she would have voted otherwise (unlike Bush, who has said that knowing what he knows now, he still would have invaded Iraq). Clinton has been consistent in saying that she voted to authorize military force in Iraq in 2002 with the understanding that Bush would only do so after exhausting diplomatic measures.Granted, I don't understand why she hasn't said she was wrong for voting that way yet either. She recently introduced a bill in the Senate that would de-authorize the military presence in Iraq (essentially a "backsies" on the 2002 vote). I personally don't understand why she won't say she was wrong, but I don't think it's as big a deal as Edwards and other antiwar Democrats do. (I'm an antiwar Democrat as well)
Originally posted by Strangelove
How exactly is apologize for a vote in 2002 a need of the party?
Originally posted by Strangelove
Your basis for calling her inflexible and cold towards the people is because she won't apologize for a vote? Clinton has, again, promised that [paraphrasing] "If Bush does not end this war, when I'm in office, I will." How is that not responding to the people? Your position is based on incorrect premises.
Originally posted by StrangeloveShe's the bull of the Democratic party. You're telling me she hasn't been the party favorite for a long effing time?
Wrong again. When Clinton was young, her only goal was to be a public servant. Not a politician, mind you, a public servant. Out of college, she interned at the Children's Defense Fund and then worked there as an attorney. She also taught law classes as the University of Arkansas. All before she even met Bill Clinton. After she got married, she was appointed by Jimmy Carter to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, was the honorary chair of a children's hospital in Arkansas, campaigned on behalf of children while First Lady of Arkansas, and thousands of other services. Do you call that a "born and bread candidate"? You are sorely mistaken.
Originally posted by StrangeloveNo, I'm pro-Obama because I think he's the best. I knew of Hillary Clinton long before I did Obama. That my be a factor you can count into your equation. Obama's the best, because his good qualities are greater than Clintons and more needed now. Hes also the best, becasue his flaws are not a serious as Clintons. Thats my opinion. You can try to make me out as bashing or whatever, but your simply dead wrong.
In my view, you are simply biased against Clinton because you are biased towards Obama. Get over it.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Yes, because being in first too early means they can't POSSIBLY be in the first later. Gimme a break 🙄
Originally posted by chithappens
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.That's just saying what you said another way. 🤣
And its still just as worthless a comment.