why are people so down on hc

DonQuixote said:
i thought that we have a democratic republic where people run for office

so why are people so down on hc for continuing to run

if the dems cannot stand a close race then they do not deserve to win

i would hope that since bo and hc are so close politically that one or the other would run for vp if they do not make the cut for pres

it would be the best way to re-unite the dems
Click to expand...

It's very simple.

Clinton is a polorizing figure who believes she is entitled to the presidency .. and many like myself will not vote for her if she gets the nomination .. although I won't vote for McCain either.

Obama does not need Clinton on the ticket, but she will need him if she gwts it.
 
I think dems want her out cause they are scared that she will screw things up for November.

People like me want her out because it will make me sleep better at night knowing that either Obama or McCain will be president and there is not chance of hillary.
 
cawacko said:
Please state where they are different.

Rhetorical question because you won't find one.
Click to expand...


I don't think their radically different on policy. Clinton is actually nominally more progressive on health care and economic issues. I think Obama might be better on foreign policy and iraq.

But, clinton is too much of a hawk on foreign policy and Iraq. I'm sick of having my tax money spent to kill innocent people, and bleed our country dry.
 
Yep the biggest difference is on the war.
And the fact that she is a well imbedded politician, with all the negatives that maens now-a-days.
 
i think they have some big differences in two huge dem initiatives.
SS it totally different
healthcare is totally different.

BIGGEST difference however is that Obama's ideas have a far greater chance at happening. Hillary is starting way to progressive on HC and SS to stand any chance at passing during the next 8 years.
 
Chapdog said:
i think they have some big differences in two huge dem initiatives.
SS it totally different
healthcare is totally different.

BIGGEST difference however is that Obama's ideas have a far greater chance at happening. Hillary is starting way to progressive on HC and SS to stand any chance at passing during the next 8 years.
Click to expand...

don't you think that obama or hillary would be willing to work with all the ideas of reform once they are in office?

in other words, do you see them as inflexible Chap?

i personally think it is Congress that will ultimately decide and the difference between hillary and obama, is irrellevent imo.

what's different about their SS plans?

care
 
Care4all said:
don't you think that obama or hillary would be willing to work with all the ideas of reform once they are in office?

in other words, do you see them as inflexible Chap?

i personally think it is Congress that will ultimately decide and the difference between hillary and obama, is irrellevent imo.

what's different about their SS plans?

care
Click to expand...



its about perception in allot of ways.. Hillary method is to start negotiations FAR left and behind closed doors.. she seems to think you have to start negotiations way left then conceed closer to middle like your bartering for a car with a used car salesman.... this only gives forces against her ammo. we see how that went over her first time trying to do that with Hillary care.. Put it this way.. nobody thats educated does this in the upper levels of a corporation.

Obama is much more sensible and clearly educated.. he would start open door with all the involved parties.. get them to admit the problems have them help to solve the problems.. its a classic text book way of dealing with a difficult project. Getting steak holders to take ownership. NOT to mention a clear sign of his superior educational intellect on dealing with things over hillary. this is how successful leaders of business operate.



on SSI:
hillarys ssi plan just raises cap.. so without perfect acuracy say we are at 7% up to 100K right now.. she will just raise cap so you pay SSI up to 200k or higher.

Obamas plan freezes where it is now.. with possible reduction in rate for first 100K... nothing between 100-200k (donut hole).. then reinstates 200k plus.
 
Last edited:
Chapdog said:
its about perception in allot of ways.. Hillary method is to start negotiations FAR left and behind closed doors.. she seems to think you have to start negotiations way left then conceed closer to middle like your bartering for a car with a used car salesman.... this only gives forces against her ammo. we see how that went over her first time trying to do that with Hillary care.. Put it this way.. nobody thats educated does this in the upper levels of a corporation.

Obama is much more sensible and clearly educated.. he would start open door with all the involved parties.. get them to admit the problems have them help to solve the problems.. its a classic text book way of dealing with a difficult project. Getting steak holders to take ownership. NOT to mention a clear sign of his superior educational intellect on dealing with things over hillary. this is how successful leaders of business operate.



on SSI:
hillarys ssi plan just raises cap.. so without perfect acuracy say we are at 7% up to 100K right now.. she will just raise cap so you pay SSI up to 200k or higher.

Obamas plan freezes where it is now.. with possible reduction in rate for first 100K... nothing between 100-200k (donut hole).. then reinstates 200k plus.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhhh, thanks Chap on the SS info.... Interesting concept on Obama's but why the donut hole and why do you accept it?

the donut hole helps the upper middle not get such a drastic hit I would suppose, and takes more from the wealthiest to do such?

(Is this more, redistribution of wealth, moreso than Clinton's plan? )

Care
 
Care4all said:
Ahhhhhhhh, thanks Chap on the SS info.... Interesting concept on Obama's but why the donut hole and why do you accept it?

the donut hole helps the upper middle not get such a drastic hit I would suppose, and takes more from the wealthiest to do such?

(Is this more, redistribution of wealth, moreso than Clinton's plan? )

Care
Click to expand...

cause he is aware of the east and west coast cost of living.. think of guy who makes like 150k and wife stays home with 3 kids in a 2500sf 500k house in MA.. u think he can afford a 7% tax on 100-150? thats a 3500 tax increase.

Someone over 200k is not hurting regardless of where he/she lives.
 
Chapdog said:
cause he is aware of the east and west coast cost of living.. think of guy who makes like 150k and wife stays home with 3 kids in a 2500sf 500k house in MA.. u think he can afford a 7% tax on 100-150? thats a 3500 tax increase.

Someone over 200k is not hurting regardless of where he/she lives.
Click to expand...
no, i don't think he can afford it, unless he was extremely prudent....

but that doesn't answer the question on redistribution of wealth does it? Why okay in this circumstance but not progressively with income tax? why not okay with doing such with the subprime crisis?

care
 
Chapdog said:
i think they have some big differences in two huge dem initiatives.
SS it totally different
healthcare is totally different.

BIGGEST difference however is that Obama's ideas have a far greater chance at happening. Hillary is starting way to progressive on HC and SS to stand any chance at passing during the next 8 years.
Click to expand...

You've said exactly what I was going to say.

There is a big difference between ideological purity and actually getting something done. Obama's plans have a far greater chance of becoming reality.

One word for a Hillary Administration .. GRIDLOCK.
 
Care4all said:
no, i don't think he can afford it, unless he was extremely prudent....

but that doesn't answer the question on redistribution of wealth does it? Why okay in this circumstance but not progressively with income tax? why not okay with doing such with the subprime crisis?

care
Click to expand...

easier to keep this 1 issue at a time and treat them separately.. especially ssi where its not per say supposed to be a tax.. this is supposed to be an investment in our 'social secuirty' all i know is that i pay 7% plus my employer pays 7% since i started earning an income. hell we would be rich if we could put 14% in an annuity for our entire careers and get it back. instead we get a fraction of it back when we are almost dead.

now everyone is saying that around the time my generation start retiring ss will be defunct and they will have to up our retirement age and/or cut our benefits. thats not acceptable to my voting block and younger. it needs to be fixed.

the entire program if flawed and its ALWAYS been a redistribution of wealth.
 
blackascoal said:
It's very simple.

Clinton is a polorizing figure who believes she is entitled to the presidency .. and many like myself will not vote for her if she gets the nomination .. although I won't vote for McCain either.

Obama does not need Clinton on the ticket, but she will need him if she gwts it.
Click to expand...

bac

i still think that hc is the better politician and would work with congress better than bo

however, whatever i think, ca will go for whichever dem is nominated

i am not happy with bo, hc or mc

i could tolerate either bo or hc

if you are a true dem, you will vote for whom so ever the dems nominate, but then while i am not a true dem, my wife is - she prefers hc to bo, but would vote for whichever is nominated

me, i am an independent - social progressive and fiscal conservative

oh well
 
blackascoal said:
You've said exactly what I was going to say.

There is a big difference between ideological purity and actually getting something done. Obama's plans have a far greater chance of becoming reality.

One word for a Hillary Administration .. GRIDLOCK.
Click to expand...

I actually disagree with this. I wish that Obama had adopted a platform closer to Edwards' platform, like Hillary did.

The reason that I personally dismiss these differences is because it has become apparent to me that Clinton is a liar of the highest magnitude. I don't believe one word that comes out of her mouth. So when she says she will require mandates, I don't believe her. I think that within days of getting to the white house she'd decide, nah I don't feel like having that fight it could use political capital. Nothing she says means anything. So what possible difference could it make what her "policies" are, since they are all just words crafted to win over the more progressive of the dem base?
 
DonQuixote said:
bac

i still think that hc is the better politician and would work with congress better than bo

however, whatever i think, ca will go for whichever dem is nominated

i am not happy with bo, hc or mc

i could tolerate either bo or hc

if you are a true dem, you will vote for whom so ever the dems nominate, but then while i am not a true dem, my wife is - she prefers hc to bo, but would vote for whichever is nominated

me, i am an independent - social progressive and fiscal conservative

oh well
Click to expand...

Yeah it's easy to work with Republicans when you are one. All of this "McCain and Hillary just love each other" and these shots coming out of Bill and Hillary saying that she and McCain are "real Americans" the clear implication being that Obama is not one, make me sick.

the one thing I believe is that her and McCain really do love each other, and that's no endorsement in my book. I won't vote for somebody who is willing to bury the Democratic nominee and throw this election to a war mongering loon just so she can have one last chance in 2012. I live in NY and voted for Hillary in 2000. I voted for Jonathon Tasini in 2006 and have never regretted it. The vote Hillary got from me in 2000 is the only one she ever will get.
 
DonQuixote said:
bac

i still think that hc is the better politician and would work with congress better than bo

however, whatever i think, ca will go for whichever dem is nominated

i am not happy with bo, hc or mc

i could tolerate either bo or hc

if you are a true dem, you will vote for whom so ever the dems nominate, but then while i am not a true dem, my wife is - she prefers hc to bo, but would vote for whichever is nominated

me, i am an independent - social progressive and fiscal conservative

oh well
Click to expand...

Not only am I NOT a "true dem", I'm not a democrat at all.

Hillary being a "better politician" doesn't move me in the slightest. She's a war queen.

It's pure fantasy to suggest that she could get more done in Congress when the republicans hate her and will contest anything she promotes and she and Bill have fatally damaged their reputation and standing within the Democratic Party, many of whom which that the Clintons would just go away.

The race for the nomination is over and few coud have imagined the Clintons would play their hand this badly.
 
Darla said:
I actually disagree with this. I wish that Obama had adopted a platform closer to Edwards' platform, like Hillary did.

The reason that I personally dismiss these differences is because it has become apparent to me that Clinton is a liar of the highest magnitude. I don't believe one word that comes out of her mouth. So when she says she will require mandates, I don't believe her. I think that within days of getting to the white house she'd decide, nah I don't feel like having that fight it could use political capital. Nothing she says means anything. So what possible difference could it make what her "policies" are, since they are all just words crafted to win over the more progressive of the dem base?
Click to expand...

Politics is about incrementalism my sister and I believe that President O is correctly taking it one step at a time.

Edwards couldn't get elected with his platform and he would have had a hell of a time getting it past the republicans. If his coattails are as long as they appear and the dems take greater control of Congress, he may indeed get closer to Edwards.

You're right .. Hillary is a liar of the hghest order and she couldn't be trusted to end the war or get our troops out of Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top