APP - hilary in 2016?

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
if we can have two bushs, why not two clintons

my wife and i originally supported hilary in 2008 and since blacks got the vote before women, now that we have had a black president, why not a woman president next
 
Yes, and perhaps another Bush after that. And then another Kennedy. And we need to bring back the Roosevelts. In fact, let's just bring back the monarchy. Get it all out of the way.
 
Sparta said:
Yes, and perhaps another Bush after that. And then another Kennedy. And we need to bring back the Roosevelts. In fact, let's just bring back the monarchy. Get it all out of the way.
Click to expand...

i would support a constitutional monarchy, it would perhaps be the best hedge against a tyranny by a majority
 
Don Quixote said:
i would support a constitutional monarchy, it would perhaps be the best hedge against a tyranny by a majority
Click to expand...

-_-

So what you are saying is that people of certain bloodlines are superior to those of others, based on...well not a damned thing.
 
Sparta said:
-_-

So what you are saying is that people of certain bloodlines are superior to those of others, based on...well not a damned thing.
Click to expand...

how about an elected monarch with a lifetime rule, say one elected with a 60% popular vote
 
I am sick of the constant idea that elite families of politicians have some capacity to run the nation that others do not. We don't need more Kennedy, Clinton, Bush, Roosevelt, Adams, etc. In a nation of 325 Million people we absolutely can find somebody as capable without dipping back into some "elite" group of people some fools consider "better".
 
Don Quixote said:
how about an elected monarch with a lifetime rule, say one elected with a 60% popular vote
Click to expand...

Elected from a pool of this high bloods? No. Monarchy IS tyranny, in any form. It also requires social classes, another form of tyranny. And making it so the masses have to approve does not somehow make it right.
 
Sparta said:
Elected from a pool of this high bloods? No. Monarchy IS tyranny, in any form. It also requires social classes, another form of tyranny. And making it so the masses have to approve does not somehow make it right.
Click to expand...

i never said 'elected from a pool of high bloods'

what i recommend is a general election with a requirement that whosoever is selected must be elected by a popular vote of 60% from the base of citizens, we would still have a president and a (god help us congress), the monarchs sole duty would be to veto legislation with no possible override
 
are reps scared of hilary is she runs in 2016?

Newt Gingrich says nobody on the GOP bench could compete with Hillary in 2016. What makes him think she's unstoppable?Hillary Clinton has famously and repeatedly insisted that she won't launch another bid for the White House in 2016. But she's more popular by a long shot than any other potential presidential hopeful, boasting 60 percent approval ratings. That, says Liz Marlantes at The Christian Science Monitor, is "higher than formerFlorida Gov. Jeb Bush (39 percent), Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida (33 percent), Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (47 percent) and Vice President Joe Biden (46 percent)." With those numbers, "would she be unbeatable?" Failed 2012 GOP candidate Newt Gingrich seems to think so. If Clinton runs, Gingrich told NBC's Meet the Press this week, she'd be "supported by Bill Clinton and presumably a still relatively popular President Barack Obama." Gingrich continued: "The Republican Party today is incapable of competing at that level." Well, Gingrich may be overstating things, says Marlantes:
Wow. We realize Gingrich has been rehabilitating himself as a Republican wise man of sorts — and for partisan pundits, provocative critiques of one's own party are always a great way to generate attention (we're writing about it, aren't we?). But to blithely write off the chances of the entire 2016 GOP field a full four years in advance is eyebrow-raising, even for a politician as prone to "grandiose" (as he once put it) statements as Gingrich.
We agree that Clinton would, indeed, be a formidable candidate, but we're not sure she’d be as impossible to beat as Gingrich suggests.
Well, Hillary would at least be close to unstoppable in the Democratic primaries, says Allahpundit atHot Air. No "Democratic voter in his or her right mind is going to roll the dice" on some governor with no national profile, such as Andrew Cuomo of New York or Martin O'Malley of Maryland, when they can have Hillary "and the Clinton machine instead."SEE MORE: 5 reasons Republicans shot down an international treaty to protect the disabled
I think Republican voters will feel tremendous pressure to nominate someone with enough star power of their own that they won't be completely overshadowed by her in the general. That's good news for Rubio and Chris Christie, not such good news for [Louisiana Gov. Bobby] Jindal and Rand Paul. Rubio would also benefit insofar as he and Jindal would likely be the only Republicans with a "historic candidacy" narrative capable of somewhat neutralizing Hillary's. The wild card is Jeb Bush, insofar as he's the only prospective nominee — at least right now — whose "brand" is as well known as the Clintons'.
Judging by Gingrich's trepidation, Republicans are indeed "having cold sweats over the prospects of facing Hillary Clinton at the ballot box," says Ed Pilkington at Britain's The Guardian. And with good reason. She's a former first lady, ex-senator, and successful secretary of State who has already shown she can stand up to the rigors of a hard-knuckled presidential campaign. Looking around at the possible standard-bearers in their ranks, many Republicans may conclude that "if Clinton decides to stand in 2016, they are toast."Gingrich's frank words are revealing because they show how fearsome the Democratic trinity of the two Clintons and Obama appears to the Republicans. "She is married to the most popular Democrat in the country. They both think it would be good for her to be president. That makes it virtually impossible to stop her for the nomination, I think," he said
SEE MORE: John Boehner: Cat herder
Gingrich, who knows all about the terrifying powers of the Clintons having been Republican House speaker during the Bill Clinton administration, went further, saying that the Republican Party in its current guise would be ill-equipped to take them on.
Newt's observations "suggest that influential Republicans are waking up to the reality that the party's brand has been greatly damaged over the past decade," says RTT News. And maybe deciding that your party "deserves to be the underdogs" is a positive step.While a number of top conservative thinkers have blamed their crushing election defeat on the choice of Mitt Romney as nominee, Gingrich admits the party's problems run much deeper.
SEE MORE: How conservatives can regain popularity in America's inner cities
"We didn't blow it because of Mitt Romney. We blew it because of a party which has refused to engage the reality of American life and refused to take — to think through what the average American needs for a better future," he told David Gregory [on Meet the Press].
View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week
Other stories from this topic:
Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

http://news.yahoo.com/why-republicans-really-scared-hillary-clinton-105500105.html;_ylt=Ak8RGJuGj0W2zDphVbwK9w9tzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTVxNXVlamptBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDYjBjNjE1NTQtOGFjZS0zNjg5LTkwY2ItYzAyOTVkNmVkYWI2BHBvcwMzBHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzg1ZmRjNDYwLTQzYWQtMTFlMi1iN2ZmLWJjMjIwZDIwNmQ0NQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJtaW1jZjQwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDODQ3YjA1MGMtOTcwMC0zMDYxLWIxNzktNWQ3ZWY0MDdmNjJiBHBzdGNhdAN1LXMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3
 
i have to say, i am quite shocked by your views don. to prefer a monarchy over our republic makes no sense.

you have less freedom under a monarchy.
 
cannabis said:
i have to say, i am quite shocked by your views don. to prefer a monarchy over our republic makes no sense.

you have less freedom under a monarchy.
Click to expand...

obviously you have not read all of my comments on this thread

my recommendation is for a non-hereditary constitutional monarchy where the monarchs sole function is to veto legislation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top