If Hillary becomes U.S. president...

[Mr_Adams]

where will that lead the U.S.?

[littlebrother2k7]

way i see it is it cant be worse then bush... any way wether it is obama or clinton it is time for a change.... yes clinton is a lady what is wrong with that, people have got to quit worring bout little things like that... if we all put as much effort in changing the world as we do worring bout little things then we might do something right.... look at it this way at least when her husband was in office you could find jobs anywhere and he also helped our school system bout time we help the kids cuz if we dont then look at our future.... look back at the past 8 years think anyone can mess up that bad again... so lets give it a try no matter what it is a improvement right

[got tonkaed]

it would probably be the end of the nomination system as we know it...considering she isnt going to be the democratic nominee

[Mr_Adams]

Hehehe. well I must say, Bush gets alot of crap (not saying he doesn't deserve it though). This is a hipothetical question, don't answer it so literaly tonked! oh well, let's see what the rest have to say.

Edit: I've got absolutly nothing against a woman for president, I just don't want a socialist for president.

[got tonkaed]

in that case i hope C wins the poll because that one is the most fun out of the potential polling options.

[Mr_Adams]

this is true

[muy_thaiguy]

And so far, 4 is winning hands down.

[Mr_Adams]

It's tempting to change the name of the thread to "proof there is a god" and then make a comment about how Cliton is loosing in the primaries...

[Mr_Adams]

Who on Earth voted "D"?!?

[Hologram]

Other?

I know that none (well most) of you like her, and neither do I, but she won't be that bad of a President. It's just that she'll be another politician and probably hurt more things than she's helping. Remember, most of our problems today aren't the fault of Bush, they're just amplified by his moronic bullying policies.

[strike wolf]

Personally I don't like any of the candidates all that much. I mean are these three really the best three that are available for the job?

[Hologram]

Personally I don't like any of the candidates all that much. I mean are these three really the best three that are available for the job?

No, but they're the only three with any chance of getting elected.

Another reason why the U.S. needs a major third party.

[got tonkaed]

a major third party would probably require interests that were not more or less dealt with by the two major parties. You can argue all day until your blue in the face about what the parties do or do not ending up doing to resolve the wishes of their constituents, but the fact of the matter is, until people are so dissatisfied with the two parties that a new party is able to rise to prominence, there just isnt going to be a third party.

[strike wolf]

Yeah, I don't really think 3 strong parties are really all that realistic. The way it seems to me is that people in general seem to think more two dimensionally, you're either on one side of the argument or you're on the other. Though a powerful third party could be a reality if someone blows the democrats reputation like Bush dismantled the reputation of republicans.

[got tonkaed]

Personally i think you dont have three parties because you dont have some of the issue related parties that you could have and do have in other countries. Labor for instance, just wouldnt be a viable party here as there just isnt that type of labor management setup here. Green cant really seem to gain a foothold because it requires a change in the mindset of consumerism, which seems rather unlikely. Nationalist parties, dont have enough a foothold yet, because America still is seen by enough people as a melting pot. Religious parties of course, dont stand much of a chance so you wont find much headway there.

Because of the issues that tend to be important to voters who otherwise dont vote...Especially some of the value issues that cant really be be conducive to building a party around, have been as important as they are, they drive some attention to some of the things that could develop into a third party.

I guess there could eventually be some kind of schism in the conservative segments of the population, but i dont think any of the viable options have a strong enough base for people to be that interested, it would just end up creating a long term democrat system.

[Bertros Bertros]

The problem with the three party system which is effectively what we have here in the UK is that you don't end up with three parties with an equal hope, there is always two leaders and a third party who if you vote for them your vote is either 'wasted' or in reality a vote for the leading party of the other two. It sucks.

The answer in my opinion is proportional representation. My biggest gripe with Tony, in fact in some ways my only gripe with Tony (sorry non UK dudes I mean Blair if you didn't realise) is when Labour came to power part of their manifesto was to introduce proportional representation to UK politics, but oh wait, once they're in power suddenly they don't like that idea anymore... I guess I should be thankful its not quite as screwy over here as the US system I suppose...

[tzor]

I don't even want to imagine what would happen if Hillary became president. People say she will be better than Bush but that doesn't matter because barring the return of Millard Filmore anyone would be better than Bush. I don't want someone who is less pathetic (hey let's vote for Jimmy Carter he's less pathetic than GW) I want someone to be great!

I was watching Fox the other day (don't worry I was wearing protection at the time ... exposure was minimal I assure you) and there was a pair of Hillary supporters who were threatening of leaving the "male dominated" Democratic Party if she is not nominated. Can you imagine what that Feminazi Party would do if they did get her elected? It's not going to be pretty given the logic of the situation (like the first husband Bill in the white house and the most likely Vice President because I have the strange feeling she would nominate E. Spitzer for her running mate).

But she won't leave the party and she won't really join the Feminazi Party either. Her goal is simple, her game plan assured. The only way she can become president is if McCain wins the white house in 2008. Then in 2012 her campaign to defeat the evil Republican will be assured. By having a significant section of Democrats defect in 2008 she has a shot at 2012.

[strike wolf]

The problem with the three party system which is effectively what we have here in the UK is that you don't end up with three parties with an equal hope, there is always two leaders and a third party who if you vote for them your vote is either 'wasted' or in reality a vote for the leading party of the other two. It sucks.

The answer in my opinion is proportional representation. My biggest gripe with Tony, in fact in some ways my only gripe with Tony (sorry non UK dudes I mean Blair if you didn't realise) is when Labour came to power part of their manifesto was to introduce proportional representation to UK politics, but oh wait, once they're in power suddenly they don't like that idea anymore... I guess I should be thankful its not quite as screwy over here as the US system I suppose...

It's kind of like that in the US where you have 3+ parties running but only 2 with a legitimate chance at winning. The media knows this and covers the 2 parties with minimal reference to any 3rd party candidate, further cementing the 2 party dominance. It's become a system where like you said, voting for a 3rd party is just a wasted vote or just helps one of the major two parties to win.

[cmckinney]

I quite frankly don't see the big deal about Hillary. I mean, as far as I (A Conservative) sees it, Barack Obama is just as, and probably more liberal than Hillary. I personally hope that she fights it all the way to the floor. It'll turn the Democrats against one another.

[Snorri1234]

I quite frankly don't see the big deal about Hillary. I mean, as far as I (A Conservative) sees it, Barack Obama is just as, and probably more liberal than Hillary. I personally hope that she fights it all the way to the floor. It'll turn the Democrats against one another.

Actually, Hillary is probably more liberal.

[Snorri1234]

I just don't want a socialist for president.

You wouldn't know what socialism was even if it hit you in the face.

[t-o-m]

this will happen
click the link btw

[t-o-m]

heres hillary as a baby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKjbM9vjqro&feature=related

[PLAYER57832]

I just don't want a socialist for president.

I can only presume you are referring to medicine.

But have you ever considered we already HAVE socialized medicine ... it just happens to be called "Blue Cross/Blue Shield" for the healthy and employed, the emergency room for the rest ... and instead of reducing tax payer costs for those without insurance, they get to profits from all the "easy" and healthy folks... while leaving the poor and the very sick to depend on tax payer support.

Blue Cross currently ensures about 80% of the insured ... and many of the rest are Blue Cross rejects.

In our case, their "insurance" was so "wonderful" that we ended up having our bills go from $20 per visit co-pay to suddenly, without warning, when the policy switched, owing over $2000 in ONE MONTH because we were so negligent as to listen to our doctor and take our son to a specialist for some tests.

And here is the kicker. Our income is low enough that we would have been eligible for government assistance had my husband's employer not been gracious enough to provide us with this wonderful "insurance".

Oh,and here is another statistic. You know that huge surge in bankruptcies in the past few years-- BEFORE the mortgage fiasco? Roughly 70% of those filing are filing SOLELY BECAUSE OF MEDICAL PROBLEMS! Another large group lost jobs & so forth (though there is most definitely a fair overlap there because many who lost jobs did so becuase of medical problems or the need to care for family with medical problems). These are hard WORKING folks, who often HAVE INSURANCE (though perhaps horrible insurance like ours was), HAD savings, WERE fiscally responsible. Then someone got sick and because they were so "irresponsible" as to actually want to take them to the hospital, to doctors, without necessarily worrying whether they had the money ... THEY END UP HAVING TO GO BANKRUPT.

Add into this the medical billing travesties. In our case, I offered to pay 1/2 our bill one month and 1/2 the next. Their response? I was referred to collections! I DID get it reversed, but I had to file complaints with out attorneys general offices, AND out credit report has been damaged. You see, it doesn't matter if the reports are in error, they STILL DAMAGE YOUR RATING. And, once your rating is bad, now, all those credit cards can boost their interest more or less at will.

So, you are responsible, but do take on a bit of debt. Perhaps for stupid things, perhaps because you need a new furnace or refridgerator and are offered a zero percent finance deal, but you can handle it. Then, you stupidly get sick .... and it all crashes down.

So, you think socialized medicine is this terrible thing? I DON'T!!!

I say we already have it, but it is the STUPIDEST system possible. We let Blue Cross shareholders reap profits and the pick up the tab for their rejects at the most expensive point possible -- the emergency room, emergency hosptilization.

Almost ANY system would be better than what we have now!