Flashermac Posted May 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Obama drinks Chang??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 I think Edwards is their best chance. Not the best person but the best candidate. He can appeal to a far wider electorate than Hillary or Obama. Hillary is polarzing. No middle ground. People either hate her or love her. She'll lose every state in the south I think. Obama is a wild card. He sounds nice and polls may say one thing but once you step into the voting both people reconsider a lot of things said in polls. Sometimes people say they have no problem with him in polls because its the PC thing to say. I don't think he's electable right now. Hillary, you know what you're getting and you think you know the person. Not the same with Obama. After a while in politics everything about you is known, both personally and professionally and a good amount of it is how you are as a person. Hillary could win but it would have to be a Republican challenger who is seen as a continuation of sorts of the last 8 years. Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong about it all...and usually am...lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Hillary has too many issues/too much baggage to really be sucesfull, the repukes will fight her all the way on everything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damen Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Totally agree, but that was what they were touting. And with the religious right with them, it added 'street cred' to that reputation. You could get away with a few things about your personal life Like hiring male prostitutes and snorting crystal meth while campaigning against drugs and homosexuality :smirk: Or trying to impeach a sitting president for lying about a blowjob while your cheating on your 2nd wife with your mistress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 The impeachment really bothered me. My Libertarian leanings came out at that time. I wondered why no one argued precedence. Impeachment is a 'political' process but for me, it seemed like it was a political way to to do a coup de etat. Clinton lied under oath in a civil case. He was not acting on behalf of his office. There are two people when you are president. Clinton the president and Clinton the citizen. The impeachment is meant for actions done using the power of the presidency. A sitting vice president, Aaron Burr killed treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton in a duel in New Jersey. Illegal in that state and NJ issued a warrant for his arrest. Burr went back to DC and continued his duties as VP. Congress would not impeach him because they said he was acting as Burr the citizen and none of his actions were done on behalf of his office. He was never extradited. When Nixon was being impeached the Democrats included articles that he evaded taxes. The Republicans successfully argued that he evaded taxes as a private citizen and had nothing to do with evading using his powers as President. It was successfully withdrawn from the articles of impeachment. Clinton lied in a civil lawsuit and he was there as William Clinton citizen NOT William Cliinton the president. The venue of his actions were immaterial (the white house), his act was done as a citizen. The impeachment gave examples (treason, bribe) which pertain strictly to the office. The founders gave those examples to show that its actions done by corrupting your power as president. Okay, rant over. It still pisses me off years later because they were overturning an election. They were reversing the will of the people. You had better have a damned good reason to reverse the will of the people and in my humble opinion it didn't come anywhere close to it. Okay...breathe Steve...phew....I'm fine now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Moth Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Perhaps I am both naive and ill-informed. But, I was under the impression that any corporate or military executive "caught" (surely many not caught) in a similar position with a 21 or 22 year old intern would be sacked or the equivalent. Also, maybe I am silly, but, he was doing this in his office (actually hallway adjacent if I recall correctly) and during office hours (in the afternoon, again, if I recall correctly) - and so he was "on the job". I my mind, I would have had less of a problem if he did this at night in some other part of the White House. And, none at all if it were someone other than an intern. Sort of like Kobe Bryant to me in that he had much safer, less offensive, better alternatives than some young lady who worked in the hotel. I also found his actions stupid and objectionable. Haven't these guys ever heard of Thailand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 How about an Edwards-Obama ticket? I actually sort of like the original system in the US. The top vote getter became the prez and the second guy became the veep. Meant they kept an eye on each other and couldn't get too far out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomc12 Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 I think there is a big difference between sacking a corporate executive and the President of a country. JFK ranks high among the greatest US presidents and yet, he had an affair with a 19 year old intern (among many others while in the White House). How about Jefferson and his slave Sally? FDR and his personal secretary? Would you sack all these presidents because of their sexual escapades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 The crime wasn't getting head as president but lying in a civil case. Remember the case wasn't about Lewinsky, it was about his sexual harassing a woman while he was governor. The plaintiff's lawyer was trying to show a pattern of sexual harrassment and brought the Lewinsky episode up. The case was titled v. William Jefferson Clinton, not against President Clinton. If you may all recall, the supreme court said a sitting president could go on trial for a possibly that happened BEFORE he was President. He was a governor at the time. The precedence the republicans set is alarming. It means a president can be impeached for things he does outside the scope of his office and not pertaining to his duties as president and I'm not sure you can find a constitutional lawyer that will say the intent of the impeachment is meant for anything except actions where the President used the power of the office to commit a crime and his lying in a civil case doesn't meet that test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreigner Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 >president but lying in a civil case.< a married man lying about a BJ? certainly not unexpected. The real clinton crime: I was disappointed / upset / POed by clinton & his bombing the Sudan the day monica testified. BC really f'ed up any chance to go down in history as any thing but a disgraced president & deeply amoral man. I was hanging with my BG GF's Issan brother & his friends when clinton attacked Yugoslavia .. those guys were very upset by the american political cover-up wars by clinton. GF sent me on day trips with the Issan boys .. eye opening. BUT nothing like the LIES coming out of this evangelical administration's religious fanatics. no fact is safe from an evangelical. never believe or trust an evangelical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.