Condi v. Hillary

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
As soon as conservatives learn to avoid getting baited into these silly abortion litmus tests, GOP candidates could take all offices.

There is nothing silly about the slaughter of 25 million unborn babies. Those just aren't litmus tests, those are moral tests which are indicative about a candidate's logic in all other areas where morals are concerned.
 
Man what is the deal... does every FYM thread normally degenerate into abortion, gay rights, or Christian-baiting/ secularist attacking thread? LOL.

Anyways... IMO Hillary and Pelosi are too polarizing as candidates. Pelosi is insanely liberal, is she not? California liberal if my memory serves me. If Kerry couldn't get elected I doubt Pelosi will. It would be like Newt Gingrich running for President. As for Hillary... the mere mention of her name causes feelings of revulsion in the hearts of the right.

No matter how much the culture of the United States changes, a women President is a little ways away... not to mention Hillary has too much baggage.

Arnold has no way of running. I also agree that Arnold would have probably lost in his California primary if he had to run. He got lucky. I don't even think Arnold will ever have a chance to run for President. There will never be an Ammendment in his lifetime- at least, to allow him to run- no matter how much posturing there is. Do I think it is fair? That is another argument for another time.
 
Last edited:
GOP_Catholic said:
There is nothing silly about the slaughter of 25 million unborn babies. Those just aren't litmus tests, those are moral tests which are indicative about a candidate's logic in all other areas where morals are concerned.

Two things:

First - we've had how many years of conservative Presidents, and how many abortions did they prevent? Zero.

Second - look at any discussion of abortion. It is a polarizing issue. The object of the game is to define the "center line" for the debate, and watch how both sides spit. For conservatives, use the partial birth abortion as the starting point, and you polarize more people to the right. Use stem cell research as the starting line, and you polarize more people to the left.

Millions die. But that is not even considered collateral damage in this political game.
 
I don't think it's realistic that either Hillary or Condi will every become president, although I do think that Hillary will be her party's nominee in 2008 (and go down in flames in the general).

Eventually we will have a female president and I think that that woman is more likely to come out of the republican party than the democratic party. The inherent weakness that any female candidate for president would have is a perception of weakness, particularly on issues of national security. A woman coming from the republican party will have a much easier time countering those perceptions. (Think of Margaret Thatcher, a Tory and 'the iron lady' to boot).
 
"Condi" has an oil tanker named after her, not just any oil tanker, an exxon one. Apparently for services rendered in the name of the exxon oil company.

Knowing how these vultures and scoundels work, this she should be barred from any elected office.

Oh and the fact she let multiple warnings about the threat of an attack on the US by terrorists past through her desk without so much as raising a finger to stop it, isn't exactly a great recommendation either.
 
I don't see Hillary as winning the nomination in 2008 if she runs. She's just too controversial. She's like alot of other outspoken people, she's made alot of enemies. The Democrats have other stars now, like John Edwards and Wesley Clark, who will be more viable in 2008 than Hillary. All of this talk about Hillary is alot of hype to me, quite frankly. I'm not even sure I envision her running in 2008. Hillary is high in the visibility department, but not the popularity department.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom