PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton appears to be breaking away from the pack in Iowa



SSanf
December 26th, 2007, 12:07 PM
I think Obama was counting on Iowa. If he loses there, pundits say she will be very hard to beat for the nomonation. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/25/iowa-poll-says-clinton-breaking-away-from-the-pack/

Laisrean
December 26th, 2007, 01:33 PM
Her nomination and victory are inevitable, precisely because the powers that be want this to happen. The Diebold voting machines are all rigged so this WILL happen. Just like how Bush's last two victories were inevitable.

As Stalin said: "those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."

Hillary is the next in line for power in the Bush-Clinton political dynasty.

banondraig
December 26th, 2007, 05:01 PM
:sick:

Wicce
December 26th, 2007, 05:34 PM
Hillary is the next in line for power in the Bush-Clinton political dynasty.

You make it sound like GHWB won 2 terms or something, which he didn't.

banondraig
December 26th, 2007, 07:02 PM
You make it sound like GHWB won 2 terms or something, which he didn't.

Ah, but he lost to Clinton in his second election. I suspect that's an important part of the "Bush-Clinton political dynasty" theory.

Laisrean
December 26th, 2007, 11:13 PM
Ah, but he lost to Clinton in his second election. I suspect that's an important part of the "Bush-Clinton political dynasty" theory.

It's been about 20 years since we've had a president that wasn't a Bush or a Clinton, and isn't it odd how Clinton and Bush Sr. have become close buddies?:vanish:

banondraig
December 26th, 2007, 11:49 PM
It's been about 20 years since we've had a president that wasn't a Bush or a Clinton, and isn't it odd how Clinton and Bush Sr. have become close buddies?:vanish:

I hadn't heard that they were close buddies, merely working on a project or two together.

If you add in the years GHWB served as VP, you can stretch that theory back almost 30 years. :weirdsmil

AeroElement
December 26th, 2007, 11:51 PM
i am pretty sure in fact quite sure i heard hillary will reduce our military strength by a lot. no figures were ever given but i remember her saying a lot things to the effect our military will be cut drastically.

that frightens me if its still the case.

banondraig
December 27th, 2007, 12:00 AM
i am pretty sure in fact quite sure i heard hillary will reduce our military strength by a lot. no figures were ever given but i remember her saying a lot things to the effect our military will be cut drastically.

that frightens me if its still the case.

particularly if she does not intend to withdraw from iraq.

Drouach
December 27th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Her nomination and victory are inevitable, precisely because the powers that be want this to happen. The Diebold voting machines are all rigged so this WILL happen. Just like how Bush's last two victories were inevitable.

As Stalin said: "those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."

Hillary is the next in line for power in the Bush-Clinton political dynasty.

A rich white woman or a black man?

Who would the powers that be, wish to be in power?

Obama would give hope to a minority community and most likely be the one to make the most social change.

Hilary is Bill's wife.

They don't assassinate president's today, they pre-select them.

Wicce
December 27th, 2007, 03:23 PM
They don't assassinate president's today, they pre-select them.

Because there have been so many assassinations in the past...


Ah, but he lost to Clinton in his second election. I suspect that's an important part of the "Bush-Clinton political dynasty" theory.

If "they" are selecting our presidents for some dynasty, you'd think they'd want the elder Bush to serve a second term. I think a more likely explanation for this longrunning Bush-Clinton deal is Americans are more likely to go with the devil they know and are no longer raised and educated to be citizens of a civic society. I don't believe in this "shadowy preselection" deal any more than I believe in ZOG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government) or all the other conspiracy theories.

banondraig
December 28th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Because there have been so many assassinations in the past...



If "they" are selecting our presidents for some dynasty, you'd think they'd want the elder Bush to serve a second term. I think a more likely explanation for this longrunning Bush-Clinton deal is Americans are more likely to go with the devil they know and are no longer raised and educated to be citizens of a civic society. I don't believe in this "shadowy preselection" deal any more than I believe in ZOG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government) or all the other conspiracy theories.

Agreed.

If the people of the U.S., as a group, were to throw off their ignorance and apathy between now and the next election, I think the results might be wildly different from what the conventional wisdom currently predicts.

sarabethv
December 28th, 2007, 02:02 PM
Agreed.

If the people of the U.S., as a group, were to throw off their ignorance and apathy between now and the next election.

:rotfl: I love it when you say things like this - its so cute.

banondraig
December 28th, 2007, 02:04 PM
:rotfl: I love it when you say things like this - its so cute.

Hey, I know better than to expect it, but it would be really nice.

If it does happen I am so buying lottery tickets.