• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Running Mate?

Who should Clinton's VP be assuming she wins the Democratic Nomination?

  • Bill Clinton

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • Wendy Davis

    Votes: 4 11.8%

  • Mark Warner

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 23 67.6%
  • Total voters
    34
vesper said:
The majority of Republicans I have spoken with are liking the number of fresh younger looking candidates gearing up to run. Rubio, Walker, Cruz, Jindal are in their early to mid 40's and Rand Paul is a very fit, young looking 52. Christie is also 52 At 68, Hillary technically could easily be their mother. We have older ones contemplating a run but they are all younger than Hillary. Santorum 56, Huckabee 59, Bush 61, Kasich 62 and Carson 63.
Click to expand...

So it's better to elect a younger person?

Someone should have told me that, before I voted for Ronald Reagan. Wait, he was the same age in 1980 as she will be in 2016. I'm just saying...
 
imagep said:
So it's better to elect a younger person?

Someone should have told me that, before I voted for Ronald Reagan. Wait, he was the same age in 1980 as she will be in 2016. I'm just saying...
Click to expand...
Yes Reagan was the oldest man to be elected to the presidency at age 69. I was responding to a poster in regard to the number of younger candidates running this time on the Republican ticket. I happen to like seeing a new group of fresh faces.
 
A bottle of Jack?
 
TurtleDude said:
Obama had thousands of first time voters-many of whom were well into their forties and fifties (and thus could have voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, or even Dukakis and Mondale)
Click to expand...

All of which were ****ty candidates from a civil libertarian perspective.
 
vesper said:
The majority of Republicans I have spoken with are liking the number of fresh younger looking candidates gearing up to run. Rubio, Walker, Cruz, Jindal are in their early to mid 40's and Rand Paul is a very fit, young looking 52. Christie is also 52 At 68, Hillary technically could easily be their mother. We have older ones contemplating a run but they are all younger than Hillary. Santorum 56, Huckabee 59, Bush 61, Kasich 62 and Carson 63.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

My personal wish list? I would like to see a POTUS in their early 60s, with a younger VP, maybe mid to late 40s or early 50s, and I would like to see a former governor or businessman hold the position because they have dealt with the business aspect required of the job. A POTUS in their late 50s or early 60s is seen by the rest of the world as someone who has lived in the real world long enough to understand how things work, and people tend to trust them more when they speak, generally speaking. I realize that it's a "learn on the job" type of position, and age alone is only one factor to be considered, but if it's not too much to ask, can we have honesty, too?

Local conditions: We have 5.5 inches of new snow on the ground, and it's still snowing. . . the last measurement taken at 2000 showed 11.5 inches total on the ground. It's not over yet, but it's not as bad as what was predicted, and my son has twice shoveled a path for the animals, so that's a plus. It's 35 degrees now, and the wind is blowing it into mounds in some places, so my driveway will have to be plowed so I can get my car out tomorrow. Since my snowplowing guy has to handle businesses first, he'll probably plow mine in the middle of the night again, poor guy!
 
imagep said:
Just wondering, but what did Jeb Bush accomplish? What about Romney?
Click to expand...

Ha. They were very successful in stuffing their own pockets and growing the power of the 1%. As was Clinton for that matter. Frankly, it's not a matter of one or the other being accomplished. Both major parties are full of corporate tools and selfish dirtbags. Which is why I have voted major party (Democrat) a whopping one time in any given national election. Never for President. And only a handful for state. Otherwise, it's been straight Libertarian/Green.
 
Other - Sarah Palin.

Reason: Personal amusement.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

My personal wish list? I would like to see a POTUS in their early 60s, with a younger VP, maybe mid to late 40s or early 50s, and I would like to see a former governor or businessman hold the position because they have dealt with the business aspect required of the job. A POTUS in their late 50s or early 60s is seen by the rest of the world as someone who has lived in the real world long enough to understand how things work, and people tend to trust them more when they speak, generally speaking. I realize that it's a "learn on the job" type of position, and age alone is only one factor to be considered, but if it's not too much to ask, can we have honesty, too?
Click to expand...



business finance =/= government finance.


and for that matter, a younger person currently versed in the realities of the 'modern' economy is far more likely to "honestly" know how the "world works" (aka, BOHICA, peasants!)
 
rocket88 said:
NOW you think rich people with offshore bank accounts are evil. If only you had realized this when Romney was your guy.
Click to expand...

This is why I hate having my label as "slightly conservative".

No, I never wanted Romney. Unfortunately for me (and i started a thread about this that apparently you missed), there is no true "Republicanism" label.

But you're not the type of person to just judge somebody by their label, right ;-)
 
disneydude said:
The fact that you cannot see if, explains in large part why it is there.
Click to expand...

Stop with the stupid and partisan posts.

Let me dumb it down for you. If you were talking about 2 of your male friends doing every stupid thing they could to impress the same girl, nobody would accuse you of being a sexist for relaying the story.

Just like nobody with half a functioning brain would accuse me of making a racist comment when I said (using a wishbone for an analogy - something that people with even slightly function brains comprehend) that the Republicans and Democrats are going to pull out every prop they can to try to compete for the Hispanic votes.

I'll engage you again when your posts aren't so chuck full of failure.
 
tres borrachos said:
Stop with the stupid and partisan posts.

Let me dumb it down for you. If you were talking about 2 of your male friends doing every stupid thing they could to impress the same girl, nobody would accuse you of being a sexist for relaying the story.

Just like nobody with half a functioning brain would accuse me of making a racist comment when I said (using a wishbone for an analogy - something that people with even slightly function brains comprehend) that the Republicans and Democrats are going to pull out every prop they can to try to compete for the Hispanic votes.

I'll engage you again when your posts aren't so chuck full of failure.
Click to expand...




lolol
 
justabubba said:
Corey Booker












but her is an example of one of the reasons hillary cannot win:
Click to expand...


I see Booker as being in the top 5 for her running mates assuming she runs as a moderate southerner or a Midwesterner. If she runs as a northeast Liberal, she won't pick him as he is a northeast Liberal himself.
 
Satan would be a god running mate for the evil whore.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
business finance =/= government finance.


and for that matter, a younger person currently versed in the realities of the 'modern' economy is far more likely to "honestly" know how the "world works" (aka, BOHICA, peasants!)
Click to expand...

Greetings, SlevinKelevra. :2wave:

When a POTUS has served his term(s), if he has done a good job, the VP will have grown older and gained knowledge in the meantime, too, so if the people feel they have been treated fairly during that time, they will likely not wish to switch for someone new.

As an example, FDR and Eisenhower could have been returned to office many more times if it were possible to do so, IMO - they were that well liked by the people, who felt they did a good job. It wasn't the party they belonged to that made the difference - it was the man himself.

During the recent midterms, we saw that millions of people overwhelmingly voted for change from the status quo - it will now be up to the new people who were elected to follow the voters' mandate. Pocketbook issues and jobs have become more important to the voters than anything else, it appears, in all levels of society, from the poor to the wealthy. Time will tell us what the results will be.
 
Hillary & Bill Clinton, President and Vice President.Now that would be a sight to see in the USA.:usflag2:
 
tres borrachos said:
Just curious why you think that it would be formidable?
Click to expand...
Each has their base of supporters, and if the two bases could be combined it would be significant.

Plus, an all-female ticket would play well, especially if both women are "respected" (such as it is). The media would eat that right up, and for good or for bad many average voters are still swayed by the media.
 
radcen said:
Each has their base of supporters, and if the two bases could be combined it would be significant.

Plus, an all-female ticket would play well, especially if both women are "respected" (such as it is). The media would eat that right up, and for good or for bad many average voters are still swayed by the media.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

They do have their bases but I don't think their bases are large enough even when combined. The media would like it but I think it would be a hard sell for most Americans, and I think the moderates would stay home in droves.
 
radcen said:
Clinton/Warren would be a formidable ticket.

Doesn't mean I'd vote for it, but it'd be formidable.
Click to expand...

Probably less formidable than Clinton/anyone-else-of-merit.

All dems need to get 100% of the liberal vote is to have a democrat to vote for, and all they need to do to get close to 100% of the women swing vote is to a woman. Having two democrat women on the ticket adds no additional voting sector.
 
radcen said:
Each has their base of supporters, and if the two bases could be combined it would be significant.

Plus, an all-female ticket would play well, especially if both women are "respected" (such as it is). The media would eat that right up, and for good or for bad many average voters are still swayed by the media.
Click to expand...

Regardless, if either of those candidates was on the ticket, that ticket would get all of the voters who have a propensity to vote for a woman democrat. In otherwords, either of those candidates would gain 100% of the base for both of them, so having both on the same ticket adds nothing.

I assume that Warren is perceived as being quite a bit more liberal than Clinton (maybe I'm wrong about that), but Clinton is liberal enough for nearly all democrats, that if she is on any ticket in the general election, she would still bring in the far lefties.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
would you share with us what hillary stands for ... and how she would accomplish those things
Click to expand...

Ironically, Republicans are now looking to fall in love, while Democrats are now looking to nominate the person whose "turn" it is.
 
radcen said:
Each has their base of supporters, and if the two bases could be combined it would be significant.

Plus, an all-female ticket would play well, especially if both women are "respected" (such as it is). The media would eat that right up, and for good or for bad many average voters are still swayed by the media.
Click to expand...

I would have no problem voting for Warren, but if Hilary is on the ticket, it's a no-go.
Hilary is responsible for the debacle in Libya. It has created a deathly morass for
millions of people. It was done under false pretenses as much as Iraq and I've had
enough of lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom