• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Newsweek Poll: Hillary Clinton beats Every Leading Republican candidate

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
General election match-ups show the "unelectable" New York Senator would win against every top Republican

Newsweek Poll
10/31 - 11/1/07


Giuliani (R) Clinton (D)
% %
45 49

Romney (R) Clinton (D)
% %
45 49

Thompson (R) Clinton (D)
% %
45 49

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

GO CLINTON GO!!!
 
So?

Zogby Analyst Says Ron Paul Strongest Contender to Beat Hillary

Zogby Analyst Says Ron Paul Strongest Contender to Beat Hillary
Texas Congressman's popularity amongst Democrats, Independents outstrips Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul is only chance of smashing Bush-Clinton power monopoly

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, November 21, 2007


Zogby's Director of Communications and polling analyst Fritz Wenzel says that Congressman Ron Paul is the strongest of the Republican frontrunners to go up against Hillary Clinton, underlining the fact that the rest of the field are just ringers as the establishment prepares to install Clinton and prolong the Bush-Clinton power monopoly.

"Among Democrats, yes, he would be a much stronger candidate than any of the other three (Romney, Giuliani, Thompson)" Wenzel told the Alex Jones Show yesterday.

A new Zogby poll commissioned by Jones Productions found Ron Paul the GOP winner in a blind poll that included Democrats, Republicans and Independents nationwide.
 
My point exactly.
 
So?

Zogby Analyst Says Ron Paul Strongest Contender to Beat Hillary

Zogby Analyst Says Ron Paul Strongest Contender to Beat Hillary
Texas Congressman's popularity amongst Democrats, Independents outstrips Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul is only chance of smashing Bush-Clinton power monopoly

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, November 21, 2007


Zogby's Director of Communications and polling analyst Fritz Wenzel says that Congressman Ron Paul is the strongest of the Republican frontrunners to go up against Hillary Clinton, underlining the fact that the rest of the field are just ringers as the establishment prepares to install Clinton and prolong the Bush-Clinton power monopoly.

"Among Democrats, yes, he would be a much stronger candidate than any of the other three (Romney, Giuliani, Thompson)" Wenzel told the Alex Jones Show yesterday.

A new Zogby poll commissioned by Jones Productions found Ron Paul the GOP winner in a blind poll that included Democrats, Republicans and Independents nationwide.

I think that Paul's bipartisan appeal at the moment is largely based on his opposition to Iraq, and not his libertarian views. I think once some his more hardliner views were used to beat him over the head with, he'd lost much of that appeal. Especially with things like the Rosa Parks medal, which a crafty opponent like Clinton could easily use to smear him with.
 
Under a Paul administration I'd look forward to the Jihadists taking over the oil, driving up the prices and squeezing us.

Go Ron!

:2wave:
 
bkhad, I wanna ask you a silly question...

The "jihadists" have been around for 1000's of years.
Why do we only know about them for ~6 of those years?

Is it because they now have a movement? Nope - see 1000's of years above.

Is it because our nose is so far up their *** in trying to force our beliefs on them - that they have retaliated?
No, your prob right in your all wise position.

Kill them first...
The koolaid is tasty. Isn't it?

The logic you are applying is like slaping your kid BEFORE they smart off at you. That only teaches them fear and when to duck.
 
bkhad, I wanna ask you a silly question...

The "jihadists" have been around for 1000's of years.
Why do we only know about them for ~6 of those years?

Is it because they now have a movement? Nope - see 1000's of years above.

Is it because our nose is so far up their *** in trying to force our beliefs on them - that they have retaliated?
No, your prob right in your all wise position.

Kill them first...
The koolaid is tasty. Isn't it?

The logic you are applying is like slaping your kid BEFORE they smart off at you. That only teaches them fear and when to duck.

Excellent post!:2wave:
 
bkhad, I wanna ask you a silly question...

The "jihadists" have been around for 1000's of years.
Why do we only know about them for ~6 of those years?

Is it because they now have a movement? Nope - see 1000's of years above.

s it because our nose is so far up their *** in trying to force our beliefs on them - that they have retaliated?
No, your prob right in your all wise position.

Kill them first...
The koolaid is tasty. Isn't it?

The logic you are applying is like slaping your kid BEFORE they smart off at you. That only teaches them fear and when to duck.

So your response when I ask my questions about "Pearl Harbor" and "U.S.S. Maine" and 9/11 should be: "we had it coming"?
 
So your response when I ask my questions about "Pearl Harbor" and "U.S.S. Maine" and 9/11 should be: "we had it coming"?

Nice try. :)

However, we KNEW it was coming in Perl Harbor. We had communication breakdown, plus the hit was from another country to a military base.

I do not believe we had anything coming 911 nor deserved anything. I believe it was a group of 19 thugs that did this to us - *not* another country. Cannot compare the two incidents of any magnitude. I do believe that our previous actions helped contribute to the flawed reasoning behind that day.
 
Nice try. :)

However, we KNEW it was coming in Perl Harbor. We had communication breakdown, plus the hit was from another country to a military base.

I do not believe we had anything coming 911 nor deserved anything. I believe it was a group of 19 thugs that did this to us - *not* another country. Cannot compare the two incidents of any magnitude. I do believe that our previous actions helped contribute to the flawed reasoning behind that day.

Up to this point in the thread, I agree with you. However, I disagree here, and pretty strongly. Why? Because, yes, "another country" is the operative phrase here. Afghanistan is where the plot was hatched, and the training happened. When the towers were hit, the Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan, sheltered those who helped hatch the plot. We needed to attack them, and wipe out bin Laden, and take down the Taliban PERMANENTLY. Instead, we abandoned that effort. "Dead or alive" became "It doesn't matter". To me, it mattered a lot, and since the day we abandoned a just war for the war on Iraq, I have not voted for a single Republican, and I left the Republican party altogether. Only when conservatives take back the party that was hijacked from them by the parasites, and when Ron Paul, or someone like him, is elected in the future, will I feel that I can "come home". Until then, screw the party.
 
General election match-ups show the "unelectable" New York Senator would win against every top Republican

Newsweek Poll
10/31 - 11/1/07


Giuliani (R) Clinton (D)
% %
45 49

Romney (R) Clinton (D)
% %
45 49

Thompson (R) Clinton (D)
% %
45 49

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

GO CLINTON GO!!!


I feel really uncomfortable with another eight years of slim electoral margins. It's really bad for our political culture. I'd like a President who has some support from both sides of the country.
 
We agree more than you are seeing Dana. Bin Lanen is still out there somewhere and we are more concerned about Iraq. WTF!?

We had to go into Afghanistan. However, the country didn't do this to us. 19 thungs did and they were associated with a group of radicals. Seeing how that country gave Bin Laden sanctuary (one of the leaders of that radical group) - we went in and took over. I have no issues with that. Because of that, Afghanistan is now a democracy.

Yet we still have no Bin Laden...
 
Are you sure?

Source: Afghanistan (05/07)
Government
Type: Islamic Republic.
Independence: August 19, 1919.
Constitution: January 4, 2004.
.....
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS
On October 9, 2004, Afghanistan held its first national democratic presidential election. More than 8 million Afghans voted, 41% of whom were women. Hamid Karzai was announced as the official winner on November 3 and inaugurated on December 7 for a five-year term as Afghanistan's first democratically elected president. On December 23, 2004, President Karzai announced new cabinet appointments, naming three women as ministers.

An election was held on September 18, 2005 for the “Wolesi Jirga” (lower house) of Afghanistan's new bicameral National Assembly and for the country's 34 provincial councils. Turnout for the election was about 53% of the 12.5 million registered voters. The Afghan constitution provides for indirect election of the National Assembly's “Meshrano Jirga” (upper house) by the provincial councils and by reserved presidential appointments. The first democratically elected National Assembly since 1969 was inaugurated on December 19, 2005. Younus Qanooni and Sigbatullah Mojadeddi were elected Speaker of the Wolesi Jirga and Meshrano Jirga, respectively.

The government's authority is growing, although its ability to deliver necessary social services remains largely dependent on funds from the international donor community. Between 2001-2006, the United States committed over $12 billion to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. At an international donors' conference in Berlin in April 2004, donors pledged a total of $8.2 billion for Afghan reconstruction over the three-year period 2004-2007. At the end of January 2006, the international community gathered in London and renewed its political and reconstruction support for Afghanistan in the form of the Afghanistan Compact.

With international community support, including more than 40 countries participating in Operation Enduring Freedom and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the government's capacity to secure Afghanistan's borders to maintain internal order is increasing. Responsibility for security for all of Afghanistan was transferred to ISAF in October 2006. As of November 2006, some 40,000 Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers had been trained along with some 60,000 police, including border and highway police.

Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) has also helped to further establish the authority of the Afghan central government. The DDR program, after receiving 63,000 military personnel, stopped accepting additional candidates in June 2005. Disarmament and demobilization of all of these candidates were completed at the end of June 2006. A follow-on program targeting illegal militias, the Disbandment of Illegal Armed Groups (DIAG), was begun in 2005, under the joint auspices of Japan and the United Nations. The DIAG program is still ongoing.

However, if you want to be *factually* correct - The US is not a democracy either. We are a republic of states.
 
We agree more than you are seeing Dana. Bin Lanen is still out there somewhere and we are more concerned about Iraq. WTF!?

We had to go into Afghanistan. However, the country didn't do this to us. 19 thungs did and they were associated with a group of radicals. Seeing how that country gave Bin Laden sanctuary (one of the leaders of that radical group) - we went in and took over. I have no issues with that. Because of that, Afghanistan is now a democracy.

Yet we still have no Bin Laden...

Actually, Afghanistan is not really a Democracy. Technically, it may be, but the Taliban have taken back most of the country, and are now operating in the open again.

Yet we still have no Bin Laden...

Exactly. We did not finish the job. From your previous post, I believe we are in agreement on this point. My honest opinion is that this is the result of attempting to wage war on the cheap, and this especially true where it comes to Iraq. If Bush had listened to the Generals, instead of firing them for saying things he did not want to hear, Iraq might not even be an issue right now, and our soldiers would be home.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom