How Would We Better Off With President Clinton After A Year?

[mark46]

It is said that Clinton could have won if she hadn't taken the trip to Arizona in the last few days. A campaign trip to MN, WI, MI and PA (especially non-city areas) might have won her the election, but no more senate seats.
========================
I've been a Democrat for over 50 years. I don't think that we would be better off now had Clinton been elected.

So, I'll listen. How would we be better off? Surely, no legislation would have been passed. I suppose that we'd still have the youth paying the Obamacare penalty.

 

[archer75]

We'd be better off in that we'd have a moderately alert career politician in the office instead of a delusional narcissist desperate to be liked by white supremacists and apocalypse-cult types, even at the cost of destroying the order of the world.

 

[Basil the Great]

It is hard to say. I do not see how legislation would have changed much, considering the makeup of Congress.

 

[tulc]

She could probably get through a speech to the boy scouts with out talking about partying on yachts in the 90's. Or calling anyone Pocahontas at any point in her administration.
tulc(suspects Disney could have come up with a better robot for her in the "Hall of Presidents")

 

[mark46]

It is hard to say. I do not see how legislation would have changed much, considering the makeup of Congress.

There certainly would have been more investigations.

 

[Basil the Great]

It does seem likely that we would not have withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords and that she would not have created a firestorm re: the issue of Jerusalem.

 

[mark46]

It does seem likely that we would not have withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords and that she would not have created a firestorm re: the issue of Jerusalem.

I agree with regard to the Paris Accords. However, I believe the US will do at least as much without the government. There are US representatives as well as a large US organization of business and political leaders. Also, several state and local governments are committed to the US goals.

With regard to the firestorm, I believe that it is wrong for past presidents to continue to overrule the wishes of the Congress. I think that the step was a good one, although I would like the government to add that the US expects East Jerusalem to ultimately be the capital of a Palestinian state, if that is what the parties negotiate.

 

[LoAmmi]

With regard to the firestorm, I believe that it is wrong for past presidents to continue to overrule the wishes of the Congress. I think that the step was a good one, although I would like the government to add that the US expects East Jerusalem to ultimately be the capital of a Palestinian state, if that is what the parties negotiate.

But the law was crafted by Congress to give the sitting President the power to waive it for six months so that it could be enacted when it wasn't a burden on foreign policy. Trump decided not to waive it and that's what it is, but it isn't like this is some kind of bold stand and the previous Presidents were overruling Congress. They gave the power of waiver to the President and the past Presidents used what they were given.

 

[mark46]

Yes, and shame on them.

but it isn't like this is some kind of bold stand and the previous Presidents were overruling Congress. They gave the power of waiver to the President and the past Presidents used what they were given.

 

[HereIStand]

Clinton would have been Obama on steroids. If you liked him, you would love her.

 

[jayem]

One thing for sure--Neil Gorsuch would not be the newest SCOTUS Justice. But it may or may not have been Merrick Garland, either.

And whether Justice Gorsuch proves to be a good or bad choice remains to be seen.

 

[HereIStand]

One thing for sure--Neil Gorsuch would not be the newest SCOTUS Justice. But it may or may not have been Merrick Garland, either.

And whether Justice Gorsuch proves to be a good or bad choice remains to be seen.

He's been a bright spot so far. I had my doubts. Thought he would be Souter 2.0.

 

[tulc]

Yes, and shame on them.

Well, like most things, President Trump plays to his base and ignores all those pesky consequences that other people will have to pay.
Five key developments since Trump's Jerusalem move

At least eight Palestinians have been killed by Israel since Trump's announcement, according to the Palestinian health ministry.

Four demonstrators, including a disabled man in Gaza who lost both his legs in previous Israeli wars on the besieged strip, were fatally shot by Israeli forces on December 15.

On December 8, two Hamas fighters were killed in an Israeli air raid on the besieged Gaza Strip.

The individuals killed were identified as Mahmoud al-Atal, 28 and Mohammed Safadi, 30.

Israeli troops shot and killed two other Palestinians on the same day amid protests on the Israel-Palestine border.

The Palestinian Red Crescent has provided medical assistance to more than 1,933 people across the West Bank and Gaza Strip since Washington's policy change, according to the group.

so yeah, ther's some shame but I don't think it falls on who you think it does.
tulc(and another one for good measure )

 

[tulc]

Clinton would have been Obama on steroids. If you liked him, you would love her.

I did like him (still do actually), and I probably would have liked her as well. Of course I tend not to be a big fan of reality shows, bullies or dumpster fires so that has to be taken in to consideration.
tulc(is a fan of coffee though)

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

We would have had less bad decisions in terms of international politics, however as christians we would instead have had more decisions made that would hurt christians. So really neither person would have been better.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

We'd be facing

1) A Merkel-style immigration influx.
2) A possible war with Russia.

 

[tulc]

(snip)
2) A possible war with Russia.

More like Putin would be crying himself to sleep every night instead of getting together his latest set of orders to be sent to President Trump.
tulc(that would have been sweet)

 

[redleghunter]

We'd be facing

1) A Merkel-style immigration influx.
2) A possible war with Russia.

I'd add one more. Seattle nuked by the Norks.

 

[jayem]

He's been a bright spot so far. I had my doubts. Thought he would be Souter 2.0.

He still could be a Souter. Harry Blackmun was a Republican appointee, was seen as conservative, and for the first 2 years of his term, his decisions pretty much went that way. But then came January, 1973. He wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. And he generally became more liberal as time went by. Earl Warren, also a Republican, was quite conservative early in his career. He was the California AG in the 40s, and was a big supporter of interning Japanese Americans. But when he became SCOTUS Chief Justice, he turned into the #1 liberal bogeyman for conservatives.

 

[redleghunter]

He still could be a Souter. Harry Blackmun was a Republican appointee, was seen as conservative, and for the first 2 years of his term, his decisions pretty much went that way. But then came January, 1973. He wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. And he generally became more liberal as time went by. Earl Warren, also a Republican, was quite conservative early in his career. He was the California AG in the 40s, and was a big supporter of interning Japanese Americans. But when he became SCOTUS Chief Justice, he turned into the #1 liberal bogeyman for conservatives.

Good point. Some have changed when sitting on that bench.

I remember an article written by one of Harry Blackmun's clerks. Seemed he was steeped in the Ivy League Rockefeller social circle and shared those views.