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

[ThatRobGuy]

Being that there's a GOP majority in both houses, I don't know that we'd be better or worse off. In all likelihood, nothing would get done because of obstructionism and petty partisan bickering.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Because Trump supporters would have voted for her had she not said that?

She might have gotten a few of the deplorables if she wouldn't have called them that and from what I heard she also lost some of the independents with that comment.

M-Bob

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

hmmm...16+ years out of 17 years, 2 wars? We've been at war pretty much all this century. I wouldn't actually call that "nothing".

I said "other than Iraq, nothing" as for Afghanistan, there was really no other option. In either case Dems have done little to clean up the mess.

If I were discussing 5,000 years of history, perhaps not. Of course we aren't discussing 5,000 years of history we were talking about modern history. Which would be (in my mind any way) this century.

Which means nothing before G W Bush counts. You're never going to get a meaningful comparison of Democratic vs. Republican presidents if the only presidents you're looking at are GW Bush and Obama.

I didn't vote for President Clinton either time he ran and if he had been the one running against President Trump in the last election I wouldn't have voted for him then either. So, no, I don't think his administration has any relevance to Sec. Clinton running last year.

She was part of his administration - that's what brought her into political life, riding her husband's coattails. When you think about it her husband's administration is the only thing relevant to her candidacy.

...ok, thanks Putin...now quit killing journalists. How was that? I know, I know, it's more criticism then President Trump has ever given about the Russian President, but then again, I'm never ran for President of the US and don't owe President Putin as much as President Trump does.

That's not criticism, that's slander.

tulc(suspects that his criticizing President Putin must mean to SoldierOfTheKing that he's chomping at the bit for "THE USA TO GO TO WAR WITH RUSSIA!!" (tm) but he's really not)

Then what are you chomping at the bit for? I asked you what "spank their little Russian bottoms" meant, if not military force, and you declined to answer. What policy toward Russia do you think Hillary would, or should pursue that Trump isn't? Any specifics?

 

[tulc]

I said "other than Iraq, nothing" as for Afghanistan, there was really no other option. In either case Dems have done little to clean up the mess.

Well, that "little" seems to be more then the Republicans were able to do.

Which means nothing before G W Bush counts. You're never going to get a meaningful comparison of Democratic vs. Republican presidents if the only presidents you're looking at are GW Bush and Obama.

...you mean two of the three Presidents of this century?

She was part of his administration - that's what brought her into political life, riding her husband's coattails. When you think about it her husband's administration is the only thing relevant to her candidacy.

Maybe to you, but to others she had quite a bit more going for her then her questionable husband. On the other hand? Shes had several decades more experience then the reality show host who's President right now. So, I'm thinking all in all? She would have been a much better President.

That's not criticism, that's slander.

Man, I hope President Trump doesn't tell him. But I'm pretty sure neither of them post here on CF.

Then what are you chomping at the bit for? I asked you what "spank their little Russian bottoms" meant, if not military force, and you declined to answer. What policy toward Russia do you think Hillary would, or should pursue that Trump isn't? Any specifics?

uhmm...maybe get him to stop killing journalists/opposition leaders would be nice. Get him to put a shirt on would be another. Maybe get him to stop stealing peoples Super Bowl rings? Just a couple of suggestions.
tulc(needs more coffee)

 

[dogs4thewin]

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.

having "old blood" is not always a good thing.

 

[Desk trauma]

having "old blood" is not always a good thing.

However having a president who has a better than elementary school level grasp of how the government works is always a good thing...

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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

It appears actual Democrats disagreed with this idea or she'd be our president right now.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

We will never know the answer to this question, without a whole bunch of assumptions.

What we do know, is Hilary lost and when someone loses an election, it happens for a reason.

 

[archer75]

However having a president who has a better than elementary school level grasp of how the government works is always a good thing...

@dogs4thewin I agree about old blood but in this case it's still better than what we have.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Did Trump ever call Clinton supporters deplorable?

Trump most definitely insulted his way to the White House.

The fact Hillary didn't gather enough support to win could be because her supporters weren't so quick to defend someone insulting the American people.

Trump supporters are a bit different in that regard. They seem to like being friends with a bully.

 

[bhsmte]

Trump most definitely insulted his way to the White House.

The fact Hillary didn't gather enough support to win could be because her supporters weren't so quick to defend someone insulting the American people.

Trump supporters are a bit different in that regard. They seem to like being friends with a bully.

Hilary lost, because those who were willing to support and vote for Obama, were not willing to vote for her. And in those key states, many of these folks were; women, blacks and other minorities.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Being that there's a GOP majority in both houses, I don't know that we'd be better or worse off. In all likelihood, nothing would get done because of obstructionism and petty partisan bickering.

Which basically means the chicken little claims from the Right about the sky falling down under a Clinton administration would never have come true.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

She might have gotten a few of the deplorables if she wouldn't have called them that and from what I heard she also lost some of the independents with that comment.

M-Bob

It's not lost on me that voters decided to hold a politician to a higher standard than a foul mouthed reality TV star.

Well... some of the voters.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Hilary lost, because those who were willing to support and vote for Obama, were not willing to vote for her. And in those key states, many of these folks were; women, blacks and other minorities.

No surprise. Hillary Clinton was not at the top of any voter's list for President. It was only in comparison to Trump that she got any real support.

 

[HereIStand]

It appears actual Democrats disagreed with this idea or she'd be our president right now.

Clinton didn't have nearly the enthusiasm surrounding her campaign that her husband or Obama had. She also lost some celebrity female endorsements to Sanders and Jill Stein.