Why Hillary

[Rhamiel]

Why should we vote for Hillary Clinton?

Has she shown any exceptional intelligence?
Any amazing leadership skills?

She moved to New York because she knew any Democrat could be elected there.
(that and the Clintons have serious connections to Wall Street Democrats)
She was Secretary of State when the Benghazi debacle went down
She was is a lawyer..... has she done anything noteworthy as a lawyer?

Her and her husband have been involved in numerous scandals
She is a polarizing figure, her husband was well known for being able to work with Republicans, but this is something that she seems to have no real skill in.
So.... why should we vote for her?

 

[MikeK]

I'm not arguing that you should vote for her, I'm certainly not likely to vote for her. As to her intelligence, she got into an Ivy League school without a providence and did well, so she's no slouch.

I rather liked her as Secratary of State, and the Benghazi thing is an absolute non-issue to me. It was terribly tragic, and maybe preventable, but I liked Reagan in spite of his actions before and after 241 Americans, mostly Marines, were killed by terrorists on his watch and he did little to react and little to take action on the warnings that came before the attack. These things happen sometimes, unfortunately. We cannot afford perfect vigilance, we must make compromises, and sometimes we get bit. That is an unfortunate fact of life.

Leadership wise, I think she gives a good pep talk and she seems to command a stage or room well enough.

She is polarizing, but not remarkably moreso than a Walker or a Trump or a Romney or a Cruz.

I think we could come up with a few thousand better candidates than her, but I think we could also do a hell of a lot worse. I see her being a relatively stable, caretaker President making mostly conservative, cautious moves regarding world finances and foreign commitments over the next 4 or 8 years if elected.

 

[Rhamiel]

She is polarizing, but not remarkably moreso than a Walker or a Trump or a Romney or a Cruz

well she is not as bad as Trump

but as for Romney, was Governor of Massachusetts
which has gone for the Democrat in 8 out of the 10 most recent Presidential elections
to be a Governor there, he would have to have SOME ability to work with Democrats
has Hillary shown anything even close to that when it comes to working with Republicans?

Cruz also seems to be divisive
but even his political opponents talk about how intelligent he is. (I mean serious politicians who disagree with him, not talking heads on CNN)
yeah she got into Ivy League school.... I am not calling her dumb (though George W. Bush also went to an Ivy League School and for some reason many talk about him as if he were dumb)
she is a lawyer, she went to a prestigious school, she is CLEARLY not an idiot..... but she does not seem to be one of the best minds in politics either.

 

[MikeK]

Hillary Clinton was accepted to school based on Hilary Rhodham's resume though, George W Bush would not have made the cut as George Smith, and his test scores say as much. Bush was a son of Rich grad who was growing in political clout and grandson of a rich grad and Senator when he applied.

 

[Rhamiel]

Hillary Clinton was accepted to school based on Hilary Rhodham's resume though, George W Bush would not have made the cut as George Smith, and his test scores say as much. Bush was a son of Rich grad who was growing in political clout and grandson of a rich grad and Senator when he applied.

he still got in, and graduated, yes he had connections, but he did get the work done
like I said, I am not calling Hillary dumb
I just have not seen anything that speaks to the existence of some towering intellect
she went to a nice school, lots of people do that...
she was a Democrat who was able to get elected in New York.... not really an exceptional feet right there
(and much like Bush getting accepted into Yale, her election to the Senate probably had more to do with her last name then with any merits on her part)

 

[mark46]

I'm not arguing that you should vote for her, I'm certainly not likely to vote for her. As to her intelligence, she got into an Ivy League school without a providence and did well, so she's no slouch.

I rather liked her as Secratary of State, and the Benghazi thing is an absolute non-issue to me. It was terribly tragic, and maybe preventable, but I liked Reagan in spite of his actions before and after 241 Americans, mostly Marines, were killed by terrorists on his watch and he did little to react and little to take action on the warnings that came before the attack. These things happen sometimes, unfortunately. We cannot afford perfect vigilance, we must make compromises, and sometimes we get bit. That is an unfortunate fact of life.

Leadership wise, I think she gives a good pep talk and she seems to command a stage or room well enough.

She is polarizing, but not remarkably moreso than a Walker or a Trump or a Romney or a Cruz.

I think we could come up with a few thousand better candidates than her, but I think we could also do a hell of a lot worse. I see her being a relatively stable, caretaker President making mostly conservative, cautious moves regarding world finances and foreign commitments over the next 4 or 8 years if elected.

I agree with all your comments. I would say that most voters with similar comments will vote for Hillary. Obviously, it is possible that Republicans will nominate a better candidate than Clinton. It's been awhile (1988).

 

[Rhamiel]

I agree with all your comments. I would say that most voters with similar comments will vote for Hillary. Obviously, it is possible that Republicans will nominate a better candidate than Clinton. It's been awhile (1988).

I dunno
I think just about anyone who does not want babies to get murdered by their own mother is probably a better candidate

I said probably, so obviously not EVERY pro-choice politician is better then Hillary....
but just about all of them are
I mean, can you really trust a woman(or man) who thinks it is ok to kill unborn babies because they are "not really human"?
makes you wonder who they will demote from humanity next?

 

[Fantine]

Clinton was never an Arkansan. She was from Chicago. Bill Clinton does a lot with the UN. NY is a natural choice.

George W Bush got C 's in Harvard. Clinton was Valedictorian at Wellsley.

 

[S.ilvio]

Why should we vote for Hillary Clinton?

Excellent question when this guy is in the race...

 

[LoAmmi]

I think just about anyone who does not want babies to get murdered by their own mother is probably a better candidate

Really bad phrasing, to be honest. Unless there's a speech she's given I'm unaware of, I haven't seen her express a desire for people to get abortions. That they have the choice to do so, yes, but that's different than desiring people to do it.

 

[Rhamiel]

Really bad phrasing, to be honest. Unless there's a speech she's given I'm unaware of, I haven't seen her express a desire for people to get abortions. That they have the choice to do so, yes, but that's different than desiring people to do it.

well, if someone was "pro-choice" on chattel slavery, even if they had bad feelings about it, I would not vote for them either

 

[brinny]

Why should we vote for Hillary Clinton?

Has she shown any exceptional intelligence?
Any amazing leadership skills?

She moved to New York because she knew any Democrat could be elected there.
(that and the Clintons have serious connections to Wall Street Democrats)
She was Secretary of State when the Benghazi debacle went down
She was is a lawyer..... has she done anything noteworthy as a lawyer?

Her and her husband have been involved in numerous scandals
She is a polarizing figure, her husband was well known for being able to work with Republicans, but this is something that she seems to have no real skill in.
So.... why should we vote for her?

Good points.

 

[LoAmmi]

well, if someone was "pro-choice" on chattel slavery, even if they had bad feelings about it, I would not vote for them either

I agree. I simply caution people from throwing out phrases that are factually incorrect. It undermines any argument made. Best to stick to facts and point out how they are bad.

 

[mark46]

Really bad phrasing, to be honest. Unless there's a speech she's given I'm unaware of, I haven't seen her express a desire for people to get abortions. That they have the choice to do so, yes, but that's different than desiring people to do it.

The policy of Democrats and Republicans used to be that abortions should be legal and rare. All agreed that we should do all we could to reduce the number of abortions. Democrats emphasized education, women's health care and contraception (natural and artificial). Republicans emphasized abstinence and supporting adoptions.

The number of abortions continue to come down.

Now, we have made this issue a litmus test. Legislators and presidents can do little. Abortion (and gay marriage) are primarily issues for the courts.

Legislators certainly can make abortions more difficult to have. They also can reduce funds for education, abortion support, support of pregnant women, and contraception. Perhaps using our energy on the joint goal of reducing abortion might be a good thing to do.

It would seem that we might do as the Holy Father has asked and focus less on abortion and gay rights in our politics. No one is suggesting that positions should change. However, it would great to see more support of young women, in providing health care, financial support, paid leave and their job when they return after giving birth. I guess this is too much to ask.

 

[MikeK]

The policy of Democrats and Republicans used to be that abortions should be legal and rare. All agreed that we should do all we could to reduce the number of abortions. Democrats emphasized education, women's health care and contraception (natural and artificial). Republicans emphasized abstinence and supporting adoptions.

The number of abortions continue to come down.

Now, we have made this issue a litmus test. Legislators and presidents can do little. Abortion (and gay marriage) are primarily issues for the courts.

Legislators certainly can make abortions more difficult to have. They also can reduce funds for education, abortion support, support of pregnant women, and contraception. Perhaps using our energy on the joint goal of reducing abortion might be a good thing to do.

It would seem that we might do as the Holy Father has asked and focus less on abortion and gay rights in our politics. No one is suggesting that positions should change. However, it would great to see more support of young women, in providing health care, financial support, paid leave and their job when they return after giving birth. I guess this is too much to ask.

I agree that entirely too much political focus is on abortion. While it is a grave evil and perhaps the gravest evil, it is not graver than the sum of all other evils and it should not be one's sole concern. As you rightly mention, there are two paths two reducing abortion, one of which is limited by our laws. A Federal Court ruled it unconstitutional to restrict abortions to only those babies that do not yet have detectable heart rates. We could pass a gestation law of 26 weeks or some such, but those laws, like the partial birth abortion ban, are mostly smoke and mirrors to south our sensibilities, as a very small sliver of abortions are effected by such legislation. Supporting such legislation, though I do, also gives the impression that some abortions are worse than others, which from the Catholic pic isn't true. I don't understand why politics is such a focus of the pro-life movement and adoption drives and the sheltering, even in our own homes if need be, of at-risk families such a rare thing. Abortion as a litmus test for political candidates is an idea that profits the two Parties and individual candidates, but not our country and not the unborn.

 

[Rhamiel]

All agreed that we should do all we could to reduce the number of abortions.

that is like saying "yeah I want to reduce the number of slaves by economic and educational ways"
like, yeah we should do stuff to bring down the numbers
but I doubt you would just be like "well I want to get people to stop owning slaves, but I am not going to make it illegal or anything, owning slaves should be safe, legal, and rare"
doing "all we can" would involve making it illegal (along with many other things)
some of us want to do all we can, some of us are ok with it being legal

so yeah, Hillary thinks women have the right to kill their own unborn children

also, much of her rhetoric seems to be stuck in the 1950's and 1960's
she is stuck in the past, we need a dynamic leader who can grasp the changing world we live in
not someone who is stuck in the past with old ideas

 

[mark46]

that is like saying "yeah I want to reduce the number of slaves by economic and educational ways"
like, yeah we should do stuff to bring down the numbers
but I doubt you would just be like "well I want to get people to stop owning slaves, but I am not going to make it illegal or anything, owning slaves should be safe, legal, and rare"
doing "all we can" would involve making it illegal (along with many other things)
some of us want to do all we can, some of us are ok with it being legal

so yeah, Hillary thinks women have the right to kill their own unborn children

also, much of her rhetoric seems to be stuck in the 1950's and 1960's
she is stuck in the past, we need a dynamic leader who can grasp the changing world we live in
not someone who is stuck in the past with old ideas

I get it that reducing abortions by even 50% or 90% would not be acceptable to you. You would rather that abortion be illegal, there be no sex education, and no contraception and the abortion rate remain unchanged.

 

[Rhamiel]

I get it that reducing abortions by even 50% or 90% would not be acceptable to you. You would rather that abortion be illegal, there be no sex education, and no contraception and the abortion rate remain unchanged.

imagine if Hitler said "ok, ok, I will only kill HALF as many Jews in my camps. We cool now?"
the number of lives that would be saved would be significant
but the number of senseless murders would still turn my stomach

I did not talk about the legality or availability of sex ed or contraception

I do not think we would be able to outlaw contraception, and since it is a practical impossibility, I have not even given it much thought if we should outlaw contraception
I mean, I do not think it is a moral choice, but neither is fornication, and I do not think that should be outlawed

and for sex ed, I am not an educator, I have not gone deeply into this topic, I am not opposed to it though, I was born in 1985, I had sex ed in middle school and high school, I think it can be done in a responsible way

as for the numbers remaining unchanged?
normally when things become illegal, and you know you can go to jail for them, it discourages at least some of the people from doing it
I am amazed at this assumption that the numbers would not go down
once we start charging abortionists with murder, you can bet the numbers will go down

 

[Fantine]

Because in a political arena where elections are "bought" by billionaires and corporations, she is the only Democratic candidate who has a chance of being competitive.

 

[frenchdefense]

Why should we vote for Hillary Clinton?

Has she shown any exceptional intelligence?
Any amazing leadership skills?

She moved to New York because she knew any Democrat could be elected there.
(that and the Clintons have serious connections to Wall Street Democrats)
She was Secretary of State when the Benghazi debacle went down
She was is a lawyer..... has she done anything noteworthy as a lawyer?

Her and her husband have been involved in numerous scandals
She is a polarizing figure, her husband was well known for being able to work with Republicans, but this is something that she seems to have no real skill in.
So.... why should we vote for her?

Who's your best alternative ?