Why Hillary

[mark46]

"the Clintons"?
I thought we were only voting for one Clinton

As Bill and Hillary said in 1992 and 1996, vote for one and you get both. Obviously, Bill Clinton will have a role in Hilalry's administration, if only as a negotiator and advisor.

 

[Rhamiel]

As Bill and Hillary said in 1992 and 1996, vote for one and you get both. Obviously, Bill Clinton will have a role in Hilalry's administration, if only as a negotiator and advisor.

ok, well this makes it even easier

lets not put a sexual predator back in the White House
Bill Clinton is a serial abuser of working class women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton

 

[mark46]

ok, well this makes it even easier

lets not put a sexual predator back in the White House
Bill Clinton is a serial abuser of working class women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton

Yes, it does make it easier to understand your political analysis. Yet again, the best president has ZERO to do with actual ability or accomplishments.

IMHO, in my lifetime, we have had two administrations when the country was run very well. The presidents were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. I understand that many disagree with both of these choices. However, their differences have to with what happened to the country in their administrations, not a judgement of what they did or did not do in their bedrooms.

 

[Rhamiel]

Yet again, the best president has ZERO to do with actual ability or accomplishments.

well I was talking about Hillary's accomplishments and abilities

she has shown no real ability to work with Republicans
she has shown no real ability to have great personal skills like her hus
she moved to New York where anyone with a D in front of their name can get elected Senator
there have been allegations of bribery while she was Secretary of State

what has she accomplished?
oh and her husband is a serial abuser of women, so yeah, I think that is kind of pertinent

 

[WarriorAngel]

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?

Yes she is a carpetbagger - which is by definition disallowed. But ppl looked away.
She is lying - and her own dear hubby spilled it that he receives no emails from her when she told them her emails were for him that she hid/erased. [funny eh? i dont think they like each other much]
She has cojoled, lied and hid info in Benghazi because she is - guilty. An innocent person wouldnt be hiding anything.
Yes, numerous scandals - i forget the number of scandals she was involved in. [Some leading to teenagers deaths]
She doesnt even think the pertinent questions into Benghazi were important.
[Reducing the deaths to just a mere inconvenience - which comes from no longer seeing life as important due to the many scandals leading to fatalities she was involved in]
And i think she is partly going senile.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hillary and Saunders show a real dearth of any vibrant candidates on the left. Her only accomplishment and her only selling point is that she has a political marriage to a highly successful former president, and is willing to maintain that political marriage regardless of how many women he uses and abuses.
The fact that Hillary's friend Donald Trump is leading the pack on the other side reflects very poorly on American politics in general.

With choices like that, it is a good thing that America has become more and more isolated and irrelevant to global politics in the last seven years. There is nothing good that will come out of this election, if the choices remain the same.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Hillary and Saunders show a real dearth of any vibrant candidates on the left. Her only accomplishment and her only selling point is that she has a political marriage to a highly successful former president, and is willing to maintain that political marriage regardless of how many women he uses and abuses.
The fact that Hillary's friend Donald Trump is leading the pack on the other side reflects very poorly on American politics in general.

With choices like that, it is a good thing that America has become more and more isolated and irrelevant to global politics in the last seven years. There is nothing good that will come out of this election, if the choices remain the same.

Observing the Trump 'likes' - its his vocal opinions that reflect the average public.
So far i know of nothing of his issues. So i remain distantly observant. I prefer Ben Carson... who is equally vocal - but has ideas as well.

As for Clinton's successful presidency - he did give credit to Newt for his tenure in the last elections.
As someone who followed daily the bills and the voting on bills - i have to agree with Bubba.
Clinton signed the bills of Newt's ideas that gave this country success. But only if he was given some things he wanted as a compromise.
I always find it interesting how Bill got the credit. The only credit due to him was not vetoing the bills that came to his desk from the House leader. Newt - altho hated - was the brains behind the success of the 90's even if Clinton took the credit at that time.

Remember what Bill said last election - Newt was the brains... to put it as concisely as i can.
BUT because Newt remarried - nobody ever - never - looked at his record in how we flourished thru his efforts ...
And the sad thing is - ppl only 'see' the president as the winner.

 

[mark46]

Observing the Trump 'likes' - its his vocal opinions that reflect the average public.
So far i know of nothing of his issues. So i remain distantly observant. I prefer Ben Carson... who is equally vocal - but has ideas as well.

As for Clinton's successful presidency - he did give credit to Newt for his tenure in the last elections.
As someone who followed daily the bills and the voting on bills - i have to agree with Bubba.
Clinton signed the bills of Newt's ideas that gave this country success. But only if he was given some things he wanted as a compromise.
I always find it interesting how Bill got the credit. The only credit due to him was not vetoing the bills that came to his desk from the House leader. Newt - altho hated - was the brains behind the success of the 90's even if Clinton took the credit at that time.

Remember what Bill said last election - Newt was the brains... to put it as concisely as i can.
BUT because Newt remarried - nobody ever - never - looked at his record in how we flourished thru his efforts ...
And the sad thing is - ppl only 'see' the president as the winner.

I have always given much of the credit for Clinton's success to Republicans Gingritch and Kasich. We often forget the importance of Kasich, the budget chair. However, realize that the Republicans could not have done this alone. They did not have a veto-proof majority. Both Clinton and the Republicans then were willing to deal on lots and lots of issues. We should remember how many jobs were created, and that we had a surplus. That's what can be done when the parties are willing (even reluctantly) to work together for the common good.

In the same way, I give O'Neill and Reagan lots of credit. Many good things happened domestically during the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations, when O'Neill was running the House.

As an aside, both Reagan and Clinton could have gotten the US into major war over a decade with tens of thousand of American lives lost. Both avoided such results.

Since the vast majority of Americans strongly favor not getting into a major war, it will be interesting to see who is portrayed by the people as the next Ronald Reagan or the next Bill Clinton.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have always given much of the credit for Clinton's success to Republicans Gingritch and Kasich. We often forget the importance of Kasich, the budget chair. However, realize that the Republicans could not have done this alone. They did not have a veto-proof majority. Both Clinton and the Republicans then were willing to deal on lots and lots of issues. We should remember how many jobs were created, and that we had a surplus. That's what can be done when the parties are willing (even reluctantly) to work together for the common good.

In the same way, I give O'Neill and Reagan lots of credit. Many good things happened domestically during the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations, when O'Neill was running the House.

I agree. Ppl most often say Clinton was successful - but we flourished most under Reagan. [And Greenspan]
As i said - Newt and Clinton compromised...Clinton actually admired Newt and due to Newt's savvy - Bill often trusted Newt.
Bill got the most respectable way under Newt's care - to have 'his pet bills' in order to avoid veto's.
I was sad to see the democrats - or liberals destroy Newt's proposition for the presidency on personal matters -- we could all be doing much better now - and not indebted to China.

I used to watch CSPAN almost every day.

 

[mark46]

I agree. Ppl most often say Clinton was successful - but we flourished most under Reagan. [And Greenspan]
As i said - Newt and Clinton compromised...Clinton actually admired Newt and due to Newt's savvy - Bill often trusted Newt.
Bill got the most respectable way under Newt's care - to have 'his pet bills' in order to avoid veto's.
I was sad to see the democrats - or liberals destroy Newt's proposition for the presidency on personal matters -- we could all be doing much better now - and not indebted to China.

I used to watch CSPAN almost every day.

Yes, Newt's personal life and personal history kept him from being a serious candidate for the presidency. However, I don't think that it was the Democrats that did him in, certainly not folks close to Hillary.

Gingritch was in a Republican primary with many, many conservative candidates for folks to choose from. Folks simply looked elsewhere, most notably to Santorum. Of course, Santorum was not a very good candidate, and had little chance. In the end, Newt's personal history didn't play well with the religious right. If there weren't so many choices, perhaps Newt would have been more acceptable.

Also, we need to remember that Newt left his leadership position in the 90's because he could no longer get along with the far right of his party, the very people he helped get elected. As is the case with many "true-blue" Reagan Republicans, Newt was simply no longer acceptable.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, Newt's personal life and personal history kept him from being a serious candidate for the presidency. However, I don't think that it was the Democrats that did him in, certainly not folks close to Hillary.

Gingritch was in a Republican primary with many, many conservative candidates for folks to choose from. Folks simply looked elsewhere, most notably to Santorum. Of course, Santorum was not a very good candidate, and had little chance. In the end, Newt's personal history didn't play well with the religious right. If there weren't so many choices, perhaps Newt would have been more acceptable.

Also, we need to remember that Newt left his leadership position in the 90's because he could no longer get along with the far right of his party, the very people he helped get elected. As is the case with many "true-blue" Reagan Republicans, Newt was simply no longer acceptable.

Santorum and Newt were my top picks.
Santorum came from my state and he did a nice clean up in the politics arena.
He was far right - but he did what he said he would.
Newt came later to reversion/conversion of Catholicism as many prodical children have... but he remained unforgiven.

Im not far right - but i stand on the right of issues. Santorum had possibility - but so few actually knew his record and didnt give him a chance due to his extreme views [which were 100% Catholic which did him in] - which again was unfortunate.
He was one who spoke his mind and good ideas.

 

[mark46]

Santorum and Newt were my top picks.
Santorum came from my state and he did a nice clean up in the politics arena.
He was far right - but he did what he said he would.
Newt came later to reversion/conversion of Catholicism as many prodical children have... but he remained unforgiven.

Im not far right - but i stand on the right of issues. Santorum had possibility - but so few actually knew his record and didnt give him a chance due to his extreme views [which were 100% Catholic which did him in] - which again was unfortunate.
He was one who spoke his mind and good ideas.

Santorum chose which of his views to emphasize in his campaign. He had a very poor understanding of presidential politics. He did well early, but only tried to compete for a portion of the Republican Party.

Having Catholic views and wanting Catholic views to be the law of the land are two separate concepts. Santorum never distinguished between the two.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Santorum chose which of his views to emphasize in his campaign. He had a very poor understanding of presidential politics. He did well early, but only tried to compete for a portion of the Republican Party.

Having Catholic views and wanting Catholic views to be the law of the land are two separate concepts. Santorum never distinguished between the two.

Unfortunately - that was his downfall.
But he really is a good guy.
Personally, i'd love to an orthodox Catholic in charge... but that's just me.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Personally, i'd love to an orthodox Catholic in charge... but that's just me.

It's me, too. So that makes at least two of us.

 

[S.ilvio]

Can Santourm by referred to as 'Orthodox'?

His record of appeasement of the Zionist Military regime in the Holy Land is far from Vatican teaching...

 

[WarriorAngel]

sigh

Such antisemitism...

 

[S.ilvio]

sigh

Such antisemitism...

From the Vatican..?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I dont understand why our allie Israel must constantly be attacked in this forum.

Why is the entire country at fault? Children, and women included and the poor..?
If i hear zionist one more time... im going to consider it antisemitism.

Here is the thing - they are our allies and we are on their side. I dont know if they are your allies or not - but they are ours and we have an agreement with them.

 

[S.ilvio]

I dont understand why our allie Israel must constantly be attacked in this forum.

Why is the entire country at fault? Children, and women included and the poor..?
If i hear zionist one more time... im going to consider it antisemitism.

Here is the thing - they are our allies and we are on their side. I dont know if they are your allies or not - but they are ours and we have an agreement with them.

The current, Zionist, military, oppressive regime in Tel Aviv is no ally of Ireland. Neither is the fascist Hamas regime in Gaza...

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, but Israel is our allie.
So for Santorum to defend them - is quite acceptable.