Hillary Clinton

• Tiernan

  I'd vote for Hillary over any Tea Party idiots. And while John Kasich hasn't exactly publically claimed to be a Tea Partier he is a closet Bible beating Jesus hugger. A vote for this dumbass is a vote for religion becoming a deciding factor in governmental decision making. Not that he's a legit candidate anyway but don't give him any momentum by pumping him up.
• gut

  jmog;1722780 wrote:Obama hasn't been any better with his hyperbole and crazy statements at times either. He is only half a step better in that regard than Reed is. Biden is JUST as bad as Reed, and he is in the WH...just food for thought.
  
  Fully admit that Pelosi is quite possibly the most bat shit crazy person to ever get elected to an office in DC.

  
  Why so seriouz?
  
• like_that

  

  I am still wondering for those who will vote Hillary, why based on her career do they think she will be a good president? Plz b honest.
• Tiernan

  I'd vote for her just to piss raging conservatives like you off.
• like_that

  

  Tiernan;1722871 wrote:I'd vote for her just to piss raging conservatives like you off.

  Not even close to being a raging conservative, but I find your last 2 posts funny considering you are a racist drunk deadbeat piece of shit..
• Tiernan

  ...you forgot Cleveburgh Hater...always put that one first on the labels you attach to me...I'm most proud of that one.
• jmog

  Tiernan;1722795 wrote:I'd vote for Hillary over any Tea Party idiots. And while John Kasich hasn't exactly publically claimed to be a Tea Partier he is a closet Bible beating Jesus hugger. A vote for this dumbass is a vote for religion becoming a deciding factor in governmental decision making. Not that he's a legit candidate anyway but don't give him any momentum by pumping him up.

  That's about as legit a statement as saying a vote for Obama was, or a vote for Hillary is a vote for communism.
• sleeper

  

  like_that;1722806 wrote:I am still wondering for those who will vote Hillary, why based on her career do they think she will be a good president? Plz b honest.

  Because she has a vagina and her last name is Clinton. Oh and she will have a D next to her name.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  like_that;1722806 wrote:I am still wondering for those who will vote Hillary, why based on her career do they think she will be a good president? Plz b honest.

  
  It's really no different than why anyone would vote for anyone else. B/c they side with your beliefs. Liberals aren't going to vote for Cruz b/c of his beliefs and conservatives won't vote for Hillary b/c of her beliefs. I still think Rand could pull a lot of liberal votes b/c he's a lot more liberal than other Republicans.
• BoatShoes

  like_that;1722806 wrote:I am still wondering for those who will vote Hillary, why based on her career do they think she will be a good president? Plz b honest.

  I don't think Hillary would be a great, transformative president but I think she would be a good president and has the broad range of experience we should expect for the job.
  
  I think Hillary would make a diligent, competent president for much the same reason I think Mitt Romney would have at least been a diligent, competent president; she has a broad range of experience and is not an ideologue. I didn't agree with Mitt Romney's general points of view (i.e. thinking Ben Bernanke was too dovish) but I don't think he would have been a "bad" president if he had won like I think some of these fools running would be (like Barry Goldwater said, these preachers on a mission from God are a hell of a damn problem and all that).
  
  In a sense she is the Democrats' version of Scott Walker. She has taken the Right Wing's best shots and is still standing. She has dealt with the right wingers who hated her as much as they hate Obama and knows how to handle them (unlike Obama) and she has experience being around and dealing with Conservatives in a genuinely pragmatic fashion: Her time in Arkansas and in the Senate. For instance, all of the non-bomb throwing Republican Senators have nothing but good things to say about her which is not the same for Obama. (I actually don't think Obama is an ideologue but that he does have contempt for people who don't just agree with what his opinion is. The Clinton's are not like that).
  
  She's a terrible politician really and could blow it on the campaign but I don't really know if that is a bad quality to have. She isn't "inspiring" but neither was George H.W. Bush.
  
  While I don't think she would have this open desire to avoid war at all costs like Obama (which undermines his negotiating authority) I don't think she would be ready to go to war at the drop of a hat like most of the GOP crop who act like the Iraq War did not happen (These guys are already talking about War with Iran on the Hugh Hewitt show, Morning in America with Bill Bennett, etc.) In other words, I think she understands "Speak Softly but Carry a Big Stick" as opposed to "Speak Loudly and Bombastically while swinging a Big Stick around" which is how I perceive the GOP hawks whereas Obama "Speaks Softly and makes it Clear He has no desire to Use the Big Stick."
  
  
  She worked in the private sector. she has basically been a Chief of Staff in the White House and in State Government already. She developed ample experience working with the other side while in the minority in the Senate and she was the point man in moving American Foreign Policy in a more diplomatic direction away from the mistakes of the Bush years that undermined our moral authority as the "Just Hegemon."
  
  Do I think she is a transformative president like FDR or Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan? No. But, I think she would do a competent job and solidify the end of the Reagan Epoch that collapsed with the second Bush Administration.
  
  In the broad sense presidential elections are in a lot of ways about the Party generally...so long as there is somebody who is not a complete incompetent at the top. The goal of a primary is hopefully to make sure that a bumbling idiot like Biden or an open bomb-thrower like Sanders or Warren is not the man at the top...and I don't think Clinton is either of those.
  
  A Clinton Administration will generally accept the premises of modern central banking and nominate people like Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke. They will accept the broad consensus on climate change. They accept a secular understanding of the world. They will accept post-Lochner Constitutional Law and not undo the moderate reforms of the Obama years that eliminated the market failure/injustice of sick people being unable to buy private health insurance due to "pre-existing conditions" and systemically dangerous shadow banking (I.e. GE getting back into doing what they do best and out of shadow finance due to Dodd-Frank is a good thing).
  
  I also think she will keep the ball rolling toward criminal justice reform and drug decriminalization/legalization and other things that will generally make America a little bit better for the average person.
  
  
  Interestingly enough, I don't think I would really be all that opposed to Jeb Bush either...seems more like George H.W. Bush than Reagan/W/Romney and he doesn't have the backing of the more hawkish folks that backed Romney and who it seems like are falling behind Rubio i.e. Krauthammer who has predicted a Rubio victory.
• Tiernan

  How is it NOT legit that I don't want (nor do we need) a Christian agenda influencing the White House decision making process? I'd prefer it was illegal for candidates to ever utter a single endorsement of their religious beliefs once they declare and / or are elected. Every once in awhile you see Bill & Hillary leaving a church photo op but she at least doesn't use Jesus as her de-facto campaign manager like most of the Repub idiots do. Take a tip from ol' Tiernan sluggos...not that I was a fan or even mild supporter but I told ya all twice to get your heads around having a Brotha in the WH and now I'm telling ya to get ready for a Sista. The radical conservatives in this country have ruined it for intelligent conservatives and HRC will be the next POTUS bank on it.
• sleeper

  

  For as much shit as we give liberals, I'll give BoatShoes some credit for not being a piece of trash. That was a good post.
• like_that

  

  sleeper;1722985 wrote:For as much shit as we give liberals, I'll give BoatShoes some credit for not being a piece of trash. That was a good post.

  Yeah, I didn't agree with it all, but it was a good response.
• Heretic

  

  Tiernan;1722979 wrote:How is it NOT legit that I don't want (nor do we need) a Christian agenda influencing the White House decision making process? I'd prefer it was illegal for candidates to ever utter a single endorsement of their religious beliefs once they declare and / or are elected. Every once in awhile you see Bill & Hillary leaving a church photo op but she at least doesn't use Jesus as her de-facto campaign manager like most of the Repub idiots do. Take a tip from ol' Tiernan sluggos...not that I was a fan or even mild supporter but I told ya all twice to get your heads around having a Brotha in the WH and now I'm telling ya to get ready for a Sista. The radical conservatives in this country have ruined it for intelligent conservatives and HRC will be the next POTUS bank on it.

  I don't generally agree with you, but good points here.
  
  1. Religion has turned into about as divisive a subject as, well, politics, placing a religion-themed candidate behind the 8-ball immediately. As a non-religious person, I don't want that at the top of government, as I tie being a religion-themed candidate to being a social conservative and a social conservative with "dddddeeeeeerrrrrrrppppppp".
  
  2. And, as for the radical conservatives ruining it for intelligent ones, well, on this site, we have a number of intelligent conservatives who preach fiscal responsibility while not wanting government to be so all-encompassing as far as all the minor details of our day-to-day life go. And they tend to be overshadowed by the loud angry voices screaming "MARXIST COMMUNIST" stuff at the top of their lungs on a daily basis to the point where it's impossible to take them remotely seriously. I mean, I'm still half-convinced that QQuaker is an elaborate left-wing troll designed to make conservatives look like deranged jokes meant to be mocked, even though if so, he's kept up the facade pretty diligently for a few years.
• jmog

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1722954 wrote:It's really no different than why anyone would vote for anyone else. B/c they side with your beliefs. Liberals aren't going to vote for Cruz b/c of his beliefs and conservatives won't vote for Hillary b/c of her beliefs. I still think Rand could pull a lot of liberal votes b/c he's a lot more liberal than other Republicans.

  He is more libertarian which is nearly the exact opposite of a liberal when it comes to governmental issues (they are closer on social issues).
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  jmog;1723001 wrote:He is more libertarian which is nearly the exact opposite of a liberal when it comes to governmental issues (they are closer on social issues).

  
  Yes.. Socially speaking, Rand is pretty liberal.
• jmog

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1723012 wrote:Yes.. Socially speaking, Rand is pretty liberal.

  I would say he is libertarian on social issues, as in get the federal government out. He may or may not agree with some of the gay rights, etc issues that liberals are all for, but he doesn't think the federal government should be the ones deciding.
  
  There is a difference between liberal social stances and libertarian social stances even though they may appear to be similar.
  
  Just like there is a difference between libertarian political/federal government stances and conservative political/federal government stances. It is a fine line, but a clear distinction.
  
  
  I truly want someone that is small government to win, and Rand is the only one I can truly say is that right now.
• Tiernan

  Rand Paul has less of a chance than Kasich by primary time...c'mon GOP put up a viable, worthy challenger or just bag it now and save us all 18 mos. of BS. Right now Hillary is checking out new China patterns for the WH and not even breaking a sweat on those fat cankles.
• isadore

  sleeper;1722942 wrote:Because she has a vagina and her last name is Clinton. Oh and she will have a D next to her name.

  thank you for making these excellent arguments.
  after 43 penises it is time for a vagina
  she will replicate her husband's presidency that gave us prosperity and budget surpluses
  she is not a member of the party controlled by big business, minded religious fanatics and the Koch brothers
• Tiernan

  Uh...actually it's been 44 penises. (Grover Cleveland had boobs tho)
• jmog

  isadore;1723201 wrote:thank you for making these excellent arguments.
  after 43 penises it is time for a vagina
  she will replicate her husband's presidency that gave us prosperity and budget surpluses
  she is not a member of the party controlled by big business, minded religious fanatics and the Koch brothers

  If you don't believe the Ds get just as big contributions from big business as the Rs you haven't been paying attention. Instead of the Koch's they just have the Walton's.
• justincredible

  

  jmog;1723215 wrote:If you don't believe the Ds get just as big contributions from big business as the Rs you haven't been paying attention. Instead of the Koch's they just have the Walton's.

  George Soros.
• jmog

  justincredible;1723220 wrote:George Soros.

  Yup, even bigger donor than the Walton's. But you don't hear the MSM complaining about him, just the Koch's.
  
  
  Yes, I know it is a conservative blog, but this is all you need to know about Soros.
  
  http://www.westernjournalism.com/koch-brothers-george-soros-fear/
• Con_Alma

  jmog;1723073 wrote:I would say he is libertarian on social issues, as in get the federal government out. He may or may not agree with some of the gay rights, etc issues that liberals are all for, but he doesn't think the federal government should be the ones deciding.
  
  There is a difference between liberal social stances and libertarian social stances even though they may appear to be similar.
  
  Just like there is a difference between libertarian political/federal government stances and conservative political/federal government stances. It is a fine line, but a clear distinction.
  
  
  I truly want someone that is small government to win, and Rand is the only one I can truly say is that right now.

  He was "Against the drug war before he was for it".
  
  http://pushback.us/rand-paul-was-against-the-drug-war-before-he-was-for-it/
  
  
  "...
  The Senator was speaking to a group of conservative evangelical pastors when, according to the Washington Post, he “assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.”
  Then, “He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa. ..."
  
  ...and now he vows to end the war of drugs. Seems like he pretty solid on his core convictions. :RpS_glare:
• jmog

  Con_Alma;1723233 wrote:He was "Against the drug war before he was for it".
  
  http://pushback.us/rand-paul-was-against-the-drug-war-before-he-was-for-it/
  
  
  "...
  The Senator was speaking to a group of conservative evangelical pastors when, according to the Washington Post, he “assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.”
  Then, “He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa. ..."
  
  ...and now he vows to end the war of drugs. Seems like he pretty solid on his core convictions. :RpS_glare:

  Sounds like a politician to me (unfortunately). We could find the 800 things that Hilary has flip flopped on with a quick google search as well.