or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Hillary Clinton SHOULDN'T be president.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary Clinton SHOULDN'T be president.

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Bill
Bush, George W.
Bush, George W.
Clinton, Hilllary (?)
Clinton, Hilllary (?)

Two familes should not control the countries politics for 20 years, let alone 24 or even 28 years.

Clinton does not represent change. She represents more of the same politics that have been going on for the past 20 years. And that's exemplified in her acceptance of campaign money from PACs and lobbyists.
post #2 of 19
Valid point,

But, um, any reason this thread needs to exist? We have Clinton threads. We have primary threads. We don't need another one to make a single point.
post #3 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Valid point,

But, um, any reason this thread needs to exist? We have Clinton threads. We have primary threads. We don't need another one to make a single point.

I'll give icfireball some points for using the gradation effect.
post #4 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'll give icfireball some points for using the gradation effect.

Yeah me too. I thought that was cool. Sounds like it's 2 to 1 to keep the thread open.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'll give icfireball some points for using the gradation effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yeah me too. I thought that was cool. Sounds like it's 2 to 1 to keep the thread open.

Thanks

And of course, this is also an open challenge Clinton fanboys (or I guess the word "fangirls" is more appropriate) to attempt to justify why Hillary Clinton is worth electing in light of already having two decades of the same two families in control.
post #6 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

And of course, this is also an open challenge Clinton fanboys (or I guess the word "fangirls" is more appropriate) to attempt to justify why Hillary Clinton is worth electing in light of already having two decades of the same two families in control.

Err.. Why not? I mean, if you actually disagree with her on issues, that's one thing, but it doesn't seem like her last name should have any bearing on how effective of a President she will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Two familes should not control the countries politics for 20 years, let alone 24 or even 28 years.

Just because she's a Clinton.. So what? So her husband was President, too. So what? Does that mean she will be a bad President?
"How fortunate are you and I.."
Reply
"How fortunate are you and I.."
Reply
post #7 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by turnwrite View Post

Err.. Why not? I mean, if you actually disagree with her on issues, that's one thing, but it doesn't seem like her last name should have any bearing on how effective of a President she will be.



Just because she's a Clinton.. So what? So her husband was President, too. So what? Does that mean she will be a bad President?

I never said she would be a bad president. I was pointing out that this much power in the hands of a very small group of people is certainly not good. Clinton doesn't stand for change at all, and that's what we desperately need right now. She accepts money from corporate lobbyists that have had a stranglehold on the American political scene for too long! That's one thing that needs to change.

Bottom line is, too much power in one place corrupts.

I do have other problems with her though:
She supported the Iraq war. That was either simply bad judgement, or as I believe, it was a political move so opponents couldn't use that against her as a female candidate saying that women are less likely to go to war.

She's hated more than she's adored. Yes she fills a niche, and fills it very well, but that niche is pretty small and won't win an election.
post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

I was pointing out that this much power in the hands of a very small group of people is certainly not good.

This is not necessarily true. If a person is a good ruler, and people keep voting for them, why shouldn't they stay in power for a long time, or at least until people stop supporting them, and stop voting for them? Does a good ruler become a bad ruler after being in office for a certain length of time? How long is this period of time? Sounds like a useful thing to know..

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Clinton doesn't stand for change at all, and that's what we desperately need right now.

So since someone else in her family also happened to be President at one time, this impedes her ability to enact any change? I suppose it's perfectly logical that her husband's occupation precludes her ever making any changes to anything.

She certainly wasn't the one who started this whole universal healthcare movement, back before Obama was even a state senator.. Or maybe that wasn't a "change," somehow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

I do have other problems with her though:
She supported the Iraq war. That was either simply bad judgement, or as I believe, it was a political move so opponents couldn't use that against her as a female candidate saying that women are less likely to go to war.

She's hated more than she's adored. Yes she fills a niche, and fills it very well, but that niche is pretty small and won't win an election.

These are absolutely valid concerns, and I won't argue them with you. I just don't think that you can discount Clinton simply because she is a Clinton. That is really pretty irrelevant. However, disagreeing with her policies or her voting record is perfectly acceptable, and it seems that's what you've done.

She doesn't have to be your candidate - just don't bash her for silly reasons.
"How fortunate are you and I.."
Reply
"How fortunate are you and I.."
Reply
post #9 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by turnwrite View Post

This is not necessarily true. If a person is a good ruler, and people keep voting for them, why shouldn't they stay in power for a long time, or at least until people stop supporting them, and stop voting for them? Does a good ruler become a bad ruler after being in office for a certain length of time? How long is this period of time? Sounds like a useful thing to know..

The constitution agrees with my thoughts based on the fact that no president should have more than two terms.

Quote:
She certainly wasn't the one who started this whole universal healthcare movement, back before Obama was even a state senator.. Or maybe that wasn't a "change," somehow.

I've said this a few times before: Hilary might have been a good choice for president 12 years ago. Back then she really did believe in universal healthcare and worked to get it. But it didn't work. And after that, she started playing nice to the drug companies and corporate lobbyists. She failed once, nothing makes me think she'll succeed this time. And honestly, if were on the issue of healthcare, Obama and Clinton are roughly equal in my mind whereas Edwards, I believe, has the best universal healthcare plan.

Quote:
She doesn't have to be your candidate - just don't bash her for silly reasons.

Control by two families over two decades is not a silly issue. It is a very serious concern. That's not to say that if Hilary were the best candidate that should preclude her from being president. I think that a huge part of her success is the fact that Bill was president. Who's next? Jeb Bush? Is America turning into a Bush/Clinton dynasty? People say Hilary has experience. This is exactly what I'm afraid of. That she has too much experience... with the current political scene. And I don't like the current political scene. Most Americans don't. This is strongly tied to corporate lobbyists' stranglehold on politics that's preventing progress. Not very democratic is it?
post #10 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

The constitution agrees with my thoughts based on the fact that no president should have more than two terms.

She hasn't been President before, has she? Guess the Constitution agrees with my thoughts, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

While Hillary and Bill are different people, they are extremely similar.

So are all the Democratic candidates. These two just happen to share the same last name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Control by two families over two decades is not a silly issue. It is a very serious concern.

Okay, so. The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says that one person shouldn't be in power for too long. Whether or not you consider two people "similar" or not has no bearing on anything.

But even so. Even if we pretend for a moment that two separate people are in fact just one, it still isn't really a valid complaint. If people keep voting for one person, there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't stay in office for as long as they still have the majority's support. Like I said above, is there some magical length of time after which a good politician suddenly transforms into a bad one? I guess it must be exactly eight years, huh. Weird.

I'm sorry, I just fail to see the validity of this argument. Please enlighten me.
"How fortunate are you and I.."
Reply
"How fortunate are you and I.."
Reply
post #11 of 19
Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Bill
Bush, George W.
Bush, George W.
Clinton, Hillary
Clinton, Hillary
Bush, Jeb E.
Clinton, Chelsea
Bush, Marvin P.
Bush, Jenna
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Bill
Bush, George W.
Bush, George W.
Clinton, Hillary
Clinton, Hillary
Bush, Jeb E.
Clinton, Chelsea
Bush, Marvin P.
Bush, Jenna



Lauren Bush on the right.

post #13 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Bill
Bush, George W.
Bush, George W.
Clinton, Hillary
Clinton, Hillary
Bush, Jeb E.
Clinton, Chelsea
Bush, Marvin P.
Bush, Jenna



And damn, Lauren Bush is a hottie.
post #14 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Bill
Bush, George W.
Bush, George W.
Clinton, Hilllary (?)
Clinton, Hilllary (?)

Two familes should not control the countries politics for 20 years, let alone 24 or even 28 years.

A more accurate listing:

Reagan, Ronald and Bush, George H.W.
Reagan, Ronald and Bush, George H.W.
Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Bill
Bush, George W.
Bush, George W.
Clinton, Hilllary (?)
Clinton, Hilllary (?)

I agree with your thinking 100%.

Dave
post #15 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post

A more accurate listing:

Don't forget...

Ford, Gerald + Cheney, Richard & Rumsfeld, Donald

Reagan, Ronald and Bush, George H.W. + Rumsfeld, Donald (Envoy)
Reagan, Ronald and Bush, George H.W.
Bush, George H.W.+ Cheney, Richard

Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Bill

Bush, George W.+ Cheney, Richard & Rumsfeld, Donald
Bush, George W.+ Cheney, Richard & Rumsfeld, Donald

Clinton, Hilllary (?)
Clinton, Hilllary (?)
post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Bill
Bush, George W.
Bush, George W.
Clinton, Hilllary (?)
Clinton, Hilllary (?)

Two familes should not control the countries politics for 20 years, let alone 24 or even 28 years.

Clinton does not represent change. She represents more of the same politics that have been going on for the past 20 years. And that's exemplified in her acceptance of campaign money from PACs and lobbyists.

I have to agree. If she were to win, I would start to think America was an oligarchy rather than a true democratic country.

Next thing you know, America might turn into a monarchy, and we'll make either the Clintons or Bushes Kings or Queens.
post #17 of 19
Anyone enjoying the economic signs lately?

We need Bill Clinton economics before slip into the next recession. Unfortunately if this keeps up it won't be in time.

I know SDW and the rest will say the late 90's was all because of the republicans ( Horse shit! Their excuse used to be the .com bubble now it's this ) but the thing is it's kind of looking bleak out there unless someone does something ( and it won't be Mr. let's cut some taxes again Bush ).

And no SDW I'm not " licking my chops " at the aspect. A recession affects all of us.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #18 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Anyone enjoying the economic signs lately?

We need Bill Clinton economics before slip into the next recession. Unfortunately if this keeps up it won't be in time.

I know SDW and the rest will say the late 90's was all because of the republicans ( Horse shit! Their excuse used to be the .com bubble now it's this ) but the thing is it's kind of looking bleak out there unless someone does something ( and it won't be Mr. let's cut some taxes again Bush ).

And no SDW I'm not " licking my chops " at the aspect. A recession affects all of us.

The late 90's was all because of the internet, which, as well all know, is all because of Al Gore

I think that waiting for the next president to prevent a recession is too late. I'm not saying a recession is going to happen -- just that if it does, it will be too late to prevent it by the time the 2008 presidential victor is inaugurated.
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

The late 90's was all because of the internet, which, as well all know, is all because of Al Gore

I think that waiting for the next president to prevent a recession is too late. I'm not saying a recession is going to happen -- just that if it does, it will be too late to prevent it by the time the 2008 presidential victor is inaugurated.


It's not looking too good and I think another Clinton style " Focus like a laser beam " is what's needed.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Hillary Clinton SHOULDN'T be president.