Hillary is the most qualified candidate at this point (Biden would surpass her experience if he enters the race) on either side of the aisle, but she does not have good intentions (very self serving), cannot identify with the average American, and is generally offensive, even to people of her own party. She is not trustworthy and generally comes off as though she is above the rules that everyone else needs to follow. So I clearly do not agree that she checks those boxes you mentioned. She’s clearly capable and also very intelligent, but I’m not sure how anyone can feel good about casting their vote for her given they way she carries herself.
^^^ You have basically described every candiadate ever aside from a few odd balls like Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders & people like that who (no matter what your opinion of their policies) are generally good people who believe in their heart of hearts what they are saying.
Guys like Rick Santorum, Hillary, Jeb, Cruz, etc. are your classic politician saying whatever is current and panders to their base. Unfortunately to be a real candiadate you need strong party backing and these are the candidates who get it by “playing ball”
Its a shame guys like Bernie who lack the flair & social skills arent the type we elect into office, because they are the people who would do a better job thinking of the people first. We continue to get these power hungry sociopaths and wonder why things dont change. Every year we get more and more partisan, the media eats it up and helps because it helps ratings. Honestly the demonizing the right did to Obama the last 2 campaigns was disgusting, and in 2008 repubs had it out for hillary as well.
People on both sides seem to think the world is going to end if the other side wind, when actually were all going to get screwed either way.
This post is wrong on so many levels…
Hillary’s playing you. She is proposing things that she will not follow up on, or that she knows she knows will have a low probability of passing.
Yes, she is also probably also a power hungry megalomaniac. But, which person who thinks they should be President is not?
I must admit that the bits and pieces I saw of the debate made me think Hillary was doing that same Triangulation crap that Bill and Al Gore did in the 1990s (e.g.: I’m for gun control, but not for hunters and sportsmen in Eastern Pensylvania and Appalachia).
Sure, it was politically effective, and prevented the Republicans from doing their worst, but it still came at the cost of rendering most campaign promises moot.
I don’t understand the problem some people have with Clinton. Seems like Americans always have something to complain about. She’s not some stealing Bush or Trump, she wants to fix America’s problems, intentions matter. Clintons are good people, relative to the other creeps out there it’s the sane choice.
^ ROFLMAO!!!
Hillary reminds me of John Gotti in the 1980’s and Lance Armstrong in the early 2000’s. Everyone knew they were dirty, but no one could ever prove it.
Clinton is a power hungry psychopath that’ll be nothing more than Obama v2 but with equal or more anger.
Well of course. Nobody will get anything done in the USA, ever, period.
The vote is for who will not make things drastically worse in 4-8 years. Just someone competent and reasonably well intentioned who can stand on their own feet, and not speed the decline (things will get worse, the question is only how much worse). Which means someone who won’t do anything criminally stupid – start a world war, default on China, rob the system, or generate another financial disaster. The other candidates will almost certainly do criminally stupid things, with Clinton it is fairly low probability.
Right, and that is the best of your options. Nothing great, but nothing really bad either.
Again all these claims are baseless repub talking points. Every single man on that republican stage is exactly the same. The only difference was the dems debate the actually debated like adults and were respectful.
The next republican primary debate should be on TMZ as thats the kind of circus that has become. Sadly the kind of people that SHOULD be leading us, dont want to. At every level, leading a city/state/country everyone just shits on you all day every day and blames you for everything.
I found it interesting that in response to the question about how her administration would not just be an extension of the Obama administration, Hillary said she’s a woman. Ok.
Yea kind of an odd response for sure
Oh that’s easy. Americans are hooked on the dream of “change” or “progress” or whatever. They think if they elect a black, or a woman, or a homo, that something big has happened. So you sell em that bullshit, also 50% of the voters are women, so you know.
She is saying Obama has a vagina?
So why do Republicans deny climate change? I can understand debate over evolution being politicized (Religion says no etc), but surely Republicans breathe the same air? If the debate was truly scientific, it wouldn’t be a partisan debate…
I suppose I can understand it in the light of it being a group that has historically been without power in America (and around the world) reaching the highest possible office. There is a certain symbolism in that for sure, and it would be stupid for a candidate not to pluck that chord. That being said I think at least educated voters in that group would do real research and vote based on more than that, as traits like that are mostly meaningless to the job you are campaigning for
The US likes to think of itself as founded on Enlightenment ideas such as “all men [women too] are created equal [in a moral sense]” and therefore issues like what race you are and how much money you have and what genitals you come equipped with and whether you like to have sex with men or wome does not affect your ability to achieve success, be intelligent, and obtain public office.
For centuries, reality has not reflected this, neither in the politcal nor the economic sphere. Money, race, sex, sexual preference has made a big difference to what your opportunities are. So, to the extent that there are demonstrable instances where being born black, or female, or any other kind of way does not automatically disqualify you from peak positions in society is in fact a version of progress towards those ideals.
In purealpha’s East, people don’t really care about that stuff. It’s more about acquisition, control, and obedience, so it’s understandable why this view of progress is unfathonable to him. It takes away from the focus on being one-dimensional about things, which is what pre-Enlightenment political systems were about.
One political rule of thumb I have often used is that by the time minorities and repressed groups have achieved power and status that was historically denied them, the previous power-holders have moved on and established their power base elsewhere. Meaning that by the time minorities and repressed groups achieve power, that office is no longer effective or relevant.
When Barak Obama was elected president, I wondered if this meant that the President was no longer a relevant political figure. Obviously the President is still pretty relevant, but it does seem that the wholsale purchase of Congress by oligarchs has managed to make the President pretty ineffective in accomplishing much that he had set out to do.
I had hoped I wouldn’t come to this conclusion, but it seems that the rule of thumb applies here.
i stand by my call that Hilary is a lock for 2016. all other dems and especially all repubs are some of the worst candidates in world history. if bloomberg joins the fray, my stance may change as he would look like a champion among the long list of current loser repub candidates and would at least give Hilary a slight challenge to the throne.