• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CROOKED Hilary

ChrisL68 said:
I have little question that between Cruz, Trump, The Hilldog and Sanders that Hillary is not only the most qualified, but also the most capable of actually being President.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton represents just about everything that is wrong with our political system today....and why so many people have gradually become disgusted by it and have disengaged from the process.
 
I would consider voting for Kasich over Clinton if he gets the nomination. Would probably still end up voting for Hilary, but its in the realm of possibility.

Still think Clinton is more qualified than any of them. A stint as SoS gives her tangible foreign policy experience.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
I would consider voting for Kasich over Clinton if he gets the nomination. Would probably still end up voting for Hilary, but its in the realm of possibility.

Still think Clinton is more qualified than any of them. A stint as SoS gives her tangible foreign policy experience.
Click to expand...

Nobody has asked, but for the record this would be my order of preferences for the next president:

1) Bernie Sanders
2) Rand Paul
3) John Kasich

Next to Last: Hillary Clinton (serious candidates only here....not including the Huckabees & Santorums)
Last: Ted Cruz

Strange brew at the top......Bernie Sanders & Rand Paul are a true "Odd Couple". However, they do share one very important trait: Honesty....and that is a rare commodity in politics today.
 
I have not seen Cruz speak for any extended period of time but from what little I have seen, he tends to come off as some televangelist. And that's pretty obnoxious. I can't imagine watching this guy for four years. I know this style appeals to some people but definitely not to me.
 
ChrisL68 said:
I would consider voting for Kasich over Clinton if he gets the nomination. Would probably still end up voting for Hilary, but its in the realm of possibility.

Still think Clinton is more qualified than any of them. A stint as SoS gives her tangible foreign policy experience.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Again, my major problem with voting for a Republican - even a moderate one - is that they would end up picking Supreme Court judges. If a Republican wins the White House and the first judge to leave office (for whatever reason) is one of the liberal four or Kennedy, then Roe v. Wade is dead in the water. That should be a serious campaign point for the Democrats IMO - especially to get the female vote out.

"You may consider yourself a Republican for your fiscal views, but a vote for (Trump/Cruz/Rubio/hell even Kasich) is a vote against a woman's right to choose."

And this is just on the judicial side of things. Changes to the ACA could remove free or affordable access to birth control and female contraceptives. This should be a constant theme for Democrats throughout the general election: "Vote for the party that isn't interested in waging a war against women."
 
I don't disagree that Clinton is a career politician who is full of shit. Not sure many people do. I just don't get the double-standard. Trump was a democrat in favor of abortion and a hundred other anti-conservative things. Now he's reversed course on nearly all of them to become the Republican nominee. Cruz is more full of shit than probably any legitimate presidential hopeful ever - he's hated by both parties. Christie is a vindictive career politician bully who thinks he stopped the next five 9/11's, and Rubio would suck up to the pedophile prison population if it'd get him votes.

Kasich and Bernie are the cleanest of the bunch, but Kasich has his weird drug thing and Bernie is all over the map on guns.

I'd be psyched if Bernie won the nomination, but would he really be a better president than Hillary? It's ironic that BKF hates her so much because Hillary is pretty much the Bob Knight of politics.
 
Hating the Clinton machine so much that someone is willing to vote for a Republican who will attempt to unwind years of progress made on social issues really makes me question that person's legitimate interest in championing liberal causes - even if that person was county delegate for Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and traveled thousands of miles on horseback to spread the good word of abolition.
 
bobknightfan said:
Hillary Clinton represents just about everything that is wrong with our political system today....and why so many people have gradually become disgusted by it and have disengaged from the process.
Click to expand...
Ah, Donald Trump leads the polls for the Republican nomination. This is the same man who just said that he respected the totalitarian dictator of North Korea as a man who gets things done.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Ah, Donald Trump leads the polls for the Republican nomination. This is the same man who just said that he respected the totalitarian dictator of North Korea as a man who gets things done.
Click to expand...

Damn, I missed that one. That's like saying Hitler made the trains run on time.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Hating the Clinton machine so much that someone is willing to vote for a Republican who will attempt to unwind years of progress made on social issues really makes me question that person's legitimate interest in championing liberal causes - even if that person was county delegate for Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and traveled thousands of miles on horseback to spread the good word of abolition.
Click to expand...

You're a pretty sharp guy. You should know by now one big reason why I hate the Clinton Machine so much.....it torpedoed the candidacy of a great progressive candidate & gave the country four more disastrous years of Cheney-Bush.....just to feed Hillary's selfish political ambitions.

(And if you are talking about Trump as the Republican, I would be surprised if he actually did anything to turn back social issues if he became president. My guess is that it would be the conservatives who would be upset with him in that area, rather than the Democrats.)
 
Last edited:
I know exactly why you don't like the Clinton Machine, but it doesn't change my opinion at all that voting for the Republican candidate over Hillary is a terrible decision if you care about progressive social issues.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Number one reason I hate the Clintons: NAFTA
Click to expand...

But she's suddenly against the TPP after having been a free trader all these years. She's a changed woman. For the time being at least.*



*Just so there's no confusion or consternation, I am for the record a free trader. I just like pointing out when politicians are seemingly duplicitous. And Hillary seemingly provides ample opportunities to point out such things. Kinda like trying to figure out where Rubio is on immigration on a given week.
 
cville deac said:
But she's suddenly against the TPP after having been a free trader all these years. She's a changed woman. For the time being at least.*



*Just so there's no confusion or consternation, I am for the record a free trader. I just like pointing out when politicians are seemingly duplicitous. And Hillary seemingly provides ample opportunities to point out such things. Kinda like trying to figure out where Rubio is on immigration on a given week.
Click to expand...

Probably because she knows that free trade is necessary and inevitable, but she needs to appeal to sections of her base.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Probably because she knows that free trade is necessary and inevitable, but she needs to appeal to sections of her base.
Click to expand...
It's disengenious to describe "free trade" so simply, as if there are no costs associated with the loss of American manufacturing.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
It's disengenious to describe "free trade" so simply, as if there are no costs associated with the loss of American manufacturing.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand. If it comes from the government, it is free. Bernie told me so.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
It's disengenious to describe "free trade" so simply, as if there are no costs associated with the loss of American manufacturing.
Click to expand...
Former President Bill Clinton claimed that NAFTA would create an “export boom to Mexico” that would create 200,000 jobs in two years and a million jobs in five years, “many more jobs than will be lost” due to rising imports. The economic logic behind his argument was clear: Trade creates new jobs in exporting industries and destroys jobs when imports replace the output of domestic firms. Fast forward 20 years and it’s clear that things didn’t work out as Clinton promised. NAFTA led to a flood of outsourcing and foreign direct investment in Mexico. U.S. imports from Mexico grew much more rapidly than exports, leading to growing trade deficits, as shown in the Figure. Jobs making cars, electronics, and apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States, especially in the Midwest where those products used to be made. By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing.
Click to expand...
http://www.epi.org/publication/nafta-legacy-growing-us-trade-deficits-cost-682900-jobs/
 
Yeah, they whiffed on how devastating free trade was going to be to the textile industry in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top