Hillary Clinton cut both ways

[Von Tonner]

Ok, Hillary is going to run. Let me post my flag to the mast straight up. I do not like her, I do not trust her. In fact, in my part of the world it is now a Sunday with Monday following. If Hillary told me that I would first check my calendar.

But I am open to persuasion on her. Talk to me:)

[Torplexed]

But I am open to persuasion on her. Talk to me:)


Well, she hacks off the misogynists and she is a surefire lightning rod for the rightwing ideologues. Both fun accomplishments in my opinion. :D

I guess in my simple political view, I see her mostly as Bill Clinton's potential third term. He can't help but be lurking, back-slapping and fixing things in the background. I just hope they keep the White House intern staff ugly and male.

[August]

I'm in a quandary. I dislike Clinton for the crooked southern lawyer that she is but I also don't want to see one party running both congress and the administration at the same time.

[nikimcbee]

I'm in a quandary. I dislike Clinton for the crooked southern lawyer that she is but I also don't want to see one party running both congress and the administration at the same time.


Good point. Anybody but HRC though. But in 2008 we had the exact same situation and look what happened.:dead::down:

I hate politicians on both sides. I would rather see a former governor on the resume run than a senator.

[Aktungbby]

Well, she hacks off the misogynists and she is a surefire lightning rod for the rightwing ideologues. Both fun accomplishments in my opinion. :D

I guess in my simple political view, I see her mostly as Bill Clinton's potential third term. He can't help but be lurking, back-slapping and fixing things in the background. I just hope they keep the White House intern staff ugly and male.
Any time I can beat our :subsim: resident cartoonist to the punch:D: http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c12947720150410120100.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/10/129470)

[Oberon]

Eh, I'm not a big fan of her, whilst it would be nice to have the first female US president directly after the first US president of colour, she doesn't come across as the right boots for the job. But...what alternatives are there, really?
2016 is looking similar to the 2015 UK elections in that neither side are fielding a particularly appealing candidate.

EDIT: Maybe Webb...he seems a plausible choice, but I doubt he'd be able to beat the Clinton juggernaut...perhaps VP?


EDIT EDIT: Just think about it though, if Clinton gets the Dem election and Jeb the GOP, then it's going to be 1992 all over again...just with less Perot...

[Torplexed]

If I were to lay odds, I'd say we are looking at a Bush vs. Clinton race in 2016. Shades of 1992, except for the oddball Ross Perot Reform Party factor. Maybe somebody can talk Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin into a Tea Party side show run, so the race has some entertainment value.

And the last names of both potential candidates are a double-edged sword, although probably more so for Bush than Clinton.

[Von Tonner]

I just hope they keep the White House intern staff ugly and male.

:har::har::har:

[Aktungbby]

As for Hillary's 'kitchen cabinet':O:http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn040715dAPR20150403104514.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/06/129405)

[nikimcbee]

And the last names of both potential candidates are a double-edged sword

This what I'm hoping for and both of them get voted off the island in the primary process.

[Torplexed]

EDIT: Maybe Webb...he seems a plausible choice, but I doubt he'd be able to beat the Clinton juggernaut...perhaps VP?



I'm sure Jim Webb would appeal to the Dovish Democrats, the socially conservative, economically populist Democrats, and the Oh-dear-God-anybody-but-Hillary Democrats. But can he win with those numbers? He's only launched an exploratory committee, but I'm sure he is finding the answer is no.

[Von Tonner]

Eh, I'm not a big fan of her, whilst it would be nice to have the first female US president directly after the first US president of colour

And believe you me Oberon, we are going to hear that ad nauseam along with the glass ceiling.

If I ask myself why I do not like her or why I distrust her having never met her I must justify that to myself.

One, she is on record of having blatantly lied.
Two, it has been shown she will forsake any principal she might have for her own goals regardless.

One can say so what. Is not that true of any politician. Maybe I yearn for a Churchill, a Roosevelt, a Smuts - not that they were without clay feet, but by god they stood tall among us and led us with conviction outside of their own shrouded interests.

[Wolferz]

The folks who are really running the show will put whichever puppet they choose in the hot seat.:-?

[Aktungbby]

If I ask myself why I do not like her or why I distrust her having never met her I must justify that to myself.

One, she is on record of having blatantly lied.
Two, it has been shown she will forsake any principal she might have for her own goals regardless.

One can say so what. Is not that true of any politician.. :salute:http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb040915dAPC20150409024703.jpg (http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/04/09/129461)

[CaptainHaplo]

Lincoln Chaffee is considering a primary challenge to Hillary. I suspect her candidacy will implode, making way for Biden and Elizabeth Warren (who is Hillary Clinton redux, just without the history of scandal).

Biden is weighing his chances. If Warren stays out (which she will until Hillary implodes) then Biden will jump in. I don't think Chaffee has the bona fides to pull enough far left support.

Now - the OP wants to talk about Hillary, so lets do so. Now I am known as being highly conservative, but I don't want to spend time going over scandal after scandal. There is enough of that already out there.

So instead, lets talk about what a Hillary administration will support and oppose.

She is very pro-choice, including support for so called "partial birth abortions". She supports spending federal dollars on providing contraceptives to the public.

She opposes cutting federal spending, paying down the debt through increasing efficiencies in federal programs and voted for stimulus.

Voted against a constitutional ban on flag burning and a 1 man/1 woman definition of marriage. Voted for adding sexual orientation as a cause for a hate crime

Voted for a relaxing of requirements needed to allow for cell phone wiretaps.

Supports 3 strikes your out program

Supports Medical pot federally, has not stated recent federal policy position lately on recreational use. Has stated in the past it should be a state issue.

Supports Common Core. Is against school choice.

Is against ANWR, exploration tax benefits, national oil reserves. Is for energy independence using non-petroleum, environmental friendly energy only. Would support ratification of Kyoto protocols.

There are a lot more - these are all sourced from:
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[Torplexed]

Lincoln Chaffee is considering a primary challenge to Hillary.

Basically, he's Jim Webb with a less impressive resume (governor of Rhode Island?), a less compelling bio, and less of a political base.

Plus, another Lincoln in the White House? The South will freak. :D

[vienna]

If I were to lay odds, I'd say we are looking at a Bush vs. Clinton race in 2016. Shades of 1992, except for the oddball Ross Perot Reform Party factor. Maybe somebody can talk Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin into a Tea Party side show run, so the race has some entertainment value.

And the last names of both potential candidates are a double-edged sword, although probably more so for Bush than Clinton.

Being an independent without a party, I tend to view all politics as a sort of chess game. That said, a Cruz/Palin or any other sort of Tea Party-ish 3rd party run would have a negative impact on the GOP vote count much like Perot had on GHWBush in 1992...

BTW, I'm one of those '1-in-5' Americans who voted for Perot; couldn't really bear either of the two (Bush/Clinton) although Clinton did surprise: left the White House with a balanced budget (without the need for a GOP insistence only a Constitutional amendment could achieve this result); a budget surplus; and a US not involved in heavy military action outside of the country. This is a far better set of accomplishments the two Bush bookend administrations that came before and after Clinton...

...and I'm still not really liking any of the candidates from either party, so far. It's going to be a tough decision :hmmm:


<O>

[Sailor Steve]

although Clinton did surprise: left the White House with a balanced budget...
Every time that gets mentioned I cringe; not because I don't like the idea, but because of the deeper implications. There are only two ways to balance the budget - lower spending or raise taxes. Since the Clinton "accomplishment" was achieved by raising taxes, whenever I hear someone praise that move I always have the same reply: If that's such a good thing then wouldn't it be so much better to raise taxes to 100% and then give us back whatever you think we need? Not even the most hardcore liberals admit to liking that idea.

...and I'm still not really liking any of the candidates from either party, so far. It's going to be a tough decision :hmmm: I came of voting age in 1971. I still have yet to see a candidate from either party that I liked.

[vienna]

Every time that gets mentioned I cringe; not because I don't like the idea, but because of the deeper implications. There are only two ways to balance the budget - lower spending or raise taxes. Since the Clinton "accomplishment" was achieved by raising taxes, whenever I hear someone praise that move I always have the same reply: If that's such a good thing then wouldn't it be so much better to raise taxes to 100% and then give us back whatever you think we need? Not even the most hardcore liberals admit to liking that idea.

I came of voting age in 1971. I still have yet to see a candidate from either party that I liked.

You are right about the balanced budget: it's either taxes or cuts. It's never going to be simple or easy. But it doesn't have to be a 100% tax. If the loopholes enjoyed by the so-called 1% and the big multi-national corporations were plugged and everyone paid a single, flat rate without exception, the actual overall rate would most likely be lower than it is now. Add to this an elimination of 'pork spending' by Congress, a real and full accounting of military expenditures (which the Pentagon has been dodging for decades and has been perpetuating by continuing to use some of the most outdated and archaic accounting methods and technology [their accounting systems still run on Cobol and Fortran, for Christ's sake!] and the reduction and/or elimination of costly and unnecessary/failed defense projects, and the end to "corporate-welfare' subsidies to industries reaping record multibillion dollar profits, and we might have the lowest tax rate since the implementation of the Federal tax system...

Since you brought up the Clinton "accomplishment", how is the Reagan "miracle" accounted for?. Consider that even GHWBush, during the GOP candidate debates referred to Reagan's 'economic policies' as "voodoo economics". "Reganomics" were a rehash and extension of his policies as Governor of California and, as a resident of California, I can say when he left office (chased out by Jerry Brown's run for Governor in 1974), California was in seriously bad shape financially. Reagan's policies were based on a sort of 'smoke and mirrors' set up: as long as you didn't look too closely, you can't see the flaws. The whole structure was predicated on 'ideal' conditions, oddly much like communism is dependent upon to fully succeed. However, we live in a capitalist state and the erosion of a solid middle class will eventually lead to a top-heavy structure that will and did fall. It is very puzzling why GHWBush, whom I greatly respect as a person, would choose to continue on the "voodoo" couse set by Regan. When the fall came, it took GHWBush with it and gave us Clinton. In a strange sort of way Regan is responsible for Clinton's presidency...

Oh, I forgot to add in my previous post, Clinton left the White House with a nation experiencing a strong and healthy economy; eight years later we were left with what? The worst economic collapse since the Great Depression...

BTW, I also came of voting age in 1971...

God, I really miss Perot and his charts and graphs...


<O>

[Sailor Steve]

But it doesn't have to be a 100% tax.
I'm not saying it does. I'm also not saying I think I have an answer. I'm just repeating my response to Clinton's boast about balancing the budget, and the people who talk about how wonderful it was.

If the loopholes enjoyed by the so-called 1% and the big multi-national corporations were plugged and everyone paid a single, flat rate without exception, the actual overall rate would most likely be lower than it is now.
And excellent point, and one I agree with.

Add to this an elimination of 'pork spending' by Congress,
The real main cause of all the country's financial problems.

a real and full accounting of military expenditures
Everyone should have to account for every penny.

and the end to "corporate-welfare' subsidies to industries reaping record multibillion dollar profits,
See my reply above.

and we might have the lowest tax rate since the implementation of the Federal tax system...
The original Tax System didn't have the IRS and a personal Income Tax, yet the country got along just fine.

Since you brought up the Clinton "accomplishment", how is the Reagan "miracle" accounted for?
First off, I never liked Reagan either.

"voodoo economics"..."Reganomics"...'smoke and mirrors'...'ideal' conditions
That's the real problem with that system. On the face of it, "trickle-down" economics is not only a good system, it's the only system that works. The only people who can aid those who need it are the ones who have it in the first place. If we leave the corporate owners with more money then they will be in a position to pass it on to those who work for them. Of course that depends on the ones with the money being willing to pass it on, and no one ever wants to give up what they have.

On the other hand that leaves the opponents of that system wanting to use the government to force those who have it to give it up. Both ideals are good ones, but both depend on human nature, and as we all know human nature is the real problem.

[vienna]

That's the real problem with that system. On the face of it, "trickle-down" economics is not only a good system, it's the only system that works. The only people who can aid those who need it are the ones who have it in the first place. If we leave the corporate owners with more money then they will be in a position to pass it on to those who work for them. Of course that depends on the ones with the money being willing to pass it on, and no one ever wants to give up what they have.

On the other hand that leaves the opponents of that system wanting to use the government to force those who have it to give it up. Both ideals are good ones, but both depend on human nature, and as we all know human nature is the real problem.

The success of both communism and capitalist ideals such as "trickle-down" are dependent on 'perfect' conditions: communism only works if everyone and everything is communist, and, "trickle-down" only works if all levels of the economic and social structures are totally in sync. Either way, I don't see either one really coming to fruition since, as you point out, human nature is human nature...

It's sort of like when I hear "neo-cons" touting a 'hands-off' policy towards regulating the excesses of the business and, particularly, financial sectors. They always say those sectors can be self-regulating or self-policing. Yeah, right, and how have the past attempts at "self-regulating" worked out? Should we ask those who lost out in the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan Collapse, and the Wall Street Great Recession how they feel about letting the tykes run the toy store? Whenever I hear or see some "neo-con" politico or Wall Street mouthpiece gleefully extol the virtues of "self-regulating", I really don't know if I want to groan or laugh; maybe I'll 'groaugh' or 'laugoan' ...


<O>

[Platapus]

For me, it will all come down to who will be running against her. If the GOP gives me another loser, once again I will be unable to vote for a candidate but will again be forced to vote against a candidate.

The election for POTUS seems to be the choosing of the lessor of two evils.

I truly wish it wasn't, for me.

[Harvs]

A bird running your land would be better than another fool bush.

[August]

A bird running your land would be better than another fool bush.

No it wouldn't as it'd be the smart Bush vs the crooked Clinton. Bill was just a horn dog, Hillary on the other hand is a pure megalomaniac with a very checkered past.

[STEED]

Shes too old, is she really the best the Democrats got? :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Well, Marco Rubio has also chucked, or is about to chuck his hat in the ring. Doubt he'll get far though, or if he does he'll be easy prey for Hilary.

God help this forum if Clinton does get in though, I feel sorry for the GT mods. :haha:

[August]

Shes too old, is she really the best the Democrats got? :hmmm:

Yeah that's what I keep wondering as well.

[Platapus]

The GOP had no problems with Reagan, Romney, Dole, McCain. McCain is more than 10 years older than Hillary.

The Democrats have also fielded some oldsters in their time.

[vienna]

No it wouldn't as it'd be the smart Bush vs the crooked Clinton. Bill was just a horn dog, Hillary on the other hand is a pure megalomaniac with a very checkered past.

The smart Bush? Isn't that like being the best of the worst?...


<O>

[em2nought]

Ross Perot is the only candidate I've ever felt good about voting for, he was the last best chance for saving the sinking ship. :salute:

[les green01]

hadnt seen a office seeker i like yet they are so full of crap its not funny and if i balnce my checkbook like they run the country i be in prison for life i say we need to talk Neal in to running least i know him and trust him and honest do we need to pay their salery after they leave office now days if so slap a shovel in their hands so i can least see them do something and maybe they can experience sweat running down the crack of their butts for once.

[Bilge_Rat]

Shes too old, is she really the best the Democrats got? :hmmm:

you have other potential heavyweight candidates like New York gov. Andrew Cuomo that want to run, but no one wants to challenge Hillary.

For example Cuomo is aiming for 2020 if Hillary does not get in or 2024 if she does.

[Torplexed]

Looking at Hillary's 2016 campaign logo, I can't say I care for her sense of design.

http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/image/large/HillaryClintonLogo2015.PNG?1428937262

I'm not sure if it means exit stage right, or rush me to the hospital. :hmmm:

[Bubblehead1980]

I'm in a quandary. I dislike Clinton for the crooked southern lawyer that she is but I also don't want to see one party running both congress and the administration at the same time.


Exactly, i'll take a lot of persuasion to vote for her, but I prefer divided government, it's how it's supposed to be.

[nikimcbee]

"Scooby van?" W...T..F?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038778/ALL-HAIL-QUEEN-Hillary-Clinton-stops-coffee-Iowa-Scooby-van-finally-photographed-protesters-appear-campaign-event-site.html

That advisor need to be shot. :har: Brilliant!

The worst part is, we've got to hear for x amounts of months how she's meeting "real people." :har::shifty::dead:

I'd donate to her campaign if she drives the van the WHOLE time.

I'm sick of US political season...preseason...this BS never ends. Jebus.

[nikimcbee]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7263/1279/400/gfletcher006.jpg
Get in the Scooby Van!

[Torplexed]

"The worst part is, we've got to hear for x amounts of months how she's meeting "real people." :har::shifty::dead:

I'd donate to her campaign if she drives the van the WHOLE time.

I'm sick of US political season...preseason...this BS never ends. Jebus.

Well, I must admit anytime a major political candidate talks about "going out to press the flesh" my skin instinctively crawls. :D

[Platapus]

Looking at Hillary's 2016 campaign logo, I can't say I care for her sense of design.

http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/image/large/HillaryClintonLogo2015.PNG?1428937262

I'm not sure if it means exit stage right, or rush me to the hospital. :hmmm:

Wow is not a good graphic in my opinion. I don't know what it is supposed to mean.

[Sailor Steve]

Wow is not a good graphic in my opinion. I don't know what it is supposed to mean.
At a glance I would guess it means Hillary moving forward.

[Mr Quatro]

Looking at Hillary's 2016 campaign logo, I can't say I care for her sense of design.

http://gaia.adage.com/images/bin/image/large/HillaryClintonLogo2015.PNG?1428937262

I'm not sure if it means exit stage right, or rush me to the hospital. :hmmm:

If you had been at the first board room meeting for the logo you would've known that it stands for Hillary's middle class bathroom sign.

I can see right through her ... if she didn't run she would have to stay home and listen to Bill say, "Why didn't your run honey" "You can beat any man out there"

Win or lose she generates a lot of money and why not run? Somehow someway all of her outstanding bills due from running in 2008 were paid by President Obama.

Like Rand Paul said, "She got that phone call in the middle of the night" and I say where is her email reactions? Classified as personal :oops:

I think VP Biden will put in his two shoes in the race and leak the juicy tidbits no one knows about and the Republicans will use to defeat her on election day 18 moons from now.

She can't win the redneck vote (not mine at least) :smug:

[d@rk51d3]

At a glance I would guess it means Hillary moving forward.
Or a male.

[Torplexed]

Or a male.

There is a male version for Bill. :)

http://static3.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2184023.1428969452!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/index_635_390/bramhall.jpg

[HunterICX]

There is a male version for Bill. :)



:rotfl2:

[Wolferz]

:har::har::har:

The whole process has become a major practical joke on the American people. Bill and Hill dog moved to New York at the end of his second term so she could run for a senate seat and the treasury picked up the tab for their new house in the form of rent for a Secret Service barracks built on the property. I guess $180,000.00 a year in retirement doesn't buy what it used to. But, $360,000.00 will.:-?

[Jimbuna]

There is a male version for Bill. :)



LOL :)

[Wolferz]

Wow is not a good graphic in my opinion. I don't know what it is supposed to mean.

Twin towers moved next door?

[Platapus]

A political version of "I'm with stupid"?

[August]

A political version of "I'm with stupid"?

I was thinking the same thing! :haha:

[vienna]

I was thinking the same thing! :haha:

Mad Magazine beat everyone to it:


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/87/272764097_769b81f240.jpg



<O>

[Onkel Neal]

Hillary may be in real trouble here :o

The head of the Clinton Foundation’s affiliate in Canada has told Bloomberg that the group received money from some 1,100 anonymous donors. The cash donations, some of which ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, did not just come from Canada. Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier who runs the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, said all of the money donated through his organization had been funneled back to the Clinton Foundation. He claims he is unable to make the names of the donors public due to Canadian law, but tax and privacy lawyers told Bloomberg that was not the case. Whatever the reason for the donors’ anonymity, it appears to put Hillary Clinton in breach of a “memorandum of understanding” signed with the White House when she took on the role of secretary of state.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

[Betonov]

That's how an invasion starts.
First they get one of their own inside and 2 terms later you're forced to work on maple plantations :o

[Onkel Neal]

That's how an invasion starts.
First they get one of their own inside and 2 terms later you're forced to work on maple plantations :o

:haha:

[nikimcbee]

Hillary may be in real trouble here :o



http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

http://thecarnivoreproject.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345295c269e201a5116584a7970c-800wi

[Mr Quatro]

I can see the headlines now, "What happened to Hillary"?

[Von Tonner]

"Bow before the Beneficent: Bill, Billionaires and the Clinton Foundation go on safari"

A very witty and cutting article on the Clintons.

Loved this:

"That said, it may be tempt some among you to imagine that the Clintons and their Foundationites are using the continent as a theatre set, and we Africans as drooling extras, in a play in which we are meant to get fancy diseases for pennies while they play the hero for dollars. It is tempting to say that this is all about big money and real politick, because Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with their Chelsea clone, serve power for power’s sake. You might wish to say that this all seems so garish and ghastly, millions of dollars blown by a 0.1% cabal on swanning about the continent, billions of the world’s wealth zipping over the African savannah in a legions of Lear Jets.

But you would just be sour to think that way. Ungrateful. When the beautiful waxed SUVs zip into your village and you smell the $1,500 anti-aging cream on the frozen faces of these Kings, these Gods, remember to thank them with the appropriate deference. Remember to bow and scrape.

If we don’t look the part, then they don’t get the money. And the whole system will come crashing down."

And a comment from a reader of the article:
"Richard - you left out the 'misspoken' bits of gentle 'Whitewater' rafting and coming under 'sniper fire' - but I'm sure Bill will regale us with these, and other stories, while gently smoking his 'Monica Humidored' Habanos cigars?"

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-04-29-bow-before-the-beneficent-bill-billionaires-and-the-clinton-foundation-go-on-safari/?utm_source=Daily+Maverick+Mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=First+Thing+with+John+stupart%3A+Tues day%2C+2+September+2014&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymaverick.co.za%2Far ticle%2F2015-04-29-bow-before-the-beneficent-bill-billionaires-and-the-clinton-foundation-go-on-safari%2F#.VUMbu9Kqqko

[nikimcbee]

Where's the IRS? If this were a tea party group, they'd be all over it.:shifty:

[Wolferz]

Where's the IRS? If this were a tea party group, they'd be all over it.:shifty:

Their last Vegas party got busted and now they've lost all their motivation.:smug: