As an Independent ........ I'm going with Trump!

I never liked the guy and I was a bit disturbed that he was running for President. ........ then I realized he was saying things I BEG a politician to finally say! He resonates with me ........ finally a politician that understands what the people want!

He doesn't care what party he screws over .......... there's no kick backs to donors .......... finally ........ finally!

I just wish his name wasn't Trump

(08-20-2015 09:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:52 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:25 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Clinton

He's already had His 8 years !

Not as first lady.

If he would be COMPLETELY removed from political decisions, he would make a pretty entertaining figurehead as 'first man' (?).

I am curious what the PC term would be. Would it become first spouse? Or would he have to dress in drag? SO many unanswered questions.

(08-20-2015 09:38 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:52 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:25 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Clinton

He's already had His 8 years !

Not as first lady.

If he would be COMPLETELY removed from political decisions, he would make a pretty entertaining figurehead as 'first man' (?).

I am curious what the PC term would be. Would it become first spouse? Or would he have to dress in drag? SO many unanswered questions.

I vote he has to dress in drag. He might look better than Hillary.

(08-20-2015 09:38 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:52 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:25 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Clinton

He's already had His 8 years !

Not as first lady.

If he would be COMPLETELY removed from political decisions, he would make a pretty entertaining figurehead as 'first man' (?).

I am curious what the PC term would be. Would it become first spouse? Or would he have to dress in drag? SO many unanswered questions.

Late night comedy gold. If she wouldn't run the country in the ground it would almost be worth it.

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I can't understand anybody who would vote for clinton. Can any Clinton supporters list an accomplishment or past work experience that supports a positive outlook on what her presidency would look like?

Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I can't understand anybody who would vote for clinton. Can any Clinton supporters list an accomplishment or past work experience that supports a positive outlook on what her presidency would look like?

Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

The fact that she has multiple scandals is relevant. She's more suited to prison than the White House over her handling of her email alone. I find it astounding that people can first ignore her blatant disregard for the law, then fully support her "What difference does it make" attitude.

(08-20-2015 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I can't understand anybody who would vote for clinton. Can any Clinton supporters list an accomplishment or past work experience that supports a positive outlook on what her presidency would look like?

Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

The fact that she has multiple scandals is relevant. She's more suited to prison than the White House over her handling of her email alone. I find it astounding that people can first ignore her blatant disregard for the law, then fully support her "What difference does it make" attitude.

I've got a problem with a president who thinks they are above the law. Democrats used to believe that way, at least if it was a Republican.

And she's got a continuous stream of them. She shut down health care reform in Bill's first term with her secretive closed door approach. The Merrill Lynch deal while Bill was governor was a bribe. I don't think she's really that stupid. Whitewater was a bribe. I audited S&Ls in that era and know how they worked. Just because their gift ended up being worthless didn't mean it wasn't a bribe. Her husband was a compulsive liar and divisive. There's a reason we had a very strong economy and Gore lost. It wasn't the economy, stupid.
It was the sleaze and divisiveness that the Clintons generated. Before Monica, Hillary was the Clinton who generated so much animosity.

Trump strikes a different cord. He's cutting through the political correctness and double talk. My wife was saying the other night she might vote for him, "He's an idiot, but..." I think when it comes down to the ballot box people will remember that he's an idiot and those high polls will disappear.

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I can't understand anybody who would vote for clinton. Can any Clinton supporters list an accomplishment or past work experience that supports a positive outlook on what her presidency would look like?

Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

You obviously never worked for the federal government. Her arrogant stance that she feels she hasn't done anything seriously wrong is mind blowing. I know GS-5's who understand security better than this woman. A snot nose Army private shows more accountability that what she displays!

I'm disgusted

(08-20-2015 10:13 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I can't understand anybody who would vote for clinton. Can any Clinton supporters list an accomplishment or past work experience that supports a positive outlook on what her presidency would look like?

Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

You obviously never worked for the federal government. Her arrogant stance that she feels she hasn't done anything seriously wrong is mind blowing. I know GS-5's who understand security better than this woman. A snot nose Army private shows more accountability that what she displays!

I'm disgusted

An army general got convicted recently for lesser transgressions.

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

Hilary Clinton is utterly unfit to be President and no other qualifiers are required.

Simply put, anyone who supports her candidacy after this revelation is more interested in protecting the Democratic party than American national security.

(08-20-2015 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

The fact that she has multiple scandals is relevant. She's more suited to prison than the White House over her handling of her email alone. I find it astounding that people can first ignore her blatant disregard for the law, then fully support her "What difference does it make" attitude.

I've got a problem with a president who thinks they are above the law. Democrats used to believe that way, at least if it was a Republican.

And she's got a continuous stream of them. She shut down health care reform in Bill's first term with her secretive closed door approach. The Merrill Lynch deal while Bill was governor was a bribe. I don't think she's really that stupid. Whitewater was a bribe. I audited S&Ls in that era and know how they worked. Just because their gift ended up being worthless didn't mean it wasn't a bribe. Her husband was a compulsive liar and divisive. There's a reason we had a very strong economy and Gore lost. It wasn't the economy, stupid.
It was the sleaze and divisiveness that the Clintons generated. Before Monica, Hillary was the Clinton who generated so much animosity.

Trump strikes a different cord. He's cutting through the political correctness and double talk. My wife was saying the other night she might vote for him, "He's an idiot, but..." I think when it comes down to the ballot box people will remember that he's an idiot and those high polls will disappear.

Trump bribes everyone already. That won't stop now. Anyway, bribes are all over the place, they're just done under the guise of 1st amendment rights. No such thing as corruption anymore, especially with Citizens United decision.

(08-20-2015 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

The fact that she has multiple scandals is relevant. She's more suited to prison than the White House over her handling of her email alone. I find it astounding that people can first ignore her blatant disregard for the law, then fully support her "What difference does it make" attitude.

I've got a problem with a president who thinks they are above the law. Democrats used to believe that way, at least if it was a Republican.

And she's got a continuous stream of them. She shut down health care reform in Bill's first term with her secretive closed door approach. The Merrill Lynch deal while Bill was governor was a bribe. I don't think she's really that stupid. Whitewater was a bribe. I audited S&Ls in that era and know how they worked. Just because their gift ended up being worthless didn't mean it wasn't a bribe. Her husband was a compulsive liar and divisive. There's a reason we had a very strong economy and Gore lost. It wasn't the economy, stupid.
It was the sleaze and divisiveness that the Clintons generated. Before Monica, Hillary was the Clinton who generated so much animosity.

Trump strikes a different cord. He's cutting through the political correctness and double talk. My wife was saying the other night she might vote for him, "He's an idiot, but..." I think when it comes down to the ballot box people will remember that he's an idiot and those high polls will disappear.

I have a problem with any politician who thinks they are above the law. As a liberal I believe in clean & effective government. One think I loved about Holder was that he sent a lot of the DC council to jail, some democrats in MD and Rollie Bob in VA to jail (or at least guilty verdicts, Bob is still appealing saying that he ran as a Republican so they should expect corruption).

Scandals may or may not be real. Nothing has stuck yet to the Clintons and they have been around over 20 years.

I am not familiar with the Merrill Deal. I did work for an S&L for a while in the 80's.I did see how federal auditors did not understand that if they combined the "Single family" system with the "Commercial" system (MF, ACD loans) then there were multiple violations of the RAP loans to one borrower system. Then that was in the Reagan administration and a subsequent cries hit.

(08-20-2015 10:30 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

The fact that she has multiple scandals is relevant. She's more suited to prison than the White House over her handling of her email alone. I find it astounding that people can first ignore her blatant disregard for the law, then fully support her "What difference does it make" attitude.

I've got a problem with a president who thinks they are above the law. Democrats used to believe that way, at least if it was a Republican.

And she's got a continuous stream of them. She shut down health care reform in Bill's first term with her secretive closed door approach. The Merrill Lynch deal while Bill was governor was a bribe. I don't think she's really that stupid. Whitewater was a bribe. I audited S&Ls in that era and know how they worked. Just because their gift ended up being worthless didn't mean it wasn't a bribe. Her husband was a compulsive liar and divisive. There's a reason we had a very strong economy and Gore lost. It wasn't the economy, stupid.
It was the sleaze and divisiveness that the Clintons generated. Before Monica, Hillary was the Clinton who generated so much animosity.

Trump strikes a different cord. He's cutting through the political correctness and double talk. My wife was saying the other night she might vote for him, "He's an idiot, but..." I think when it comes down to the ballot box people will remember that he's an idiot and those high polls will disappear.

Trump bribes everyone already. That won't stop now. Anyway, bribes are all over the place, they're just done under the guise of 1st amendment rights. No such thing as corruption anymore, especially with Citizens United decision.

I agree. One of many things I agree with Obama on is that change has to come from outside Washington. Although the Justice department has a lot of discretion, the laws are made by congress - none of who, are actually from DC.

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I can't understand anybody who would vote for clinton. Can any Clinton supporters list an accomplishment or past work experience that supports a positive outlook on what her presidency would look like?

Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

Its totally relevant. If she is willing to lie, cheat and deceive now, what makes you think she won't do much of the same once she is made President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services and given the power of the bully pulpit of the presidency?

One of the arguments I constantly see from defenders of HRC and WJC is "they all do it" (meaning all politicians cheat and lie). While there is some truth to it, I would much rather have the person who has no track record of corruption than the someone who is so blatant about it. At least there is a glimmer of hope that the later individual will try to be honorable in office.

(08-20-2015 10:54 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 07:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I can't understand anybody who would vote for clinton. Can any Clinton supporters list an accomplishment or past work experience that supports a positive outlook on what her presidency would look like?

Would be interesting to ask this question of every candidate in the field. I think you would end up with a lot of blank slates.

I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

Its totally relevant. If she is willing to lie, cheat and deceive now, what makes you think she won't do much of the same once she is made President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services and given the power of the bully pulpit of the presidency?

One of the arguments I constantly see from defenders of HRC and WJC is "they all do it" (meaning all politicians cheat and lie). While there is some truth to it, I would much rather have the person who has no track record of corruption than the someone who is so blatant about it. At least there is a glimmer of hope that the later individual will try to be honorable in office.

My question is - is it a track record of actual corruption if there has been no proof?

(08-20-2015 10:34 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 08:41 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I could accept a blank slate from a candidate that lacks substantial experience quicker than I could accept all the negatives that surround Clinton.

One could argue that Bernie Sanders is a much more accomplished politician than Clinton and political ideologies aside, certainly comes with much less baggage.

On the GOP side there are several politicians that relatively scandal free, two others in Carson and Fiorina that lack political experience but seem to be upstanding individuals, and even Trump looks like a chiorboy next to Clinton.

Clinton's baggage doe not bother me. Yes I do think she can be cold & calculated, but that may not necessarily be a negative as president. I am more middle of the road. I cringe when politicians come out with a plan to "SPEND". HOwever I am a social liberal and believe everyone should have basic food/shelter/healthcare.

She may be able to balance what I think America needs - a hybrid capitalistic system where innovation is rewarded and a safety net for those who need to survive. I think she can help free people in jail for minor reasons (victimless crimes like smoking a joint). We need some serious changes and she has no problem taking a position that can cause anger on the democratic left or the GOP right. Although I strongly disagree with her criticizing Obama's policy of "let snot do anything stupid".

None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

The fact that she has multiple scandals is relevant. She's more suited to prison than the White House over her handling of her email alone. I find it astounding that people can first ignore her blatant disregard for the law, then fully support her "What difference does it make" attitude.

I've got a problem with a president who thinks they are above the law. Democrats used to believe that way, at least if it was a Republican.

And she's got a continuous stream of them. She shut down health care reform in Bill's first term with her secretive closed door approach. The Merrill Lynch deal while Bill was governor was a bribe. I don't think she's really that stupid. Whitewater was a bribe. I audited S&Ls in that era and know how they worked. Just because their gift ended up being worthless didn't mean it wasn't a bribe. Her husband was a compulsive liar and divisive. There's a reason we had a very strong economy and Gore lost. It wasn't the economy, stupid.
It was the sleaze and divisiveness that the Clintons generated. Before Monica, Hillary was the Clinton who generated so much animosity.

Trump strikes a different cord. He's cutting through the political correctness and double talk. My wife was saying the other night she might vote for him, "He's an idiot, but..." I think when it comes down to the ballot box people will remember that he's an idiot and those high polls will disappear.

I have a problem with any politician who thinks they are above the law. As a liberal I believe in clean & effective government. One think I loved about Holder was that he sent a lot of the DC council to jail, some democrats in MD and Rollie Bob in VA to jail (or at least guilty verdicts, Bob is still appealing saying that he ran as a Republican so they should expect corruption).

Scandals may or may not be real. Nothing has stuck yet to the Clintons and they have been around over 20 years.

I am not familiar with the Merrill Deal. I did work for an S&L for a while in the 80's.I did see how federal auditors did not understand that if they combined the "Single family" system with the "Commercial" system (MF, ACD loans) then there were multiple violations of the RAP loans to one borrower system. Then that was in the Reagan administration and a subsequent cries hit.

Merrill Lynch managed a trading account for the Clintons and did some risky investments (commodities perhaps?). They absorbed all the losses and gave Hillary all the gains. She just isn't stupid enough to think she could get 100% gains.

(08-18-2015 08:47 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Rand 4 lyfe

That's against the constitution....

But yeah. I agree.

(08-20-2015 10:25 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 09:48 AM)dcCid Wrote:  None of her scandals in my opinion are relevant.

Hilary Clinton is utterly unfit to be President and no other qualifiers are required.

Simply put, anyone who supports her candidacy after this revelation is more interested in protecting the Democratic party than American national security.

Well, when you're picking the lesser of two evils you kinda know what you're going to end up with don't ya?

(08-20-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:52 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:25 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Clinton

He's already had His 8 years !

Not as first lady.

Will he have to wear a dress?