(01-11-2017 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think our whole process needs a hard look. You look at the candidates for president in the last 5 elections--GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Hillary. Are those really our brightest and best? I think a case could be made for Romney (who didn't win), but not for any of the rest.

I can't tell tell, are disagree with competency or political platform? To me, W, Trump, and Hillary are the only ones that have significantly deep flaws that, at least in hindsight, it is/was surprising they were nominated.

I will agree with Owl, but would leave out Romney.

Kerry has the same flaw pattern as Hillary === nothing but a power (and wealth)-hungry opportunist with a deep veracity problem.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."


Or perhaps the fact that he was a first hand witness to US servicemen who "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks."

This guy ranks up there with the Kosovo sniper on the tarmac cr-p. And he is the reason why the term 'swift-boated' has an actual meaning....

As for Obama, needless to say most are position issues with him. But having a person who's highest long term position in life prior to the Presidency was being a community activist was quite a "tell" for me at the get-go at the path that would be taken in terms of 'red lines' in the sand, appeasement, and going out of his way in pissing off and/or screwing over many of our deepest allies. I would call that deeply flawed at the very least.