18 Jun 2015, 9:15 am
freeman3 wrote:I do find Jeb the least objectionable because there is a sense of decency and perhaps empathy that I typically find lacking (or at least not prominent) in a Republican candidates. I do not believe he would just blithely turn down death row appeals for clemency like his brother did. I am not sure that will be reflected in policies, however. He's a politician and would be subject to all kinds of pressures for policies from interests not showing much empathy for others.
Question: has anyone received more support from Goldman Sachs than Hillary? Does that make her more or less sympathetic to struggling Americans?
As for Hillary, of course I think the character stuff is overblown. If you want to make a big over her keeping an email account at her home , fine.
What about lying about not sending classified info over email? How about not understanding how such a server lacked adequate security?
Oh, and I forgot: what about destroying her server after deciding what was/was not job-related AFTER being subpoenaed by Congress? #unethical
Or quibble with how the Clinton Foundation solicited donors when it has indisputably has done much good, fine.
False choice. The real question is if the CGI was a vehicle for influence-peddling.
Or fault her when she supported the trade deal with Asia when she was acting as a loyal soldier of the government and has now qualified her support when she is free to give her own opinion, fine.
She voiced support for it like 35 times. That seems like more than "loyal" support. Now that she needs full-blown union support, she changes her tune.
Personally , I think this kind of stuff comes with the territory of both being in public life for over 20 years and being the subject of intense scrutiny from Republicans who cannot stand that the Clintons have been one of the main bulwarks against right-wing take-over of this country the past 25 years .
"Right-wing takeover?"
GWB? Show me a "right-winger" who likes GWB's policies. Romney? McCain? Dole? Pretty funny stuff.
Where would this country be without the Clintons? And you're going to accept how Republicans, bitter enemies of the Clintons, seek to define them, George?
Where would we be? We might be less cynical about politicians.
The Clintons have their weaknesses but they are far,far outweighed by the good they have done.
There is no one in the history of the US who has milked "service" for more personal benefit than Bill and Hillary Clinton have. With virtually no accomplishment in the private sector prior to taking office, they have a net worth of more than $100M.
Is that the definition of "public servant?"
Voting for a third- party who is not subjected to any kind of scrutiny so there are no negatives is a cop-out in my book. When Ross Perot got popular enough his weaknesses got exposed. Surviving the intense scrutiny that comes with being a serious candidate is part of the justification of being president. It upsets me to think of all of the damage to this country caused by some misguided liberals voting for Nader.
Meh. If not for Perot, Clinton likely doesn't get elected.
I guess people can vote how they want. And I am not saying character is not relevant.
Yes you are. If there was someone who was as electable as Hillary running against her, but without all of her baggage, you would vote for that person in a hot second. You've as much as acknowledged you'd rather have Sanders but will take Hillary because she is electable. Character is an afterthought.
But ultimately it should be related to the job as being president. Do you think Hillary is going to lie to get us into war ?
She will lie about anything she thinks is important enough. She is very much an "ends justifies the means" person. You know that. You're just slapping at GWB.
Do you think she is going to be ok with torturing people? Do you she think she will be better or worse with regard to civil rights as compared to a Republican candidate? Better or worse with regard to illegal immigrants? Better or worse with regard to treatment of the poor? Better or worse with regard to treatment of women? Better or worse with regard to income stratification? Better or worse with regard to tax fairness? Better or worse with regard to health care? Better or worse with regard to environment? Better or worse as far as opportunity for the poor and middle class ?
She will be worse across the board. Her only concern in the first four years will be reelection. She will do whatever it takes to achieve that. What she will not do is lead. She will continue to divide by castigating some groups and promoting others.
The character of a person covers a lot of things . I am very sure that Hillary Clinton has better character than any of the Republican candidates.
If this is true, and you say it is, then I would say we will see some real scandals being reported on GOP candidates. Not "Jeb was mean in prep school" or "Marco had four moving violations in 17 years," but real scandals. Of course, like with Hillary, none of them will be "felonies" and none, by your definition, will have anything to do with their being President.
Then again, you've got a bit of a reverse limbo going. The bar is so low no one could go under it.
