Does it bother people that Mrs. Clinton is not answering press questions? I venture a guess that Dr. Fate is looking negatively at her lack of response, but what do others think?

Is it proper for her to be not answering press questions, and does that make you look negatively upon her?

bbauska wrote:Does it bother people that Mrs. Clinton is not answering press questions? I venture a guess that Dr. Fate is looking negatively at her lack of response, but what do others think?

Is it proper for her to be not answering press questions, and does that make you look negatively upon her?

Actually, I think it's awesome! She's being transparent about the kind of President she would be.

The only thing I need her to say is "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President..."

freeman3 wrote:The only thing I need her to say is "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President..."

IF she does, she'll be doing what she has been doing for years . . . lying through her teeth. I don't say this lightly--I would rather have President Sanders than President Rodham.

We agree! I would prefer Sanders, too...

freeman3 wrote:We agree! I would prefer Sanders, too...

See, I knew we'd agree. If we're going to have a socialist, we may as well have one who is not entirely corrupt.

The next time Hillary tells the truth will break a long and impressive streak.

Does anyone believe her email story?

I know, I know, . . . "no smoking gun." That's not what I'm asking. Does anyone believe she had a private server for pure reasons?

freeman3 wrote:The only thing I need her to say is "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President..."

Is this tongue in cheek or are you being honest here? I would have thought you would want your leaders to be open with the media and honest in their answers.

Well, while I do like Sander's critique of our system I would not actually like socialism . But at least he would try to move the country a bit to the left. He's not going to be president so I don't have to really think it through as to whether I would really prefer him to Hillary. I suspect I would prefer Elizabeth Warren over Hillary.

But there's fantasy and there is reality and the reality is that Hillary has the best chance of becoming president and in my opinion the utilitarian calculation of how much better the country would be with her as president vs a Republican alternatives outweighs any foibles that Republicans come up with against her or my preferences for other Democratic candidates. Just Win, Baby!

freeman3 wrote:Well, while I do like Sander's critique of our system I would not actually like socialism . But at least he would try to move the country a bit to the left. He's not going to be president so I don't have to really think it through as to whether I would really prefer him to Hillary. I suspect I would prefer Elizabeth Warren over Hillary.

But there's fantasy and there is reality and the reality is that Hillary has the best chance of becoming president and in my opinion the utilitarian calculation of how much better the country would be with her as president vs a Republican alternatives outweighs any foibles that Republicans come up with against her or my preferences for other Democratic candidates. Just Win, Baby!

Just wow. I figured you for more principled...

I could not vote for McCain, and I didn't. I could not vote for Bush the first time, either.

I had to endure 8 years of the catastrophic Bush presidency, probably due to some liberals deciding that they preferred Ralph Nader over Gore. Or because Ralph Nader thought that a Gore presidency was the same as a Bush presidency. Given the high stakes , there is no way I am going to be worried about some email accounts and or some vague allegations about improper influence with regard to the Clinton Foundation (when every person in Congress is getting tons of money from businesses hoping to get favorable treatment). Whatever principle those Nader voters thought they were furthering, I want no part of.

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Well, while I do like Sander's critique of our system I would not actually like socialism . But at least he would try to move the country a bit to the left. He's not going to be president so I don't have to really think it through as to whether I would really prefer him to Hillary. I suspect I would prefer Elizabeth Warren over Hillary.

But there's fantasy and there is reality and the reality is that Hillary has the best chance of becoming president and in my opinion the utilitarian calculation of how much better the country would be with her as president vs a Republican alternatives outweighs any foibles that Republicans come up with against her or my preferences for other Democratic candidates. Just Win, Baby!

Just wow. I figured you for more principled...

I could not vote for McCain, and I didn't. I could not vote for Bush the first time, either.

You're now getting some insight: liberals are willing to swallow all manner of shenanigans in order to get a bit of leftward momentum. On the other hand, many conservatives stick to their principles . . . thus electing Barack Obama. We may see the same with Mrs. Rodham, although she is by far the most tainted non-incumbent candidate in . . . well, I don't know if any non-incumbent has a comparable record of scandal and alleged scandal.

But, Democrats don't care: "Just win, baby!"

Principles? How many GOP prospects who have been linked with the Duggers (and in particular the son) have explained their position since the whole sister-molesting thing came out?

I assume you guys would avoid supporting any of those candidates?

danivon wrote:Principles? How many GOP prospects who have been linked with the Duggers (and in particular the son) have explained their position since the whole sister-molesting thing came out?

I assume you guys would avoid supporting any of those candidates?

I would. I also think Josh should be tried.

danivon wrote:Principles? How many GOP prospects who have been linked with the Duggers (and in particular the son) have explained their position since the whole sister-molesting thing came out?

I assume you guys would avoid supporting any of those candidates?

Oh boy. You want to go down the "guilt by bankshot association" road? With Hillary? Really?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Principles? How many GOP prospects who have been linked with the Duggers (and in particular the son) have explained their position since the whole sister-molesting thing came out?

I assume you guys would avoid supporting any of those candidates?

Oh boy. You want to go down the "guilt by bankshot association" road? With Hillary? Really?

You already have. Just seeing if you would apply similar standards to her potential opponents.