Hillary Clinton Thread

[Little_Sheep]

Ideally, Mia Love or Kristi Noem would be good candidates on core principles, but don’t really add much to the electoral college.

Condolezza Rice, although she supports same-sex civil unions, would be a very tough candidate to beat, but has said she isn’t interested in being president. We’re trying to get her to run for Senate in CA.

Kelly Ayotte has been suggested as a potential VP candidate, but I suspect it will go either to Rubio or Kasich…and maybe Allen West.

I do have a lot of respect for Rice and am familiar with Ayotte. I’m not familiar with Love or Noem.

I would love to see the Republicans put some strong women in the game.!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I am sorry, but I just don’t see why we have to have categories such as the first black president, the first woman president, the first hispanic president or what other category there might be. how sbout just voting for the best person qualified to do the job? why look at race, gender or religion as a quaifier? I didn’t feel like we needed a candidate just because he was black in 2008 and I don’t feel we need a candidate now just because she is a woman or someone else because they are hispanic or Indian or Jewish or Catholic or SDA. I just want good candidates to choose from. the republicans at least had a very diverse field in the beginning and now we are down to 2.
if people vote for Hillary just because she is female that will be just as disappointing as people who voted for Obama in 2008 just because he was black. look what we got for 8 years.

I suppose only because people will write it in history books. Kennedy was the first Catholic president, and the only one, I think. Obama was the first African-American president, etc.

I suppose history is the only reason qualifiers are used because in the end it doesn’t matter if they are green and four feet tall as long as they do the job well and help the US citizens to enjoy a better life. But I do think a green president would get a “first!”

 

[Little_Sheep]

I agree with you about Cruz/West, and think West would be a good choice for Cruz. Hillary might choose Martin O’Malley or Julian Castro. Castro would probably ensure the Hispanic vote, but she already has that.

I like Castro a lot and I think he will play an important role in her staff. That said, I’m hoping for Cory Booker.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Because many factions with within the Democratic Party base disagree with the party’s platform so they need to use identity politics to gin up turnout and support and deflect from the real issue.

The other problem is today’s Democratic Party has taken up such untenable positions that they need quite extreme rhetoric and entitlement spending to compete in national elections.

Also, I don’t think a lot of women will vote for the democratic frontunner just because she’s a woman. The first minority president card has been spoiled, and race trumps gender in priority on the left anyways.

I have to disagree with you. I don’t think the Democratic Party is splintered. Can you offer some evidence of this? What factions are you speaking of?

 

[Little_Sheep]

I am sorry, but I just don’t see why we have to have categories such as the first black president, the first woman president, the first hispanic president or what other category there might be. how sbout just voting for the best person qualified to do the job? why look at race, gender or religion as a quaifier? I didn’t feel like we needed a candidate just because he was black in 2008 and I don’t feel we need a candidate now just because she is a woman or someone else because they are hispanic or Indian or Jewish or Catholic or SDA. I just want good candidates to choose from. the republicans at least had a very diverse field in the beginning and now we are down to 2.
if people vote for Hillary just because she is female that will be just as disappointing as people who voted for Obama in 2008 just because he was black. look what we got for 8 years.

I feel like diversity for the position of the most powerful person in the free world is an important indicator to mark and celebrate. For me, it highlights how far we have come as a people and as a nation. Our country didn’t even consider black people fully human for many years and women haven’t been allowed to vote for even a century!

I cried when Obama was elected. I would have voted for him regardless of his race, but it felt humbling and beautiful to be part of a country that was ready to elect a black man in the face of our history together, black and white. I imagine if we elect Hillary, I will have a similar reaction.

Like you, though, I would not vote for someone just because of race, gender, orientation. But I do love that those things aren’t restricted in the political world in 2016.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The president controls execution of laws and policy (HHS reports to POTUS). It would be very easy to orchestrate the funding for STI testing etc to be received by other qualified health care providers.

PP has no right to be the exclusive delivery arm on free and subsidized healthcare for women.

Spending is approved and appropriated by Congress, not the president.

He can make proposals, but without congressional approval, it goes no where.

In all of Reagan’s eight years as president, only two of his proposed budgets were passed by Congress. All the others were congressional budgets.

The same is true for Obama. The budgets have all been Congressional Budgets and only two years when the Democrats had control of the House, did he get some proposals in, like the ACA, but it was modified greatly from what he proposed.

The president can not spend outside of his executive budget, without congressional approval.

Jim

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I feel like diversity for the position of the most powerful person in the free world is an important indicator to mark and celebrate. For me, it highlights how far we have come as a people and as a nation. Our country didn’t even consider black people fully human for many years and women haven’t been allowed to vote for even a century!

I cried when Obama was elected. I would have voted for him regardless of his race, but it felt humbling and beautiful to be part of a country that was ready to elect a black man in the face of our history together, black and white. I imagine if we elect Hillary, I will have a similar reaction.

Like you, though, I would not vote for someone just because of race, gender, orientation. But I do love that those things aren’t restricted in the political world in 2016.

I, too, felt very happy to see an African-American elected. I remember watching the election returns with my twin brother, who is a model and gorgeous! LOL We both voted for Obama. My brother had just become a citizen that year, and it was his very first vote. We both feel so bad that African-Americans have been oppressed through much of US history, and it was very moving to see Obama come out, smiling and looking humble, and for a while, not saying a thing. It was a historic moment we are glad we didn’t miss.

I will feel the same about Hillary should she become president, even though I’m not a feminist. I will vote for her unemotionally because I feel she is the most qualified, but should she be elected, my reaction will be emotional, and I am not an emotional person.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I am sorry, but I just don’t see why we have to have categories such as the first black president, the first woman president, the first hispanic president or what other category there might be. how sbout just voting for the best person qualified to do the job?

I agree we should just have the best person to do the job, but that’s not the way it works in the politics or even in job employment.

Fact is, Gloria Steinem and other feminists were lashing out toward women who were voting for Sanders, asking them why they’re not supporting the woman running for president instead of a man ?

Jim

 

[Little_Sheep]

I, too, felt very happy to see an African-American elected. I remember watching the election returns with my twin brother, who is a model and gorgeous! LOL We both voted for Obama. My brother had just become a citizen that year, and it was his very first vote. We both feel so bad that African-Americans have been oppressed through much of US history, and it was very moving to see Obama come out, smiling and looking humble, and for a while, not saying a thing. It was a historic moment we are glad we didn’t miss.

I will feel the same about Hillary should she become president, even though I’m not a feminist. I will vote for her unemotionally because I feel she is the most qualified, but should she be elected, my reaction will be emotional, and I am not an emotional person.

How do you define a feminist, LB? I define it pretty simply as a person who thinks women are human beings, but I know that there are other definitions. It’s a little bit of a controversial word in that I’m never quite sure what someone might mean when they claim or don’t claim it, you know?

Under my definition, most folks are feminists, but I guess it sprung up as a political term when women were fighting for equal rights and, in some ways, we are still fighting for equal rights.

In any event, I’d love your thoughts on the word. I rarely identify myself as a feminist because it seems sort of unnecessary and because, as I said before, it is a word that means different things to different people.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I agree we should just have the best person to do the job, but that’s not the way it works in the politics or even in job employment.

Fact is, Gloria Steinem and other feminists were lashing out toward women who were voting for Sanders, asking them why they’re not supporting the woman running for president instead of a man ?

Jim

why anyone would look up to or listen to Gloria Steinem is beyond me.
She doesn’t influence my vote.

 

[Little_Sheep]

I agree we should just have the best person to do the job, but that’s not the way it works in the politics or even in job employment.

Fact is, Gloria Steinem and other feminists were lashing out toward women who were voting for Sanders, asking them why they’re not supporting the woman running for president instead of a man ?

Jim

Yeah, Steinem can be quite obnoxious. I saw a headline about that and felt like it made no sense at all.

But you are correct about politics/employment. It’s clearly not a system that makes sense and I don’t support it.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I am sorry, but I just don’t see why we have to have categories such as the first black president, the first woman president, the first hispanic president or what other category there might be. how sbout just voting for the best person qualified to do the job? why look at race, gender or religion as a quaifier? I didn’t feel like we needed a candidate just because he was black in 2008 and I don’t feel we need a candidate now just because she is a woman or someone else because they are hispanic or Indian or Jewish or Catholic or SDA. I just want good candidates to choose from. the republicans at least had a very diverse field in the beginning and now we are down to 2.
if people vote for Hillary just because she is female that will be just as disappointing as people who voted for Obama in 2008 just because he was black. look what we got for 8 years.

Agree!

 

[Thorolfr]

if people vote for Hillary just because she is female that will be just as disappointing as people who voted for Obama in 2008 just because he was black. look what we got for 8 years.

I don’t know why, but everyone on here acts as if Obama has been one of the worst presidents ever. And yet based on surveys in which historians, political scientists and other scholars are asked to rank US presidents from best to worst, Obama gets a much better ranking than his predecessor George W. Bush. For example, according to the surveys done by the Sienna Research Institute, out of 44 presidents, Obama was ranked 15th whereas George W. Bush was ranked 39th. In a 2015 poll of the American Political Science Association, Obama was ranked 18th while George W. Bush was ranked 35th.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

It’s not hard to see why George W. Bush ranks so badly. Not only did he get us into a terrible and failed war in Iraq which has cost the US 1.7 trillion dollars so far, but it was during his presidency that the Great Recession began, the worst global recession since World War II.

 

[mary_bobo]

Everyone on here acts as if Obama has been one of the worst presidents ever. And yet based on surveys in which historians, political scientists and other scholars are asked to rank US presidents from best to worst, Obama gets a much better ranking than his predecessor George W. Bush. For example, according to the surveys done by the Sienna Research Institute, out of 44 presidents, Obama was ranked 15th whereas George W. Bush was ranked 39th. In a 2015 poll of the American Political Science Association, Obama was ranked 18th while George W. Bush was ranked 35th.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

It’s not hard to see why George W. Bush ranks so badly. Not only did he get us into a terrible and failed war in Iraq which has cost the US 1.7 trillion dollars so far, but it was during his presidency that the Great Recession began, the worst global recession since World War II.

I’ve always thought it more prudent to wait a few years after a president has left office to rank him. The “failed” war was because Obama pulled out our troops too soon and he is doing the same in Afghanistan. And the deficit–Obama has added more to the deficit than any combination of the foregoing presidents, including a combination of all of them.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Keep in mind that the president doesn’t appropriate spending, Congress does.

So when he says he’ll defund Planned Parenthood, he’s merely throwing campaign promises which he can’t keep and if he believes it, he’s showing his ignorance on how the government works.

Jim

Obviously congress has to pass a bill defunding Planned Parenthood, but he has said he would sign the bill: lifenews.com/2016/02/18/donald-trump-promises-as-president-i-will-sign-a-bill-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood/

Some people won’t believe that, because of his past stance on the issue of abortion but what you can know for sure is that Hillary Clinton would not sign it. Trump says he would. Many have changed on the abortion issue, including Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v Wade. I hope he is honest on this issue.

 

[mary_bobo]

I have to disagree with you. I don’t think the Democratic Party is splintered. Can you offer some evidence of this? What factions are you speaking of?

They are not splintered, they are like lemmings.

 

[mary_bobo]

Democrats are fighting for EVERYONE. Pope Francis just condemned those who close their doors to immigration. Democrats, and more specifically, Hillary Clinton, would not do that. So yes, they are fighting for EVERYONE.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1003852

And that’s the problem. Dems think we are all to dumb to decide things for ourselves or to attain anything beyond what they are willing to give us. It would be far better to help people learn how to attain things for themselves. And just how many immigrants, of the illegal type, should we allow to come into the country? Enough to build the Dems voting coffers?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

They are not splintered, they are like lemmings.

I don’t see that, either.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I don’t know why, but everyone on here acts as if Obama has been one of the worst presidents ever. And yet based on surveys in which historians, political scientists and other scholars are asked to rank US presidents from best to worst, Obama gets a much better ranking than his predecessor George W. Bush. For example, according to the surveys done by the Sienna Research Institute, out of 44 presidents, Obama was ranked 15th whereas George W. Bush was ranked 39th. In a 2015 poll of the American Political Science Association, Obama was ranked 18th while George W. Bush was ranked 35th.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

It’s not hard to see why George W. Bush ranks so badly. Not only did he get us into a terrible and failed war in Iraq which has cost the US 1.7 trillion dollars so far, but it was during his presidency that the Great Recession began, the worst global recession since World War II.

I like Obama and think he has been a good president.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Let’s see how people feel when the depth of his support for pro-choice causes comes out. He has been a life long supporter of abortion on demand, and has so far refused to say how much money he has given to Planned Parenthood. I think that as the facts come out there will be some reevaluating.

But obviously even if he has given money to Planned Parenthood in the past, that doesn’t mean he’s a supporter of widespread abortion now. Someone could have donated to Planned Parenthood yesterday and taken a different position on abortion today. Donald Trump has already taken positions that are quite at odds with traditional conservatism. Why would he moderate himself on the issue of abortion? Anyway this is speculation. What is clear is that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t sign a bill defunding Planned Parenthood. She wants to see an end to the Hyde Amendment!