I disagree that being First Lady is relevant experience. She was a politician's wife before her own election. Many politicians' wives are involved in their campaign and in their decision making. First Lady is a ceremonial position, largely concerned with fund-raising, which we know she excels at. Her experience level is comparable to Jack Kennedy, one term in the Senate with famous relatives. And I would never vote for or against someone just because they are black, white, male, female, etc.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question for the possible Hillary supporters
- Thread starter snaptafar
- Start date
OK, a positive...
Those born back in the 50's remember a far different world.
No helmets, pads, ect for bike riding, out in the AM and back by street lights ON, and the community made sure your mamma knew where you were and what you were up to.
Not like that now, and I see now reason to go through the specifics, as you all know them.
Still, with no kids of my own, and watching the degraded environment we've got to live in, it'd be nice to see how it all ends.
And, Hillery is the way!
And in short order, too.
Those born back in the 50's remember a far different world.
No helmets, pads, ect for bike riding, out in the AM and back by street lights ON, and the community made sure your mamma knew where you were and what you were up to.
Not like that now, and I see now reason to go through the specifics, as you all know them.
Still, with no kids of my own, and watching the degraded environment we've got to live in, it'd be nice to see how it all ends.
And, Hillery is the way!
And in short order, too.
JuanCarlos
New member
Oh yes, I'm sure having Hillary Clinton as President will be the end of the world and/or society as we know it.
Sure.
I'm pretty sure your post is as off-topic as it was asinine.
Note, from the OP:
If you just want to have a little fun bashing Hillary, there are other threads right now to do so in, and bound to be more as time goes on. That was not the purpose of this thread.
Sure.
I'm pretty sure your post is as off-topic as it was asinine.
Note, from the OP:
This is not a bash Hillary thread or she's coming to take "insert object here" away thread.
I seriously want to know why someone would support her over the other candidates. What makes her better qualified or what skills and experience does she have or what makes her stand out among the others to make her earn your support.
If you just want to have a little fun bashing Hillary, there are other threads right now to do so in, and bound to be more as time goes on. That was not the purpose of this thread.
You are aware she was born in 1947 right? She just turned sixty a day or so ago.OK, a positive...
Those born back in the 50's remember a far different world.
No helmets, pads, ect for bike riding, out in the AM and back by street lights ON, and the community made sure your mamma knew where you were and what you were up to.
Those of us born in the sixties remember that world also, some parts of it were better, some were worse and some just different.
She's qualified.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
That's it. I think she would be a terrible choice, but I know I'm not supposed to bash her on this thread, so let me bash away with a question for the supporters:
Does the trend toward a federal solution for every problem sit well with you? You regulars know where I'm going. The commerce clause, "public" use, judicial appointments, and cases like Raich and Kelo. It is obvious to me that only a Republican (and darn few of those) will nominate the kinds of judges who ruled in the minority in those cases. Hillary (and any other Dem) will nominate the other kind, who have an expansive view of government power in general and federal power in particular. What are your thoughts about that?
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
That's it. I think she would be a terrible choice, but I know I'm not supposed to bash her on this thread, so let me bash away with a question for the supporters:
Does the trend toward a federal solution for every problem sit well with you? You regulars know where I'm going. The commerce clause, "public" use, judicial appointments, and cases like Raich and Kelo. It is obvious to me that only a Republican (and darn few of those) will nominate the kinds of judges who ruled in the minority in those cases. Hillary (and any other Dem) will nominate the other kind, who have an expansive view of government power in general and federal power in particular. What are your thoughts about that?
JuanCarlos
New member
Does the trend toward a federal solution for every problem sit well with you? You regulars know where I'm going. The commerce clause, "public" use, judicial appointments, and cases like Raich and Kelo. It is obvious to me that only a Republican (and darn few of those) will nominate the kinds of judges who ruled in the minority in those cases. Hillary (and any other Dem) will nominate the other kind, who have an expansive view of government power in general and federal power in particular. What are your thoughts about that?
Probably about the same as yours.
But as you admit, even most Republicans will nominate the same kinds of judges, and many of those will be the kind I don't like the idea of in relation to other issues as well.
Clinton's actually a pretty horrible candidate, and I'm pretty sure I'll not be thrilled to have her as a President. But unfortunately, at this point at least it seems that the Democratic Party is likely to put her on the ticket. Which means I have to at least consider her against whoever the Republican Party ends up nominating (and of course against any third-party/independent candidate).
I'm no supporter of her, but I may consider voting for her over some members of both the Republican/Democratic fields. I was mainly just answering the original question, which is what qualifications, experiences, or skills she has over other candidates.
Unregistered
Moderator
I don't think the $5,000 per kid thing would be a bad idea, if it was done in the form of a $5,000 tax credit to their parents income tax bill. Any opportunity to give money back to the taxpayers is OK with me.
But as you admit, even most Republicans will nominate the same kinds of judges, and many of those will be the kind I don't like the idea of in relation to other issues as well.
You're right about that, I'm afraid. A vote for any Democrat just encourages those types of Republicans, though. If the D's and R's won't give me a real choice on judges, I'll look elsewhere.