Is anyone actually excited that Hilary will be next president?

[Jhhnn]

I don't give two fucks about it being a woman. I care about her character and the kind of person she is. To me based on what she has done in the past, it's shitty. I personally think a woman can be just as good as a President as a man. We'd be more affected by those countries that do not give woman any, or many rights. Dealing with them may be more difficult, but fuck them if they can't get over it.

I think you really mean "based on what she's been accused of doing" don't you?

I mean, poor Vince Foster. And the way she just let the ambassador die in Benghazi. Not to mention the way she gave away the secrets of the H bomb in her email.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I don't give two fucks about it being a woman. I care about her character and the kind of person she is. To me based on what she has done in the past, it's shitty. I personally think a woman can be just as good as a President as a man. We'd be more affected by those countries that do not give woman any, or many rights. Dealing with them may be more difficult, but fuck them if they can't get over it.

easy there captain cool. I was just stating it will be interesting to see how it's handled, not accusing anyone of anything.

 

[glenn1]

easy there captain cool. I was just stating it will be interesting to see how it's handled, not accusing anyone of anything.

Sexism is a fact of life just like racism. Like Obama there will be a lot of accusations of bias against the POTUS when in reality it's simply a criticism of policy. And there will be a lot of her biting her tongue when she does get targeted by a sexist person but there's not much she can do about it.

That being said I'm hardly 'excited' about her as President, but seeing that a Dem President/GOP Congress seems to be a successful formula the last 2 times (Bill and Barack) I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm hoping (A) she's not as hawkish as she's seemed to be while SoS and that (B) the episodes of bad judgement seemingly motivated by paranoia (e.g. the "conservative conspiracy" against Bill when Monica was brought to light and the personal email server to avoid FOIA discovery of her actions as SoS) are one-offs rather than the norm.

 

[Triloby]

Just by witnessing this election, I don't think we need to make the presidency exciting anymore. At the end of the day, the POTUS is just another man working for the U.S. government upon thousands of other politicians. Yes, the presidency has major importance to both us and the entire world, but he's not the only one carrying out foreign and domestic obligations at large.

Look at how Donald Trump is trying to make his run for the presidency "exciting". It's pathetic, shameful, and potentially harmful for domestic and foreign matters. I can understand getting young people and the uneducated involved in politics (which I have no problem with), but there are better ways of accomplishing that task than by going the "Trump" route. Hillary won't excite most people, but she isn't going out of her way to make the POTUS some godawful, two-bit, circus sideshow like Donald Trump is doing. In this day and age, the last thing we want is some overly extreme, overly nationalistic, mouth breathing, asshole sitting at the helm with his index finger positioned on that red "FIRE" button.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well when Bill gets back in the Whitehouse maybe they'll invite Monaca to come back for a cigar redux party. At least she won't be trying to take social security away and hand it over to some Republican banker friends to rape the people with while they work feverishly to return worker rights back to the way they were 100 years ago.

 

[sportage]

Could the polls be wrong?

 

[Pork Sausage]

Could the polls be wrong?

One candidate can't turn out a crowd to save her life, the other seems to turn out big crowds every other day.

Makes you wonder if this kernel poll is more genuine than what, say, CNN is shoveling.

 

[Grooveriding]

I think most people are just excited that Trump's campaign has been self-torpedoed by the idiot himself, leaving him with next to no chance of winning. People are excited that the madman will not be President, but not as concerned with it being Hillary who is going to win. Just a sigh of relief that a raging lunatic will not actually get to have any control over the armaments of the US.

US foreign policy is abysmal and has been for quite some time. Recent history has demonstrated that it is at its worst under Republican leadership. We live in a world that is less safe because of the still distributing fallout of the last Republican who was in the white house. Imagine the destruction that would have been wrought on the world if Trump managed to win. I'm excited that nut has tanked to the point of his chances of winning being slim to none and being spared having to see the disaster he would have been for his own country and the rest of the world.

 

[fskimospy]

One candidate can't turn out a crowd to save her life, the other seems to turn out big crowds every other day.

Makes you wonder if this kernel poll is more genuine than what, say, CNN is shoveling

Does it really? If someone winning online polls is indicative of the electoral situation then President Ron Paul needs to see you ASAP.

The poll trutherism has started early this election cycle. Sigh.

 

[Genx87]

He is even keeled as compared to other presidents.

You know how I feel about drone assassination.

I know your stance on the drone assassinations. But there are some things in my mind that just blow away almost every other policy. One is having an executive branch create a legal outline for killing Americans without trial. While I have come around on some of his economic policies. Because hey, the proof is in the pudding, we survived the meltdown of 08 under his watch. I cant get past what he has setup for future presidents like a Drumpf. It is fucking scary.

 

[thraashman]

I know your stance on the drone assassinations. But there are some things in my mind that just blow away almost every other policy. One is having an executive branch create a legal outline for killing Americans without trial. While I have come around on some of his economic policies. Because hey, the proof is in the pudding, we survived the meltdown of 08 under his watch. I cant get past what he has setup for future presidents like a Drumpf. It is fucking scary.

Well do you think it should be legal for the military to have a list of terrorists with a "kill on sight" order? And if so, why should one of those terrorists get a pass just because they're an American citizen? I feel like with terrorism you've often got to choose the best of a whole lot of bad. And personally I'd rather the President authorize killing an American if the alternative options are A) letting a terrorist go free or B) risking or even costing the lives of American soldiers to attempt to capture the terrorist.

I feel this is a lot like the drone war. I both prefer and hate it. Putting more ground troops at risk is something I cannot condone. But the drone war as currently conducted is FAR too ok with collateral damage.

 

[Genx87]

Well do you think it should be legal for the military to have a list of terrorists with a "kill on sight" order? And if so, why should one of those terrorists get a pass just because they're an American citizen? I feel like with terrorism you've often got to choose the best of a whole lot of bad. And personally I'd rather the President authorize killing an American if the alternative options are A) letting a terrorist go free or B) risking or even costing the lives of American soldiers to attempt to capture the terrorist.

I feel this is a lot like the drone war. I both prefer and hate it. Putting more ground troops at risk is something I cannot condone. But the drone war as currently conducted is FAR too ok with collateral damage.

Is this really a question? So you are ok with Drumpf creating a list of American citizens he deems terrorists and then having a drone take them out? Hooollly fucking shit. Seriously? So toss out the right to trial then?

 

[fskimospy]

Well do you think it should be legal for the military to have a list of terrorists with a "kill on sight" order? And if so, why should one of those terrorists get a pass just because they're an American citizen? I feel like with terrorism you've often got to choose the best of a whole lot of bad. And personally I'd rather the President authorize killing an American if the alternative options are A) letting a terrorist go free or B) risking or even costing the lives of American soldiers to attempt to capture the terrorist.

I feel this is a lot like the drone war. I both prefer and hate it. Putting more ground troops at risk is something I cannot condone. But the drone war as currently conducted is FAR too ok with collateral damage.

The problem with that is that US citizens have specifically enumerated rights to a fair trial. In these cases the president is deciding unilaterally that a US citizen is a terrorist and executing them. Yes this is only undertaken in extreme circumstances but surely you can see the incredibly dangerous precedent this sets.

I'm pretty confident that these are bad people. I'm also pretty confident that the US lacks a reliable way to neutralize them. That being said, no person should have the power to order another US citizen's execution without due process. At an absolute minimum if this person really is planning attacks on the US and we genuinely can't get them any other way then the executive should have no problem with submitting this information to a judge to have them certify it.

 

[werepossum]

Hate to say it but I would rather have four more years of Obama then 4 years of Hillary or the Donald.

. . . said virtually everyone in America.

 

[werepossum]

The problem with that is that US citizens have specifically enumerated rights to a fair trial. In these cases the president is deciding unilaterally that a US citizen is a terrorist and executing them. Yes this is only undertaken in extreme circumstances but surely you can see the incredibly dangerous precedent this sets.

I'm pretty confident that these are bad people. I'm also pretty confident that the US lacks a reliable way to neutralize them. That being said, no person should have the power to order another US citizen's execution without due process. At an absolute minimum if this person really is planning attacks on the US and we genuinely can't get them any other way then the executive should have no problem with submitting this information to a judge to have them certify it.

I agree that it's an incredibly dangerous precedent, but Thraashman has a valid point: Why should Americans get special treatment over, say, Syrians while in Syria or Iraqis while in Iraq? Seems to me that once we are out of USA jurisdiction and honestly beyond American control, our specifically enumerated right to a fair trial is no longer applicable and we fall under the rules of warfare or that nation's laws, as applicable.

 

[yllus]

I think she'll be quite good. She has the temperament and certainly has the experience. The question is how well Congress will work with her.

 

[Genx87]

I agree that it's an incredibly dangerous precedent, but Thraashman has a valid point: Why should Americans get special treatment over, say, Syrians while in Syria or Iraqis while in Iraq? Seems to me that once we are out of USA jurisdiction and honestly beyond American control, our specifically enumerated right to a fair trial is no longer applicable and we fall under the rules of warfare or that nation's laws, as applicable.

We don't lose our rights just because we leave the borders of our country. The rules of war still apply. An American fighting american troops is a fair target. A guy eating lunch at a cafe being obliterated at the behest of the president should not. It is a horrible precedent to set. One I fear will be abused by future presidents.

You understand Americans fought for the Nazis in WWII right? Some of them were even part of the SS. They all received trials after the war.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree that it's an incredibly dangerous precedent, but Thraashman has a valid point: Why should Americans get special treatment over, say, Syrians while in Syria or Iraqis while in Iraq? Seems to me that once we are out of USA jurisdiction and honestly beyond American control, our specifically enumerated right to a fair trial is no longer applicable and we fall under the rules of warfare or that nation's laws, as applicable.

American citizens should get special treatment because they are american citizens and the president has a sworn obligation to respect their right to due process. The president has no constitutional obligation to Syrian citizens or Iraqi citizens and so far as the execution (har) of his office is concerned he can basically blow them up to his heart's content.

Basically my thoughts are that if the president wants to execute a US citizen without trial he better have a really good reason. In these cases that I've seen it hasn't been one of those ticking bomb scenarios where the government doesn't have the time to take it before a judge, these individuals have been placed on a kill list or whatever some time in advance. If we have such a strong reason to kill someone that we have to do it without giving them due process I feel like that reason should be more than strong enough to be taken before a judge.

 

[retrospooty]

:shrug: more of the same shit from the looks of it.

Is anyone excited? HELL YES. Hillary and Bill are very VERY excited about it.

 

[woolfe9998]

One candidate can't turn out a crowd to save her life, the other seems to turn out big crowds every other day.

Makes you wonder if this kernel poll is more genuine than what, say, CNN is shoveling.

That's what they said in 2012. The polls turned out to be slightly biased in favor of Mitt Romney.

 

[werepossum]

American citizens should get special treatment because they are american citizens and the president has a sworn obligation to respect their right to due process. The president has no constitutional obligation to Syrian citizens or Iraqi citizens and so far as the execution (har) of his office is concerned he can basically blow them up to his heart's content.

Basically my thoughts are that if the president wants to execute a US citizen without trial he better have a really good reason. In these cases that I've seen it hasn't been one of those ticking bomb scenarios where the government doesn't have the time to take it before a judge, these individuals have been placed on a kill list or whatever some time in advance. If we have such a strong reason to kill someone that we have to do it without giving them due process I feel like that reason should be more than strong enough to be taken before a judge.

Not to put thoughts in Obama's head, but I believe he is striking civilians as part of prosecuting the war against terror. Just goes to show that all such activity should be proceeded by a formal declaration of war by Congress, clearly spelling out on who exactly we are declaring war. We do have a very unfortunate blending of civilian criminal law, land warfare law, and irregular combatant law, but I don't see how we avoid that when fighting loosely affiliated, multinational terrorist organizations.

We don't lose our rights just because we leave the borders of our country. The rules of war still apply. An American fighting american troops is a fair target. A guy eating lunch at a cafe being obliterated at the behest of the president should not. It is a horrible precedent to set. One I fear will be abused by future presidents.

You understand Americans fought for the Nazis in WWII right? Some of them were even part of the SS. They all received trials after the war.

It's not at all true that all Americans who fought for the Nazis received trials after the war. Some were executed in the field, some were tried, and some were repatriated without trial. I do agree that it's a terrible precedent, I just don't see how we get around it without agreeing to lose. If we cannot strike their leadership, then as long as that leadership remains in nations like Pakistan or Syria or Lebanon, we can never actually win, only slow them down. I also see some resemblance to Hillary's email scandal, specifically the classified documents on a private email account, in that Obama greatly escalated this but did not originate it.

 

[fskimospy]

That's what they said in 2012. The polls turned out to be slightly biased in favor of Mitt Romney.

This reminds me of Peggy Noonan's immortal essay in 2012 from the day before the election:
http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/

But to the election. Who knows what to make of the weighting of the polls and the assumptions as to who will vote? Who knows the depth and breadth of each party’s turnout efforts? Among the wisest words spoken this cycle were by John Dickerson of CBS News and Slate, who said, in a conversation the night before the last presidential debate, that he thought maybe the American people were quietly cooking something up, something we don’t know about.

I think they are and I think it’s this: a Romney win.

Romney’s crowds are building—28,000 in Morrisville, Pa., last night; 30,000 in West Chester, Ohio, Friday It isn’t only a triumph of advance planning: People came, they got through security and waited for hours in the cold. His rallies look like rallies now, not enactments. In some new way he’s caught his stride. He looks happy and grateful. His closing speech has been positive, future-looking, sweetly patriotic. His closing ads are sharp—the one about what’s going on at the rallies is moving.

That went well.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Is anyone actually excited that Hilary will be next president?

I know I am! Of course, I've also been known to enjoy a pustulated hemorrhoid!

 

[Ackmed]

easy there captain cool. I was just stating it will be interesting to see how it's handled, not accusing anyone of anything.

I wasn't specifically talking about you, if you took it that way I apologize. Some people will have a problem with it, I agree with you. I don't have a problem with the facts she is a woman, but what kind of person she is. Just as people will vote for her just because she's a woman. Some people voted for Obama just because he was black. People have voted for candidates just because of this or that, pro/anti guns, Christian, etc. One day people will vote for an openly gay candidate just because they are gay. It's just the way it is.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I wasn't specifically talking about you, if you took it that way I apologize. Some people will have a problem with it, I agree with you. I don't have a problem with the facts she is a woman, but what kind of person she is. Just as people will vote for her just because she's a woman. Some people voted for Obama just because he was black. People have voted for candidates just because of this or that, pro/anti guns, Christian, etc. One day people will vote for an openly gay candidate just because they are gay. It's just the way it is.

cool, thanks. But people have been voting that way, since, well, there was voting. "Candidate x looks like me, has some of the same ideas I do, I'll vote for him/her"