• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question for Hillary supporters

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Did you miss what I said before? Lincoln was a junior member of congress and then a speaker for a few years. By your argument he was unqualified. He did pretty okay.
Fair enough, but you're going back 150 years! Perhaps we should put things in modern perspective?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
I don't really think the OP's question is overly valid. Most AT P&N'ers don't really want Hillary as president. Over Rudy, maybe, but overall, no. In fact, the majority of AT P&N'ers seem to want Paul as president. :D
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Did you miss what I said before? Lincoln was a junior member of congress and then a speaker for a few years. By your argument he was unqualified. He did pretty okay.
Fair enough, but you're going back 150 years! Perhaps we should put things in modern perspective?
It is germane to the topic - if you want to measure a person by three things they have done, then it applies up and down the line....

Or course, you may not like it, as it passes light of how empty the OP's "question" was......
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
It is germane to the topic - if you want to measure a person by three things they have done, then it applies up and down the line....

Or course, you may not like it, as it passes light of how empty the OP's "question" was......
I'm not sure that it really is. Can we go back nearly 2 centuries and make a valid, accurate comparison to what might happen today or tomorrow based on the mindset and environment at that time? I really don't think so.

Looking back over the last 50 years (modern era...) the point that was made absolutely holds true.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: gururu2
does a warhero qualify someone to be president?
does an assistant secretary of navy?

the only thing you seem to be aiming for is that only governors would be qualified. how many previous governors can you name that have been good or poor presidents. kennedy is regarded as a great president, yet he was never a governor. nixon is regarded as a poor president, and he was a governor.
ummm actually Kennedy is not really rated as a 'great' President. His 'myth' is based on how he died more than anything else.

Nixon is rated as a bad President because of his scandals.

Take away Kennedy's assassination and Nixon's resignation and look at what they did as President and you see two middle of the road Presidents.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: gururu2
does a warhero qualify someone to be president?
does an assistant secretary of navy?

the only thing you seem to be aiming for is that only governors would be qualified. how many previous governors can you name that have been good or poor presidents. kennedy is regarded as a great president, yet he was never a governor. nixon is regarded as a poor president, and he was a governor.
ummm actually Kennedy is not really rated as a 'great' President. His 'myth' is based on how he died more than anything else.

Nixon is rated as a bad President because of his scandals.

Take away Kennedy's assassination and Nixon's resignation and look at what they did as President and you see two middle of the road Presidents.
Well at least according to you. Of course you conviently forget how Kennedy stared down the Soviets and made them cower like a little bitch.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: gururu2
does a warhero qualify someone to be president?
does an assistant secretary of navy?

the only thing you seem to be aiming for is that only governors would be qualified. how many previous governors can you name that have been good or poor presidents. kennedy is regarded as a great president, yet he was never a governor. nixon is regarded as a poor president, and he was a governor.
ummm actually Kennedy is not really rated as a 'great' President. His 'myth' is based on how he died more than anything else.

Nixon is rated as a bad President because of his scandals.

Take away Kennedy's assassination and Nixon's resignation and look at what they did as President and you see two middle of the road Presidents.
Well at least according to you. Of course you conviently forget how Kennedy stared down the Soviets and made them cower like a little bitch.
He also launched the Bay of Pigs and kept us going down the road that lead to Vietnam and 58,000 dead Americans...

Nixon ended Vietnam and went to China...

If you look at the ratings by scholars you see Kennedy typically rated around 15-18 and Nixon around 33.

Of course Nixon's scandals hurt his ratings while Kennedy's death either has no effect or raises his ratings.

BTW Hillary is a lot closer to Nixon in terms of personality than Kennedy.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
I think the 'qualification' and 'experience' issues are overplayed in some discussions of candidates.

Regarding JFK - and I have a lot of good to say about JFK as president - his being a 'military hero' had pretty much nothing to do with 'experience' for the presidency. As he said himself, he didn't choose it, his boat was sunk. (And the counterparts to Palehorse back then turned it into an attack on him for being a bad leader of the PT boat). Its main relevance was as a political boost in getting him votes.

It's too easy for such things to translate into votes. Was John Glenn a better Senator than others would be because he had been selected for a flight mission?

The things is, people want to feel more sure about someone than they are able to from the facts. Consider the contest between JFK and Nixon - two men who entered Congress the same year, and got nearly equal numbers of votes: JFK was a far better president than expected of some inexperienced rich kid whose father's ambition and wealth got him the presidency, while Nixon later was far worse a president than people had hoped, despite his self-made background and 8 years as the vice-president of the very popular Eisenhower. The fact that the American people chose them equally, and were surprised by both, says a lot about the limitations voters have. But they don't like that, so they make issues of the little info available.

Hillary will be a good or bad president for reasons other than 'experience'; same with Obama; same with any of them running now. Occasionally, it is a factor; Al Gore did have a lot of experience. But a lack of elected experience didn't keep Teddy Roosevelt off of Mount Rushmore. But people need something to yack about, and the more relevant issues of character and judgement are harder to discuss.

For that matter, people would have disqualified Kennedy, Clinton and others (including reportedly Eisenhower and FDR) had unfaithfulness been 'proof' about their character and judgement, while there's no evidence Nixon and Bush (and Herbert Hoover) have been unfaithful.

So, I'm more interested in things that show Hillary's ability, her agenda.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Craig you make some good points, but at this point the only thing we can judge the candidates by is their past experience.

When you look at that Hillary does not have much to talk about.

7 years as a Senator in which she had done nothing worth talking about.
8 years as the first lady in which everything she touched turned out bad.

Then we have her personality which is just awful. She will be a disaster as a President, unless Bill steps in and saves us from her.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
I love how NY Times is "librul media" when cons disagree with it, but they run to quote it if it aligns with their position.
It's an opinion. Dowd is entitled to hers, but it's just her opinion.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Strike 2! And perhaps the best reason NOT to vote for the wench! Bill Clinton is/was a bonafied criminal who admittedly lied under oath to the entire country! AFAIC, he has no business even being near the White House grounds!
QFT. :thumbsup:
That's not for you to decide. You can't get over how popular Clinton is despite lying about a BJ. Well tough sh!t for you. You are just going to have to get over your fear of Clenis and move on with your life. Noone is expecting you, Pabster and palehorse74 to vote for Hillary, you can vote for whoever the hell you like. But your obsession with her is very telling.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
I love how NY Times is "librul media" when cons disagree with it, but they run to quote it if it aligns with their position.
It's an opinion. Dowd is entitled to hers, but it's just her opinion.
obviously op-ed articles can go either way, as they often do(and this one technically is still liberal, as it praises obama). Conservatives likely point to the actual news articles that have a liberal slant.

nice try though.



 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW Hillary is a lot closer to Nixon in terms of personality than Kennedy.
And tactics.
The lying, name calling, mudslinging, and swiftboating did worked against McCain in 2000 and against Kerry in 2004. Looks like we are going to see if it works against the Democrats in 2008.
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Hilary Clinton was a Senator during a time the Republicans had either complete control of the Congress and Presidency or at least control of the Presidential veto. Virtually everything she proposed or voted for was thwarted by the Republicans.
Thats fine until the democrates took control of the senate and the house over a year ago. Plenty of time to pass anything she would like.
Here is what wiki says she has done:
This should be fun...
Upon entering the United States Senate, Clinton maintained a low public profile while building relationships with senators from both parties, to avoid the polarizing celebrity she experienced as First Lady.[104][185][186][187] Clinton also forged alliances with religiously-inclined senators by becoming a regular participant in the Senate Prayer Breakfast.[110][188]
She stayed low under the radar and gathered people to run in 08. Se she never wanted to be a senator other than use it as a spring board to run for president. So her only political position she did nothing. Low profile in politics = DO NOTHING.
Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001?2002)[189], Committee on Armed Services (since 2003)[190], Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001)[189], Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions(since 2001)[189] and Special Committee on Aging.[191] She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[192] (since 2001).[193]
She sat on committees. So she did her job as a senator. That's presidental material right here.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton sought to obtain funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.[194][195][196] She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.[197] Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001, as did all but one senator. In 2005, when the act was up for renewal, she worked to address some of the civil liberties concerns with it,[198] before voting in favor of a compromise renewed act in March 2006 that gained large majority support.[199]
Anyone that thinks securing money for New York as an accomplishment needs to get their head examined. A retarded monkey could have secured billions for New York after 9-11. Girl Scouts work harder for their money.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Clinton strongly supported military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government.[200] Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. (However, Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.[190] She did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal.)[190]
So she voted for the wars on terrorism--an actual accomplishment. Until you realize she just followed the polls. When war was favorable she was a backer then when it turned so did she. He!! even the left's nutjobs call her on it.
After the Iraq War began, Clinton made trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troops stationed there, such as the 10th Mountain Division based in Fort Drum, New York. On a visit to Iraq in February 2005, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well.[201] Noting that war deployments are draining regular and reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain.[202] In late 2005, Clinton said that while immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake, Bush's pledge to stay "until the job is done" is also misguided, as it gives Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves." She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but added that it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq.[203] This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favor immediate withdrawal.[204] Clinton supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases.[205]
So GB and his cabinet's trips to the wars are accompishments--funny I've never heard of them called that.
So she realizes that pulling out is bad and the status que is bad and proposes what--let someone else solve it. Great a foreign policy--"I know what's wrong, but I don't know how to solve it." Thats presidential :roll:
Senator Clinton voted against the tax cuts introduced by President Bush, including the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit.
She voted against the reason that stopped the bear and put in one of the largest bull economies. "NO NEW TAXCUTS" not what I would consider a popular rally cry.
Clinton voted in 2005 against the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States,[206] and in 2006 against the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court; [207] both were confirmed. In 2005, Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.[208] Along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games
Stop the presses--a senator did her job and voted. That confirms it, lets just ignore the electoral process and declare her Queen of America.
She saved us from GTA:SA. A perfect example of her UN-accomplishments--with all the things "wrong" in America this is what she spends her time and resources on.

Pretty great record.
I hope my sarcasm meter is broken.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The lying, name calling, mudslinging, and swiftboating did worked against McCain in 2000 and against Kerry in 2004. Looks like we are going to see if it works against the Democrats in 2008.
No doubt about it. McCain was out of the race in a heartbeat when Bush decided to take the nomination. I'm not bitter about it, McCain never seemed to really "want" it bad enough in the first place.

Kerry's problems were largely of his own making. Swiftboated, perhaps. But he never paid any attention to the claims and by the time he decided to start responding, there was nothing to refute the allegations...or nothing substantial enough to overcome the Swift Vets.

Hillary, presuming she is the nominee, will undoubtedly launch some of the nastiest, most vicious personal attacks we've seen. Politics of personal destruction. And it remains to be seen whether the Republican nominee will have learned from McCain and Kerry.

EDIT: It's already beginning. Clinton Intensifies Attacks
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
9
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Hillary, presuming she is the nominee, will undoubtedly launch some of the nastiest, most vicious personal attacks we've seen. Politics of personal destruction. And it remains to be seen whether the Republican nominee will have learned from McCain and Kerry.

EDIT: It's already beginning. Clinton Intensifies Attacks
No one wants a pussy in the Oval Office.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
No more clinton, no more bush, no more stinking, lying, fucks!

Come on people, vote outside the war/fear-mongering box.

Obama, Ron Paul, ANYONE who supports diplomacy and democracy, instead of semi-despotism and imperialism. Please.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,993
5,039
126
Originally posted by: manowar821
No more clinton, no more bush, no more stinking, lying, fucks!

Come on people, vote outside the war/fear-mongering box.

Obama, Ron Paul, ANYONE who supports diplomacy and democracy, instead of semi-despotism and imperialism. Please.
No more Bush, yes.
More Clinton, please.
Clintons know how to run this country properly.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: manowar821
No more clinton, no more bush, no more stinking, lying, fucks!

Come on people, vote outside the war/fear-mongering box.

Obama, Ron Paul, ANYONE who supports diplomacy and democracy, instead of semi-despotism and imperialism. Please.
No more Bush, yes.
More Clinton, please.
Clintons know how to run this country properly.
OMG i haven't laughed so hard in months. THANKS!
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Strike 2! And perhaps the best reason NOT to vote for the wench! Bill Clinton is/was a bonafied criminal who admittedly lied under oath to the entire country! AFAIC, he has no business even being near the White House grounds!
QFT. :thumbsup:
Yeah, because the current administration has never lied under oath. Oh wait, they never speak under oath and when they answer questions they develop selective amnesia. :Disgust;
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY