Why is Hillary running for president?

[DigDog]

http://news.groopspeak.com/hillarys...aiti-not-to-raise-minimum-wage-to-61-an-hour/

*hugs*

 

[sportage]

Hillary has an axe to grind, being she lost to Obama and assumed she would win.
And, this is probably the last chance for her at her age.
And don't forget the first woman president angle.

I'd like to know why the hell Bernie Sanders is running?
No one believes he can deliver.
No one believes college could be free for all.
And I totally understand his thinking that if grade school is free and high school is free, then why not college?

But lets look at public education....
Public education in America is one of the worse failed systems in the entire world.
It costs a lot, delivers far below expectations, our kids test at the bottom of the barrel compared to other educated countries, and anyone with the resources definitely chose to send their kids to private schools instead of public.

So... how would a free public college system prove any better than our current free elementary/high school system?
And considering what it costs to get the best minds and professors into teaching college, there is no way a public taxpayer funded college system would draw those same highly educated professors.
You'd end up with two systems.
The current expensive private college system having the best professors, and a free public taxpayer funded college system with the worst teachers producing terrible results.

And besides... what is the point of millions of kids going to free public college, wasting tax payer money, only to end up still unemployed looking for a job.
And if the taxpayer starts forking the bill funding public college, what is next?
Where are those kids going to live while attending college? How will they afford housing, food, and all that goes along with college?
The tax payer?
Will the tax payer also be expected to fund housing and everything else while the kids attend free public college?
The tax payer costs for funding that would be a hell of a lot more than it costs funding public grade school and high school.

I doubt the tax payer would or possibly could survive funding every kid that wants to go to free college. Especially when there would be promise for payback.
Payback relying on that taxpayer funded college graduate actually finding a decent job and able to pay back into the system of taxpayer funded public college.

I fear we would have a lot of kids out of high school taking advantage of free public college education, wasting two or four years on the taxpayers tab, then still no better off or better prepared for employment after college.

Bernie's idea would be all fine and dandy in a perfect Bernie Sanders world.
Of, if our current system of so called free public education, grade school thru high school, were actually providing results.
If our public education educated kids scored as some of the highest instead of the lowest when compared to other countries, then maybe that would be proof for something to build on.
But why expand into free taxpayer funded college when the same public system for lower grades K thru 12 fails so miserably?

The more I listen to Bernie, the more I am convinced Bernie is absolutely nuts.
Even if Bernie's figures did add up, why waste all that tax money on kids that would simply take advantage of the system just to delay entering into the workforce?
To delay the inevitable of getting a job.
To take the free money and play fun time for four college years, all expenses courtesy the tax payer tab.
Then, once their four years ended, still end up asking DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT?

Hillary's idea makes sense and her viewpoint is more realistic.
To control and reduct the debt college kids are strapped with, and expand opportunities for kids that have the smarts and grades to go onto college.

And republicans? They just want to cut all funding altogether instead of fixing the department of education. They would rather just end it. Give up.
If republicans would do that, there would be an even greater divide between the wealthy and the poor. Those with a chance for an education, and those hopelessly doomed to the fast drive-thru window.

And we haven't even hit on Bernie's plan for healthcare.
Which as with his free college talk, his healthcare plan just doesn't add up either.
Hillary makes sense.
She builds on the current system, Obamacare, and works into adding a public option.

And what is this shit with Donald Trump?
His healthcare equals total nonsense.
First of all, eliminating state lines is not going to provide one single person with healthcare.
Healthcare funding would rely on the state under Trump's plan.
And if Minnesota could actually offer less costly plans than say Iowa offered, the Minnesota health system could not possible take on the financial burden with adding in thousands and millions of Iowans onto Minnesota states plans.
What a state would end up doing is to cap those they could possible take on.
Impose limits.
And where does that get that uninsured Iowa family?
The same place they were before Obamacare.
Back to a hell of a lot of uninsured people running to the ER for their healthcare system.
And passing the buck onto everyone else.

As for that Trump idea of "no one dying in the streets", well Donald....
No one is currently dying in the streets now, you freaking moron.
There is a HUGE difference between not dying on the streets, and availability of ones ongoing chemo therapy.
How, Donald, how will those cancer patients obtain and afford ongoing chemo therapy treatment under YOUR plan?
The plan you obviously pulled out of your ass.
There is a lot more to it than just guaranteeing no one will "die in the street", and having actual healthcare.

So why is Hillary running?
because all the republicans are total bat shet crazy.
Gaud.... seriously people. Republicans....?

 

[zinfamous]

For the same reason all little girls want a pony since the age of 4.

 

[sontakke]

This question is being asked because she is a woman? I mean there were 19 candidates running for president. Where the heck was OP asking similar question to others?

If you want to be partisan learn to cloak it better.

 

[glenn1]

This question is being asked because she is a woman? I mean there were 19 candidates running for president. Where the heck was OP asking similar question to others?

If you want to be partisan learn to cloak it better.

I don't think he's asking only because of her gender, rather because in comparison to the other candidates she doesn't have any overarching themes to her campaign like Bernie's "we're being screwed by the rich" or Trump's "build a wall to keep illegals out." Some people may prefer a candidate this way, but it's a valid question to ask what a candidate's passion is for why they want the job, even if they're basically running as a technocrat. Yeah, there's perks and prestige that comes with the job but also a lot of crap you gotta put up with and if you're only in it for the title and not the responsibilities that's a problem. It's akin to how you don't want to marry someone whose only reason for marrying you is to have a wedding instead of wanting to spend their life with you and the wedding is just the public affirmation of that and somewhat redundant.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Because she has bigger hands than Trump

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This question is being asked because she is a woman? I mean there were 19 candidates running for president. Where the heck was OP asking similar question to others?

If you want to be partisan learn to cloak it better.

You act like she's being somehow mistreated and victimized by a mere question ffs. If you want to be partisan learn to cloak it better.

The OP's question appears to be based on the broad perception that she doesn't communicate a strong vision.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-lack-of-vision-gives-sanders-edge/?page=all

 

[UglyCasanova]

I don't think he's asking only because of her gender, rather because in comparison to the other candidates she doesn't have any overarching themes to her campaign like Bernie's "we're being screwed by the rich" or Trump's "build a wall to keep illegals out." Some people may prefer a candidate this way, but it's a valid question to ask what a candidate's passion is for why they want the job, even if they're basically running as a technocrat. Yeah, there's perks and prestige that comes with the job but also a lot of crap you gotta put up with and if you're only in it for the title and not the responsibilities that's a problem. It's akin to how you don't want to marry someone whose only reason for marrying you is to have a wedding instead of wanting to spend their life with you and the wedding is just the public affirmation of that and somewhat redundant.

Thanks, said it much better than I could myself. Her being a woman has nothing to do with
it. I just heard it on PBS and thought it was an interesting comment the person made, one that I couldn't really come up with an answer for.

 

[fskimospy]

This question was raised on PBS the other night. Sanders has a very clear message and we know why he is running, it's one I disagree with but it is an open and honest message and we all understand why he's running. Obama's was all about Hope when he was running. What is Hillary's?

How about the same reasons that almost anyone runs for president? A mix of narcissism, desire to attain power, and a belief that you would wield that power in a way that would make the country better.

Don't delude yourself into thinking Sanders isn't a narcissist who desires power, he just hasn't had decades of personal attacks levied at him on that account. Obama is too as are Cruz and Kasich. (I assume Trump's narcissism should go without mentioning) It's basically a prerequisite for being president in modern times where we no longer choose them in smoke filled rooms.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Some play to win and some play to not lose...Hillary appears to be the latter imo.

 

[fskimospy]

Some play to win and some play to not lose...Hillary appears to be the latter imo.

No one running for president is playing not to lose.

It's also odd to see people say she's 'willing to do anything to be president' and then say she isn't playing to win. How do those two statements fit together?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No one running for president is playing not to lose.

It's also odd to see people say she's 'willing to do anything to be president' and then say she isn't playing to win. How do those two statements fit together?

False dichotomy is false dichotomy.

 

[fskimospy]

False dichotomy is false dichotomy.

No dichotomy present. I asked how those two fit together. Can you explain?

 

[dank69]

I'm sure the prospect of being the first female President would be motivation enough for any woman.

If that isn't enough for you OP, well I think she has made it perfectly clear that she believes she has the best plan to move us forward and also believes that it is important to keep the GOP out so we don't start going backwards again, as we all know will happen.

 

[master_shake_]

For the same reason all little girls want a pony since the age of 4.

what, so she can ride it around a few times get bored and have someone else take care of it?

hmmm.....

maybe the third coming of slick willy.

 

[TheSiege]

Legacy and Power. First woman president as well as first husband and wife president.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No dichotomy present. I asked how those two fit together. Can you explain?

Good, we agree that the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. On that basis I'll leave it to you to imagine what "fit together" might look like.

Meanwhile Hillary says she wants to debate Bernie but has suggested a weekday morning or during tonight’s NCAA men’s basketball championship game. This is just one example of what "playing not to lose" looks like.

 

[fskimospy]

Good, we agree that the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. On that basis I'll leave it to you to imagine what "fit together" might look like.

Oh I actually believe they most likely are mutually exclusive but I'm open to hearing why they aren't. My strong suspicion is that you don't have an answer.

This all smells like people engaging in ever shifting post hoc rationalizing as you so often see here. You already know Hillary is a terrible, no good, very bad candidate, you just have to find a way to convince yourself of that at any given moment as circumstances shift. I'm pretty confident that you will convince yourself that Hillary will do anything to win when it is convenient for you and then later hold the position that she's timid and playing not to lose at a later point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh I actually believe they most likely are mutually exclusive but I'm open to hearing why they aren't. My strong suspicion is that you don't have an answer.

You say they "likely are mutually exclusive" after saying "No dichotomy present." Make up you mind as you seem confused about the meaning of words.

 

[fskimospy]

You say they are likely mutually exclusive and then say "No dichotomy present." Make up you mind as you seem confused about the meaning of words.

Yes, I believe they are probably mutually exclusive but I am not certain they are nor did I present them as such. Hence, no dichotomy present. My opinion has no bearing on how the question was worded. I'm genuinely don't understand how you could think there is any confusion there. The meanings are perfectly simple and everything I've said fits into them very easily. It isn't even close.

I simply asked you to explain how those two would exist together, which seems like an extraordinarily simple question that you have now tried to dodge three times. Why is it so difficult to answer something so simple, especially when you consider the answer to be so evident?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, I believe they are probably mutually exclusive but I am not certain they are nor did I present them as such. Hence, no dichotomy present. My opinion has no bearing on how the question was worded. I'm genuinely don't understand how you could think there is any confusion there. The meanings are perfectly simple and everything I've said fits into them very easily. It isn't even close.

I simply asked you to explain how those two would exist together, which seems like an extraordinarily simple question that you have now tried to dodge three times. Why is it so difficult to answer something so simple, especially when you consider the answer to be so evident?

I quickly tire of your juvenile games. Go troll somebody else.

 

[fskimospy]

I've grown tired of your juvenile games. Go troll somebody else.

How is pointing out a fundamental contradiction in your thought process either juvenile or trolling? It's not my fault you hold those positions, it's yours.

You could have simply answered the question (or not!) but instead you tried to play a bunch of word games. So long as we are talking about juvenile responses, how is that anything but juvenile?

 

[ivwshane]

I quickly tire of your juvenile games. Go troll somebody else.

Fuck you!



Really?
You've been both warned and vacationed for this before.
Take a few days off.

Fern
Super Moderator

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How is pointing out a fundamental contradiction in your thought process either juvenile or trolling? It's not my fault you hold those positions, it's yours.

You could have simply answered the question (or not!) but instead you tried to play a bunch of word games. So long as we are talking about juvenile responses, how is that anything but juvenile?

You initially said there's no contradiction ("no dichotomy present") in the two statements, but then turn around and now say they're contradictory and "likely/probably" mutually exclusive. Which is it?

You do understand the meaning of the word "dichotomy"...right?

Dichotomy
1 : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>

 

[SP33Demon]

No one running for president is playing not to lose.

That doesn't even makes sense. You mean noone wants to lose, genius.