Hillary Clinton

[Tampitump]

Some of Bernie Sanders ideology HAS already and in meaningful evidence supported ways influenced her, and more importantly has altered the entire party platform. Even Bernie himself has said so and acknowledged this. .

I voted for and supported Bernie during the primary. Now I see how wrong I was.

 

The more I understand about politics, the more I realize that there are exactly ZERO candidates on offer that I would even remotely support. But one thing is for sure, I don't support bigger government or a socialized economic framework.

 

I'm a libertarian, and my support for things like LGBT rights, pro choice, and drug legalization are actually conservative positions. I support small government, but unlike the republican party, I support it on all things. Republicans support small gov't on all things that don't involve their personal beliefs, but when it comes to those, then they want the gov't to step in and impose those beliefs.

 

I feel that the left's new platform is shaping up to be a secular version of the same kind of intolerance. Attacks on free speech, victimhood culture, PC bullshit etc. Not saying this is Bernie's doing, but I realize now just how opposed to socialism and far left ideology I am. The closer you get to that, the closer you are to tyranny and less freedom.

[swansont]

optically Biden would have been a better choice

When Hilary is president and she is sick in the morning and too weak to come downstairs, will it be OK for Bill to come down and speak to her cabinet for her?

what are the rules on that? We don't have a precedent.

No precedent for a president being sick. Seriously? Reagan got shot for crying out loud. FDR had polio. GHW Bush threw up at a Japanese state function.

 

Is having a former president on a state visit with you as your spouse, a strength or a weakness?

 

I remember reading an article on Hilary as Secretary of state where a leader asked what President Clinton thought on the matter at hand and Hilary got testy and reminded the leader it was what she thought on the matter that was the question. The leader corrected himself and said he meant he was interested in what President Obama thought about the matter.

How does Hilary feel about Bill's gravitas and world recognition and influence. Can she use it, legally to her advantage and to the advantage of the country or will she leave him home?

 

I imagine it would be no different than all of the first ladies who advised or otherwise influenced their husbands on matters. Or were you somehow under the impression that that didn't happen?

[DrmDoc]

I feel that the left's new platform is shaping up to be a secular version of the same kind of intolerance. Attacks on free speech, victimhood culture, PC bullshit etc. Not saying this is Bernie's doing, but I realize now just how opposed to socialism and far left ideology I am. The closer you get to that, the closer you are to tyranny and less freedom.

 

So...you're a republican with slightly liberal views? That type of hyperbole is usually espoused by republicans when calls of fair and reasonable gun control laws are raised. Could you be more specific about which attacks on free speech, what specific culture of victimhood, and what particular PC excrement you're referencing? Tyranny and less freedom are usually not qualities that one, other than republicans, immediately associate with left leaning issues.

Edited September 12, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Phi for All]

But one thing is for sure, I don't support bigger government or a socialized economic framework.

 

What do you mean you don't support a "socialized economic framework"? You don't like public highways, parks, museums, recreation centers, monuments, airports, seaports, and other public-owned assets? Do you think the People could afford these things if they were run capitalistically?

 

I had a great idea the other day. There was a story about an inventor who's come up with a refrigerator for vaccines that doesn't use electricity, keeps a perfect temp just above freezing for 30 days, and is fairly inexpensive. It's the perfect thing for developing nations who don't have reliable power infrastructures. My idea was to take some of the funds we send as foreign aid, and hire unemployed American workers in the US to build these vaccine refrigerators, so we can donate those as part of our foreign aid packages. Good utilization of our workforce, efficient manufacture for a reason other than profit, efficient use of public resources, win win win. And it will probably never happen because someone (with your outlook) will probably point out that it's based on communist economic principles.

 

We should be more open to smart solutions, and not just assume capitalism is the answer to all questions. That's Bernie's message to Hillary. Don't be an idiot with just a hammer in your toolbox.

[swansont]

The more I understand about politics, the more I realize that there are exactly ZERO candidates on offer that I would even remotely support. But one thing is for sure, I don't support bigger government or a socialized economic framework.

 

 

I take it you hate roads and the GPS system?

 

(edit: xpost with Phi)

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Come on, we never had a female president and we never had a president whose spouse had been president. Of course I knew presidents get sick, but when Hilary is president there will be two presidents in the Lincoln bedroom when Hilary calls in sick. The thing we do not have a precedent for is having two presidents in the White House, married to each other, where the role of the First Laddie has not been set anyway, and now not only will there be a man as the spouse, who might not be interested in picking out the china, but there will be a man who can advise Hilary on what to do, and certain procedures that he is aware of, because he was president. What worked and what did not. So we have no precedent, and my question remains an interesting question. If Bill came down to the cabinet briefing, could they legally still hold it? Will Bill have any presidential power, in that he is still President Clinton, is married to the president, had the job and knows it and knows the place, the people and the instruments of power.

 

And will Hillary team up with him, or close him out of power. We have no precedent, we do not know Bill and Hilary's private agreements and status, and having no precedent we don't know what is usual or legal and whether something that Bill said could be taken as an order from the president.

 

An interesting question, as to the thread topic of discussing Hilary's strengths and weaknesses. Is Bill an asset or an impediment and complication?

 

Regards, TAR

 

The First Lady might pick out china, the first Laddie might pick on China.

Edited September 12, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

Come on, we never had a female president and we never had a president whose spouse had been president. Of course I knew presidents get sick, but when Hilary is president there will be two presidents in the Lincoln bedroom when Hilary calls in sick. The thing we do not have a precedent for is having two presidents in the White House, married to each other, where the role of the First Laddie has not been set anyway, and now not only will there be a man as the spouse, who might not be interested in picking out the china, but there will be a man who can advise Hilary on what to do, and certain procedures that he is aware of, because he was president. What worked and what did not. So we have no precedent, and my question remains an interesting question. If Bill came down to the cabinet briefing, could they legally still hold it? Will Bill have any presidential power, in that he is still President Clinton, is married to the president, had the job and knows it and knows the, place, the people and the instruments of power.

 

And will Hillary teamt up with him, or close him out of power. We have no precedent, we do not know Bill and Hilary's private agreements and status, and having no precedent we don't know what is usual or legal and whether something that Bill said could be taken as an order from the president.

 

An interesting question, as to the thread topic of discussing Hilary's strengths and weaknesses. Is Bill and asset or an impediment and complication?

 

Regards, TAR

Already covered this. Rosalynn Carter attended cabinet meetings. Perhaps other first ladies, too. The had no "official" power. Why would they?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98061-hillary-clinton/page-7#entry942168

 

This "no precedent" claim is BS, because AFAIK there is no legal issue at stake. The president can get advice from whomever he/she pleases. The only issue I can think of is whether Bill could be on the payroll, at least in a position where senate confirmation is not required.

 

Do you think GW Bush never asked his dad for advice?

[tar]

Swansont,

 

We broached the topic. We did not cover it.

 

When I brought up Hillary saying that Bill would handle the economy, I brought it up to point it out as a weakness on her part, to not be confident that she could handle the economy but confident that Bill could. It made me feel like if she was the CEO of a company she was putting her husband in charge of the financial aspects of control of the company.

 

Here, in bringing up the spousal relationship we NEVER had the precedent that the advisor was also the husband, was also a president. There are for instance things that Bill could not tell Hilary, or discuss with Hilary. If Clinton wins, will there be things Hilary should not share with Bill?

 

Regards, TAR

[DrmDoc]

 

What do you mean you don't support a "socialized economic framework"? You don't like public highways, parks, museums, recreation centers, monuments, airports, seaports, and other public-owned assets? Do you think the People could afford these things if they were run capitalistically?

 

I had a great idea the other day. There was a story about an inventor who's come up with a refrigerator for vaccines that doesn't use electricity, keeps a perfect temp just above freezing for 30 days, and is fairly inexpensive. It's the perfect thing for developing nations who don't have reliable power infrastructures. My idea was to take some of the funds we send as foreign aid, and hire unemployed American workers in the US to build these vaccine refrigerators, so we can donate those as part of our foreign aid packages. Good utilization of our workforce, efficient manufacture for a reason other than profit, efficient use of public resources, win win win. And it will probably never happen because someone (with your outlook) will probably point out that it's based on communist economic principles.

 

We should be more open to smart solutions, and not just assume capitalism is the answer to all questions. That's Bernie's message to Hillary. Don't be an idiot with just a hammer in your toolbox.

 

That's a noble idea but there's a couple of issues you should consider. First, foreign aid is primarily earmarked for specific programs, services, and supplies those foreign countries desperately need. Shifting those aid funds to American manufacturing jobs or other charitable services in America will leave other, perhaps, more needed foreign programs and services without support. Sure, there's waste and fraud but the funds are given with the presumption of need. Secondly, government funding is neither an endless nor reliable source of funds a company requires to sustain viability. Manufacturing solely dependent on government funds must turn a profit for further investment to either sustain or grow a company beyond its reliance on increasingly limited government resources. For example, military equipment suppliers, the largest recipient of government funding, also sell to other nations and produce other, non-military supplies for profit. Although America is a wealthy nation, it's wealth comes from the American people who are not always as giving or capable of giving to noble causes as some might hope. When we give, that gift should be towards some measure of self-sufficiency or profit, were possible, to sustain our system of giving.

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

We broached the topic. We did not cover it.

Who's "we"? I brought it up. I was just reminding you of that, because you seemed to have missed it.

 

When I brought up Hillary saying that Bill would handle the economy, I brought it up to point it out as a weakness on her part, to not be confident that she could handle the economy but confident that Bill could. It made me feel like if she was the CEO of a company she was putting her husband in charge of the financial aspects of control of the company.

 

Here, in bringing up the spousal relationship we NEVER had the precedent that the advisor was also the husband, was also a president. There are for instance things that Bill could not tell Hilary, or discuss with Hilary. If Clinton wins, will there be things Hilary should not share with Bill?

Owing to security? I imagine it will be exactly the same as with all previous presidents and their spouses. Why does the spouse's resumé matter, or the gender reversal from the previous presidencies?

[DrmDoc]

Swansont,

 

We broached the topic. We did not cover it.

 

When I brought up Hillary saying that Bill would handle the economy, I brought it up to point it out as a weakness on her part, to not be confident that she could handle the economy but confident that Bill could. It made me feel like if she was the CEO of a company she was putting her husband in charge of the financial aspects of control of the company.

 

Here, in bringing up the spousal relationship we NEVER had the precedent that the advisor was also the husband, was also a president. There are for instance things that Bill could not tell Hilary, or discuss with Hilary. If Clinton wins, will there be things Hilary should not share with Bill?

 

Regards, TAR

 

You do know that every President since the beginning of our nation democracy relied on the advice and support of advisers? Does that suggest to you that they were weak whenever they sought the counsel of those advisers? Isn't that why POTUS has a cabinet of advisers approved by Congress?

[swansont]

And will Hillary team up with him, or close him out of power. We have no precedent, we do not know Bill and Hilary's private agreements and status,

Have we ever had any official insight into the role that the president's spouse would play?

 

and having no precedent we don't know what is usual or legal and whether something that Bill said could be taken as an order from the president.

Why would they? Are you positing that the people involved are terminally dim?

 

Can Bill give presidential orders right now? Is there any legal ambiguity about this?

[tar]

Owing to security? I imagine it will be exactly the same as with all previous presidents and their spouses. Why does the spouse's resumé matter, or the gender reversal from the previous presidencies?

SwansonT,

 

I do not know what top secret information Bill was privy to that he was not to share with anybody, including his family and spouse.

 

But when Hilary learns those things, as part of her job as president, someone in her family already knows the thing, someone she is married to, and might be sleeping in the same bed with, knows the thing or at least knows you know the thing. A spousal partnership is potentially closer than a relationship with a child or a spouse or a parent or an advisor, and the bond that presidents have with each other is also a special club, where each knows the secrets the other knows.

 

Bill and Hilary, in the White House together, both being presidents, will be a new situation for them, for us and for the world.

 

We have not covered it. It has never happened before.

 

It would be interesting if one of the debate questions is Mr. Trump, what roles will your wife play in the White House and as First Lady of the U.S. should you win the election? Secretary Cinton, what roles will your husband play in the White House and as First Laddie of the U.S., should you win the election?

 

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 12, 2016 by tar

[Phi for All]

 

That's a noble idea but there's a couple of issues you should consider. First, foreign aid is primarily earmarked for specific programs, services, and supplies those foreign countries desperately need. Shifting those aid funds to American manufacturing jobs or other charitable services in America will leave other, perhaps, more needed foreign programs and services without support. Sure, there's waste and fraud but the funds are given with the presumption of need. Secondly, government funding is neither an endless nor reliable source of funds a company requires to sustain viability. Manufacturing solely dependent on government funds must turn a profit for further investment to either sustain or grow a company beyond its reliance on increasingly limited government resources. For example, military equipment suppliers, the largest recipient of government funding, also sell to other nations and produce other, non-military supplies for profit. Although America is a wealthy nation, it's wealth comes from the American people who are not always as giving or capable of giving to noble causes as some might hope. When we give, that gift should be towards some measure of self-sufficiency or profit, were possible, to sustain our system of giving.

 

Yes, forgive me for not going into much more detail in the limited time and context. Good to know you're out there watching to make sure major issues are taken into consideration. Probably better for another thread.

 

The president can get advice from whomever he/she pleases.

 

Isn't this the premise for the movie Dave? And isn't Dave the one we really want to be POTUS, the common guy who uses common sense? The one who puts his own accountant to work unravelling the federal budget?

 

It would be my hope that Hillary, if POTUS, would get advice from as many people as she can. That was a negative for me with Reagan. He could have had dinner with anyone in the world just about every night, but he chose to watch TV alone.

[waitforufo]

Here is a video of Hillary Clinton lying about her health.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_RhcVXVwws

 

She says she is feeling great. She also says its a beautiful day in New York. A beautiful day that some how caused her to "overheat" forcing her to leave the 9/11 memorial service. So add another lie.

 

Here is that exit.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRHf7cgtMeU

 

Later that same day her campaign said she was cancelling events because she had pneumonia that was diagnosed the previous Friday where her doctor told her to take time off for rest.

 

Instead she decided to point out to the word that 20+% of the nation were in a basket of deplorables, attend the 9/11 memorial, and then enter a Ozzy Osborne look alike contest.

 

 

Too bad she missed the look alike contest. She was a shoe in.

 

What is with the baskets anyway. At least Romney had binders.

Edited September 12, 2016 by waitforufo

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

There was an abstract I just looked at, talking about the constitution providing NO powers for former presidents, but some former presidents have claimed Executive Privilege in NOT handing over certain secrets and information to congress and such, so there is a little ambiguity.

 

I am not calling anyone dimmer than I am, but if I was a member of Hillary's cabinet assembling for a briefing of the president, and Bill came in the room and said Hilary sent him down to take the briefing, I would not be clear as to whether it would be OK to go ahead, or not.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrmDoc]

Yes, forgive me for not going into much more detail in the limited time and context. Good to know you're out there watching to make sure major issues are taken into consideration. Probably better for another thread.

 

It's certainly a good idea with meaningful advantages worthy of further discussion.

[tar]

Can Hilary name Bill as her Chief of Staff for instance? I don't know. Could he then take briefings for her? Could he relay orders?

[DrmDoc]

Can Hilary name Bill as her Chief of Staff for instance? I don't know. Could he then take briefings for her? Could he relay orders?

 

Clearly, you have a set of standards for Mrs. Clinton presidency that do not apply to any other male president preceding her. Every POTUS preceding Mrs. Clinton's potential presidency had advisors both in government and private, male, female, and wives. I don't see an issue here nor should anyone else.

Edited September 12, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Tampitump]

 

So...you're a republican with slightly liberal views?

No, I'm not a Republican. Republican is a corporate party pieced together by a group of people who decide what platform and positions the party is going to take on board. The Republican party does not equal conservatism or right wing politics. It is merely a party that is mostly of the right. Very important is that distinction.

[tar]

Bill is not "just an advisor" though. He is President Bill Clinton. Like if Bill Parcells became water boy for the Giants. His presence on the sideline, would be unlike any water boy before.

would having Bill on the sidelines be an advantage or disadvantage for McAdoo?

Edited September 12, 2016 by tar

[Tampitump]

 

What do you mean you don't support a "socialized economic framework"? You don't like public highways, parks, museums, recreation centers, monuments, airports, seaports, and other public-owned assets? Do you think the People could afford these things if they were run capitalistically?

 

I had a great idea the other day. There was a story about an inventor who's come up with a refrigerator for vaccines that doesn't use electricity, keeps a perfect temp just above freezing for 30 days, and is fairly inexpensive. It's the perfect thing for developing nations who don't have reliable power infrastructures. My idea was to take some of the funds we send as foreign aid, and hire unemployed American workers in the US to build these vaccine refrigerators, so we can donate those as part of our foreign aid packages. Good utilization of our workforce, efficient manufacture for a reason other than profit, efficient use of public resources, win win win. And it will probably never happen because someone (with your outlook) will probably point out that it's based on communist economic principles.

 

We should be more open to smart solutions, and not just assume capitalism is the answer to all questions. That's Bernie's message to Hillary. Don't be an idiot with just a hammer in your toolbox.

Of course I support all of those things, and guess what, I'm still opposed to a fully socialized economic system. When we are being forced to pay a good chink of our yearly income to make sure everyone is on an equal level, then I'll have a problem with it. I think the government is there to take as much money as is needed to provide the nice services to the general public and make the country a safe and pleasant place to live, but not a penny more. I'm happy to pay taxes that help truly needy people and provide for all of those great things you mentioned, but I'm not okay living within a socialized system that requires people who have won so much for themselves to give up a huge chunk of it to allow others who didn't excel to live on a more equal plane. I strongly strongly STRONGLY.....strongly strongly strongly oppose that.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Tampitump

[DrmDoc]

Bill is not "just an advisor" though. He is President Bill Clinton. Like if Bill Parcells became water boy for the Giants. His presence on the sideline, would be unlike any water boy before.

 

Bill was her husband before he was President and there's no indication to me that she bows in Bill's presence because of his former title. I think maybe Mr. Clinton being a past President is more significant to us than to her--to her, Bill maybe just another man with government experience she can exploit like previous Presidents have done. As I understand, even Obama was advised by former Presidents, Bush included, after his election to office.

[swansont]

I am not calling anyone dimmer than I am, but if I was a member of Hillary's cabinet assembling for a briefing of the president, and Bill came in the room and said Hilary sent him down to take the briefing, I would not be clear as to whether it would be OK to go ahead, or not.

I guess we should be glad you won't be named to the cabinet, then.

[Phi for All]

Would a man who pushed himself hard enough on the campaign trail to develop pneumonia get such harsh criticism? Or is this another case where the man is seen as rugged and tough (shake it off! push through!), but the woman is seen as frail and vulnerable, for the exact same behavior?