Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just in case anyone else hasn't noticed, after Bush senior came Clinton, then George W., and back to Clinton? Call me paranoid, but I'm not OK with leaving our country in the control of two families for so many years. I'm willing to admit that our system isn't impervious to corrupt politicians. I think that electing a fresh candidate would reduce the chances of any secret stranglehold that these families may have on our country.
The Clintons don't have deep roots to the sort of weird perpetually-in-government secret society type things the Bushes have/had.
Clinton #2 is only viable because the country had (despite any conservative assertions otherwise) a really good run under Clinton #1. People still like Bill (again, despite the best efforts, and much to the chagrin of conservatives). The world still likes Bill. She's capable, she's smart, and yes, has ties to Bill. So.... if it's between another Clinton and some hoohah conservative (I wouldn't mind TOO much if Giuliani won), you better believe that my interest in my country outweighs fear of having the same name in the whitehouse again.
The Clintons don't have deep roots to the sort of weird perpetually-in-government secret society type things the Bushes have/had.
I have to agree with this. The Bush family has had close ties with most of the politicians in power over the last 60 years. I am sure this has played into many of the decisions and compromises that Bush 43 has made during his term. That is why so many right wing conservatives view him as a liberal republican.
The Clintons do not appear to have so many connections in the upper eschelons of power besides those made during Bill's years in office. I am sure there are many now, but probably not so many before his term.
Based on the new reports of scandal for both families, I would have to conclude that the Clintons are much more likely to be associated with petty crooks, con artists, and larcenist than with Machiavellian power schemes and new world order conspiratorialists.
Many of the Clinton scandals have been centered not only on Bill , but centered on Hillary as well. They have been mostly financial and business related scandals, and of course sex scandals. Very few scandals strictly about Bill's political dealings except when Hillary helped out by organizing things for him. This would indicate that Bill was a decent political operative who only suffered from his choice in women and how to obtain them. From that we can conclude that she is every bit as capable as Bill was in pursuing her agenda.
Most of the Bush scandals have been directly involving his political decisions and a few of his errant daughter's indiscretions. Nothing seems to be related to his personal business dealings or personal financial matters. This would seem to indicate that only Bush's politics are suspect.
So far, none of the candidates are standing out from the rest. Hillary is certainly far down on my list. I would prefer a candidate that I disagree with but stays firm on their belief than one that agrees with me on some issues but changes her mind with every reporter.
My political stance is independant, but I tend to be a bit more conservative on social reform issues. I believe in limited federal govt and stronger state govt. Sadly, I do not seem to have a candidate in modern politics that agrees with me anylonger.
my interest in my country outweighs fear of having the same name in the whitehouse again.
The problem with that statement is that candidates are going to tell us what we want to hear. There is no way to predict how much follow-through a candidate will really have during his/her presidency. The only certain thing is that our country has been controlled by the same scandalous families for too long.
the thing is Bill cleaned up the mess Reagan and Bush Sr. created only to have it destroyed by Bush Jr. again, it isnt like Hillary is a bad choice, she just wants to make the country a better place, vote for Thompson or Romney if you want(if you have stock in oil)
[quote=TriMT7;1755510]The Clintons don't have deep roots to the sort of weird perpetually-in-government secret society type things the Bushes have/had.
QUOTE]
do do do do do do........ do not adjust your tv, you have entered the twilight zone!
The problem with that statement is that candidates are going to tell us what we want to hear. There is no way to predict how much follow-through a candidate will really have during his/her presidency. The only certain thing is that our country has been controlled by the same scandalous families for too long.
Exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly...need I go on??? Both families are hungry for power, no matter the cost.
Way back when Clinton was president I always said I would vote for Hilary if she ran because I thought she was a tough beyotch. Now? I think she is weak and and criminal and I hate everything/issue she stands for
I've posted it elsewhere but I'll say it here again: I look forward to a day when there are no Clintons, Bushes or Kennedys appearing on any ballot in the country.
The United States ain't no monarchy!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly
