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.
and people went to prison for fraud for that land deal that Bill used his political connections to have access and privilege......isn't that why the Clinton's love power and always want to be in the spotlight since the 70's?
Do you know all the investments the Clinton's have and political connections? but you drink the kool aid from the left that is more noble and harder work than what Romney did in the private sector and his charity and that's Romney is out of touch! that is the left narrative
People did go to prison for fraud. And a prolonged, extensive, thorough investigation by Mr Starr failed to turn up any wrong-doing by the Clintons in the Whitewater land deal. Mr Starr couldn't find a single piece of evidence proving the Clintons did anything wrong.
I don't know that the Clintons wanted to be in the spotlight in the 70's. If so, Arkansas seems like a poor choice for courting the spotlight.
Were they politically ambitious? Yes. One would presume, given Romney's political aspirations, that he was politically ambitious as well.
I had nothing against Romney. I think he's a good man. In a comparison between Obama and Romney about who would be the better President, I'd say they were evenly matched.
But I don't think concerns over whether a Presidential candidate can empathize with the average American are invalid. I think such concerns are warranted. And Romney made several statements during his campaign that gave those concerns traction.
so what you are saying is since I'm not a drug addict poor or lived in the ghetto, I can't understand their problems and don't know the best way to help them.......that is your argument you are basically saying here in comparing the Clintons with Romney.
You keep on trying to put words in my mouth that I never intimated. Why? Just argue what I HAVE said, rather than trying to re-state my argument.
What I'm saying is that average Americans have to make trade-offs in their household budgets. They often have to make choices between necessities. And if someone has never had to make such hard choices, it can be difficult to understand those choices. It can be difficult to empathize with people who've had to make such hard choices.
Since the average American is neither a "drug addict poor or lived in the ghetto", bringing them up in this discussion is nonsensical.
But most Americans have struggled to meet all their financial obligations, at least at some time or another. For some Americans the struggle is a way of life.
For Americans to wonder if the Presidential candidates can relate to them and their financial struggles is certainly valid.
People did go to prison for fraud. And a prolonged, extensive, thorough investigation by Mr Starr failed to turn up any wrong-doing by the Clintons in the Whitewater land deal. Mr Starr couldn't find a single piece of evidence proving the Clintons did anything wrong.
I don't know that the Clintons wanted to be in the spotlight in the 70's. If so, Arkansas seems like a poor choice for courting the spotlight.
Were they politically ambitious? Yes. One would presume, given Romney's political aspirations, that he was politically ambitious as well.
I had nothing against Romney. I think he's a good man. In a comparison between Obama and Romney about who would be the better President, I'd say they were evenly matched.
But I don't think concerns over whether a Presidential candidate can empathize with the average American are invalid. I think such concerns are warranted. And Romney made several statements during his campaign that gave those concerns traction.
Please, Don't compare the Clinton's political ambitions to the Romney's...not even in the same ballpark or planet. The Clinton's just can't go away, they have to be in the political spotlight since 1992.
Being the governor of Arkansas is not a good place to start for a guy like Bill Clinton and his background? I say it is, Bill Clinton could never been governor in a big state with his sexual record.
He was a poor candidate in 1992 and the reason he won was that Ross Perot a conservative candidate divided the republican/conservative vote and that's how Bill got to be President......if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't here much about the Clintons or Hillary for 2016.
Romney's comments were taken out of context by the media and the left but if you speak the truth you will get crucified.
Please, Don't compare the Clinton's political ambitions to the Romney's...not even in the same ballpark or planet. The Clinton's just can't go away, they have to be in the political spotlight since 1992.
Being the governor of Arkansas is not a good place to start for a guy like Bill Clinton and his background? I say it is, Bill Clinton could never been governor in a big state with his sexual record.
He was a poor candidate in 1992 and the reason he won was that Ross Perot a conservative candidate divided the republican/conservative vote and that's how Bill got to be President......if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't here much about the Clintons or Hillary for 2016.
Romney's comments were taken out of context by the media and the left but if you speak the truth you will get crucified.
Bill Clinton didn't have a "sexual record" when he ran for governor of Arkansas. That said, Arkansas is not the political spotlight. YOU are the one claiming that the Clintons sought out the political spotlight as early as the 70's.
If he was that poor of a candidate, Perot's candidacy wouldn't have been that important. But it is interesting to look at that 1992 campaign, and whether it foreshadowed the chasm that has opened up among conservatives.
Bill Clinton didn't have a "sexual record" when he ran for governor of Arkansas. That said, Arkansas is not the political spotlight. YOU are the one claiming that the Clintons sought out the political spotlight as early as the 70's.
If he was that poor of a candidate, Perot's candidacy wouldn't have been that important. But it is interesting to look at that 1992 campaign, and whether it foreshadowed the chasm that has opened up among conservatives.
Bill Clinton got a sexual record when he got to power and was re-elected governor, any other big state with the media he would never been re-elected governor,. Sexual predators is about power and control. That is what makes the Clintons dangerous in my opinion, they both like power and control to the extreme. That's why they can't leave the limelight in the political world.
if you know anything about politics, when a party of a sitting president is divided, the president usually loses re-election. It happened in 1992 and in 1980 when Ted Kennedy challenged President Carter and divided the party. That's where the term Reagan's democrats came from.
Its really hard to beat an incumbent President unless he has a true challenge within the party like in 1980 and 1992.
Bill Clinton was a weak candidate in 1992...if you study the primaries you would know what I'm talking about.
Bill Clinton got a sexual record when he got to power and was re-elected governor, any other big state with the media he would never been re-elected governor,. Sexual predators is about power and control. That is what makes the Clintons dangerous in my opinion, they both like power and control to the extreme. That's why they can't leave the limelight in the political world.
if you know anything about politics, when a party of a sitting president is divided, the president usually loses re-election. It happened in 1992 and in 1980 when Ted Kennedy challenged President Carter and divided the party. That's where the term Reagan's democrats came from.
Its really hard to beat an incumbent President unless he has a true challenge within the party like in 1980 and 1992.
Bill Clinton was a weak candidate in 1992...if you study the primaries you would know what I'm talking about.
Bill Clinton didn't have a "sexual record" when he was first elected, or when he was re-elected. And infidelity does not a sexual predator make. While Juanita Broderick has a compelling story, we have no actual proof of what she says.
I'm quite familiar with politics. When Bill Clinton beat George Bush #1, Mr Bush had a host of problems besides Perot. For one thing, he wasn't Reagan. And a lot of people were unhappy that he hadn't unseated Saddam Hussein when we had troops on the ground and had driven the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Or Elizabeth Warren. Warren's net worth as of the end of 2011 was as high as $14.5 million. Not quite Romney rich, but hardly a "woman of the people".
I don't think she would be caught dead eating the people's cheese at a party either.....
I am sick of the rich entitled limo liberals all pretending to "care" about the middle class. The only thing they care about is the power and money they will receive. Look how rich the current inhabitants of the WH have become.
What I think is funny, and unfortunate that no reporter mentioned is that Massachusetts has an "optional higher tax rate." So when he proudly said on national television, "i pay all my taxes and not a penny more" was he even aware that the state he lives in and governed had an "optional tax rate?"
So much for the myth of Republicans being "more charitable." How does his large charitable giving to his own church benefit non-Mormans?
At least it is easier to see where the Clinton ' s money came from. And it was NOT by tearing apart companies.
Yeah, like scamming people with worthless real estate....or how about those stocks that she invested 10 grand in and in a few months came out with a million? Easy peasy.
The Clintons, both of them, have been either very lucky or very shrewd to always land on the right side of the law when whatever they are involved with blows up.
The Clintons are self-made. Romney is a trust fund baby, born into wealth, with all the doors that opened for him to amass even more wealth. There is a difference when you have to actually create your own wealth as opposed to being born into it. The former can absolutely relate to the average American because that's where they came from. The latter...not so much.
I agree. Even if you lie cheat and take money from families....White Water ring a bell. But yes, self made they are. I don't care if Romney is a trust fund baby. Bet you would do a dance if you woke up and found yourself to be a trust fund baby...just guessing. I would vote for Romney next go around, damn the religion and his money. I would also sleep a little better with Hillary in the white house over Warren....she scares me. Rick biatch that she is.......being 1/32 American Indian and all.
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.
