Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is it unethical for the Clintons to be in the White House again?
I am a Democrat. I see no problem. 3 10.00%
I am a Democrat. It is unethical. 3 10.00%
I am an Independent. I see no problem. 8 26.67%
I am an Independent. It is unethical. 5 16.67%
I am a Rebublican. I see no problem. 8 26.67%
I am a Republican. It is unethical. 3 10.00%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2015, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,760,768 times
Reputation: 5691

Advertisements

As a two time supporter of Bill Clinton, I recall the 1992 boast of "two for the price of one" when he was campaigning. I also recall his delegation of pretty heavy duty executive powers (health care reform) to his super smart wife Hillary.

So, I personally have a very serious case of heartburn with the Clintons getting back in the White House again. It just seems flat out wrong. I am not surprised that Bill would say one thing and reverse himself, but I am just not on board.

How do you feel about this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2015, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,463,404 times
Reputation: 8599
So you are also opposed to Jeb Bush?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 07:04 PM
 
9,446 posts, read 6,577,283 times
Reputation: 18898
I wouldn't consider it exactly "unethical", but I do consider family dynasties to be"unhealthy" for our democracy, whether they are Clinton, Bush, Dole, or other. I especially feel this in regards to the Presidency and less so for lower elective or appointed offices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 07:13 PM
 
20,524 posts, read 15,901,778 times
Reputation: 5948
"I am a Rebublican. I see no problem."

That was my answer; it's that I DON'T like Hillary as a candidate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,760,768 times
Reputation: 5691
Interesting. I though this was a pretty obvious ethical issue, but apparently I am in the minority view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 10:07 AM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,953,334 times
Reputation: 7458
If the electorate is ignorant enough to put her in office, there is no ethical problem with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
30,369 posts, read 19,156,062 times
Reputation: 26255
I'm not voting Hillary but I don't see an ethical problem with her running possibly getting elected. If she nomiates Bill to some post, that might be a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,760,768 times
Reputation: 5691
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
So you are also opposed to Jeb Bush?
You bet. But I really don't feel it is a clear cut ethical issue there, so much as showing some class. I mean, Jeb was never in the White House himself as a co-leader.

The Bush Clan has had two runs at the White House in the last two decades, and the second was a unmitigated disaster. Jeb should defer, but then again, when was the last time a politician actually did what was good for the country? It is his choice.

If Karl Rove chose to run, that would be comparable to Hillary, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 10:59 AM
 
Location: North Central Florida
6,218 posts, read 7,728,615 times
Reputation: 3939
Couldn't vote, because the real answer isn't available as a choice.

The Clintons, themselves, are unethical. So it only follows that any such candidacy, or administration resulting from same, would be unethical. Obviously many voters have short memories, and those too young to remember could have history to guide them, but history has been largely "revised" in the school systems (and many other places)these days.......

CN.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 11:00 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
'Ethics' a consideration in modern US politics?



Good One!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top