Can Hillary Be Trusted To Be President (voting, democratic, biased)

[GregW]

Mrs. Clinton can be expected to do what her constituency expects. Her constituency is not the people f the United States but the unholy triumvirate of international financiers, Wall Mart and corporate lobbyists. Her funding is almost completely from these sources. The triumvirate is counting on her to prevent any progressive movement from gaining power in our government because that might threaten their power and privilege.

Hillary can be trusted to do what her owners want her to do. We cannot trust her to do what we need to be done.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by GregW

Her constituency is not the people f the United States but the unholy triumvirate of international financiers, Wall Mart and corporate lobbyists. Her funding is almost completely from these sources. The triumvirate is counting on her to prevent any progressive movement from gaining power in our government because that might threaten their power and privilege.
.

So if she was elected we could expect at least four more years of the status quo?

[happyappy]

Of course Hillary Clinton can be trusted to be President! Why would millions of people help put her name out there to run if she couldn’t be? She can be trusted at least as much as the dozen or so other people being considered who also have followers numbering in the millions. Why not start a thread for each candidate and see what happens when the same question is asked? The answers will shape up along the same lines for each candidate with posters’ favorites gaining positive comments.

Just as Big Oil and government cronies will find the “safe zone” for oil prices to gather support for various upcoming agenda items, so will ALL of these candidates find the “safe zone of pandering.” How else do you expect them to interest enough voting blocs to secure victory? They will each have to raise enormous sums of money to get the nomination, and then the race will be on to raise enough money to gain the Presidency. Maybe this time out they’ll combine to break that magical $1,000,000,000 mark to buy enough votes. And, yes, buying face time to influence overly-preoccupied voters with sound bites and photo ops is buying votes.

The person who would make a very great President, in my opinion, is the person who isn’t looking for the panderer’s safe zone and knows he cannot raise enough money to buy the White House position.

Here’s a much more revealing question: Can we be trusted to regain control of our democracy operated by the mechanism of a republican form of government?

We won’t get there without this question being answered and then a solution being established: Do we care about election reform, or are we satisfied with the purchasing of power and the pandering and the paybacks and the closed-door deals, and on and on ad infinitum?

[happyappy]

Originally Posted by GregW

Mrs. Clinton can be expected to do what her constituency expects. Her constituency is not the people f the United States but the unholy triumvirate of international financiers, Wall Mart and corporate lobbyists. Her funding is almost completely from these sources. The triumvirate is counting on her to prevent any progressive movement from gaining power in our government because that might threaten their power and privilege.

Hillary can be trusted to do what her owners want her to do. We cannot trust her to do what we need to be done.

Here's a list of the top contributors for Bush in 2004:

2004 Presidential Election: George W. Bush Campaign Money

And here's a list of the top contributors for Kerry in 2004:

2004 Presidential Election: George W. Bush Campaign Money

No matter who wins in 2008, we'll see lists in 2009 similar to these with the same and similar contributors. I don't think your argument is valid.

[ontheroad]

It appears both links head off to President Bush.

And, it would be helpful to see a similar list for Senator Clinton--if one is available.

Originally Posted by happyappy

Here's a list of the top contributors for Bush in 2004:

2004 Presidential Election: George W. Bush Campaign Money

And here's a list of the top contributors for Kerry in 2004:

2004 Presidential Election: George W. Bush Campaign Money

No matter who wins in 2008, we'll see lists in 2009 similar to these with the same and similar contributors. I don't think your argument is valid.

[happyappy]

And here's a list of the top contributors for Kerry in 2004:

2004 Presidential Election: John Kerry Campaign Money

I suppose you mean for her Senatorial race?

[spunky1]

Originally Posted by happyappy

Of course Hillary Clinton can be trusted to be President! Why would millions of people help put her name out there to run if she couldn’t be?

That my friend is the twenty four thousand dollar question. Why, would they? Possibly because people vote without knowing who they are voting for? Name recognition? Habit. Because they think she is in tune to the common man, becuse she promises to help the poor?

Just because people will vote for her doesn't mean she can be trusted!

[happyappy]

Here's a list with all the candidates for 2008:

2008 Presidential Election

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Southpoint

Can Hillary Be Trusted To Be President?

No.

But the fact is: NO ONE can be trusted to be President. That's why we have the separation of powers, and that's why we vote. It is the duty of every American to hold your leaders accountable.

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by spunky1

Just because people will vote for her doesn't mean she can be trusted!

But yet you nailed it...... That's why she's a candidate. Because the Dems know people will vote for her. As a Republican even I can see that the Dems have more recently been putting the candidate who most espouses the party's ideals (granted they're all over the place, but that's another discussion) while the Reps have been putting up the candidate who has the best chance to win and the Reps have been winning because of it.

I think the Dems are wising up here and are going to put the guy/gal with the best chance of winning in there this time, and even though a LOT of Dems don't like Hillary either (much like Reps with Bush). They'd rather see Hillary than another "Republican" President.... (Republican in quotes because Bush certainly doesn't represent MY version of the Republican party).