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 04-23-2015, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,770,897 times
Reputation: 5691

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The polling here is quite telling isn't it.

The Republicans and the Independents believe in freedom and the right to public office for all that qualify.
Democrats don't even want her majesty.

The partisan angle is interesting. I wonder if they are being honest. Let's face it. The Republicans want Clinton more than the Dems. It will juice up the base.

I already stated my view, and it has nothing to do with freedom. If BillyBob had not said "2 for the price of 1" in 1992, I would have no ethical problem with it. She has already had some executive power in the first Clinton Administration, and only a fool denies that Bill will co-lead if she comes to power again. I would have no problem with Laura Bush or Michelle Obama, as they seemed/seem to just be married to the president, not co-governing. Of course, you would have to ask with W and Barry-O could keep their hands off the wheel in such cases. Regardless, the whole prospect stinks to the high heaven, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2015, 02:38 PM
 
698 posts, read 588,499 times
Reputation: 1899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Interesting. I though this was a pretty obvious ethical issue, but apparently I am in the minority view.
What do you think is the specific ethical issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2015, 08:54 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,676,690 times
Reputation: 18521
The ethical issues are not with who she was married to. She is an individual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,770,897 times
Reputation: 5691
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoks View Post
What do you think is the specific ethical issue?
Read the OP, and the thread. I have already said what it is. You don't have to agree, but I have made my views clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 05:49 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,770,897 times
Reputation: 5691
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The ethical issues are not with who she was married to. She is an individual.
Well, to spell it out more clearly (this is for netwoks too). On th campaign trail in 1992, her husband said they would co-govern, and they did. So she cannot come back and act like that never happened. Technically, you are right, but in reality, as I have said numerous times, Bill sold his candidacy at least in part, on her credentials as a co-leader, so it strikes me as highly unethical to say "Oh, forget about all that..she is a fresh independent face!" Ain't so.

Bill and Hillary's double trouble: Clinton's 'two for the price of one' pledge is returning to haunt him, says Rupert Cornwell - Voices - The Independent

Two for the Price of One - BackStory with the American History Guys

As a person who voted for "the team" two times, I personally cannot vote ethically support voting for "the team" again. I think they probably have the highest average IQ of any presidential pair in a century, or maybe ever, but that still does not negate the foundation for term limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 11:01 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,562,339 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
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?
Anything the Clintons do is only for personal gain, not the good of the nation, and is therefore unethical seeing as they claim the ethical high ground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 11:02 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,562,339 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
So you are also opposed to Jeb Bush?
Try to stay on the topic, it is not Bush and family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Tip of the Sphere. Just the tip.
4,540 posts, read 2,772,607 times
Reputation: 5277
Well OF COURSE a second Clinton candidacy will be unethical. Not because it's "second"... but merely because it's a CLINTON campaign. These two wouldn't know HOW to tell the truth even if it occurred to them to do that.

But Hillary is getting my vote anyway. I'd rather have a dishonest Democrat than an honest Republican. Not that any honest Republicans would get anywhere near a presidential election or anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 05:12 PM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,562,339 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head View Post
Well OF COURSE a second Clinton candidacy will be unethical. Not because it's "second"... but merely because it's a CLINTON campaign. These two wouldn't know HOW to tell the truth even if it occurred to them to do that.

But Hillary is getting my vote anyway. I'd rather have a dishonest Democrat than an honest Republican. Not that any honest Republicans would get anywhere near a presidential election or anything.
That sentiment says a lot about you. You prefer a known liar over anyone else and that is just sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,770,897 times
Reputation: 5691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
That sentiment says a lot about you. You prefer a known liar over anyone else and that is just sad.

Nominate a great candidate like John Huntsman, and you will be surprised how many people suddenly realize they just don't like Clinton. Nominate Ted Cruz, and well, the dems will hold their nose and pull the lever.
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.

© 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