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.
I don't recall this eeeeeeebil Librul ever claiming that Hillary was the 'most qualified'. I rarely speak in superlatives on a question like this that really can't be quantified.
But I will say that by any objective measure, she's very well qualified. Better qualified than lots of previous presidents.
For me personally, her primary qualifications are:
a) She's not a Republican b) She can win.
Unless and until the GOP undergoes some dramatic changes, those are all the qualifications I require. I'd vote for my retarded cousin over ANY Republican if I thought he could win. He'd certainly do less damage.
Thanks for sharing your well thought out qualifications. smh
I'll only go so far as to say that she's more qualified than any Republican on deck.
She may not be the most qualified Democrat, but that's secondary to voting for who can win. I can't take a chance on voting for a more qualified Democrat that would lose to a Republican. Can't and won't do it.
I say the same thing. I would much rather Warren, someone the big banks don't like, than someone like Hillary. But, since the Congress usually rides on the president's coattails, we'd have to stick with Hillary, despite all her shortcomings. Can you imagine a bloodthirsty wingnut as president or another Bush ?
I'm not sure what makes people think HC is a liberal. Just because you are pro-choice or 'liberal' on one or two social issues does not make you a liberal. On almost everything else her position is solidly right to far right. So republicans should love her--Wall Street certainly does. If HC is representative of the democratic party then what we have are two right-wing parties, right and far right. There is no such thing as a (major) liberal party in the US.
I'm not sure what makes people think HC is a liberal. Just because you are pro-choice or 'liberal' on one or two social issues does not make you a liberal. On almost everything else her position is solidly right to far right. So republicans should love her--Wall Street certainly does. If HC is representative of the democratic party then what we have are two right-wing parties, right and far right. There is no such thing as a (major) liberal party in the US.
I do not disagree with this. That's why I laugh at the right when they claim Obama a far left progressive liberal. I wish he was, but he, too, is right of center. There is no true liberal wing of the Democratic party right now.
That said, better a right of center Democrat than a so-far-to-the-right-they're-off-the-cliff Republican. Which in today's GOP is the only way they make it through the primaries.
Thanks for sharing your well thought out qualifications. smh
They're just removing all doubt that liberals will vote for ANYONE with a (d) after their name, qualifications, competency, integrity don't mean anything to them.
I am a fairly liberal Democrat. I will say Hillary is a scary, corporatist, pro war candidate. She is the most qualified if you want war, and want all the money in society flowed up to the 1%.
I'm not sure what makes people think HC is a liberal. Just because you are pro-choice or 'liberal' on one or two social issues does not make you a liberal. On almost everything else her position is solidly right to far right. So republicans should love her--Wall Street certainly does. If HC is representative of the democratic party then what we have are two right-wing parties, right and far right. There is no such thing as a (major) liberal party in the US.
Agree completely.
I honestly don't care if she is most likely to win.
If the choice is between her and Jeb, there is no "lesser of the two evils." There's just two evils.
I will write in somebody before I vote for either.
Last edited by TigerLily24; 03-30-2015 at 05:59 PM..
I don't recall this eeeeeeebil Librul ever claiming that Hillary was the 'most qualified'. I rarely speak in superlatives on a question like this that really can't be quantified.
But I will say that by any objective measure, she's very well qualified. Better qualified than lots of previous presidents.
For me personally, her primary qualifications are:
a) She's not a Republican
b) She can win.
Unless and until the GOP undergoes some dramatic changes, those are all the qualifications I require. I'd vote for my retarded cousin over ANY Republican if I thought he could win. He'd certainly do less damage.
By any objective measure? Then tell us what that measure is. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for her too. But only because I'm terrified of a Republican being President. And I'll bet that's why most Democrats will vote for her. Take away her gender and her last name and there's nothing special about her. What issue has she championed? What vision has she presented for where she wants to leads this country? You say that her qualifications are that she's not a Republican and she can win. Well guess what. So could Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren if they were the nominee. Joe Biden has more experience and Elizabeth Warren can excite progressives in a way that Hillary can't. This idea that Hillary has the best chance of beating Jeb Bush, Scott Walker or Tom Cruz is a myth.
Bang on. I do not particularly like Hillary, she is far too much of a corporatist, and will not do anything meaningful to address the most pressing issue in this country - inequality. She also seems to me to be far too much of a war-monger/friend to the millitary-industrial complex.
That said she meets the only two qualifications that matter, those that you listed, and there doesn't appear to be any dems lining up to challenge her. As long as the Republicans are backwards Christian-verions-ISIS charicatures they will never get my vote nor win a national election. They offer no alternatives or sollutions to any of the major problems we face. I would vote for an Autistic 12 year old over any of these republican contenders.
I do not disagree with this. That's why I laugh at the right when they claim Obama a far left progressive liberal. I wish he was, but he, too, is right of center. There is no true liberal wing of the Democratic party right now.
That said, better a right of center Democrat than a so-far-to-the-right-they're-off-the-cliff Republican. Which in today's GOP is the only way they make it through the primaries.
It's a matter of degrees at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
This.
I think the liberal democratic party died long ago with JFK and his brother. Since then it has shifted
so far to the right as to become unrecognizable. Its certainly not the party of Kennedy and Roosevelt
anymore.
Arguably the most popular (with a record 4 terms) and liberal president we ever had, FDR was a nightmare to the establishment in both parties. If the Kennedy brothers had lived, together they would have likely represented another marathon 16 years of FDR style populism. Obviously, they were never going to allow that to happen.
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.
or another Bush 
