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.
Did you do a national survey of those who voted for him as President to arrive at this conclusion or did you just make it up? Or maybe that's why you voted for him and you are projecting onto others.
No survey, just my opinion to which I'm entitled. I didn't vote for him because I didn't think he was qualified to do the job. I still think a large portion of the voters voted for him because they wanted elect our first black president, and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
Reagan had no "experience with foreign leaders", yet knew how to negotiate in Americas best interest. Then again he had executive experience having been a successful governor for two terms.
Just because Hillary shook hands with a bunch of foreign leaders(many of whom wont even be in office when the 2016 president is inaugurated in 2017), doesn't mean much of anything. Rest assured some of those leaders she met and had tea with laughed behind her back once she left the room.
I get a kick out of people who say because someone held a particular job, that alone qualifies them to be president. What if you do a lousy job as SoS, does that still mean you have foreign affairs experience?
If I did a lousy job as a doctors assistant, does that mean I am ready to be the head of UCLA Medical Center?
Lets face it, she did nothing of any significance, and actually screwed things up more than anything else.
I just said she'd be 'slightly above average'. Reagan is irrelevant to contemporary foreign policy as there is no longer a USSR. In hindsight, he spent way too much money on the cold war. Hillary might blow it foreign policy wise because she's too much of a hawk and might continue to **** off China by bringing up their poor human rights record. However, the republican candidates and other dem candidates are complete clowns. Hard to imagine her being worse.
I just said she'd be 'slightly above average'. Reagan is irrelevant to contemporary foreign policy as there is no longer a USSR. In hindsight, he spent way too much money on the cold war. Hillary might blow it foreign policy wise because she's too much of a hawk and might continue to **** off China by bringing up their poor human rights record. However, the republican candidates and other dem candidates are complete clowns. Hard to imagine her being worse.
As a woman, I feel that it is past time for a woman President. That being said, it is my opinion that Hilary Clinton as the first woman President would put the women's movement back decades.
The LAST thing we need as the first woman President is a megalomaniac, and she certainly qualifies as that.
As a woman, I feel that it is past time for a woman President. That being said, it is my opinion that Hilary Clinton as the first woman President would put the women's movement back decades.
The LAST thing we need as the first woman President is a megalomaniac, and she certainly qualifies as that.
I think you are confusing Hillary with Sarah.
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.
