So far the best I've heard is voting in this year's Presidential election is like choosing between a root canal or colonoscopy.
Analogy for this year's election
- Thread starter Section112
- Start date
Not really. You may dislike or hate Hillary, but at least she is qualified. On the other hand, Trump is a person that should never hold the reigns of power in this country. There hasn't been a worse candidate for President in my life time. I can't speak about all the people who have run for the Presidency in history but to my knowledge, there has been no worse of a candidate since Aaron Burr.
It is time for leaders in the Republican Party to have their Alexander Hamilton moment and recognize that supporting Trump is the worst thing that could happen to not only the party but to the country.
I love how people throw a word out like criminal. What crime has she committed? Are you talking about storing emails on a personal server? Well, let me tell you that in no way is that prosecutable. First, the emai.s when received were not classified. Second, she did not KNOWINGLY reveal this information to a third part ala David Petreus. Btw, I don't believe he should have been prosecuted as well.
Now, did she violate State Department policy? That is clear, however, that is not a criminal law that was violated. But, it also had to be tacitly approved by the President who must have received emails from her and it wasn't on State Department email. Btw, no one talk about this.
Did she handle this whole incident poorly, Absolutely.
But this is not criminal with this caveat. Federal laws are written so broadly that many of us can be indicted by the federal government if we were a target of the Justice Department. Ridiculous federal,prosecutions go on all the time.
You're entitled to your opinion, but from my view this goes well beyond "handling it poorly".
1-I know you're innocent until proven guilty, but the fact that the FBI felt the need to conduct a lengthy investigation as it has, tells me that it is likely to be much more than poor judgment.
2-She has outwardly and admitted to lying about several facts (i.e. how many cell phones she had) and the State Department IG confirmed she was never given permission (which she originally claimed she had).
3-Any layman knows that those documents that were on her server were State Department documents which she never provided after leaving the position.
4-By storing and sending that information on her unsecured, private email and server, she had knowingly put the nation and certain individuals at risk.
5-If she had nothing to hide, why did she delete 30,000 emails only after she was asked to turn everything over.
So yes, by my definition, she is a criminal. If I had done what she has in my position, my Board would have every right to fire me and press charges.
If she did what you just outlined, what criminal law has she violated? It is not your definition of criminal. It is what the law defines as criminal.
And just because the FBI investigates something doesn't mean anything. Law enforcement is asked to investigate many things and many times there is no crime to be prosecuted or that the target is completely innocent.
By the way, the State Department server was hacked during this time. I think her decision was a poor one. But in no way criminal. People like to conflate wrongs with criminality and that is two different things.
The way the Clinton Foundation has operated has been very questionable. Lots of donations and then deals by the State Dept with similar timing. Very few payouts to charities. Many potential benefactors making donations to the foundation. This is just another example of how the Clinton's operate. This is not an endorsement of Trump in any way - dislike both candidates immensely. The Clintons continue to be tied very closely to the world powers that also want to continue all these wars as well to keep the money machine flowing. Whichever way it goes America is not in good hands. The votes for Bernie and Trump show a disallusioned America. But the voters unfortunately could not beat the Clinton machine even though she is a disliked candidate. Lots of shenanigans against Bernie that happened on the campaign trail as well that sent lots of votes to Hillary or did not allow Bernie voters to get to the polls in time (see Arizona). The Clintons play hard and dirty.
Doesn't mean anything??? OK, so when the FBI investigates me for over a year, I won't think anything of it....
What questions come up from the Clinton Foundation? According to Factcheck.org, the foundation only disbursed 6% to charities. This is where the allegation that the Clintons are doing dubious things with this organization. However, this does not tell the whole story. The foundation does most of the charity work themselves and that is why only 6% went to other charitable organizations. But, 89% of the revenue went to charitable programs that the Foundations does themsleves and not to line the pockets of the Clintons. These attacks are just political motivated manipulations of half-the story truths and not the whole truth.
And I don't understand how the "Clintons dirty tricks" screwed Bernie. The States set the laws on how to vote in primaries. These are long standing laws that are followed every year. Bernie lost fair and square. And although Bernie did very well, the only big State he carried was Michigan. The big states that every Democrat must win like California, NY, NJ, Illinois, Pennsylvania all went to Hillary.
Donald Trump & The Republicans in 2016 = Zachary Taylor & The Whigs in 1848?
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...achary-taylor-whig-party-donald-trump-history
Please, stop with the Hillary apologetics. It's embarrassing -- unless you're a post-menopausal Gloria Steinem devotee -- and even then. She is a lying, detestable human being, who is no better than Trump (and I won't vote for either sack of garbage). Unfortunately, she already wields the power of a commander-in-chief, so none of her transgressions will come to light -- but we've had glimpses. I'm actually impressed that she's been able to keep Bill under control long enough to be in this position. Not surprised, though, since she is powerful enough to manipulate the media (see the recent Facebook, Google stories).
SHU actually has an alum who works in the Secret Service; he has done Presidential details over the years, and he could tell you some stories.
I thought a severe lack of integrity and judgement were the baseline requirements to be president.
I can't recall a time in my life when at least one of these weren't defining characteristics of the president at any given time.
I do agree, it's what we settle for. It's sad. But by the time they are serious considerations for the presidency, anyone with any actual integrity has long since been eliminated. One exception might be Carter; I think he was a decent man. But his judgment may have been worse than that of anyone else.
I do agree, it's what we settle for. It's sad. But by the time they are serious considerations for the presidency, anyone with any actual integrity has long since been eliminated. One exception might be Carter; I think he was a decent man. But his judgment may have been worse than that of anyone else.
Getting back to the original question a colonoscopy is much preferable to root canal.
TK
TK
I don't know whether he is/isn't a decent man but there is no question about his judgment especially when after his Presidential years he decided to become a chief fund raiser for the terrorist group Hamas.
Jimmy Carter may have been the worst American President during my lifetime nipping out Millhouse at the wire. Bush ll finished in the show position.
TK
I might have W higher up that list, but I think those are certainly the right three.
I would put Lyndon Johnson high on the list of worst presidents in my lifetime. His Gulf of Tonkin resolution puts him there in my view. Talk about lies. Lots of those whose names are on "The Wall" might agree.
At least Millhouse got us out of Viet Nam (in a way not to my liking, but that's another story)..... and other than Watergate... he wasn't a bad president...
At least Millhouse got us out of Viet Nam (in a way not to my liking, but that's another story)..... and other than Watergate... he wasn't a bad president...
Nixon continued to support the war for the 72 election cycle cause it was the best political move for him, even while he was admitting the war was a mistake that should be ended. Plus Nixon started the "war on drugs" solely to punish the left and blacks who he thought the laws would hurt the most. To say nothing of using the govt agencies like they were his personal army. But even with all that, I think W was way worse. Probably Carter too. And the first bush, using Willie Horton to help him win then picking a nincompoop for vp for political reasons...ugh.
I thought about LBJ, but I also qualified it as during "my life." I was born during Nixon's first term.
I agree with you about LBJ for the most part. His lies to the American Public regarding the Gulf of Tonkin cost many brave young Americans their lives. The only reason that I do not have him at the very bottom was the fact that he moved the civil rights legislation thru Congress which was a good thing..
Tom K
I agree with you about the first President Bush's campaign tactics & of course his choice for VP (though many other candidates did the same thing in their VP choices), but HW Bush was the better choice (over Dukakis) in 1988 and turned out to be a pretty good President.
TK
I was born in Reagan's second term. For those presidents in my lifetime, George W. Bush was by far the worst. I think Reagan, Clinton and Obama were all pretty good. I'm indifferent on George H.W. Bush, he was just average in my view.
This is how I see it only with Obama closer to Carter only because The ACA may be the worst piece of legislation in my lifetime.
I think George HW Bush was an underappreciated President, who probably would have won a second term, had it not been for the crash of 89. He was certainly light years better than either of his progeny. Also our last President with any military experience. Joe Biden is certainly no better or worse than Dan Quayle was.
Clinton was the beneficiary of the following economic upswing, and he started the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, cut the military, and blew more than one opportunity to have Special Forces kill Bin Laden. Plus he was, and is, a sex-addict who was impeached. Great speaker, charismatic, plays the sax, so great President. NOT.
Clinton was the beneficiary of the following economic upswing, and he started the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, cut the military, and blew more than one opportunity to have Special Forces kill Bin Laden. Plus he was, and is, a sex-addict who was impeached. Great speaker, charismatic, plays the sax, so great President. NOT.
I had the distinct impression back in '92 that H.W. Bush did not really want to be reelected. He ran, of course, because it was the thing to do, but his heart never seemed in it. Maybe that's one reason he's got a very good relationship today with Bill Clinton - because he never took the campaign too personally.
That's an interesting take, Source. I don't remember thinking that, but I was 21, and otherwise clueless. Most of my opinions of HW, at that point, were influenced by Dana Carvey's parody of him.
I have often wondered, however, how the course of history may have been different had Clinton lost in 92. Major turning point.
Same here, and I was probably clueless about that, too! But it was the impression I got.
Consider some of the people who have been nominated for VP over the past 50 years or so such as Bill Miller, Spiro Agnew, Geraldine Ferraro, Sargent Shriver, Dan Quayle, Dick Cheyney, and of course Sarah Palin. When compared to this group Joe Biden is a heavy weight.
Tom K
Tom K
