HRC

Who gives a **** what a Koch thinks. He's a libertarian, which is a euphemism for autistic.
 
Hillary Clinton Verified account 
‏@HillaryClinton
Hillary Clinton Retweeted This Week

Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote.

Hillary
 
She's the only moderate Republican in the race - a Hawk on foreign policy and in Wall Street's pocket. She makes perfect sense for Koch and all establishment types.
 
Is that why all the libs on the board will be voting for her in November?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll be voting for her because she can add.

I get that some folks don't like Hillary and I realize that she gives off this Nixon/Teddy Roosevelt/Woodrow Wilson vibe that bugs a lot of people. The double standard women candidates face applies here as it applied to Margaret Thatcher (outside of the obvious difference in policy stances). If a woman doesn't use her "inside voice" she comes off as cold, preachy, and shrill. And I get all that and if people don't want to vote for her based on that, I fully respect their decision.

She's not everyone's cup of tea. She's going to run to the right of Obama on foreign policy and pretty much in the same vein as him on domestic items. If the make-up of Congress remains the same, I think she may have a bit more luck making minor gains through the legislative process that Obama did. She's more nuts-and-bolts and Obama is more of a philosopher. Given the change in tenor nationally, she may be able to do some things to Wall Street that others have failed to accomplish simply because she can make deals. I think she's smarter than Bill (I saw both of them speak live at different events in the late-1980s and her presentation was far more impressive), but she does lack his Bubba-lite charm and that's a huge stumbling block for a lot of people.

I used the Nixon analogy before and I think it applies here (although as investigated as Hillary has been, her opponents keep coming up with nada). Nixon committed a ton of political sins in the late-1940s/early-1950s that he eventually paid for with Watergate. If Watergate had been the only thing, he may have survived. But he had built up such a reputation--deservedly--as a paranoid backroom brawler who saw anyone in his way as a mere impediment to his higher calling that when trouble came, he was gleefully attacked by foes and readily abandoned by folks he thought would come to his aid. Nixon was a gifted thinker, but his personal weaknesses produced foibles in his behavior that led to his demise. I don't think Hillary has the same warped personality that plagued Nixon, but she has a motherlode of awkward moments and inopportune quotations that color many's opinion of her. As in the case of Nixon, her opponents have written down everything she has ever said or done and the negative drumbeat against her will continue to be steady.
 
The thing that scares me the most about Hillary is I have no doubt she'd continue the accretion of power to the executive. Out of all the candidates, I get the feeling that she's the most dangerous in the regard. She has both the desire for that power and the knowledge of how to gather it to her.

The growth of executive power is something that hasn't gotten near enough attention. It doesn't even matter which party the president belongs to. Presidents from both sides have seem equally intent on expanding the executive. A new president takes the ceiling of what the last president got away with and sets it as their floor. Under Bush you had the unitary executive. Under Obama you have his use of "setting priorities" as a way of selectively enforcing law. I shudder to think of what Clinton would do.
 
The thing that scares me the most about Hillary is I have no doubt she'd continue the accretion of power to the executive. Out of all the candidates, I get the feeling that she's the most dangerous in the regard. She has both the desire for that power and the knowledge of how to gather it to her.

The growth of executive power is something that hasn't gotten near enough attention. It doesn't even matter which party the president belongs to. Presidents from both sides have seem equally intent on expanding the executive. A new president takes the ceiling of what the last president got away with and sets it as their floor. Under Bush you had the unitary executive. Under Obama you have his use of "setting priorities" as a way of selectively enforcing law. I shudder to think of what Clinton would do.

I fear Cruz the most in this department. I think Sanders would be next. I get your concerns though.
 
The thing that scares me the most about Hillary is I have no doubt she'd continue the accretion of power to the executive. Out of all the candidates, I get the feeling that she's the most dangerous in the regard. She has both the desire for that power and the knowledge of how to gather it to her.

.

her presumable GE opponent has said he will intercept/confiscate the mail to pay for a wall

Why does she "desire for that power" more so than any of the others ?
 
her presumable GE opponent has said he will intercept/confiscate the mail to pay for a wall

Why does she "desire for that power" more so than any of the others ?

I didn't say her desire for power was greater. I said she has the marriage of a desire for power and the knowledge of how to gather it. I have no doubt that Trump wants power. What I doubt is that Trump has the skills needed to manipulate the system enough to get it. I have no doubt Hillary knows exactly what levers to throw.
 
I fear Cruz the most in this department. I think Sanders would be next. I get your concerns though.

I fear Cruz in this department as well. He's probably second on my list after Hillary in that respect. I just don't think he's got quite the connections Hillary has.

I think power to the executive would be a byproduct of what Sanders wants to get done. However I don't see him actually getting those things done should be be elected. I don't see personal power as being as big of a motivator for Sanders as for the others.
 
why just her ?

Anyone vying for POTUS has a healthy sense of self and of course desires power.

Why single her out ?

Your statement was "of all the candidates"
....

Like I said, one candidate is on record saying he wants to inspect and confiscate mail.
Not sure how much more desirous of power one could be,

what has HRC said or done to make you think this ?
 
Back
Top