U.S. Presidential issues questionnaire

Message boards : Politics : U.S. Presidential issues questionnaire
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 13 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile JaundicedEye
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 12
Posts: 5375
Credit: 30,870,693
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1717373 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 16:00:01 UTC



"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>
ID: 1717373 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1717390 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 16:24:44 UTC - in response to Message 1717373.  
Last modified: 23 Aug 2015, 16:25:26 UTC



If only you knew what you have just posted and just how close that is to why I don't think it's time for her to be president .

And no it's not what she or her has done but what she may do with the current problems in the middle east or what she may not do there .
ID: 1717390 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29637
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1717402 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 16:41:59 UTC - in response to Message 1717390.  



If only you knew what you have just posted and just how close that is to why I don't think it's time for her to be president .

And no it's not what she or her has done but what she may do with the current problems in the middle east or what she may not do there .

Those weren't my fingerprints! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy
ID: 1717402 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1717403 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 16:45:50 UTC

Clyde I think your country does need a woman as president even if for only 1 term , just to shake things up in Washington a bit and to change the direction of a few things but now is not the right time and Clinton is not that person but not because I don't think she can do it .
ID: 1717403 · Report as offensive
Profile JaundicedEye
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 12
Posts: 5375
Credit: 30,870,693
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1717419 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 17:38:59 UTC

A question and a comment.

If a shooter isn't guilty, why dispose of the gun? Or wipe off the fingerprints?

and the comment is Carly Fiorina.......

Her best statement so far is "Hillary, flying around the world is an activity, not an accomplishment."

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>
ID: 1717419 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1717455 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 19:01:53 UTC - in response to Message 1717323.  
Last modified: 23 Aug 2015, 19:13:38 UTC

Sorry if I confused you Major, I'll try again!

In the UK Counties, Cities, and Towns are all run by Councils, which consist of publicly elected Councillors. In Towns the Mayor is a Councillor themselves, and is mainly a ceremonial function but they do chair Council meetings. The Leader of the council is the nominated person from the largest political group on the Council and they set Council policy. County Councils have a Chairman.

It is different for London where they have the Greater London Authority and a directly elected Mayor. The city of London has a ceremonial Lord Mayor.

Are you sure the office of Lord Mayor is ceremonial?

Nationally we have the Monarchy and a Queen as Head of State. In days gone by Kings did run the country with their band of "advisors", and led their armies to war at the head of them in armour. These days the role of the Queen is mainly ceremonial although all Bills passed through Parliament require "Royal Assent" before coming into law.

After a general election, the Queen invites the Leader of the party with the most seats to form a government upon her behalf, to whom she delegates the running of the country. Neither the Queen or the Prime Minister will take this country to war unilaterally. Only Parliament can vote upon that, as they did in 2013 against war with Syria, saying no. However see here Royal Prerogative.

The whole point I wanted to make was that whoever runs this country whether at local or national level is directly elected by the people, answerable to the people, and removable by the people.

Aside from the obvious, "who votes for the Queen?" your comment is a little misleading, the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people nationally (there is no national election for Prime Minister of the UK). Ministers (including the Prime Minister) are required to be Members of Parliament (either House will do, including the unelected House of Lords). There is no power of removal from office available to the people of the UK (unlike, for instance, there is in some US states to remove their Governors from office).

MP's can be de-selected by their Borough Party, Councillors can be by their Ward, Votes of no confidence against the government can be held in Parliament.

In the US, selection of party candidates is via primary elections, "party membership" for these is matter of checking a box when registering to vote, no "party dues" are required in order to vote in a primary.

It doesn't seem that way in the States. The President According to the Constitution, is Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, and can take them to war.

Aricle 1 (The legislature), Section 8 list one of the powers of Congress as "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;" (source).

It is not clear how Mayors and Councils are elected in the USA, and far from clear how the Electoral College fits into things. Just how much say do the American people have in what goes on in their country?

The US Constitution makes clear the Electoral College's role in Presidential Elections (it has no role in other elections). City Mayors, City Councillors, members of State legislatures, State Governors, US Representatives, US Senators, some judges (and some other offices) are elected directly.

Shall we just say that we don't have Cities go bust over here, nor do we have a universal "we hate the Feds", Most people don't dislike Cameron the way the people seem to do with Obama.

Approval rating of Cameron earlier this year: 47% (source)
Current approval rating of Obama: 46% (source)

Not sure what your source is for either, though the data above suggests Brits and Americans have a similar view of their respective leaders.

I'll be the first to agree that I don't fully understand the American system, happy to be corrected where I am wrong.

Happy to oblige.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1717455 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1717457 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 19:06:52 UTC - in response to Message 1717419.  

A question and a comment.

If a shooter isn't guilty, why dispose of the gun? Or wipe off the fingerprints?


That's silly .There can be only 2 reasons they did it or is helping someone that did it .

what's the point of the question ?

and the comment is Carly Fiorina.......
I take it your saying she is another Miss Alaska what ever her name was .
ID: 1717457 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1717462 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 19:24:55 UTC - in response to Message 1717457.  
Last modified: 23 Aug 2015, 19:30:30 UTC

I take it your saying she is another Miss Alaska what ever her name was .

Sarah Palin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwBZObfp24c
ID: 1717462 · Report as offensive
Profile JaundicedEye
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 12
Posts: 5375
Credit: 30,870,693
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1717476 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 19:53:48 UTC

I take it your saying she is another Miss Alaska what ever her name was.

Again, Glenn, you cast dispersion and make comparison without knowledge of what you are comparing. I suggest you read Ms. Fiorina's resume before assuming anything. Do the research then state EXACTLY what the similarities are.

Hillary is qualified because she is a liberal woman?
Carley and Sarah are not qualified because they are conservative women?

Just asking since you seem to be so sure.

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>
ID: 1717476 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1717528 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 21:56:27 UTC - in response to Message 1717323.  

Sorry if I confused you Major, I'll try again!

In the UK Counties, Cities, and Towns are all run by Councils, which consist of publicly elected Councillors. In Towns the Mayor is a Councillor themselves, and is mainly a ceremonial function but they do chair Council meetings. The Leader of the council is the nominated person from the largest political group on the Council and they set Council policy. County Councils have a Chairman.

It is different for London where they have the Greater London Authority and a directly elected Mayor. The city of London has a ceremonial Lord Mayor.



Well, while the UK and the USA do differ a bit on the 'national' level, we are quite similar at the local level, which should not be surprising since most of the nation's legal system is based on English common law and we set up our local governments pretty much along the same lines as yours (the UK being, pretty much, our mother country). The US State of Louisiana is based on Roman Law, being a former French colony, but even they are not all that much different.

Incorporated cities are governed by city councils. Councilpersons are elected by the people either at large (everyone in the city can vote for each place), by district (only those living in the district can vote for that place), or some combination of the two. 'At large' positions on the city councils are on their way out due to concerns over discrimination. Sometimes the city councils are called something else, but same basic concept.

Now then, depending on the exact form, there might or might not be a Mayor. If there is, in the 'strong Mayor' variation of the council-mayor form, the Mayor is elected at large by the people in the city. The mayor has a good deal of executive power. Depending on the city, the Mayor can exercise the power themselves, or hire a city manager answerable only to the mayor.

In the weak mayor variation of the council-mayor form, the Mayor just acts as the presiding officer of the city council meetings. Again, depending on the city, the Mayor can either be elected at large by the people in the city (in which case they are ONLY the Mayor) or can be chosen by the city council from among its members (in which case they are Mayor in addition to being a council member).

In the council-manager form, there is no mayor, but the council hires a city manager to run things, answerable to them.

In 'strong mayor', the council is the legislative, and the mayor the executive.
In 'weak mayor' with a city manager, the council is the legislative, and the manager the executive.
In 'weak mayor' without a city manager, the council in addition to being the legislative, functions as a 'group executive'.
In 'council-manager' the council is the legislative, and the manager the executive.

Cities also have a few judicial people as well, usually elected by district (if more than one), to handle things like traffic tickets the police give people for things like running stop signs or speeding.

Counties are organized similarly, with Texas counties being governed by a legislative body of 'County Commissioners' elected by district, with a 'County Judge' elected at-large in the county that acts as the presiding officer of the legislative body. The closest thing a County in Texas has to a executive person would be the County Sheriff, elected at-large in the county, but their purview is usually limited to law enforcement. Counties also have some judicial bodies, where minor (traffic tickets) through slightly serious crimes are tried. The county courthouse also usually contains State courts and Federal courts for the more serious stuff. County and State judges are usually elected, but Federal Judges are appointed for life.

In addition to the State Judges being elected by the people for set terms, as opposed to the Federal Judges being appointed for life, our State Government in Texas is organized in much the same manner as our Federal Government, with only a few exceptions of note.

1. The Governor and the Lt. Governor are two seperate races in the election, as opposed to the US President and Vice President which run on a monolithic 'ticket' at the Federal Level.

2. The heads of the various Departments of the Executive Branch of the State of Texas are elected by the people statewide, as opposed as being appointed as they are at the Federal Level.

These two differences, where various officials in the Executive branch can be of different political parties can make for some... lively politics.

and

3. Our legislature is only in regular session for 3 months once every two years, as opposed to the Federal Congress is in session for the entire time, only taking the occasional recess. If an emergency situation arises, the Governor can call the Legislature back into a Special Session to consider the topics specified (and ONLY those topics) by the Governor. Around here, we tend to joke: "The legislature isn't in session, we are safe". <grin>

Finally:

4. The Texas State Government is not allowed (by the Texas State Constitution) to deficit spend. If it happens accidentally (due to a number of economic factors), it is required to be made up in the next biennium.

The whole point I wanted to make was that whoever runs this country whether at local or national level is directly elected by the people, answerable to the people, and removable by the people.


Well, at least here in Texas, local and state officials are directly elected by the people, and answerable to the people.

Removal... ehh... not so much.

All Local and State officials in Texas are removed from office upon conviction of a Felony.

Recall due to them being a putz or you not liking their politics? At the state or county level, no. Vote them out in the next election, and research the candidates a bit more next time.

At the city level, it varies.

Of the about 1200 cities in Texas, about 350 of them are 'home-rule charter' cities. The rest are governed under a set template of restrictions that do not include recall provisions. Deal with it next election.

Of the about 350 'home-rule charter' cities, about 320 of them include a recall option for city official in their city charters.

If you live in one of these 320 cities, it is possible to recall city officials, but the requirements vary widely. Some cities need a LOT more valid signatures on the recall petition than others. The 320 cities that allow recall elections have 320 *different* charters. <shrug>

Otherwise, the People elected the politician in question to a term in office. Deal with it, wait on the next election to roll around, and be more careful who you vote for.

On the national level, only the US House of Representatives or the US Senate can remove one of their own from office by our Constitution. NO other authority has jurisdiction on the topic. Federal Judges are hard as heck to remove as well. Members of the Executive branch can be removed by Impeachment in the US House and Trial in the US Senate. Otherwise, wait on the next election (for Congressional or Executive officials) or Father Time to catch up with the judge.

The President According to the Constitution, is Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, and can take them to war. It is not clear how Mayors and Councils are elected in the USA, and far from clear how the Electoral College fits into things. Just how much say do the American people have in what goes on in their country?


When the Constitution was written and ratified, the US Federal Government had no standing Army. In the time it would take for the States to muster their militias, and turn them over to Federal Control, there would be plenty of time for Congress to stop it, if they so desired.

The US Constitution gives the power to declare war to the US Congress.

Nowadays, it is a tad more... complex.

The US acquired a Federal Standing Army in the decade prior to WWI.
Modern Military Technology has advanced to the point that a response can be required in minutes or at most hours. Not really enough time for Congress to debate the issue and vote on it.

Enter the War Powers act of 1973. It allows the President to unilaterally commit US Military assets anywhere in the world for a period of 60 days (plus another 30 days for withdrawal) without prior Congressional Authorization as long as the President notifies Congress within 48 hours. Congress can always force the military back home after the 60+30 day period, or authorize the President to continue.

The Electoral College...

The Constitution specified that the House of Representatives would be directly elected by the People in their individual districts.

The Constitution as amended specifies that the 2 members of the US Senate from each state are elected at large in the state in question.

The Constitution specifies that the President (and vice president) are elected by the various State Legislatures (each state getting a number of votes equal to the number of US Representatives and US Senators that state has).

By *CUSTOM* (though not required by the Constitution), each State holds an Election in state to decide how that State's electors will vote.

The Electoral College is merely the name of the meeting where all the states' votes are counted.

If no slate of candidates gets a majority, the election then goes to the US House of Representatives for resolution.

We do not have a national election for president because we do not have a Unitary national government. We have 51 different elections (50 states, plus by amendment, Washington DC) for President.

We are a Federal Republic.

Don't like it that we do not have one direct election by the People for President?

Tell me, do YOU, in the UK, have one Direct Election by the People nationwide specifically to choose your 'head of government', the PM? Or is the PM merely the head of the party that got a majority (or in the case of a coalition, the head of the dominant party in said coalition) in the House of Commons?

Tell me, do YOU, in the UK, have any direct popular election whatsoever to choose your 'head of state' (currently Queen Elizabeth II, a person I highly respect -- her son, not so much)? Or did she inherit the position?


No? and No? Then qwitcherbitchin about us and our rather arcane way we choose our head of government/state. Just as your way works for you all, our way works for us. If we decide to do things differently, all we need to do is change our Constitution by amendment.

By and large our government officials are either directly elected by the people, directly elected by other elected officials that WERE directly elected by the people, or appointed and confirmed by other officials that were directly elected by the people at some point in the chain.

Yeah, sometimes we get a nutjob sneak into office at some level or another... or a criminal crook of some sort. But unless it is some d**m Federal Judge that is appointed for life, it is only at MOST 6 years before the People can fix things in the next Election, unless of course, the official is in a jurisdiction that allows recall. A lot do. Many don't.
ID: 1717528 · Report as offensive
Profile Zombu2
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 24 Feb 01
Posts: 1615
Credit: 49,315,423
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1717540 - Posted: 23 Aug 2015, 22:22:56 UTC

anyone notice that both sides just want your money ? so who cares?
I came down with a bad case of i don't give a crap
ID: 1717540 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1717586 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 1:32:15 UTC - in response to Message 1717476.  
Last modified: 24 Aug 2015, 1:36:32 UTC

I take it your saying she is another Miss Alaska what ever her name was.

Again, Glenn, you cast dispersion and make comparison without knowledge of what you are comparing. I suggest you read Ms. Fiorina's resume before assuming anything. Do the research then state EXACTLY what the similarities are.

Hillary is qualified because she is a liberal woman?
Carley and Sarah are not qualified because they are conservative women?

Just asking since you seem to be so sure


with that post you are showing that you are not just a meat head but something else.

I did not even mention Carley in the Roman joke I haven't herd of her even thou she was on the list I used to post the Roman joke .

Palin was just a stupid woman no matter what party she was in to me so your on the wrong track mate .

I REPEAT FOR THOSE HARD OF HERING America needs a female president and I did not say which side she needs to come from .

As for Clinton I have stated I don't wish to see here as president but she was Secutary of state was she not or some position like that and her Husband was the president so I think she would have more experience than the other candidates and probably has better contacts to get things done
ID: 1717586 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6884
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1717591 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 2:19:12 UTC

Palin was just a stupid woman no matter what party she was in to me so your on the wrong track mate .


Sarah 'is' Passionate about America.

Her lack of 'Knowing' Answers to a Few Questions by Gotcha Reporting does not Make Her Stupid.

Her Passion For America and As Prez, having 'Experts' at Right and Left Hand, would have been Demonstrably Better for this Country than PitifulSpeechifyingPeacePrizin'HawaiianHustlin'Hussein or 'Hero' John.

I'd Pick Her Over Anyone Running Today, except for T R U M P, whose Passion Equals Hers.

100% Right. All The Time.


Yep.

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1717591 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11189
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1717592 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 2:22:14 UTC - in response to Message 1717591.  

Dull who was once a worm you continue to show poor taste.
ID: 1717592 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1717597 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 2:37:36 UTC - in response to Message 1717591.  
Last modified: 24 Aug 2015, 2:38:33 UTC

Gooba thank you for showing us all just how dumb people can be .

Her Passion For America and As Prez, having 'Experts' at Right and Left Hand, would have been Demonstrably Better for this Country


With sort of logic I can understand why things happen they way they have .

Always better to have someone that has no clue at all about things after all they will be smart enough to make shore there advisers are the right ones and not the Lobbyists that screw everything up because they only care about the money they can con outa people and company's to change things not for the betterment of the country but for a select greedy few .

That make up covering your Tattoo is showing there Gooba on your head best you put some more make up on so we don't see it ay !
ID: 1717597 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29637
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1717615 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 3:59:28 UTC - in response to Message 1717586.  

I did not even mention Carley in the Roman joke I haven't herd of her even thou she was on the list I used to post the Roman joke .

Really? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=77996&postid=1717457 "I haven't herd[sic] of her" What ever you say. Cleans monitor with holy water ......
ID: 1717615 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1717639 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 6:10:18 UTC - in response to Message 1717615.  

I did not even mention Carley in the Roman joke I haven't herd of her even thou she was on the list I used to post the Roman joke .

Really? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=77996&postid=1717457 "I haven't herd[sic] of her" What ever you say


I had not herd of Her gary until I say her name on the list .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

Said list , you may note I didn't put them all as I have not herd of them .

As for the Dem's well Clinton is the front runner I just haven't looked at there list I haven't herd who's running yet .
ID: 1717639 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1717640 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 6:18:30 UTC - in response to Message 1717631.  

Want a women to be President? OK... No problem.

None of the present Democrats running, are worth sh...

Want a Democrat Women to be President? OK...

She is smarter than Hillary. She is tougher than Hillary.

And...

She is much more powerful, competent, and smarter than her husband, Barack.

And...

She would win.


who you advocating , Obama's wife ......Say what !!!!!!!!!

I'd have to think about that one ,

Who knows maybe Carla mite be the right person , but Washington does need shaking up a bit and who better to do that than the females of your country
ID: 1717640 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1717652 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 7:52:46 UTC - in response to Message 1717586.  
Last modified: 24 Aug 2015, 7:55:03 UTC

I take it your saying she is another Miss Alaska what ever her name was.

Again, Glenn, you cast dispersion and make comparison without knowledge of what you are comparing. I suggest you read Ms. Fiorina's resume before assuming anything. Do the research then state EXACTLY what the similarities are.

Hillary is qualified because she is a liberal woman?
Carley and Sarah are not qualified because they are conservative women?

Just asking since you seem to be so sure


with that post you are showing that you are not just a meat head but something else.

I did not even mention Carley in the Roman joke I haven't herd of her even thou she was on the list I used to post the Roman joke .

Palin was just a stupid woman no matter what party she was in to me so your on the wrong track mate .

I REPEAT FOR THOSE HARD OF HERING America needs a female president and I did not say which side she needs to come from .

As for Clinton I have stated I don't wish to see here as president but she was Secutary of state was she not or some position like that and her Husband was the president so I think she would have more experience than the other candidates and probably has better contacts to get things done

If Hillary wins who will then be the First Lady?
Bill?
ID: 1717652 · Report as offensive
Profile JaundicedEye
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 12
Posts: 5375
Credit: 30,870,693
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1717700 - Posted: 24 Aug 2015, 11:52:22 UTC

OK folks not living in the US, here's the scoop. Hillary will not be the Democratic choice as candidate. The reason being Obama is torpedoing her campaign by allowing the FBI and Justice department to investigate her 'doings' as SOS. The Obamas HATE the Clintons, mostly due to Bill being referred to regularly as the first 'black' President.

BHO wants Joe Biden nominated to carry on the third Obama term. Hillary was given enough rope to hang herself and in true Clinton fashion the greed outweighed the sense of entitlement, noblesse without the oblige. When the dust settles, Biden will be nominated, and lose because of the Obama economy, and Hillary will be destroyed politically because she made too many enemies while 1st Lady.

The only memory longer than an elephant's is that of a humiliated political hack with an axe to grind and Hillary's past is strewn with them.

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>
ID: 1717700 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 13 · Next

Message boards : Politics : U.S. Presidential issues questionnaire


 
©2023 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.