Author Topic: Hilary 2016  (Read 19182 times)

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40791
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2015, 08:56:49 PM »
About what? That she was in a position that nothing was accomplished? You didn't answer my question. What are her accomplishments? Like Obama, what qualifies her to be president?

The question we all could ask ourselves regardless of our party affiliation or what our political philosophy is, what qualifies anyone to be President? If you believe Presidents past and present were or are elected on their accomplishments, you're likely mistaken. Presidential candidates are selected by their supporters based on how electable they are.

If you want qualifications and accomplishments, Hillary has a record of bringing Republicans and Democrats together when she was in the Senate. Considering how bogged down with filibustering and other diversionary tactics both parties are these days, someone who even has the slightest chance of breaking the stalemate should be looked at as a possible choice for President.

Furthermore, for all you "birthers" there appears to be no question as to whether Hillary is a natural born citizen of the U.S. What I question is her age. -Might seem odd coming from an old guy like me, but being President is an arduous task. It takes a lot of stamina. Do we know whether Hillary is up to the task health-wise?

6 Reps

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2783
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #51 on: April 12, 2015, 09:01:48 PM »
The question we all could ask ourselves regardless of our party affiliation or political philosophy is, what qualifies anyone to be President? If you believe Presidents past and present were or are elected on their accomplishments, you're likely mistaken. Presidential candidates are selected by their supporters based on how electable they are.

If you want qualifications and accomplishments, Hillary has a record of bringing Republicans and Democrats together when she was in the Senate. Considering how bogged down with filibustering and other diversionary tactics both parties are these days, someone who even has the slightest chance of breaking the stalemate should be looked at as a possible choice for President.

Furthermore, for all you "birthers" there appears to be no question as to whether Hillary is a natural born citizen of the U.S. What I question is her age. -Might seem odd coming from an old guy like me, but being President is an arduous task. It takes a lot of stamina. Do we know whether Hillary is up to the task health-wise?

The Republicans will make a big issue of this.  Along with Benghazi, the e-mails, and "Obama's third term."

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #52 on: April 12, 2015, 09:04:32 PM »
Do we know whether Hillary is up to the task health-wise?

agreed - americans should see FULL medical history and scans.  No way we should just 'take her word for it'.

BUT

there's a huge precedent for us just taking the president's word for it.  Mccain was a 4x cancer survivor and all we got was a quick skim of records for selected media.  Palin had promiscious Glen-rice behavior and erratic rants - STDs and medication were definitely something to consider - we got one paragraph from her doc saying everything is awesome.  

JFK was addled with back issues and living on pain meds - dangerous, and his results were erratic.  Tsongas would have died in office - he lied about his cancer being healed, knowingly.  There is no real accountability for health - but they should be.  Many suspect hilary's medical probs are way worse - but we will never know.

Hulkotron

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28219
  • I read at least a dozen primary sources a day
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2015, 09:14:03 PM »
T

Competitor 9

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2146
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #54 on: April 12, 2015, 09:16:29 PM »
agreed - americans should see FULL medical history and scans.  No way we should just 'take her word for it'.

BUT

there's a huge precedent for us just taking the president's word for it.  Mccain was a 4x cancer survivor and all we got was a quick skim of records for selected media.  Palin had promiscious Glen-rice behavior and erratic rants - STDs and medication were definitely something to consider - we got one paragraph from her doc saying everything is awesome.  

JFK was addled with back issues and living on pain meds - dangerous, and his results were erratic.  Tsongas would have died in office - he lied about his cancer being healed, knowingly.  There is no real accountability for health - but they should be.  Many suspect hilary's medical probs are way worse - but we will never know.

Well let's hope they are so bad she physical can't compain. Fine with me I really dislike her. (Don't want to use the word hate as its really awful) but damn close to it.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40791
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2015, 09:23:25 PM »
The Republicans will make a big issue of this.  Along with Benghazi, the e-mails, and "Obama's third term."

That is the name of the game, isn't it? Find your opponents' weaknesses and focus on exposing them. It's all a diversionary campaign tactic that dwells on the other candidates negative aspects rather than your own positives. It works really well too, because a lot of people who have accomplished little like to bring others down, especially the opponent who may be more qualified.

Hillary's response to the email fiasco is concerning. She's a bright woman. The excuse that she didn't want to or couldn't manage separate email accounts for personal use and business just doesn't wash with me. If I buy that she is that lacking in internet skills, then I'm a genius when it comes to email. I am involved in several different ventures, I've set up separate email accounts for all of them. To have stated that and then turn around a delete a bunch of emails so that are no longer available for scrutiny is at the least a conundrum.

Personally, at this point I have no idea who I will vote for for President. I'll be making this decision as carefully as possible over the course of the next year. I am a Democrat and in Oregon that means I will have to vote along party lines in the primary. After that, I get to vote for who I think (with my limited knowledge) can do the best job for us. We'd like to believe this is a science, but it usually boils down to our gut feelings.

Competitor 9

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2146
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #56 on: April 12, 2015, 09:33:05 PM »
That is the name of the game, isn't it? Find your opponents' weaknesses and focus on exposing them. It's all a diversionary campaign tactic that dwells on the other candidates negative aspects rather than your own positives. It works really well too, because a lot of people who have accomplished little like to bring others down, especially the opponent who may be more qualified.

Hillary's response to the email fiasco is concerning. She's a bright woman. The excuse that she didn't want to or couldn't manage separate email accounts for personal use and business just doesn't wash with me. If I buy that she is that lacking in internet skills, then I'm a genius when it comes to email. I am involved in several different ventures, I've set up separate email accounts for all of them. To have stated that and then turn around a delete a bunch of emails so that are no longer available for scrutiny is at the least a conundrum.

Personally, at this point I have no idea who I will vote for for President. I'll be making this decision as carefully as possible over the course of the next year. I am a Democrat and in Oregon that means I will have to vote along party lines in the primary. After that, I get to vote for who I think (with my limited knowledge) can do the best job for us. We'd like to believe this is a science, but it usually boils down to our gut feelings.

As some one who spend 9 years in the DOD managing 3 email account, regular, secret abd top secret I can tell you that her entire story is just not even believable. It's impossible. It simple dosnt work like that period. There are so many holes in her store it's not even funny.  

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6693
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #57 on: April 12, 2015, 10:18:18 PM »
I want america to choose actual change.

Maybe we are a liberal nation that wants to do the warren thing.
Maybe we are a conservative nation that wants to do the cruz thing.

Either way, we aren't a RINO nation and this current thing, Bush = obama = mccain = jeb = Hilary.

I'd like to see someone really shift things, and I'd like Americans to have such a contrast from which to choose.  I'd take Cruz, of course.
cruz is such a whore for israel youd think hes jewish, dont expect any change from that character

WalterWhite

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8648
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #58 on: April 12, 2015, 10:25:07 PM »
agreed - americans should see FULL medical history and scans.  No way we should just 'take her word for it'.

BUT

there's a huge precedent for us just taking the president's word for it.  Mccain was a 4x cancer survivor and all we got was a quick skim of records for selected media.  Palin had promiscious Glen-rice behavior and erratic rants - STDs and medication were definitely something to consider - we got one paragraph from her doc saying everything is awesome.  

JFK was addled with back issues and living on pain meds - dangerous, and his results were erratic.  Tsongas would have died in office - he lied about his cancer being healed, knowingly.  There is no real accountability for health - but they should be.  Many suspect hilary's medical probs are way worse - but we will never know.

JFK was a getbigger and took steroids.  
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125593

President John F. Kennedy's medical records reveal that he had suffered health problems since childhood, and used an arsenal of drugs, including painkillers and stimulants, to treat various medical conditions during his presidency.

A historian who examined his medical records was stunned at the extent of the health problems that the seemingly vigorous president dealt with.

"There was hardly a day that went by that he didn't suffer terribly," presidential historian Robert Dallek, a history professor at Boston University, told ABCNEWS' Good Morning America.

The revelations about JFK's health are included in Dallek's forthcoming book, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963, which is excerpted in the December issue of Atlantic Monthly. Dallek was granted exclusive access to Kennedy's private papers for the years 1955 to 1963, including his X-rays and prescription drug records.

Kennedy suffered from colitis, prostatitis, and a disorder called Addison's disease, which affects the body's ability to regulate blood sugar and sodium. He also had osteoporosis of the lower back, causing pain so severe that he was unable to perform simple tasks such as reaching across his desk to pull papers forward, or pulling the shoe and sock onto his left foot, Dallek said.

Taking Drugs During Crises

To fight the pain, Kennedy took as many as 12 medications at once, taking more during times of stress.

The medical records reveal that Kennedy variously took codeine, Demerol and methadone for pain; Ritalin, a stimulant; meprobamate and librium for anxiety; barbiturates for sleep; thyroid hormone; and injections of a blood derivative, gamma globulin, a medicine that combats infections.

During the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, Kennedy was taking steroids for his Addison's disease, painkillers for his back, anti-spasmodics for his colitis, antibiotics for urinary tract infections, antihistamines for his allergies, and on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic drug to treat a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed was brought on by the antihistamines.

This deluge of drugs often had side effects, including grogginess or even depression. To treat this Kennedy took more still anti-anxiety medications. Yet, there is no indication that the medications impaired JFK's judgment during crucial moments in U.S. history.

"I studied very closely his performance during these crisis, and what was striking is how effective he was," Dallek said. "He made a bet with himself and the country, in a sense, that he could be president, and he carried it off brilliantly. It was extraordinary."

Hiding the Pain

But Kennedy and his closest circle took great pains to hide his health problems from the public, fearing it would impair his political career. JFK was particularly fearful that revelations about his health problems would hurt him in the neck-and-neck presidential race with Richard Nixon in 1960.

He was so terrified of his medical conditions being known that in the 1960 fight for the Democratic nomination, Lyndon Johnson aides aired the fact that Kennedy had Addison's disease, and the Kennedy campaign flatly denied it, Dallek said. His doctors later published a letter saying his health was excellent.

As amazing as the list of drugs Kennedy took is the fact that it was kept mostly secret. To this day, his closest aides don't know or won't admit the extent of his ailments.

Competitor 9

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2146
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #59 on: April 12, 2015, 10:26:47 PM »
cruz is such a whore for israel youd think hes jewish, dont expect any change from that character

I use to be a navie dreamer that those in charged would actually make the right choices to better America for everyone. It's dosnt matter who is in. They will only help their backers and sale out this country just for votes. And with more seperation in politics then ever nothing will ever get done.. Big money and votes rule this country.. Period. Sad but true.  The days of ragean are gone  :'(

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40791
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #60 on: April 12, 2015, 10:27:27 PM »
I want america to choose actual change.

Maybe we are a liberal nation that wants to do the warren thing.
Maybe we are a conservative nation that wants to do the cruz thing.

Either way, we aren't a RINO nation and this current thing, Bush = obama = mccain = jeb = Hilary.

I'd like to see someone really shift things, and I'd like Americans to have such a contrast from which to choose.  I'd take Cruz, of course.

I agree. It is good to remember that the President's powers to change things is very limited. For real change to happen, we will need new faces in congress and at the local level. This is easier said then done. The cost of a successful campaign today insures politicians are at the mercy of corporate America and their interests. Make no mistake about this.

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6693
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #61 on: April 12, 2015, 10:28:54 PM »
I use to be a navie dreamer that those in charged would actually make the right choices to better America for everyone. It's dosnt matter who is in. They will only help their backers and sale out this country just for votes. And with more seperation in politics then ever nothing will ever get done.. Big money and votes rule this country.. Period. Sad but true.  The days of ragean are gone  :'(
reagan expanded the government  :'(

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #62 on: April 12, 2015, 10:37:04 PM »
Reagan was a few days short of 70 years old when he was inaugurated. McCain would have been 71.  So Hilary's age is not going to be an issue.

Mawse

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #63 on: April 12, 2015, 10:52:19 PM »
I drop a bombshell for you, does she have experience being a lying politician just like the rest of them do? absolutely they are all hacks.. experience these days at a state level means are you good at making a decision so if something goes wrong it cant be traced back to you.  

There isnt one person I like running for office but i like her least of all

Gary Johnson's going to be in the race soon, so there's one candidate worth voting for in a sea of shit

Sadly the electorate is made up of drooling cretins who are more concerned with a candidates hair or gender than boring policies and dull issues

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40791
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #64 on: April 12, 2015, 11:22:19 PM »
Reagan was a few days short of 70 years old when he was inaugurated. McCain would have been 71.  So Hilary's age is not going to be an issue.

You are probably right. It doesn't change the fact that most of us who have reached the grand old age of 70, don't have the same energy we did when we were 60, 50 or 40 years old.  As for Reagan, it seems possible he was already suffering the beginnings of Alzheimer's http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-presidency/story?id=12633225 . Senator McCain has had his share of health issues over the years.

When it comes to health problems, many of this nation's Presidents had serious health concerns before and during the time they were in office. Whether it affected their performance or not is probably open to debate. JFK was a health wreck. President Roosevelt suffered paralysis in both legs as the result of polio.

"From heart failure to depression, U.S. presidents have suffered from common health problems. Our first 10 war-hero presidents brought a history of illness to the White House, including dysentery, malaria, and yellow fever. Later, many of our leaders attempted to hide their ailing health from the public, making health a medical and political issue." http://www.healthline.com/health-slideshow/diseases-of-presidents

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40791
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #65 on: April 12, 2015, 11:26:54 PM »
Gary Johnson's going to be in the race soon, so there's one candidate worth voting for in a sea of shit

Sadly the electorate is made up of drooling cretins who are more concerned with a candidates hair or gender than boring policies and dull issues

Unfortunately, he'll be in the race as a Libertarian. I don't see where there are enough Libertarian voters to get him or any other third party candidate elected.

Mawse

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #66 on: April 13, 2015, 12:01:58 AM »
Unfortunately, he'll be in the race as a Libertarian. I don't see where there are enough Libertarian voters to get him or any other third party candidate elected.

I'd like to think the majority of Americans would find him the best candidate on actual issues , if there weren't billions of dollars being spent to make the election conversations about everything BUT the things that actually matter

he wouldn't get the fundie or welfare vote but there would be enough decent, working people to put him in the WH if they voted for what's right instead of for the least terrible mainstream candidate

Hillary is just Bush with some pandering to the far left, its business as usual for the NSA, war machine and banks if she gets the vote from a simple minded electorate set on 'making history' again

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40791
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #67 on: April 13, 2015, 12:20:03 AM »
I'd like to think the majority of Americans would find him the best candidate on actual issues , if there weren't billions of dollars being spent to make the election conversations about everything BUT the things that actually matter

he wouldn't get the fundie or welfare vote but there would be enough decent, working people to put him in the WH if they voted for what's right instead of for the least terrible mainstream candidate

Hillary is just Bush with some pandering to the far left, its business as usual for the NSA, war machine and banks if she gets the vote from a simple minded electorate set on 'making history' again

In the 30 states where voters can register by party, there is a combined total of 330,811 voters registered as Libertarians. The party has never won a seat in the United States Congress. In the 2012 election, Barack Obama received 65,899,583 votes. Mitt Romney got 60,931,966 votes. Libertarian, Gary Johnson garnered 1,275,821 votes. Something drastic is going to have to change if a Libertarian is going to be elected President of the U.S.

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #68 on: April 13, 2015, 12:59:57 AM »
answer this survey and post your results:

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

Note the "How important is this to you?" slider on each question and the More Questions on each section.


Radical Plato

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12879
  • Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #69 on: April 13, 2015, 01:19:11 AM »
Like Obama she has not ONE redeeming quality. Her claim to fame is 1. She's Bill's wife 2. She's a women
Her vagina is the ticket, just play the gender card, and the women and manginas WILL EAT IT UP.  It doesn't matter that she isn't qualified and incompetent, she owns a vagina.  A vote for Hilary, is a vote for vagina.
V

Croatch

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8025
  • Man up, train natural.
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #70 on: April 13, 2015, 02:33:20 AM »
Why would you ever have a woman as your leader?  Fucking terrifying.
N

Wiggs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40808
  • Child of Y'srael
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #71 on: April 13, 2015, 02:40:47 AM »
7

Hulkotron

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28219
  • I read at least a dozen primary sources a day
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #72 on: April 13, 2015, 04:32:21 AM »
Name? 

Just some whore on POF sorry Wiggsy

Parker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 53475
  • He Sees The Stormy Anger Of The World
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #73 on: April 13, 2015, 04:52:00 AM »
T
Who is this Kim Kardashian-plastic surgery-lookalike?

King Shizzo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 34275
  • Ron crowned me King because I always deliver.
Re: Hilary 2016
« Reply #74 on: April 13, 2015, 05:53:16 AM »
A woman president? The founding fathers would be rolling right now.

The only reason they have queens, is because the King dies.

Its a man's job.