WWTBAM Bored

I only have one question: Why?

I agree. I also wonder why we have to endure Rand Paul and Jeb Bush - have we reached the point in our society that only a small ruling class is qualified to be president? Say what you will about Obama, at least he wasn't a candidate from a retread family.

We seem to want to become a monarchy or a dictatorship.

Coming in 2024:

Spoiler

earendel wrote:I agree. I also wonder why we have to endure Rand Paul and Jeb Bush - have we reached the point in our society that only a small ruling class is qualified to be president? Say what you will about Obama, at least he wasn't a candidate from a retread family.

Why should Senator Clinton's family background disqualify her?

My issues with Rand Paul have nothing to do with his lineage. My issues with Jeb Bush start with his performance as Florida governor (remember Terry Schiavo?) and I anticipate they will continue as he airs more positions publicly. I will concede that some of his positions aren't as odious to me as those of many of his rivals for the nomination, but (a) that's damning with faint praise, and (b) those are the positions that will make it harder for him to win the nomination. --Bob

earendel wrote:I agree. I also wonder why we have to endure Rand Paul and Jeb Bush - have we reached the point in our society that only a small ruling class is qualified to be president? Say what you will about Obama, at least he wasn't a candidate from a retread family.

What President is Rand Paul related to?

All kidding aside, I'd take any Kennedy over Obama any day.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I only have one question: Why?

Don't expect any answers from Ms. Clinton

My question for Hillary, shamelessly stolen from a tweet I can’t find now: Do the underage girls held as sex slaves on Jeffrey Epstein’s private island that Bill visited feel “empowered” by Hillary’s candidacy?

Bob78164 wrote:

earendel wrote:I agree. I also wonder why we have to endure Rand Paul and Jeb Bush - have we reached the point in our society that only a small ruling class is qualified to be president? Say what you will about Obama, at least he wasn't a candidate from a retread family.

Why should Senator Clinton's family background disqualify her?

My issues with Rand Paul have nothing to do with his lineage. My issues with Jeb Bush start with his performance as Florida governor (remember Terry Schiavo?) and I anticipate they will continue as he airs more positions publicly. I will concede that some of his positions aren't as odious to me as those of many of his rivals for the nomination, but (a) that's damning with faint praise, and (b) those are the positions that will make it harder for him to win the nomination. --Bob

Alright. I'll give you no problem with her name. What, other than that and her gender (assuming you want to be sexist) qualifies her? What has she done that overcomes all her negatives? Or do you even acknowledge any negatives?

BackInTex wrote:

earendel wrote:I agree. I also wonder why we have to endure Rand Paul and Jeb Bush - have we reached the point in our society that only a small ruling class is qualified to be president? Say what you will about Obama, at least he wasn't a candidate from a retread family.

What President is Rand Paul related to?

Probably all of them, through BobJ.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

earendel wrote:I agree. I also wonder why we have to endure Rand Paul and Jeb Bush - have we reached the point in our society that only a small ruling class is qualified to be president? Say what you will about Obama, at least he wasn't a candidate from a retread family.

Why should Senator Clinton's family background disqualify her?

My issues with Rand Paul have nothing to do with his lineage. My issues with Jeb Bush start with his performance as Florida governor (remember Terry Schiavo?) and I anticipate they will continue as he airs more positions publicly. I will concede that some of his positions aren't as odious to me as those of many of his rivals for the nomination, but (a) that's damning with faint praise, and (b) those are the positions that will make it harder for him to win the nomination. --Bob

Alright. I'll give you no problem with her name. What, other than that and her gender (assuming you want to be sexist) qualifies her? What has she done that overcomes all her negatives? Or do you even acknowledge any negatives?

I strongly suspect that what you see as negatives are policy positions that I agree with. Her support of the Affordable Care Act and for same-sex marriage, for instance.

The reality is that given the current state of the Republican Party, it's hard for me to imagine any Republican nominee who could survive the primaries being acceptable to me, and many Democrats (including Senator Clinton) will clearly advance policies that I support. --Bob

Alright. I'll give you no problem with her name. What, other than that and her gender (assuming you want to be sexist) qualifies her? What has she done that overcomes all her negatives? Or do you even acknowledge any negatives?I strongly suspect that what you see as negatives are policy positions that I agree with. Her support of the Affordable Care Act and for same-sex marriage, for instance.

The reality is that given the current state of the Republican Party, it's hard for me to imagine any Republican nominee who could survive the primaries being acceptable to me, and many Democrats (including Senator Clinton) will clearly advance policies that I support. --Bob

Both of your reasons are, alas, in reality, no concern of the Federal Government. But, be that as it may, are there not any other candidates that support your misguided positions that do not have her baggage? Why her? Why would any informed person cast a vote for her? Why is she, apparently, the presumed nominee of your party?

Pastor Fireball wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

earendel wrote:I agree. I also wonder why we have to endure Rand Paul and Jeb Bush - have we reached the point in our society that only a small ruling class is qualified to be president? Say what you will about Obama, at least he wasn't a candidate from a retread family.

What President is Rand Paul related to?

Probably all of them, through BobJ.

Supposedly a teenaged girl has determined that all of America's presidents are related to each other with the exception of one: Martin Van Buren. I haven't seen the details but she may have had to go back to Charlemagne.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Alright. I'll give you no problem with her name. What, other than that and her gender (assuming you want to be sexist) qualifies her? What has she done that overcomes all her negatives? Or do you even acknowledge any negatives?I strongly suspect that what you see as negatives are policy positions that I agree with. Her support of the Affordable Care Act and for same-sex marriage, for instance.

The reality is that given the current state of the Republican Party, it's hard for me to imagine any Republican nominee who could survive the primaries being acceptable to me, and many Democrats (including Senator Clinton) will clearly advance policies that I support. --Bob

Both of your reasons are, alas, in reality, no concern of the Federal Government. But, be that as it may, are there not any other candidates that support your misguided positions that do not have her baggage? Why her? Why would any informed person cast a vote for her? Why is she, apparently, the presumed nominee of your party?

Because in every poll she trounces any of the dozen or so Republican opponents.

Bob Juch wrote:Because in every poll she trounces any of the dozen or so Republican opponents.

So it is just about winning, not about who would make the best leader of our country.

danielh41 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Because in every poll she trounces any of the dozen or so Republican opponents.

So it is just about winning, not about who would make the best leader of our country.

It's not about who you think would make the best leader of our country.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Alright. I'll give you no problem with her name. What, other than that and her gender (assuming you want to be sexist) qualifies her? What has she done that overcomes all her negatives? Or do you even acknowledge any negatives?I strongly suspect that what you see as negatives are policy positions that I agree with. Her support of the Affordable Care Act and for same-sex marriage, for instance.

The reality is that given the current state of the Republican Party, it's hard for me to imagine any Republican nominee who could survive the primaries being acceptable to me, and many Democrats (including Senator Clinton) will clearly advance policies that I support. --Bob

Both of your reasons are, alas, in reality, no concern of the Federal Government. But, be that as it may, are there not any other candidates that support your misguided positions that do not have her baggage? Why her? Why would any informed person cast a vote for her? Why is she, apparently, the presumed nominee of your party?

The Supreme Court disagrees with you concerning the Affordable Care Act, and I strongly suspect they will disagree with you about same-sex marriage. We'll know in a couple of months or so. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, "We are not final because we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final."

I saw enough of Senator Clinton in the Senate, during the 2008 campaign, and as Secretary of State to know that I'd be comfortable with her as my party's nominee. The only other possible candidates with enough of a track record for me to begin to evaluate are Senator Warren and Vice President Biden, and I don't think either of them are running. I don't know enough about Governor O'Malley to express an informed opinion.

If you're referring to the "baggage" that I think you mean, as far as I'm concerned, it's just sound and fury, signifying nothing. It matters to me only insofar as it impacts her electability, and right now she has a clear advantage over all of the actual and potential Republican candidates. It does not cause me any concern at all about how she would behave as President. I am a little concerned she's too quick to use force in foreign affairs (which cost her my vote in the 2008 primary), but the Republicans (other than Senator Paul) won't have an advantage over her on that issue in the competition for my vote. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Alright. I'll give you no problem with her name. What, other than that and her gender (assuming you want to be sexist) qualifies her? What has she done that overcomes all her negatives? Or do you even acknowledge any negatives?I strongly suspect that what you see as negatives are policy positions that I agree with. Her support of the Affordable Care Act and for same-sex marriage, for instance.

The reality is that given the current state of the Republican Party, it's hard for me to imagine any Republican nominee who could survive the primaries being acceptable to me, and many Democrats (including Senator Clinton) will clearly advance policies that I support. --Bob

Both of your reasons are, alas, in reality, no concern of the Federal Government. But, be that as it may, are there not any other candidates that support your misguided positions that do not have her baggage? Why her? Why would any informed person cast a vote for her? Why is she, apparently, the presumed nominee of your party?

The Supreme Court disagrees with you concerning the Affordable Care Act, and I strongly suspect they will disagree with you about same-sex marriage. We'll know in a couple of months or so. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, "We are not final because we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final."

I saw enough of Senator Clinton in the Senate, during the 2008 campaign, and as Secretary of State to know that I'd be comfortable with her as my party's nominee. The only other possible candidates with enough of a track record for me to begin to evaluate are Senator Warren and Vice President Biden, and I don't think either of them are running. I don't know enough about Governor O'Malley to express an informed opinion.

If you're referring to the "baggage" that I think you mean, as far as I'm concerned, it's just sound and fury, signifying nothing. It matters to me only insofar as it impacts her electability, and right now she has a clear advantage over all of the actual and potential Republican candidates. It does not cause me any concern at all about how she would behave as President. I am a little concerned she's too quick to use force in foreign affairs (which cost her my vote in the 2008 primary), but the Republicans (other than Senator Paul) won't have an advantage over her on that issue in the competition for my vote. --Bob

Just sound and fury? It is just proof that if she were photographed over a dead body with a bloody knife in her hand, people like you would still consider her electable. It's just mind boggling.

While I have no idea for whom I will vote (obviously not Clinton), I think I know why the Dems will vote for Clinton. After Obama's mangling of everything from zeitgeist to healthcare, eroding our general wellbeing, it will be easy to return to the rot that one knows. Like gramma, even if she smokes and drinks too much, and has lipstick on her teeth. Of course the false feminist narrative will help, too.

Maybe someone here can answer the question that Hillary couldn't. What exactly are her accomplishments? Why should she be President other than:

1. Her husband's last name is Clinton.
2. She is a woman.
3. She raises a lot of money.
4. She is a democrat.

She was a senator and she was appointed secretary of state. What did she do while she had those positions? (I could list a lot of things, but tell me something that's positive).

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Maybe someone here can answer the question that Hillary couldn't. What exactly are her accomplishments? Why should she be President other than:

1. Her husband's last name is Clinton.
2. She is a woman.
3. She raises a lot of money.
4. She is a democrat.

She was a senator and she was appointed secretary of state. What did she do while she had those positions? (I could list a lot of things, but tell me something that's positive).

What have any of the Republicans accomplished? Other than shutting down the government, which is emphatically a negative in my view. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Maybe someone here can answer the question that Hillary couldn't. What exactly are her accomplishments? Why should she be President other than:

1. Her husband's last name is Clinton.
2. She is a woman.
3. She raises a lot of money.
4. She is a democrat.

She was a senator and she was appointed secretary of state. What did she do while she had those positions? (I could list a lot of things, but tell me something that's positive).

What have any of the Republicans accomplished? Other than shutting down the government, which is emphatically a negative in my view. --Bob

What has Hills done?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Maybe someone here can answer the question that Hillary couldn't. What exactly are her accomplishments? Why should she be President other than:

1. Her husband's last name is Clinton.
2. She is a woman.
3. She raises a lot of money.
4. She is a democrat.

She was a senator and she was appointed secretary of state. What did she do while she had those positions? (I could list a lot of things, but tell me something that's positive).

And I could ask the same question of many prior Presidents, of both parties. What did any of them accomplish, prior to their accession to the office, that demonstrated their abilities as President?

I'm not looking for a check-off list of accomplishments because I believe there is no job on Earth that compares to the Presidency. I'm looking for someone who shares enough of my policy positions and can demonstrate at least a basic level of competence and judgment in domestic and foreign policy. Pretty much all Republicans flunk the policy test, and many of them (Governor Perry and Senator Rubio leap to mind) also demonstrate a lack of judgment or competence that I find appalling. --Bob

Bob, I would hope you wouldn't vote for her simply because she's female. Because if she is a feminist, I'm fucking Betty Friedan. Please don't vote just because of firsts.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Maybe someone here can answer the question that Hillary couldn't. What exactly are her accomplishments? Why should she be President other than:

1. Her husband's last name is Clinton.
2. She is a woman.
3. She raises a lot of money.
4. She is a democrat.

She was a senator and she was appointed secretary of state. What did she do while she had those positions? (I could list a lot of things, but tell me something that's positive).

And I could ask the same question of many prior Presidents, of both parties. What did any of them accomplish, prior to their accession to the office, that demonstrated their abilities as President?

I'm not looking for a check-off list of accomplishments because I believe there is no job on Earth that compares to the Presidency. I'm looking for someone who shares enough of my policy positions and can demonstrate at least a basic level of competence and judgment in domestic and foreign policy. Pretty much all Republicans flunk the policy test, and many of them (Governor Perry and Senator Rubio leap to mind) also demonstrate a lack of judgment or competence that I find appalling. --Bob

Yup. Can't do it, can you? Not one accomplishment.
Weigh that, Bob, against her failures, her ethical problems and her trouble with telling the truth. All things being equal, I think most of the republicans can pass that test, at least for now. But that doesn't come into your evaluation, does it? She could be a serial sexual abuser, and lie through her teeth to the American people, just as long as she's not conservative. (Whoops, I got confused with her husband, but you get the point I think.)

This thread needs a distraction.