It was predicted that the conservatives on this board
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
I won't defend Hillary. I will defend Bill. I will also point out that (in my opinion) Hillary is the lesser of two evils.
The election is a long way away; let's see where we end up vis a vis Trump. Please do make me wrong. Please. But Paul Ryan looks as if he may disappoint...
As for the Clintons, Bill was fine except for signing Glass-Steagle as he left office; an action long led by Sen. Phil Graham as a boon to the rconomy. Not. No real criticism for HRC's job as Senator or Sec State. Maybe not my favorite candidate, but I don't buy the election BS and years of demonizing. Her real problem is she spent too much time in responsible public jobs and not enough time as a TV personality.
As for the Clintons, Bill was fine except for signing Glass-Steagle as he left office; an action long led by Sen. Phil Graham as a boon to the rconomy. Not. No real criticism for HRC's job as Senator or Sec State. Maybe not my favorite candidate, but I don't buy the election BS and years of demonizing. Her real problem is she spent too much time in responsible public jobs and not enough time as a TV personality.
Last edited:
In exit polls Tuesday, 81% of Republicans in West Virginia said they were excited and optimistic about Trump winning the presidency, and 90% of Republicans thought Trump would beat Hillary. Looks like most of the GOP voters are getting on the Trump train, they are planning on Trump making America great again.
Last edited:
I'll let the posters on this board who are from West Virginia, if there are any answer for WV. Oklahoma Republicans didn't go trump.
I agree. I'm not sure all of the posters on this board will because a lot of you guys seem pretty reasonable, but a lot of people in OK vote Republican because their parents voted Republican and their parents' parents voted Republican. I'm scared Trump will win simply because of the ignorance of the general electorate in this nation.
I'm not in favor of keeping people away from the poles because of race or any other defining factor other than sheer ignorance. I wouldn't mind seeing a system put in place where you had to pass a short civics test every decade or so in order to vote. It would be multiple choice and have a small portion on American History, and a small portion on current events.
I guess it probably couldn't happen because of the restrictions on literacy tests that were placed in regards to African Americans in the south, but honestly I think a civics test would effect people of every race, not just African American.
I'd compare our current system to a classroom of HS seniors being given the chance to decide where the class should go on its senior field trip... well, there's three kids in the back that are failing the class, disrupting everyone else's ability to learn, and not taking advantage of the opportunities given to them. Should they still get a vote?
Last edited:
I think a lot of the fuss over the West Virginia Sanders voters going for Trump has to do with the fact that Clinton has a direct quote of wanting to "put the big coal companies out of business". Saying something like that in West Virginia is a giant nail in your political coffin. So, I think some regional politics is at play there more than a nation wide shift of support to Trump. Time will tell.
[QOUTE]Two very bad choices and look who is defending theirs.[/QUOTE]
I consider myself pretty moderate. I've voted for both parties. I've been previously registered as a Republican, and am now independent. I'm not trying to defend Hillary or downplay her flaws. All I am saying is that I think it is a false equivalence to say that both candidates are equally terrible. Only one candidate has made remarks about defaulting on our bond debts, reclarified later to say that he only meant he would spark a round of serious inflation in order to pay bond holders back with pennies on the dollar, and nevermind how that effects everyone's 401(k). Only one candidate has made remarks about reversing 40 years of nuclear nonproliferation policy. (The Iran deal, as much as it might suck, was not a wholesale reversal in overall policy) Say want you want about Hillary, I won't defend her email server. But I'll take someone who makes that kind of mistake over someone who seems to be completely and willfully clueless about the real world policy positions he espouses.
As an aside, the plurality of US Treasury debt is held by.... No, not China, it is held by individual investors in the US. When Trump talks about defaulting or inflating our way out of debt to cheat bond investors, he is not "stiggin' it to the Chinese or other foreign investors". He is talking about stiggin' it to your average Joe who is nearing retirement and holds a large amount of "safe" bonds.
Frankly, I think the man is a moron who would only manage to not destroy the country despite himself. Hillary I find to be a self-serving plutocrat. But she does understand the system very well, and my opinion is that she probably won't drive it into the ground. If you truly think either one will try to enact policies which will drive it into the ground, fine, I won't argue about that. But ask yourself this: Which candidate will be easier to control once in office? Which candidate will yield to Congress and the courts if told their desired policies are unworkable and/or unconstitutional and/or would cost us valuable international allies? To me, the choice is as clear as it has ever been.
As a New Mexican, I'll tell you that Gary Johnson is more or less okay. He's a bit of a goofball, and wouldn't be my first choice for president. But I do think he'd be better than Trump. Almost anyone would be.
I won't vote for him simply out of practicality. The best way to defeat Trump is to vote for the person most likely to best him. I understand your position though, and wouldn't blame you for voting Johnson or not voting at all for President.
Speaking of New Mexican politicians, what did you think of Bill Richardson? Also, he's friends with Clinton... I wonder if she gets in office if he'll be given another position like energy secretary or ambassador to the UN like he was in the late 90's.
I doubt he gets anything like that. He's too tainted by a litany of corruption allegations against him from his days as governor. I don't think anything has ever been proven against him, but his reputation is definitely soiled.
Also, he has an upcoming trial for a hit-and-run incident which occurred on a snowy day this winter in Santa Fe, assuming they can find a judge willing to hear the case. Allegedly rear-ended a motorist at a stop sign, then floored it and hit her again to push her out of the way, and fled. Played dumb when the cops showed up. Bad optics for any kind of cabinet appointee...
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/ne...cle_f8766b76-1ca1-5dff-b719-9f8b9b7ab561.html
In other news, a former state senator (Griego) facing trial for corruption has had seven judges recuse themselves in a row.
EDIT: Something I just learned: He angered Clinton in 2008 by endorsing Obama. He was then rewarded as Obama's appointee to the position of Secretary of Commerce. Before confirmation, it was revealed that there was a federal grand jury debating whether to indict him for a 'pay-to-play' scheme, and the nomination was withdrawn. The grand jury failed to indict, but there have been other allegations since then. So, between backstabbing Clinton in 2008 and the various corruption probes (albeit unsuccessful) and now the hit-and-run, I am changing my stance from "I doubt it" to "A snowball's chance in hell".
Last edited:
Given the love fest for Trump today, it seems the Republican 'establishment' will find whaever reason it needs to fall in behind Trump. 45 minute meeting with Ryan and an promise that Trump will moderate his tone, and Paul is moving on toward the Trump bandwagon. One look at Trump's son in law was enough for Oren Hatch.
There should be a contest for the weakest excuse to abandon one's defining "principles" for political advantage.
There should be a contest for the weakest excuse to abandon one's defining "principles" for political advantage.
The Hillary made me do it excuse. OK what's the next one?
Looks as if the swing is starting..
Last edited:
Going after Hillary isn't going to be enough, your candidate is a dishonest stooge, and you own him.
Funny... I never hear you lefties shouting "HRC is our candidate is an honest lady and we own her!!!"
With that last post you have placed yourself in the word hall of fame as an example of the word hypocrite.
A Hillary supporter calling another candidate dishonest....that's rich
That's until Bernie gives his endorsement to HRC. While they differ on some specific ways to govern, they are more similar than different in overall philosophy (i.e. Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the late 70's...), the biggest differences are how you get to the end result. Remember, Bernie is actually considered an Independent Senator from VT. He is only running his campaign from the Democratic primary side because we all know it is nearly impossible to get an independent or 3rd party candidate elected POTUS.
FACT: Both parties have become so polarized that no matter who is elected, nothing will be accomplished for 4-8 years UNLESS the country starts returning more moderates to the HOR and Senate. This change started occurring when Bill was in the White House and Gingrich started his War on America. Members of Congress no longer vote based on the merits of a bill, they vote on whether or not it was introduced and sponsored by their party or not.
NEED: Oklahoma needs to go to a non-partisan ballot for all elections. There is a strong need to make people do a little bit of reading and research about what their candidate stands for. Right now I feel as if 75% of the voters in OK walk into a voting booth and immediately look to see if there is an (R) or a (D) by the person's name and mark the circle accordingly.
Fact is almost all mainstream party politicians are somewhat crooked and hypocrites. Accepting money from any corporate donor makes their interests greater than the individuals who actually vote. Go ahead and throw shade on HRC, but remember Reagan got away with Iran-Contra not by taking the 5th amendment but by simply stating "I can't recall". There is no way he wasn't fully aware of what was happening (in addition to seeding the very terrorist threat all GOPers love to espouse that they are going to handle).
BTW, Ken Starr, the one who felt it necessary to go after Bill Clinton for sleeping with an intern while his job was investigating a land deal, just so happens to be one of the enablers of violence against women at Baylor University. I do believe that karma is going to bite Ken Starr as I do not believe he, the school's AD (Ian McCaw), or Art Briles will survive this scandal.
You are correct. The lack of cooperation started about 24 years ago when Bill took office, and hrc started her war on everyone who opposed her.
It pretty much ended whenever Tip O'Neill retired in 1987 towards the end of Reagan's 2nd term. It is well known that both O'Neill and Reagan worked out many a compromise over drinks and cigars in the White House. How many times would Paul Ryan be caught alone with Obama working on anything right now for fear that he was succumbing to liberal pressure and the Tea Party was calling for his head? Same with Pelosi before him when W was President?
Establishment Republicans uniting behind The Donald.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll.html
As the saying goes about all power currupting, holding on to power "Trumps" principle. Expect this trend to pick up momentum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll.html
As the saying goes about all power currupting, holding on to power "Trumps" principle. Expect this trend to pick up momentum.
Last edited:
