Has Hillary disqualified herself?

[video=youtube;xAO4fH6g0g0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAO4fH6g0g0[/video]

This is the one...the only...the GREATEST reason never to nominate this woman as "Head of State".

Nuclear Non-Proliferation has long been a U.S. Policy after Fat Man and Little Boy. She has shown that such policy is not in her interests, and therefore she's automatically disqualified from Head of State.

Unless you WANT to engage in MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction)

 

... except for the approximately 60 million Americans who will, of course.


It is unfortunate that the GOP can't come up with a single viable candidate the disgruntled could support rather than merely bellywhinging.

 

I don't really understand what you're saying, beyond a seeming hysterical cry of 'OMG! Hillary! Nukes!'

I really can't get my head around "...Nuclear Non-Proliferation...policy is not in her interests." I get the impression you don't actually understand the meaning of the phrase "nuclear non-proliferation." It means 'keeping people who don't already have nukes from getting them.'

There is nothing new about threatening nuclear retaliation if someone first uses a nuke on us or (at our option) on our allies. That's been policy ever since Russia got nukes. 'MAD' or not, you can't say it hasn't worked so far....

 

That is not a reason to vote for her and you inability to express one is duly noted. But do tell me why would you vote for a warmonger?

 

The obvious bias you project does very little to advance your position, and in fact drives many to reject your cause if only to distance themselves from that which you spew. Granted, Hillary is extremely flawed...this I can agree with. Yet, you have yet to produce anything that one can replace her with, and instead continue to gripe about the obvious.

If you were something other than a useless and futile repeat of known and well established Republican repeats of old and dismissed talking points...you might manage to serve a purpose.

 

What's really hilarious is people questioning Hillary Clinton's fitness for the presidency, who you know voted for Sarah Palin....

 

No more bias'd than you the difference is I can specifically state why I am bias'd against her and don't try to hide it.

I am asking you and others to advance YOUR positions on Hillary and why anyone should vote FOR her, all you've given so far is that you shouldn't vote for the other person whomever that might be.

And what are those flaws in your opinion?

That there is no one else to vote for is probably about the weakest argument you could come up with, that really the best you got?

I'll give you one John Kasich. I'l give you another, Romeny would make a better President by FAR over Hillary Clinton.

I'm not running, HIllary is and I STILL wait for the reasons to vote FOR her else admit there are none.

- - - Updated - - -

Palin was far more qualified that Hillary to serve as President. Not that she was highly qualified, Hillary is just highly under qualified as evidenced in her performance as SecState and rather unnoticeable term as a Senator.

 

I rest my case...

 

The GOP is just an old progressive pile of poo. Conservatives have written them off so who will vote for them?.

Not to worry, there will be no opposition to the next in line to be king/queen aristocracy known as the Clinton clan. Hope and change is still alive!!

 

Good. Work hard to kill the GOP. Take 20 years to do it.

 

I do not know why I bother with this, yet I do.

The moment you mentioned Palin....you solidified my opinion of your ability to opine on politics.

 

Sometimes I wonder what the world would have looked like if GI McCain had won the election.

My guess is that the US would be much worse in terms of military involvement and debt. With Romney, I loved it how Romney agreed with pretty much every foreign policy the President uttered but with the added twist of saying he could do it all better.

Yep, no real difference between the two parties so why not just have one official state party? That way we take away the smoke and mirrors of choice. and democracy

 

One party is not optimal. There is no one to cry foul if they become corrupt.

Speaking of corrupt, what shall we call the GOP replacements? The Koch-heads?

 

No, I do not presume to proclaim the reasons for each of 60 million Americans voting for Hillary Clinton.

Everyone has their own priorities and preferences in every election.

All one can assume is that most vote for whomever they deem to be the better candidate.

 

The allegiance for many purported Republicans as of late is not in to be found in the political realm, but in the entertainment media. It is a logical extension of the devotion some have to a dead fiction writer who fantasized about an America entirely devoid of Christian ethics.

That is why they rather attack Democratic office holders and candidates than support Republican ones. They're giddy fans, not serious about actual politics.

The College National Republican Committee noted that it's a "dismal present situation" when focus groups led by GOP pollsters find that voters under 30 consider the party "closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned," but this underscores the show-biz infatuation of many:

In focus groups in January, the report said, young voters were asked to list leaders of the Democratic Party. "They named prominent former or currently elected officials: Pelosi, the Clintons, Obama, Kennedy, Gore. When those same respondents were asked to name Republican leaders, they focused heavily on media personalities and commentators: Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck."​

Palin flirted with politics, abruptly quit, and is pursuing a career in show biz. That's where an ambitious right winger can hit it big these days, not in dreaded "public service."

​

 

But....stupid is stupid....regardless of where it appears.

 

What? It has been suggested that they do away with the Ethics Committee because corruption is so rampant that when it is found nothing of substance is ever done to remedy the situation. People like Charlie Rangel can have 50 or so ethics violations with impunity..

Whether you have two parties by name or just one won't make any difference, but having only one party might end the ignorant rants about only one party. That would be refreshing.

Personally, I agree with people like Mark Lavin. The Federal government is a cesspool beyond self help and the only hope of correction are amendments by the states. What is needed is an intervention as if you were dealing with a rabid drunk.

 

Thanks to the public education system the public has no idea what is really going on, and those that run the education system, namely the government, likes it that way. How else are they to win elections?

 

Woe, O woe! What terrible times these are! One is tempted to despair. Can no one deliver us from these depths?

Burt wait...I can't quite make it out...is that a man on a horse in the far far distance?

 

Clinton's swallowing the phony pretexts that Cheney and Rumsfeld fed to Powell was one of the main reasons Obama beat her - and it remains the principle knock against her - but the haters would rather rant about something along the lines of her having dropped a 65 kilo block of lime Jello® off a four story building onto Vince Foster's head.

​

.

 

One has to wonder. It could be a pale horse.

 

More woe, then. For now, anyway.

 

Actually, I can't think of anything more amusing than Sarah Palin trying to keep up with Hillary Clinton in a debate.

Let's not forget that Sarah Palin doesn't have a clue about finance or the federal government:

[video=youtube;1RuhdLYgToY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RuhdLYgToY[/video]