Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days

Why exactly would anyone think ANY candidate from ANY party who refuses to answer reporters questions would make a good President? WHY?

Hillary might successfully run from reporters questions right now, but the voters will still have those questions whether she answers them now or later. Answering them later will only hurt her Presidency run. The longer Hillary runs from the media, the harder the media will be on her during her Presidency run. The voter may not be as kind.

 

Political strategy 101. If you're way ahead in the polls keep your mouth shut and limit the ammo your opponents can use against you.

 

Lose in the voting booth!

 

Yeah, I kinda agree with that, especially since she had no competition right now. And when her history comes up a year from now she will just call it old news and it's time to move on.

 

I'm sure she'll say, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

 

She's garbage. How anyone supports this piece of crap is amazing.

She owes it to the U.S. People to make her case, face the questions, and tell us all why she deserves to be President. This elitist B.S. is for authoritarians.

 

Only the ones looking to make money from it.

 

I agree, even if I were with a big lead I wouldn't automatically assume that any comment I make will be negative. No, I'd rather step out into the spotlight, answer questions and show that I have nothing to hide.

But then, I'm not Hillary Clinton. Hillary gets to ride on the fact that we elected the worst POTUS in this nation's history, TWICE. So literally, even if she's corrupt the fact that she's been in office before means she knows how the gig works. And theoretically(though her dubious ties put even this theoretic into question) that also means she won't screw the pouch.

But now we know she's beholden to foreign corporations and even foreign statesmen. She's the very last entity anyone with any real common sense of dignity would want as POTUS. But we may not have a choice, especially if Jeb Bush comes from the Repubs. Just no, I still reject Neo-Cons. I may be a State Republican, but I'm anti Neo-cons.

Mitt Romney 2016, please reconsider Mitt. The Nation needs you.

 

Too bad Mitt is too smart to run again.

Hillary couldn't even win against an unknown no-name half-term inexperienced Senator/community organizer from Illinois.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

LOL, which reminds me that Obama broke a promise he made before he even became POTUS. Anyone remember this classic gem?

[video=youtube;dJfyXhw7tMA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfyXhw7tMA[/video]

Four years later, he ran to our peril.

 

Where is that humble and realistic Obama of 2004?

 

It didn't exist. He put lipstick on a pig, presumably because he didn't want to be under a microscope because if he were(as we know), he wouldn't have been elected.(Or at least, it would've been much harder). If we give Obama credit for one thing, it's that he's an excellent campaigner. It's too bad that's all he's good at.

 

Well, he's still on the job.... hasn't been impeached yet.... which puts him a notch above Bill, right?

 

There are plenty of impeachable offenses, the first one that jumps out is the violation of the WPA with regards to Libya. But you and I both know that he's untouchable for certain domestic reasons only applicable to the United States. If he were the leader of any other country, he most certainly would have at least had it filed like Bill did.

 

American voters are way too forgiving. And, we have no way to dissolve our government (short of outright impeachment) - there's no "vote of no confidence" or anything like that, we just have to wait till the next election. And four years is a long time, so if we screw ourselves by voting for the wrong team we might have all manner of bungles to deal with.

The thing is, it keeps happening over and over again. The voters don't seem to want to learn the lessons of the past. There is some perception that even if an unpalatable individual is elected as president, that the party and his associates will somehow "soften" him or temper him or keep him from doing unpleasant things. But that's not the case - in fact the exact opposite is true, because these people surround themselves with like-minded individuals, and people with similar styles. The presidency is a very powerful position, an individual can do a lot of damage in a very short time.

 

In my opinion, Obama was elected under two different circumstances. The first, being the rising popularity out of nowhere for a hereunto unknown politician(Sorry, peeps. But when Obama made his DNC speech, I was a 12 year old far too focused on my own personal life) and no one watches C-Span. The obvious racial implications well known(And good god do I remember the Propaganda. How the Left crowed that they're running two historics: First woman or first African-American! Step right up and vote.)

It didn't matter even if the Financial Meltdown did not occur in mid 2007-2008. Between the disaster of the Iraq War(though Obama made it worse), the distaste for Neo-cons and just wanting something new. You could've literally put a pacifer in Obama's mouth. If any ordinary candidate were associated with Jeremiah Wright, that candidate would've lost the nomination)

Once we put all the pieces together, that was no ordinary election. We were stuck with him. Then, the 2012 Election. I honestly believe Obama would've lost if he didn't outright lie during Benghazi. You know, the video demonstration that wasn't and his verbose attacks on Governor Romney, saying he was "impulsive" and "out of touch". When, lo and behold a year later it comes out that YES, it was a terrorist attack against our Embassy.

Perception is unfortunately everything, and between Obama's White House peddling the crap and the MSM in likewise steps, Mitt Romney had to go on the defensive for what he essentially was prophetic about: The rise of Islamic Militarism once again in the ME.

Unfortunately, Mitt Romney ran his Presidential Campaign like a conservative warhawk. Making proclamations about Jerusalem that simply would not be held up by INTL. Law and he knows it, his positions against Turkey during the Israeli/Turkey spat over the blatant murder of the Turkey ship crew. and his robust statements against Russia.

I believe Mitt Romney and John McCain to be very naive about Russia. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you use NATO as a proxy and a bloc in Eastern Europe, of course Russia was going to react strongly. We already knew this as it regarded Georgia, we should've known that Russia would not tolerate Ukranian Separatists and their radical ideology threatening Russian interests.

Neo-Cons may want to be the party of Napoleon, but their lack of strategic sense is absolutely mind boggling. The scariest thing for we Americans has to be right now, that two parties are clamoring for a position of power, in which no man among them is actually qualified to lead us geopolitically.

I still feel geopolitics and our National Security are our biggest challenges, and I think Rand Paul is the most qualified to face those challenges. I wish to tell Mr. McCain honorably that the Project of a New Century is a tremendous failure, and that perhaps Neo-Cons should reflect and review policy to at least change it.

They couldn't even hold Iraq, much less stem the flow of terrorism. They want to talk tough on it, but their lack of geopolitical expertise shows greatly in flawed decision making that extends to two Administrations.

 

Well said.

I do worry about the geopolitical, however I worry about the domestic more. The people pushing the interventionist foreign policies are influential because the system is a certain way, and at the end of the day it's possible and even likely that there's a profit motive involved at the individual level. The MIC is big business, it keeps a lot of people clothed and fed. Neither the contractors nor the military would take kindly to being curtailed. If they did the same thing Obama did it would be disastrous.... you know, shut down the national parks during the budget fight, let the garbage accumulate, that kind of thing - only in this case it might be a few missiles exploding at the wrong time or some other god-awful piece of low-life politicking....

But that's exactly what the partisan fray has become: low life politicking. Each side thinks it can "get its way" by squeezing the butt of a mule and not only isn't it going to work but it creates lifelong political resentments as well, stuff that follows candidates through their entire careers.

I don't know if Rand Paul has any 'nads. If he does, he'll probably be unpopular. The corporations and monied interests hated his father, and I suspect they're not thoroughly enamored with the junior either, meaning he'll find it hard to get support. That idiot Mel Watt held up the Audit-the-Fed bill in committee for over a year even though it had an unprecedented 320+ co-sponsors in the House, on both sides of the aisle. The minute it cleared committee it passed by an overwhelming vote, only to be killed in the Senate one hour later, by Chris Dodd (then chairman of the Finance committee).

These people will not react kindly to even so much as scrutiny. It's going to take someone with considerable 'nads to get them to change their behavior.

 

Agreed, Domestic US Policy is in very bad shape and it correlates IMO to the geopolitical. War and the Economy go hand in hand. When the Economy's strong, so is the military and when the economy is weak, the military suffers as well(Remember the outdated weapons crisis and the appropriations in the 2007 Budget battle?) By then, I was 15 and I was remotely paying attention to politics though not much. My love for politics began at age 7, and I sat on my Student Council at age 9 and then at age 12 I was elected President before abruptly having to transfer schools)

Strange thing is? I'm by no means a Bush or a Clinton type(IE: I had no favoritism, or political connections to get me started in this). My family may be well off now, but it was splintered in my childhood and my grandmother was apolitical, except with the comment of Bill Clinton. That comment(and praise for the economy) had a psychological effect that I cannot explain to this day, other than wanting to run and be like that person.

Obviously, as you can see thoughts have greatly changed as I'm a Syndicalist-Fascist who is running as a State Republican, for elective purposes. But that was the rare and unique spark that started it all. Equally, I studied business(and got a firm grip of that as well) and it puts me in the unique position of understanding our economic plight.

-We have too many workers, too few jobs. And too few Entrepreneurs
-This is why the money has shifted to those who are running capitalistic businesses.
-In addition, inflation greatly plagues us and has plagued us since the 1970. Which is a double whammy on the stagnated wages
-Of course, Big Government costing 18 trillion to operate hasn't helped. Higher taxes like insanity. Would the Founders have ever envisioned that a 39% tax rate would apply to those making 450 K, are you serious?

In the economy, everything that could go wrong, has and both parties are not willing to make changes. I want to make changes(and will start by running for State Rep)

-I want to cut the fat, return money to individuals and get them started as entrepreneurs.
-Private, capitalistic savings will translate into earning and higher wages, just as the Boomer Prosperity did.
-I want to reform Education so that we can finally get rid of Public and Charter Schools, I'm pro-Private Education. The results speak for itself.Why have competition if it's irrelevant? Why keep children away from the best education?

Many of these and more, if I should get elected and my hope is to stir the PA economy to great heights.

 

LMAO…Yeah, like you'd be voting for her if she did more press conferences, eh?

 

Hillary is attempting to ride out the early stages of her campaign on the momentum of her popularity. That may appear to be a shrewd or wise strategy now, but she's only postponing the inevitable questions which will be raised again at a time much closer to the primaries and again before the general elections. The current 'optics' of her snubbing the press make her appear arrogant and dismissive. Her attitude will not sit well with moderates and I'm sure even some Democrats.

 

Why should she answer questions when she damn well knows that progressives don't vote progressive because of ideas -they vote progressive because they hate "republicans."

The progressive party is an opposition party - not a party of substance or ideas - it's a party of hate and authority.

RINO voters are guilty of the same (*)(*)(*)(*) as well - they just believe the government should enforce their tyrannical fascist ideas.

 

Most folks won't.

 

Meh.... they don't rise to the level of fascists, they're merely ordinary everyday moralists.

 

I suggest she has better things to do than to pander to media demands.

- - - Updated - - -

And so is the Republican party. It works both ways when all you have is a two-party system.