Forum Thread

Why Hillary shouldn't be president.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 10 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The President of the United States should be the number one most patriotic USA citizen. I believe Hillary wants to be president to improve the Clinton status as world leaders. The President should put the USA first and foremost for the betterment of USA citizens. The Clinton Foundation does not have the USA as its prime objective. I think the status of the USA should be the only concern of a President. A country is formed by borders and people. A President's focus as the number one citizen of the country should be on the citizens of the country. There are multiple international organizations claiming the universal welfare. A clinical look at Bill Clinton's presidency shows goals oriented beyond the citizens of the USA. I think that contradicts the role of the President and especially contradicts the role of a Democratic President . Our President needs to be a President for the people. The Presidency should not be used to empower international goals.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This is an incredibly scary (and naive) proposition.

    If the next President is an isolationist then we might as well say goodbye to America as we know it. Suggesting that the next President should focus solely on America is scary as hell. There are seven billion people in this world and we have binding international agreements with the vast majority countries these seven billion people live in.

    As Thomas Friedman wrote--the world is flat. Countries can no longer be isolationists because we are all interconnected in ways that will never be able to be unwound.

    The vast (and I mean vast) majority of products that Americans wear, watch, and use are made in other countries. You are lying to yourself if you honestly believe that the next President would be able to use king like powers and mandate that all those products are made in America.

    And let's say that the next President does use those king like powers--what happens when every American finds out that those jeans they used to be able to buy for $20 are now $200. That television they used to be able to buy for $500 is now $5,000. And that car they used to be able to buy for $25,000 is now $250,000. That's what would happen if we walked away from the international stage. It would usher in a great depression unlike anything this country has ever seen.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    This is an incredibly scary (and naive) proposition.

    If the next President is an isolationist then we might as well say goodbye to America as we know it. Suggesting that the next President should focus solely on America is scary as hell. There are seven billion people in this world and we have binding international agreements with the vast majority countries these seven billion people live in.

    As Thomas Friedman wrote--the world is flat. Countries can no longer be isolationists because we are all interconnected in ways that will never be able to be unwound.

    The vast (and I mean vast) majority of products that Americans wear, watch, and use are made in other countries. You are lying to yourself if you honestly believe that the next President would be able to use king like powers and mandate that all those products are made in America.

    And let's say that the next President does use those king like powers--what happens when every American finds out that those jeans they used to be able to buy for $20 are now $200. That television they used to be able to buy for $500 is now $5,000. And that car they used to be able to buy for $25,000 is now $250,000. That's what would happen if we walked away from the international stage. It would usher in a great depression unlike anything this country has ever seen.

    Jared , I don't think Chet meant it that way; sure we should continue to interface with the world, but in a different way. First of all, as Bernie sees it, we should not interfere how and what sovereign countries do with their country and their people. The huge mistake here is the selective way we deal with the world. For instance Israel versus the Palestinians; Muslims versus Christians; Communists versus Dictators or Capitalism. Our solution of just using our army to solve things in this world will always backfire. At least I commend Kerry for his open mind in the Iran deal as well Obama's in the case of Cuba. That is the way we should interface, not just invade countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and protect Korean borders since 1948. Like Bernie says we should stop being the policeman of the world and concentrate on fixing the wrong things in this country instead before we criticize others.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Jared , I don't think Chet meant it that way; sure we should continue to interface with the world, but in a different way.

    The thing is that Hillary Clinton is running for President. I have a hard time believing that she's only running so she can be a pawn for the Clinton Global Imitative that is currently being run by her husband.

    Not everything in this world is a vast conspiracy.

    Dutch Wrote: First of all, as Bernie sees it, we should not interfere how and what sovereign countries do with their country and their people. The huge mistake here is the selective way we deal with the world. For instance Israel versus the Palestinians; Muslims versus Christians; Communists versus Dictators or Capitalism. Our solution of just using our army to solve things in this world will always backfire.

    So the world community should just sit back and watch when a dictator commits genocide on his own people? What happens if that dictator has nuclear weapons and uses them on his own people because he thinks the world community won't do anything about it?

    Our solution is not just using our army to solve things. That was the solution of the Bush Administration, but that was nearly eight years ago. The Obama Administration has been focused far more on diplomacy than the Bush Administration ever was.

    Dutch Wrote: At least I commend Kerry for his open mind in the Iran deal as well Obama's in the case of Cuba. That is the way we should interface, not just invade countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and protect Korean borders since 1948. Like Bernie says we should stop being the policeman of the world and concentrate on fixing the wrong things in this country instead before we criticize others.

    It's great that you finally found something to commend this Administration for.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    This is an incredibly scary (and naive) proposition.

    If the next President is an isolationist then we might as well say goodbye to America as we know it. Suggesting that the next President should focus solely on America is scary as hell. There are seven billion people in this world and we have binding international agreements with the vast majority countries these seven billion people live in.

    As Thomas Friedman wrote--the world is flat. Countries can no longer be isolationists because we are all interconnected in ways that will never be able to be unwound.

    The vast (and I mean vast) majority of products that Americans wear, watch, and use are made in other countries. You are lying to yourself if you honestly believe that the next President would be able to use king like powers and mandate that all those products are made in America.

    And let's say that the next President does use those king like powers--what happens when every American finds out that those jeans they used to be able to buy for $20 are now $200. That television they used to be able to buy for $500 is now $5,000. And that car they used to be able to buy for $25,000 is now $250,000. That's what would happen if we walked away from the international stage. It would usher in a great depression unlike anything this country has ever seen.

    jaredsxtn, The only scary thing is you taking a post and extrapolating it and altering it to an extreme to frame it to fit the object of your criticism. Putting the USA first as I stated discredits your entire post. Putting the USA first establishes a group of which the USA would get preferential treatment. You and not I said isolationist. Then you proceeded to critique your own false premise as if I stated it. That made the rest of your post solely entertaining. I said that the Clintons are internationally oriented. They and their foundation do not appear to have a national objective. I think the President of the United States should be bound by the same rhetoric that they use to send soldiers to war. In the National Interest of the United States. You appear to defer the National Interest to International Interest. I did not originate " in the National interest" but I do agree with the premise. The National Interest is superior to all other interests. Only you claim isolationist. I stand by my point that the President should hold the USA first and foremost.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: Jared , I don't think Chet meant it that way; sure we should continue to interface with the world, but in a different way.

    The thing is that Hillary Clinton is running for President. I have a hard time believing that she's only running so she can be a pawn for the Clinton Global Imitative that is currently being run by her husband.

    Not everything in this world is a vast conspiracy.

    Dutch Wrote: First of all, as Bernie sees it, we should not interfere how and what sovereign countries do with their country and their people. The huge mistake here is the selective way we deal with the world. For instance Israel versus the Palestinians; Muslims versus Christians; Communists versus Dictators or Capitalism. Our solution of just using our army to solve things in this world will always backfire.

    So the world community should just sit back and watch when a dictator commits genocide on his own people? What happens if that dictator has nuclear weapons and uses them on his own people because he thinks the world community won't do anything about it?

    Our solution is not just using our army to solve things. That was the solution of the Bush Administration, but that was nearly eight years ago. The Obama Administration has been focused far more on diplomacy than the Bush Administration ever was.

    Dutch Wrote: At least I commend Kerry for his open mind in the Iran deal as well Obama's in the case of Cuba. That is the way we should interface, not just invade countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and protect Korean borders since 1948. Like Bernie says we should stop being the policeman of the world and concentrate on fixing the wrong things in this country instead before we criticize others.

    It's great that you finally found something to commend this Administration for.

    I guess you are way too much following the wrong thing; for example should Russia or China take over the role of being policeman of the world? Why not? Why are we doing it? Where did we get that right? From who? Who made a farce out of the United Nations? Let's appoint Denmark; I guess they would not want it. No Jared, if some countries want dictators that is their business , not ours, unless they attack us directly. Since WWII no country has attacked us on our soil; thus why do we have all these wars and invasions. What harm did Vietnam do to us? Just by being "communists"?; we killed hundred's of thousands including women and children; what for?. Wake up Jared, it is time the US takes care of its own society; let the UN deal with the rest of the world not us directly.

    About the last part; if that is all what the Obama administration did in 8 years, then indeed I'm ashamed about this result which I did commend. How about closing our prison camp on Cuba? How about stopping all our wars? Sorry a very meager result.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: jaredsxtn, The only scary thing is you taking a post and extrapolating it and altering it to an extreme to frame it to fit the object of your criticism. Putting the USA first as I stated discredits your entire post. Putting the USA first establishes a group of which the USA would get preferential treatment. You and not I said isolationist.

    I only read the words you wrote and tried to remind you that the world is a far more complicated place than what you said.

    What I don't get about your post is that the United States already gets preferential treatment. We are the richest country in the world and then some. Some cities and states are richer than others, but that's because we have a system of federalism that gives cities and states the vast majority of power in this country. The lines between cities and states are invisible though, so you are welcome to move if you aren't happy with your current local or state policies. We don't have walls preventing anyone from doing so.

    Suggesting the President doesn't put the United States first is pure nonsense, but the President isn't a king. He (and eventually she) can not wave a wand and get whatever they want.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Then you proceeded to critique your own false premise as if I stated it. That made the rest of your post solely entertaining. I said that the Clintons are internationally oriented. They and their foundation do not appear to have a national objective. I think the President of the United States should be bound by the same rhetoric that they use to send soldiers to war. In the National Interest of the United States. You appear to defer the National Interest to International Interest. I did not originate " in the National interest" but I do agree with the premise. The National Interest is superior to all other interests. Only you claim isolationist. I stand by my point that the President should hold the USA first and foremost.

    And I stand by my point that anyone who is President already does. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't put the country first.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    We saw what waging war recklessly does with the Bush administration. I think President Obama's foreign policies have had some positive outcomes, even against ISIS. I know ISIS is still a threat, but is another decade of yet another war really the answer? The President has taken so much criticism for the Iran treaty and establishing relations for Cuba, but how can we ever have peace in the world if nobody tries to talk? This is party of America's heritage. Sure, things don't always work out, but sometimes they do.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The President of the United States should be the number one most patriotic USA citizen. I believe Hillary wants to be president to improve the Clinton status as world leaders. The President should put the USA first and foremost for the betterment of USA citizens. The Clinton Foundation does not have the USA as its prime objective. I think the status of the USA should be the only concern of a President. A country is formed by borders and people. A President's focus as the number one citizen of the country should be on the citizens of the country. There are multiple international organizations claiming the universal welfare. A clinical look at Bill Clinton's presidency shows goals oriented beyond the citizens of the USA. I think that contradicts the role of the President and especially contradicts the role of a Democratic President . Our President needs to be a President for the people. The Presidency should not be used to empower international goals.
    Generally we elect Parties and not people. Remember that.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This political time is a hard reminder that this fine country has a large number of idiots. With a spirit of inclusion, this site has plenty as well. I appreciate the input of a few people but it sure gets diluted quickly. Money will always be part of life. Get over it......... The Clinton foundation brings in large amounts of money - yes. That doesn't mean they are evil. It just means that plenty of people are willing to contribute.

    jared, as usual your contributions are well received (by me).

    The worst things we've had to deal with in the last 60 years were are a product of our worst enemy......aka the red states.