OT - everything Hillary

User Forum Topic
Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 16, 2016 - 11:47pm

Now that she's the presumptive nominee, let's talk about her, her personality, her hair, etc....

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 16, 2016 - 11:55pm.

The most mentioned thing about Hillary is that she's not likable?
Why is that so important?

Personally, I'd be ok with a technocrat/professor type running the country. I don't need to feel like I could grab a drink with the president.

I admire Hillary for her strength of character. Lots of women would have wilted a long time ago.

Submitted by zk on March 17, 2016 - 8:16am.

.

Submitted by NotCranky on March 17, 2016 - 9:16am.

Who's your momma?

Submitted by livinincali on March 17, 2016 - 9:58am.

Did you know St. Patrick's was a dry holiday in Ireland until 1970.

Aside from the color green, the activity most associated with St. Patrick's Day is drinking. However, Irish law, from 1903 to 1970, declared St. Patrick's Day a religious observance for the entire country meaning that all pubs were shut down for the day. That meant no beer, not even the green kind, for public celebrants. The law was overturned in 1970, when St. Patrick's was reclassified as a national holiday - allowing the taps to flow freely once again.

Submitted by spdrun on March 17, 2016 - 10:18am.

FIH -- Hillary is not a technocrat/professor. That would be Elizabeth Warren. She's a political hanger-on/hack who got where she was on her husband's coattails.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 17, 2016 - 11:02am.

I like Elizabeth Warren, but I'm afraid she has her share of haters, even more so than Hillary.

Men who like Elizabeth Warren tend to be young millennials or what Arnold would call "girlie men". "Real men" like Sarah Palin.

I believe there's a lot of psychology/sociology to who we like or dislike. Interesting to examine.

Submitted by njtosd on March 17, 2016 - 11:11am.

spdrun wrote:
FIH -- Hillary is not a technocrat/professor. That would be Elizabeth Warren. She's a political hanger-on/hack who got where she was on her husband's coattails.

Oh my gosh. For once I agree with you.

Submitted by njtosd on March 17, 2016 - 11:22am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I like Elizabeth Warren, but I'm afraid she has her share of haters, even more so than Hillary.

Men who like Elizabeth Warren tend to be young millennials or what Arnold would call "girlie men". "Real men" like Sarah Palin.

I believe there's a lot of psychology/sociology to who we like or dislike. Interesting to examine.

I like Elizabeth Warren because she is not sure what side she's on completely. She was a Republican for a while but changed her mind and has voted for both parties. She was a lawyer but worked from home, presumably because she also felt a need to be at home when her children were small. She taught kids with disabilities, proving at least to me, that she puts her money where her mouth is. ( I don't know how Hillary can go on and on about the less fortunate while accumulating a large fortune of her own. She is the 0.1% . . .). Elizabeth Warren is also smart enough to say that she never wants to be president. The only ones who want to be are narcissistic lunatics.

Submitted by spdrun on March 17, 2016 - 1:07pm.

Nothing wrong with working from home or being freelance. I didn't know there was a legal obligation to work in an office cubicle under artificial light from 8-6.

The GOP? A lot of good people were Republicans before the party got taken over by nutters.

Submitted by zk on March 17, 2016 - 3:35pm.

njtosd wrote:
Elizabeth Warren is also smart enough to say that she never wants to be president. The only ones who want to be are narcissistic lunatics.

My list. We don't really need to argue about it, it's just for fun. I'd love to see others' lists

These aren't in any order. If they were, Teddy Roosevelt would be right up there with Trump.

Narcissistic lunatics:

Trump (obviously)
Bill and Hillary
Cruz
Rubio
JF Kennedy
Teddy Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt
Nixon
GW Bush

Not narcissistic lunatics:

Obama
Kasich
Elizabeth Warren
Carter
Ford
Eisenhower
Reagan (?)
GHW Bush
Bobby Kennedy
Ben Carson (although he is a lunatic IMO)
Bernie

Some fine presidents on both those lists, IMO.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 17, 2016 - 6:16pm.

Although i am a man, I feel like i understand Hillary.

Like Hillary, I was idealistic once but much more pragmatic now.

I don't think caring for the less fortunate is exclusive of building your own fortune so I don't fault the Clintons for becoming rich. The reality is that you need money to open doors and be taken seriously. Plus, with money, you can delegate more and accomplish a lot more. It makes no sense for people to say "if you care for the poor, you should give up your own money". How does it help anyone to live in poverty and have no power?

Hillary may seem calculating, but that's what business and the business of politics, and being a lawyer are all about. People who are business minded should support that.

I believe that Hillary has been a liberal since her college days and that never goes away. Sometimes the country is too conservative and not ready to move on so she had to equivocate. For example, she was against gay marriage before she supported it. But that is not flip flopping. It's evolution. What matters is that she supports it now.

In politics, you have to be flexible and adjust to the context. I mean, how useful it is to say "we will not deal with Cuba as long as Castro is in power"? Well Fidel left power years ago and his brother took power. Doubling down on an old policy is stupid. I'm glad that Hillary and Obama restored relations with Cuba.

Submitted by joec on March 18, 2016 - 6:46pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Although i am a man, I feel like i understand Hillary.

Like Hillary, I was idealistic once but much more pragmatic now.

I don't think caring for the less fortunate is exclusive of building your own fortune so I don't fault the Clintons for becoming rich. The reality is that you need money to open doors and be taken seriously. Plus, with money, you can delegate more and accomplish a lot more. It makes no sense for people to say "if you care for the poor, you should give up your own money". How does it help anyone to live in poverty and have no power?

Hillary may seem calculating, but that's what business and the business of politics, and being a lawyer are all about. People who are business minded should support that.

I believe that Hillary has been a liberal since her college days and that never goes away. Sometimes the country is too conservative and not ready to move on so she had to equivocate. For example, she was against gay marriage before she supported it. But that is not flip flopping. It's evolution. What matters is that she supports it now.

In politics, you have to be flexible and adjust to the context. I mean, how useful it is to say "we will not deal with Cuba as long as Castro is in power"? Well Fidel left power years ago and his brother took power. Doubling down on an old policy is stupid. I'm glad that Hillary and Obama restored relations with Cuba.

Clinton is a flip-flopper because even in this fight with Bernie, she has gone even FARTHER left just because she has to do just that to get the nomination. She was supportive of a free trade deal earlier with Obama, but had to flip flop so she wouldn't lose the nomination recently.

She also had to go FARTHER on immigration than she wanted to or Obama ever did due to the election.

She panders and says whatever is needed to enrich herself and her situation and to WIN the election. That is, by definition, what flip flopping is. She says whatever is needed to win.

All you've stated above from what I take is that it's ok to make money, and after you have money, no matter how you made it even if it's selling out so you profit from it (say, get kickbacks, speaking fees, whatever so you approve a deal or contract or whatever that's bad for the country, but good for you, it's all ok)...

My feeling is that Hillary is completely bought by special interest. Her main goal in life is to make money and enrich herself and her family, that's all. Everything done has that end goal in mind. Helping blacks is to help herself and her husband get elected. I don't believe deep down, she honestly gives a crap.

Yes, I am a Clinton hater. But calling her progressive I feel is inaccurate and ultimately, I feel she is there just to enrich herself. I think after the whole Monica Lewinsky affair, she stayed with Bill since politically, that would be best for her to get ahead.

We will never know what she really feels deep down, but stating all you state above is really giving her credit that she doesn't deserve IMO.

Some of my problems with politics and politicians and all these types is that a lot of times, they get inside information for various business deals or partnerships, but unlike insider trading, it is stated that they can trade and invest based on this information, all legally...

Oh well, maybe I am sad to just see her possibly get the nomination soon and the smell test of rich people giving you money and not wanting anything in return is naïve I feel.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on March 21, 2016 - 9:41am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
The most mentioned thing about Hillary is that she's not likable?
Why is that so important?

I listen to NPR a lot, so I hear a lot of speeches from the candidates. Barrack Obama just has a way of speaking that is very soothing. It's like, even when I disagree with his policy, when I hear him speak, I feel better about him.

Hillary, the less I hear her talk, the more I like her.

I do feel like Trump, Ruibo and Cruz all are hard to listen to as well. Kasich is very easy to listen to. I disagree with a lot of his policies, but he sounds very "Presidential". Maybe a little stuffy, not super warm, but his voice isn't grating at all.

It shouldn't matter, but it does, especially with low information, swing voters.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 21, 2016 - 1:47pm.

Interesting you should mention speaking style. Hillary has been criticized for speaking too loud and not smiling enough. I don't particularly care for her style.

Obama has a soothing stardard American accent combined with some folksiness. He can be mocking, but I like that. Good deep voice. Most of the time, he has a handsome stage presence.

Cruz' high pitched voice is kinda annoying. If anyone sounds out of touch elitist, Cruz does. He looks like a cartoon character. Rubio is inconsistent. Trump is annoying.

I like Justin Trudeau's style. Young, forward looking, positive. He has a soothing voice; he speaks clearly in voice that's a little "posh". Too bad we don't have someone like that in the United States.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on April 14, 2016 - 4:51pm.

My friend just me he doesn't like Hillary because she kissing black asses too much.
Yes, she has worked hard to shore up support among blacks.

Submitted by svelte on April 21, 2016 - 7:50am.

This thread died an early death.

I think it is because Hillary is, quite frankly, boring.

But then again, maybe that is a highly desirable characteristic to become the first female president. It could help sooth the fears of those who consider gender when pulling the lever.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 19, 2016 - 6:33pm.

I just got a text that Hillary is having a rally at Hilltop HS in Chula Vista (my attendance area) on Friday of this week. I can't verify that yet but upon further research of her events, her "partner in crime," PRESIDENT Bill Clinton, is set to appear on her behalf at BVHS (also in the SUHSD) in Chula Vista on Saturday, May 21 at 10:30 a.m.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/events/vi...

I also noticed on her site that her campaign has many opportunities scheduled in the local area and region on the coming weeks to get out the vote for Hillary.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/events/se...

As soon as I find out more about this "rumor" of Hillary coming into the county, I'll post it here. In light of the posted "Bill appearance" just six miles away and one day later, it is entirely plausible.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 20, 2016 - 12:56pm.

Ok, I just checked my source and of course, I don't have TV anymore. Hill will be at Hilltop High tomorrow morning at 10:30, Bill will be at BVHS tomorrow morning at 10:30 and Bernie will be at Kimball Park, NC tomorrow afternoon at 4:30.

It's going to be a busy week for political rallies in SD County!

Submitted by spdrun on May 20, 2016 - 1:03pm.

.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on May 20, 2016 - 4:21pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
Ok, I just checked my source and of course, I don't have TV anymore. Hill will be at Hilltop High tomorrow morning at 10:30, Bill will be at BVHS tomorrow morning at 10:30 and Bernie will be at Kimball Park, NC tomorrow afternoon at 4:30.

It's going to be a busy week for political rallies in SD County!

And Trump will be in San Diego next Friday!

I'd love to see Bill, but I'm not driving to South County to see him speak.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 20, 2016 - 4:32pm.

I was invited the commencement when Bill spoke as UCSD. But I was too far away to see him up close. It was nothing to write home about.

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 20, 2016 - 4:57pm.

poorgradstudent wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
Ok, I just checked my source and of course, I don't have TV anymore. Hill will be at Hilltop High tomorrow morning at 10:30, Bill will be at BVHS tomorrow morning at 10:30 and Bernie will be at Kimball Park, NC tomorrow afternoon at 4:30.

It's going to be a busy week for political rallies in SD County!

And Trump will be in San Diego next Friday!

I'd love to see Bill, but I'm not driving to South County to see him speak.


yes, poorgradstudent. We have 6 tix for Trump. I've already voted but wouldn't mind listening to Bernie in Kimball Park (NC) tomorrow afternoon. I mean, G@d forbid, something could happen to Trump or his candidacy between now and November! I like a few of Bernie's proposals.

BVHS (where Bill will be appearing) is a very nice remodeled HS, located in a very nice and fairly convenient area at the corner of Otay Lakes Rd and East "H" Street. It has a big parking lot with solar panels over it facing H St and another teacher parking lot on Otay Lakes Rd next to the Bolles Theatre (across the street from Bonita Point Center, anchored by Ralph's). If the school parking lots are full, you can park at Southwestern College and walk 5-10 mins to the school, diagonally across the street from it. Not sure about Saturday, but there may be a nominal fee to park on campus. Arrive early and bring quarters and dollar bills, just in case.

You should go if you really want to see President Clinton (and maybe shake his hand and get your pic taken with him) :=)

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/events/vi...

The opportunity may never come again. I saw on Hill's schedule that she is slated to appear in Riverside on May 24 at 3:30, but that is the only other appearance I could find in SoCal on her site for either of them before the primaries.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/events/vi...

Hillary's Hilltop High appearance is also not a listed event on her site so maybe she is only announcing some of her appearances just hours before they happen (it was apparently announced on the SD news this morning ... not sure which channel as I don't have TV).

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 20, 2016 - 5:02pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I was invited the commencement when Bill spoke as UCSD. But I was too far away to see him up close. It was nothing to write home about.
Well, his appearance tomorrow will be more "up close and personal." BVHS only has a small cafeteria and a gym and its Bolles Theatre (with an elevated stage) is even smaller.

When BVHS puts on big productions, they use SWC's auditorium. I'm surprised Bill is not appearing there, instead.

Hilltop High has it's own large auditorium.

Submitted by bearishgurl on June 2, 2016 - 1:53pm.

This post is in response to the current convo in the "Reasons I cannot vote for Trump" thread:

As a nearly lifetime Dem (and local Dem activist for nearly ten years), I lost respect for Hillary after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Of course, Bill had other "dalliances" long before that but he was not the POTUS at that time, nor was she the FLOTUS (in the public eye of the nation and not just in their parochial existence back in Arkansas, a culture of which I am highly familiar). If Hill has had any relationships outside of her marriage, she has managed to conduct them under the radar of public scrutiny.

Hill has turned into a longtime "chump" in my mind and her health has obviously suffered adversely from it (as well as from the pressure from her Sec of State position). She did it to herself.

And as an admitted lifetime feminist, I hold men (and women as well, incl myself) personally responsible for the choices they made in their adult lives. In my biz, I've repeatedly listened to men complain incessantly about how their marriages and/or relationships fell apart over the years (usually while in the throes of filing a divorce petition or answering one) and felt many of their complaints were valid (ie spouse abruptly quit working or failed to return to work after maternity leave was over, spouse charged up credit cards with discretionary purchases and left him with 4-5 figure bills, spouse couldn't balance a checkbook/manage money, spouse couldn't manage household, couldn't manage kids (even if unemployed), spouse refused to apply for jobs or engage in job training, has refused to take care of herself for years (ie let herself go), spouse got pregnant after he told her he didn't want any more kids, spouse not interested in sex, no sex for years/decade(s), blah, blah, blah. Every single time, I ask them, "Where were YOU when all this was going on? Did you ever look at your credit card statements every month? Did you ever confront her on the charges on your (joint-but-bad-idea) CC's you're complaining about here? Did you ever tell her you're not getting enough attention? Did you ever consider having a vasectomy if you don't want anymore children? Why have you hung out this long sleeping on a twin futon the study and hauling your a$$ off to work every morning (while she sleeps in) when you haven't been happy for 10++ years? Do you think your current situation is good for your minor children living at home? What kind of message are you sending to them?" Etc. Even if the couple divorcing has grown kid(s) no longer residing with them, it's the same sad saga which has become even more pronounced, often proportionate to the extreme length of time they have sat motionless and did nothing to improve their happiness levels.

Of course, married women seeking divorces or answering a divorce petition have legitimate complaints about their spouses as well (incidence[s] of domestic violence, spouse hasn't been able to hold a job for any length of time, spouse has alcohol/substance abuse problem[s], spouse repeatedly arrested, spouse has longstanding porn addiction, spouse is a narcissist or a hoarder .... and on it goes). Since I've often been the front-line paper pusher for most of these "clients," I've heard it all.

However, the profound difference I have found between women and their estranged spouse (in parties seeking dissolution) is that 90% of the time, the existence of complete or partial ongoing financial dependency on the spouse on the part of the women. THEY and ONLY THEY have allowed themselves to get into the situation they are now finding themselves in. Either consciously or unconsciously, they slipped into a role which rendered them unable to fully support themselves (or support themselves at all) throughout their lives.

And I don't buy the excuse that divorce costs so much that it is worth giving up happiness for the rest of one's life (which can be unexpectedly cut short, btw). Divorce can be expensive of the parties can't agree on anything, but in CA, BOTH parents are viewed by the courts as equally financially responsible (by percentage of their respective incomes) for the support of their children and BOTH parties are expected to bring in income equivalent to a FT job they are qualified to do.

As you may surmise, I believe in no-fault divorce and divorce reform in states which still have "fault-based" divorce. I also feel the CA Legislature needs to reform the way child support is set as a percentage of each parent's timeshare of the child(ren) because it invites the higher-earning spouse to litigate child custody (a VERY expensive proposition).

Back to the subject of Hillary, she has always been very well-educated and self-supporting, meeting Bill in her youth while students at Yale Law School, where they both graduated with JD's and went on to become successful lawyers. This is all the more reason why it seems so far-fetched to her "brethren" that she would voluntarily reduce herself to a chump for the sole purpose of hitching a lifetime ride on Wild Bill's coattails! This is the same sex addict who was a habitual predator to mostly working women in his "daily sphere" (yes, ALL were in my demographic except Broadrick, who is closer to Bill/Hill's age). We boomer women are entirely cognizant that there weren't any sexual harassment laws in place for US workplaces at that time. If a young woman had minor children to support and/or a "state capitol gig" was their first great job after graduating from college or business school, it was difficult for a working woman/possible single mom to mess that up by continually fighting off the advances of their boss (or an influential friend of their boss) ... especially if he was a powerful public figure. I'm not making excuses for anyone here but it couldn't have been easy in that part of the country for women to make a living wage at that time and it probably still isn't easy today.

Obviously, Hill had political aspirations of her own from her 30's forward and likely figured that she could better fulfill her goals in the political arena if she remained attached to Bill at the hip, even when publicly humiliated by his behavior. It's disgusting to me why a woman of her stature would do that to herself and I am not alone. I believe she could have fulfilled many or most of her career and political goals without continuing to prostrate herself as Bill's (chump) "other half."

see: http://www.amazon.com/Chump-Lady-Surviva...

I found the above link on my "wish list" (cost $13-$15) but it looks like Amazon recently sold out of it and "used copies" are now over $150! I wonder why that is, folks? Perhaps it is an indication of the American "electorate" wanting to better understand the inner-workings of would-be Prez Hillary, the Chump Lady?? After all, some of the books I had saved which were written by Trump, as well as Trump family bios have gone up in price in the past few months so they must also currently be selling well ... no?

For even more reviews, see: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22601...

and: http://www.chumplady.com/

Hill has put women and family issues at front and center of her campaign. But women (especially those within the huge boomer cohort with long memories who are close to her age) are shaking their heads ... incredulous that she has placed herself in a position to be repeatedly publicly humiliated by her sex-addict spouse when she had so many options in life! Now she finds herself (and her campaign) having to "take the heat" by necessity cuz they are unable to "stay out of the kitchen," anymore. DUH! Of course, she had to have already known all this before embarking on her campaign for POTUS 2016!

I'm not suggesting that she should have divorced Bill while he was still in office. But she could have quietly done so soon after he left office and kept her dignity. No one would have judged her for that.

In Hill's defense, she may not appear "likeable" to many people because she has gone thru a lot of sh!t in her personal life (again, her choice) and has developed into a steel magnolia because of it. And that's okay. I don't think she's incompetent but I think the Sec of State position was clearly too much for her (physically, mentally and spiritually) and has affected her health adversely.

And, no, I've never been a "victim" of "infidelity." I don't even like that word because it is not illegal and it always takes two to tango in a relationship. Because a marriage is akin to a "business" under the law, there are no "victims" in a marriage unless one party has secretly gambled away the bulk of marital funds, spent the bulk of it on a drug/alcohol addiction or has (covertly) stolen it from joint accounts and put it into an account or "investment" that the other party doesn't have access to. And the "victim" in this case is only a victim as long as they keep their head in the sand by not paying attention to what is going on in their financial lives.

I am of the belief that every adult needs to be responsible for their OWN actions and reactions, no matter what their "status" is. As non-PC as it my sound, Hill has, unwittingly or not, devolved into a laughingstock "chump lady" among her peers ... women of my (her) generation (she's several years older than I). Yes, there IS such a thing and 90% of the time, the phenomenon stems from financial insecurity on the part of the woman, plain and simple. In Hill's case, it was her insatiable need to occupy an elected position of power and authority along with her (erroneous) belief that she needed Wild Bill at her side to successfully achieve those goals.

A lot of people vote for (or don't vote for) a political candidate depending on how they "feel" about them as a person and I am no exception. I feel Hillary was a "sellout" to her generation of women when she could have set an example as a maverick among us with all her talent and connections WITHOUT Wild Bill by her side. Right now, he's nothing but a liability to her.

The old stepford wife ... "just-don't-tell-me-about-it" model hasn't "worked" since the 1950's and it really didn't work that well back then ... given the amount of "shotgun marriages" which took place in that era , lol.

Submitted by treehugger on June 2, 2016 - 3:45pm.

I agree with a lot of what BG said. I am a successful college educated woman and tout girl-power all the way!!!! I have a visceral distaste for Hillary. I have watched her over the years and I have no doubt that she and Bill have a successful partnership, just as I have no doubt that she is smart and will likely be fine as president. Unfortunately, I also believe that she has sold her soul to the devil to get where she is and she firmly believes she deserves this. Well, when you sell your soul the devil comes calling....

It makes me sad that she has so much power and ability and instead of finding someone from the rank and file (a strong, intelligent, commanding woman would've been amazing) and mentoring them over the years and pushing them forward to be president of this great nation, she is so narcissistic that she put herself forward and tears everyone else down.

I like Bernie, not that I think he will be a good president, but because he is honest and has been touting the same message for 40+ years (I don't really even agree with him on everything, but I respect him) I think he got into the race with the best of intentions, to further what he believes in and fight for it. I think he can stand proud that Hillary has been pulled closer to his leftist ideas just to keep relevant and prove she will do anything to win. I like him and will vote for him June 7th, because I do not think he will win, but I want to be heard. What I want our politicians to hear is ENOUGH YOU CRAZY BASTARDS. Why do you think Trump and Bernie are doing so well, the American people, myself included, are tired of the games.

I am sad that in Nov I likely will cast my vote for Hillary. I wish Trump would get some good advisors and act like a grown-up, his mean spirited high school mentality name calling offends me at a core level that won't allow me to see him for anything else. I have never accepted bullying to myself or anyone else (as a child or as an adult), I teach my children it is wrong and if someone is being mean you step in and stop it, to stand-by and do nothing makes you guilty and less of a person. To many people are standing by. I find it repugnant to have to watch this elitist piece of sh*& say mean things and bestow his honorific nicknames on to anyone who disagrees with him. Hey what's up lard-ass, what's going on zit-face....it is plain mean and wrong and for that reason I will vote for Hillary, whom I detest.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 2, 2016 - 4:16pm.

BG, so many contractions in your post...

Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?

If my wife were having extra marital sex, I probably wouldn't care. Maybe there comes a time, I don't want sex with her anymore. So what? We could be business partners and if the business is prosperous, then why dissolve it?

The marriage is the foundation on which to build. If that connection is useful, then why not keep it?

BTW, people who have gone trough a lot should be admired, not hated.

Contrast Princess Di to Hillary. Di was a needy, insecure woman and people loved her. Hillary is smart, intelligent and resourceful; and people hate her.

Submitted by bearishgurl on June 2, 2016 - 5:57pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
BG, so many contractions in your post...

Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?

If my wife were having extra marital sex, I probably wouldn't care. Maybe there comes a time, I don't want sex with her anymore. So what? We could be business partners and if the business is prosperous, then why dissolve it?

The marriage is the foundation on which to build. If that connection is useful, then why not keep it?

BTW, people who have gone trough a lot should be admired, not hated.

Contrast Princess Di to Hillary. Di was a needy, insecure woman and people loved her. Hillary is smart, intelligent and resourceful; and people hate her.


My "brethren" and I no longer "expect" the Clintons will divorce. I mean, hello? Hill and Bill are pushing 69 and 70 years old, respectively. Why bother at this point?

We FULLY EXPECTED her to dump him in 2001, after he left office. ESPecially if she had future political aspirations! THAT's the very latest date she should have left Bill and had she done so then she would not have the baggage her opponent is currently using against her on the national airwaves.

It's not Bill's "infidelity," per se, that's making her look today like the chump she is. That's all on HIM. It's the fact that she denied the Lewinsky "affair" as long as she could until she could no more (in effort to "protect" Bill, who was POTUS at the time) and then stood by him during his "impeachment" process (for lying about his activities with Monica).

It's also the fact, that, as the First Lady of AR for 12 years (with two more years in between stints as Governor), she put up with Bill's numerous affairs (one lasting ~4 years) and hung by his side even though she would have been more than justified to dump him as early as 1981. If the things Trump is saying are true (haven't investigated them myself) and Hill actually threatened some or all of these women in the name of protecting Bill's "reputation" (the Governor at the time), then my opinion of her would plunge to the lowest of low ratings.

Yes, I am judging her because she has supported Wild Bill's storied "career" serving in the highest elected posts in the land for 20 years, she was then elected and served as a Senator of NY for 8 years and then served as US Sec of State for 4 years (a POTUS appointed cabinet position). Including her First Lady gigs, that equals 32 years that Hill has either served in high public office herself or closely supported someone else who did. She always had political aspirations for herself and we all know that all is fair in love and politics. Had Bill and Hill (yes, they're a pkg deal) never occupied the AR State Capitol or the White House and lived in relative obscurity, then it wouldn't matter to anyone what kind of arrangements they had/have in place in order to put on a facade of presenting a "happy marriage" in public. They could go along thru life as 50-75% of long-married couples do and live as roommates, vacation separately (or even live separately) and no one would be the wiser.

Yes, I DO believe that the reason they are still together today is because they feel that elements of their relationship are "useful" to each of them. And that is A-okay, perfectly legal and done every day, everywhere. But let's all just call it the "sham arrangement" that it is and hope that if she gets elected, she doesn't place Wild Bill in a position where he can muck up the works too badly . . . or worse, embarrass the sh!t out of her again because of his not-so-well-controlled addictions and proclivities. As POTUS, she's not going to have the time or inclination to keep an eye on him. I guess she could get a trusted cabinet member or aide to do it, though. Bill well knows "the lay of the land" around Washington and there will always be a young female aide, intern or even beautiful Gen X staffer working in or visiting the White House or the Nation's Capitol who would be star struck if charming Billy paid any attention to them at all :=0

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 3, 2016 - 11:10am.

BG, you should read some history of other presidents' sexual exploits.

I really don't see how Hillary staying with Bill has anything to do with her qualifications for the office of president.

Bill's behavior might say something about him. Same goes for Trump.

If anything, conservatives should admire Hillary's commitment to marriage.

Submitted by all on June 3, 2016 - 11:24am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?

Because her husband is a philanderer?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 3, 2016 - 11:27am.

all wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:

Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?

Because her husband is a philanderer?

That's not a conservative viewpoint. With the help of God, you work it out.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.