American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems

[Halb]

The FDR thing was covered up, like the famous thing on the desk to hide his wheelchair. It's sort of acknowledged that he wouldn't have won in an era with instant media.

[Countdown]

rscott said:

JFK wasn't exactly a well man either

He was even worse towards the end of his stint.......

[rscott]

Countdown said:

rscott said:

JFK wasn't exactly a well man either

He was even worse towards the end of his stint.......

I don't know, I can think of at least one subsequent president who he could probably have out-reasoned....

[amusingduck]

Clinton emailed classified information after leaving the State Department

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/medi...

Whoops.

[amusingduck]

Politico said:

Bill Clinton's staff used a decades-old federal government program, originally created to keep former presidents out of the poorhouse, to subsidize his family’s foundation and an associated business, and to support his wife’s private email server, a POLITICO investigation has found.

Taxpayer cash was used to buy IT equipment — including servers — housed at the Clinton Foundation, and also to supplement the pay and benefits of several aides now at the center of the email and cash-for-access scandals dogging Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Politico said:

But even as the Clintons got rich and grew their foundation into a $2 billion organization credited with major victories in the fights against childhood obesity and AIDS — while paying six figure salaries to top aides — Bill Clinton continued drawing more cash from the Former President's Act than any other ex-president, according to a POLITICO analysis. The analysis also found that Clintons’ representatives, between 2001, when the Clintons left the White House, and the end of this year, had requested allocations under the Act totaling $16 million. That’s more than any of the other living former presidents — Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush — requested during that span.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/bill-clinton-used-tax-dollars-to-subsidize-foundation-private-email-support-teneo-227613

Gotta hand it to Bill there. A very cunning scheme. Not illegal, just morally reprehensible.

[smn159]

amusingduck said:

Oh, you're one of those.

Facts don't matter, rules don't matter, laws don't matter. Intentions do, and hers were pure.

There was no malicious intent, she's just hideously, hideously incompetent.

It's one argument I guess.

You seem to have an obsession with her and I'm trying to understand why.

Are you applying the same rigour to Trump?

[amusingduck]

smn159 said:

You seem to have an obsession with her and I'm trying to understand why.

Are you applying the same rigour to Trump?

It started a few months ago, I caught a whiff of the Email investigation and thought it sounded interesting. I read into it, it was interesting. Since then, there's been a steady stream of factual sources (FOIA requests, leaked documents, FBI statements, etc) that all paint the same picture - she's corrupt, yet untouchable.

It's like a soap opera. What will be released about the Clintons next? Tune in tomorrow to find out!

I'm not particularly interested in Trump to be honest, I think he's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think it's very unlikely he'll become president. As it should be.

My vote would go third party.

[smn159]

Fair enough and I've no particular love for her either. In the absence of a realistic third candidate though it's between her and Trump.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that she wouldn't be a good POTUS, regardless of her email arrangements. Trump, on the other hand...

[Countdown]

rscott said:

Countdown said:

rscott said:

JFK wasn't exactly a well man either

He was even worse towards the end of his stint.......

I don't know, I can think of at least one subsequent president who he could probably have out-reasoned....

[rscott]

smn159 said:

Fair enough and I've no particular love for her either. In the absence of a realistic third candidate though it's between her and Trump.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that she wouldn't be a good POTUS, regardless of her email arrangements. Trump, on the other hand...

As others have said on this thread already - it's slightly scary that these two are the 'best' candidates the country has to offer.

I guess the ideal outcome is Clinton gets elected, has to quit due to ill health within a year or so (before she can actually do much) and there's a re-run which produces two or three better candidates?

[unrepentant]

smn159 said:

amusingduck said:

Oh, you're one of those.

Facts don't matter, rules don't matter, laws don't matter. Intentions do, and hers were pure.

There was no malicious intent, she's just hideously, hideously incompetent.

It's one argument I guess.

You seem to have an obsession with her and I'm trying to understand why.

Are you applying the same rigour to Trump?

If your life consisted of looking out of the attic window of your Mum's council house in Birmingham while waiting for your next giro you'd probably get obsessed too.

[unrepentant]

rscott said:

As others have said on this thread already - it's slightly scary that these two are the 'best' candidates the country has to offer.

I guess the ideal outcome is Clinton gets elected, has to quit due to ill health within a year or so (before she can actually do much) and there's a re-run which produces two or three better candidates?

She'll be a perfectly good President

We don't do re-runs. If anything happens to the POTUS the Vice President takes over (see Kennedy / Johnson and Nixon / Ford)

[amusingduck]

unrepentant said:

If your life consisted of looking out of the attic window of your Mum's council house in Birmingham while waiting for your next giro you'd probably get obsessed too.

You never did correct the record on my "uninformed" post above. I hope you get around to it soon xx

[Jimbeaux]

amusingduck said:

smn159 said:

You seem to have an obsession with her and I'm trying to understand why.

Are you applying the same rigour to Trump?

It started a few months ago, I caught a whiff of the Email investigation and thought it sounded interesting. I read into it, it was interesting. Since then, there's been a steady stream of factual sources (FOIA requests, leaked documents, FBI statements, etc) that all paint the same picture - she's corrupt, yet untouchable.

It's like a soap opera. What will be released about the Clintons next? Tune in tomorrow to find out!

I'm not particularly interested in Trump to be honest, I think he's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think it's very unlikely he'll become president. As it should be.

My vote would go third party.

I feel the same as you.

[Jimbeaux]

rscott said:

smn159 said:

Fair enough and I've no particular love for her either. In the absence of a realistic third candidate though it's between her and Trump.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that she wouldn't be a good POTUS, regardless of her email arrangements. Trump, on the other hand...

As others have said on this thread already - it's slightly scary that these two are the 'best' candidates the country has to offer.

I guess the ideal outcome is Clinton gets elected, has to quit due to ill health within a year or so (before she can actually do much) and there's a re-run which produces two or three better candidates?

Not a rerun but a Kaine Presidency. Yes, a new election would ramp up pretty much right away, unofficially. As to "is this the best we have to offer"; there is a saying about those that are very capable...They are too smart to want to be POTUS.

[Jimbeaux]

unrepentant said:

smn159 said:

amusingduck said:

Oh, you're one of those.

Facts don't matter, rules don't matter, laws don't matter. Intentions do, and hers were pure.

There was no malicious intent, she's just hideously, hideously incompetent.

It's one argument I guess.

You seem to have an obsession with her and I'm trying to understand why.

Are you applying the same rigour to Trump?

If your life consisted of looking out of the attic window of your Mum's council house in Birmingham while waiting for your next giro you'd probably get obsessed too.

I don't picture you in your Mom's attic looking out of a window. Are you certain that is a requirement for being candidate-obsessed?

[rohrl]

Jimbeaux said:

amusingduck said:

smn159 said:

You seem to have an obsession with her and I'm trying to understand why.

Are you applying the same rigour to Trump?

It started a few months ago, I caught a whiff of the Email investigation and thought it sounded interesting. I read into it, it was interesting. Since then, there's been a steady stream of factual sources (FOIA requests, leaked documents, FBI statements, etc) that all paint the same picture - she's corrupt, yet untouchable.

It's like a soap opera. What will be released about the Clintons next? Tune in tomorrow to find out!

I'm not particularly interested in Trump to be honest, I think he's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think it's very unlikely he'll become president. As it should be.

My vote would go third party.

I feel the same as you.

Will you both be voting for Gary Johnson, or the Green Party woman whose name escapes me?

[Jimbeaux]

rohrl said:

Jimbeaux said:

amusingduck said:

smn159 said:

You seem to have an obsession with her and I'm trying to understand why.

Are you applying the same rigour to Trump?

It started a few months ago, I caught a whiff of the Email investigation and thought it sounded interesting. I read into it, it was interesting. Since then, there's been a steady stream of factual sources (FOIA requests, leaked documents, FBI statements, etc) that all paint the same picture - she's corrupt, yet untouchable.

It's like a soap opera. What will be released about the Clintons next? Tune in tomorrow to find out!

I'm not particularly interested in Trump to be honest, I think he's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think it's very unlikely he'll become president. As it should be.

My vote would go third party.

I feel the same as you.

Will you both be voting for Gary Johnson, or the Green Party woman whose name escapes me?

Possibly. Stein is her name.

[amusingduck]

rohrl said:

Jimbeaux said:

amusingduck said:

smn159 said:

You seem to have an obsession with her and I'm trying to understand why.

Are you applying the same rigour to Trump?

It started a few months ago, I caught a whiff of the Email investigation and thought it sounded interesting. I read into it, it was interesting. Since then, there's been a steady stream of factual sources (FOIA requests, leaked documents, FBI statements, etc) that all paint the same picture - she's corrupt, yet untouchable.

It's like a soap opera. What will be released about the Clintons next? Tune in tomorrow to find out!

I'm not particularly interested in Trump to be honest, I think he's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think it's very unlikely he'll become president. As it should be.

My vote would go third party.

I feel the same as you.

Will you both be voting for Gary Johnson, or the Green Party woman whose name escapes me?

Whilst I am an American citizen, I don't reside there (I reside in the attic of my mom's council house in Birmingham ). I've no idea if you can vote from overseas, and it's not my place to do so if it is possible. If I were living on the US, my vote would probably go to Jill Stein, from what little I know of Stein/Johnson

[Jimbeaux]

amusingduck said:

Whilst I am an American citizen, I don't reside there (I reside in the attic of my mom's council house in Birmingham ). I've no idea if you can vote from overseas, and it's not my place to do so if it is possible. If I were living on the US, my vote would probably go to Jill Stein, from what little I know of Stein/Johnson

I thought you lived in the back seat of a Skoda in your Mom's Liverpool shed. Oh well!