Trustworthiness

The cons have been done a great job creating the suspicion of untrustworthiness in Hillary Clinton, for the Benghazi incident. They are even convincing some liberals.

But it really bothers me that the media is helping the cons. Day after day, the media reports on her trustworthiness polls keep going down. But they never mention the trustworthiness, or lack there of, of the GOP.

Nixon resigned over his lack of trustworthiness.

Reagan's lack of trustworthiness was blamed on Alzeimers, in the Iran/contra hearings. He sold chemical weapons to Iraq and missiles to Iran. He sold cocaine with Noriega, and used the profits to buy guns for the contras. He promised to balance the budget, and instead tripled the national debt.

Bush 41 doubled the debt again in only four years, while raising taxes after promising not to. He also started the Iraq war with Desert Storm.

Bush 43 destroyed Clinton's balance budget in his first six months giving tax cut welfare to millionaires, and wasted another $3 trillion on the Iraq war by telling lies about Iraq having yellow cake uranium.

For 35 years the GOP has claimed to be the "fiscally responsible" party, yet the last three republican presidents have added over $12 trillion to the national debt. And Bush 43 doubled his debt with a republican congress and senate.

I challenge anyone to show any trustworthiness in the GOP.

 

this would be a more interested thread if it were about the lack of trust in government in general. Approval levels for Congress are at an all time low and yet people keep buying into the whole spectacle on both sides. I dont get it.

 

You are ignoring all the accomplishments of Obama over the last six and a half years. In spite of an obstructionist republican congress, Obama brought this country out of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. He ended the Iraq war, which he promised to do. He gave America affordable healthcare. He gave us equal rights to marry. And he is now trying to make a deal with Iran to keep them from getting nuclear bombs. Of course the cons would rather start another war with Iran. That war will cost the tax payers at least $10 trillion.

 

Ugh. Here we go again.

Hillary Clinton is no different from any war-mongering Republican, which is why many Republicans love her.

I can't believe people can be so gullible. You are very naive in your viewpoint.

Many of the top neocons from the Bush administration have openly praised Hillary Clinton and have even thrown money to her.

When you get so wrapped up in the Democrat vs. Republican nonsense, it can really warp your view of reality. The whole point is to get people taking sides, believing that one side is somehow different from the other, when both are mere entities of the same bankers and military-industrial complex.

You Koolaid drinking Democrats are every bit as bad as the Koolaid drinking Republicans, and are precisely the reason nothing ever changes in this country.

 

I have nothing to say about trustworthiness of the GOP, but I agree that it's unfortunate that Hillary is portrayed as anything other than a presidential candidate. I kind of trip out thinking about what a difference it could make in the world if there were a first female president. Particularly following the first African American president.

 

All I know is because of my financial status I have to trust the Dem. side over the Rep. side.

 

" we were broke when we left the white house." Now they're worth 143 million? She defines THE MACHINE. On the board of directors at Wal-fuck-Mart? Defines THE MACHINE. I can hear the great beginning of that song--Money, money money money------MONNNNEEEYYY-------

 

Funny that all the cons are 1%ers, but liberals are demonized when they get some cash.

 

Not by me. --------Sanders/Warren, to see if there's actually something new under the sun.

 

I'm a registered Independent. I voted for Ralph Nader four times. But only 3% are smart enough to vote for anything but one of the two parties, and I wasn't going to let McCain or Romney get in if I could help it. And in spite of the cons obstructionism, I think Obama has done pretty good bringing us back from Shrub's mess.

 

True. I suspect that a lot of the dem's that support her don't even know that she has endorsed a "muscular, belligerent" foreign policy.

She and James Baker sat on the same stage and both endorsed a policy of "taking out" the Iranian government.

 

Wait, so the reasoning is, "We had an African American President, and he was pretty good, so if we have the first female President, good policy making is just bound to pop right of of her vagina!"

There is absolutely no basis for thinking that a woman, by virtue of being a woman, would be a better president than a man. What I can observe from looking at the history of female world leaders is that they actually tend to be more war-like and imperialistic than their male counterparts.

Please, vote for a president if you have a rational reason to think they will make a good president. I can't think of any dumber reason to vote for someone than what kind of genitals they've got between their legs.

 

I should amend my statement. I originally saw a film clip that leads one to believe that she explicitly endorses "taking out" Iran.

Looking at the unedited video, Baker suggests that "at the end of the day" if diplomacy fails, we ought to "take them out". Hillary's response was that "all options are on the table" and alluding to Baker's comments, "at the end of the day, maybe a year".

She doesn't explicitly endorse an attack on Iran, though one might reach that conclusion. It's also noteworthy that she doesn't advocate attacking Iran as a first option.

 

If one seeks but does not reach a diplomatic agreement, that is generally considered a failed diplomatic effort.

 

The reasoning is I actually like her.

My trip is that having an African American president can set a trend in American Politics for a freedom fighter President. Someone who is a symbol of our power as a people. Not to be naive but to see through to the real issue. For me the real issue is having a symbol of freedom.

 

I guess voters can vote however they want. You want her to be president because you will feel good if the president has a vagina. It's a reason to vote for her if one uses the term reason loosely. It has nothing to do with how she might actually serve as president though.

It's about as dumb a justification for voting for someone as I can think of.

 

I think any of the reasons that cons vote for any of their candidates is far more dumb. The alternative to Clinton ore any other liberal is another $10 trillion added to the national debt for war with Iran, and the destruction of Social Security, Medicare, education, food stamps, the EPA, aid to the poor, and the AHCA.

 

It hasn't got much to do with how she might serve as president. I think it's outstanding to have a female president, but I also see no reason to distrust her. She seems okay.

 

I am truly struggling as to why Mrs. Clinton's issues are about Republicans? Is this some sort of religion where those who ask questions are appostates?

Is Mr Obama a republican for his public posture of chill toward Her Royal Clinton?

is Valerie Jarrett a Con for leaking dirt to the press on HRC?

 

One politicians promise is just another politicians lie.