Why electing Hillary could be dangerous - a must read!

One thing about democracy is it's a system where the public gets what the public deserves. In the case of George W. Bush you have a politician who the public elected strictly on the basis of the famous last name and in the end the public got just exactly what the public deserved - Iraq!

That alone should demonstrate why merely rubber-stamping the ones who get to lead us can be very, very dangerous.

Well, when I look at Hillary Clinton I see several things that lead me to believe that we appear to be ready to do it all over again. For one thing, she's just another millionaire, pampered, bowl-of-cherries, Cinderella baby with a famous last name, just like George Bush was - like we don't have enough of 'em in government already. Both got their famous last names by being in the right place at the right time - him by being related to a former president, her by being married to one.


And then there's that ego trip. If Mrs. Clinton isn't on the biggest ego trip on the face of the planet, who would be? I'm sorry, but all I see when I look at her is famous last name and one gigantic ego trip and practically little else. I certainly don't see anything that distinguishes her from any of the other candidates that threw their hat into the contest at the beginning of the campaign season. And I also don't see anything that distinguishes her from any of the politicians who have made up the status quo in Washington for the past several decades. From my vantage point she's running strictly on famous last name, celebrity and ego.

coalkirk wrote:Could it be that the frequent participants in the in the political topics here have two things in common? Coal burning and a desire to See Hillary defeated?

If so we can begin to work on debating which of the other two lousy choices should be made.

coalkirk wrote:The sad truth is the American voter is uninformed, too lazy to get informed, likely to vote for the best looking or most charismatic candidiate, vote for who their union tells them to vote for, vote for who the media favors etc. Most cannot or will not think for themselves.

coalkirk wrote:The sad truth is the American voter is uninformed, too lazy to get informed, likely to vote for the best looking or most charismatic candidiate, vote for who their union tells them to vote for, vote for who the media favors etc. Most cannot or will not think for themselves. Plus with the game rigged, that is the two party system that circles the wagons to shut out any serious third party or even what they consider "fringe" candidate from one of the two partys, we are stuck with what they offer us. In other words, nothing will change and we're screwed.

spc wrote:

coalkirk wrote:The sad truth is the American voter is uninformed, too lazy to get informed, likely to vote for the best looking or most charismatic candidiate, vote for who their union tells them to vote for, vote for who the media favors etc. Most cannot or will not think for themselves.

Agreed. Jerry Springer gets a larger audience than a Presidential debate. Why does conservative talk radio do so much better than liberal radio? Curious.