Politics & Current Events
elisea92
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid
This doesn't come as a surprise to me, and I'm sure many others aren't surprised either.
I'm curious to see what other Nesties think of this, as I have a feeling there are a large amount of women on this site.
I for one, am dreading the idea of her becoming president. She's been quoted saying, "“Don’t you someday want to see a woman president?” Sure, I would love to see a woman in the white house. That doesn't mean I want to see -her- in the white house.
There are plenty of reasons why I would not vote for her, but am interested in hearing other opinions.
Thoughts?
I'm curious to see what other Nesties think of this, as I have a feeling there are a large amount of women on this site.
I for one, am dreading the idea of her becoming president. She's been quoted saying, "“Don’t you someday want to see a woman president?” Sure, I would love to see a woman in the white house. That doesn't mean I want to see -her- in the white house.
There are plenty of reasons why I would not vote for her, but am interested in hearing other opinions.
Thoughts?
Re: Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid
The fact that she is a woman has no relevancy on whether I would vote for her or not. I just think it is a sad statement of the society we live in that there are people out there who would/wouldn't vote for her just because of her gender. The same thing happened with Obama. I talked to people who voted for him just because he was black and I also talked to people who didn't vote for him just because he was black.
The choice of president is a huge decision that sets our country's course for at least four years. Can we please start ignoring who is a Democrat/Republican, man/woman, green race/purple race and just vote for the person who will do the best job for our country?
Sadly, I think most elections are a choice between Horrible Candidate vs. Maybe Not As Horrible Candidate.
I don't yet have an opinion about Hillary. I'm ashamed to say it, but I don't know a lot about her as a politician. I'm registered non-partisan and can't vote in the primaries, so I usually wait until it is down to the two choices. Then do research on the candidates and their positions on core issues.
This is so sad.
I really believe in Dr. Ben Carson as a serious GOP candidate for this very reason. They fact that he IS NOT a career politician makes me like him even more than the platform he would represent if he runs (I know for a fact that he is examining the feasibility of running and may toss his hat in the ring soon).
He is SMART. But, he doesn't buy into the "nonsense."
Yes, he does have zero political experience. Everybody complains that they are tired of the "same old, same old" in Washington and all the politicians claim to want to change that, but never do. So, why not go out on a limb and actually select someone with "zero" experience.
Furthermore, Obama was a very junior senator when he was elected president...before that a community organizer.
Carson at least has had success leading in the medical/hospital setting (as head of pediatric neurosurgery for Johns Hopkins) and also runs a non-profit (Ben Carson Scholarships and the Ben Carson Reading Project) with his wife, Candy. Let's not forget that at last 5 of the founding Fathers of the U.S. were medical doctors.
Furthermore, I think there are qualities all leaders possess, which translate from job to job and from industry to industry. Since Carson is no dummy, I'm sure he has what it takes to quickly learn the ropes in Washington.
Aside from honesty, integrity, good communication skills, a proven track record of working well with others, a proven track record of setting and achieving goals, decisiveness, upstanding morality, and a clear, understood view of the issues at hand: national, international and social, what else does a person need to be president (other than a whole lot of money)?
The president has advisors and a Cabinet to help guide him/her - they don't go it alone. Plus, with the access to information these days, no candidate is ever in the dark about the prominent issues.
When you say that Dr. Carson has "no experience," what you mean is that he has no experience playing the "Washington Game." So, does that mean, he'll get steam-rolled? Taken in? Taken advantage of? Be weak? Be indecisive? Be a poor leader? All these questions could be answered, "Yes" by observing what our current and former presidents have each done or failed to do.
I don't buy into the "he has no experience" bit. Anybody who ever did anything in this nation that was truly great had "no experience" in it before they achieved success (Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, any pioneer in technology, medicine, science, etc..) George Washington had "no experience" being president either, but he was a darn good one due to his other life experiences and his character. There was also a new battle strategy devised in the field in the European Theatre in WWII by a mid-level officer who had no experience taking the Nazi gun posts down. Now, this "no experience" strategy is taught in all the military tactical training.
Any leader sees and identifies a problem, sees and identifies the possible solutions and possible outcomes and then makes a decision with the best information available to him/her. That's universal.
Oh, Dr. Carson had "no experience" separating the first set of conjoined twins joined at the head, but he still was successful. And, he did so while leading a host of other doctors and medical professionals. Leading under stress?? Probably. Very presidential, IMO.
She is the candidate I most liked in 2008, so she will get my vote in 2016. I don't care much for the two-party system, but the Democrats are the best alternative right now to the Republicans.
I don't want a candidate who denies climate change; denies people rights to marriage, abortions, or health care; or one who starts senseless wars over oil.
Also, one of the most important things the next President might do is appoint a new Supreme Court justice. We simply can't have another Republican-appointed justice who would vote to allow unlimited corporate funding of our elections (Citizens United). We need to reverse that decision and move toward publicly-financed elections. I just don't see any Republican president helping to do that.
I wouldn't vote for someone just because of their family members, but I believe that Hillary would move us in the same direction that her husband did in terms of balancing the budget, and she would have a live-in "advisor" who did a great job when he has running things, despite his personal failings.
Dems or Reps aside, our nation simply doesn't have the financial ability or stability to keep having the Federal Government foot the bill for all the "extras" some American citizens want.
Many of the things that are important to you are social issues (fine, you are entitled to that viewpoint). In my opinion, for the time being, this Nation has greater problems and if these problems are not resolved and resolved well, no one will be happy with the outcomes of anything including the social issues.
I think that we all need to be mindful of the social issues and aware; however, I disagree that those issues should cause us to vote in one direction or another. It appears to me that there are other dire problems we face as a country that need to be shored up before we turn our attention elsewhere.
IMO, there are 2 MAJOR issues facing the U.S. and it's national security right now, which are not social issues...and if these erupt or go kaput, then all talk of social issues would be moot anyway.
#1. ISIS and the significant rise of radical Islam. Yes, it affects our "interests" elsewhere in the world, but we are naïve to think ISIS doesn't have roots and ins here in this country just waiting to get the "go" for more terror activity.
#2. The financial expenditures of this Nation that continue to bury us in further debts and lending bondage to other nations, like China, to whom we owe billions and billions of dollars.
What could be more important than campaign finance reform? War, terrorism, and disease are all bad for the nation but good for special interests who produce weapons, military equipment, and treatments. We need representatives at all levels of government who work for the people, not the special interests who pay lobbyists to influence our politicians. Is the party who ignores the people's will on social issues really going to work for you when it comes to defending the nation and improving the economy?
And if economic issues are the most important to you, let's look at which party has done the best to balance the budget, reign in spending on wars over oil, boost employment, etc.
And the environment is not a social issue. It affects everyone. Republican senators elected a climate change denier as chair of the Senate Environment
Committee.
I can no longer in good conscience vote Republican at any level of government.
Oh wow.
You said, "if economic issues are the most important to you, let's look at which party has done the best to balance the budget, reign in spending on wars over oil, boost employment, etc"
My response:
#1. Balanced budget? Which party was that? Please don't state it was the Democrats under Bill Clinton. Please follow this link http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget to an article by the CATO Institute, which is a public policy think tank receiving no government funding. At the bottom of this article are the black and white figures, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, for the years 1994-1998. Now, the article ALSO points out that the Republicans had budget failures in this time period too, but it was the MEDIA who blew up the story about President Clinton actually balancing the budget. It did not happen. That's a fact. You cannot dispute the Congressional Budget Office's figures. So let's not get hasty and state that the Democrats are super wonderful here back in the 1990's. Oh and wait, what about the current Democrat president, what has HE done to balance the budget?
#2. You said, "...reign in spending on wars over foreign oil..." First of all, people would be naïve to think that the U.S. doesn't have foreign oil interests and that the U.S. wouldn't want to act to preserve those interests. HOWEVER, there was that little event on 9.11.01 that was the major catalyst for the U.S. getting into war in the first place. And, then there's the mass murdering of civilians at the hands of Saddam Hussein and the mass murdering carried out by radical Muslims since 9/11. Now, we have the current issues...Read about ISIS? I just read an article today about a little boy sawed in half by ISIS because his parents are Christians. So, please tell me what standing up to evil has to do with protecting our foreign oil?
#3. Boost employment? According to the CBO once again, the U.S. has not and will not ever see full employment under Obama. Here's an article:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-america-will-never-see-full-employment-under-obama
Furthermore, here's another link to stats, once again from the CBO about the unemployment rate. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/full-employment-actual-vs-natural-unemployment-rates
To highlight something: "Congressional Budget Office is now projecting that the U.S. economy will never achieve full employment during the eight years Barack Obama serves as president.
That would make Obama the only American president during the post-World War II era who never presided over a year in which the U.S. economy offered full employment to the American people.
The CBO defines “full employment” to be when the national unemployment rate is at or below what it calls the “natural unemployment rate.”"
This stat chart goes back to 1988 and if you look at 1988 through 2012, which is the last year it has hard data rather than projections, that's a span of 25 years. In the 25 years, only 10 years had an actual, what the CBO, calls "full employment." In those 10 years, 5 were under a Republican in office and 5 were with a Democrat in office. So, with a 50/50 split what that tells me is that unemployment isn't unilaterally tied to which office holds the White House.
You cannot just say that Obama made unemployment drop. He hasn't "boosted" anything.
#4. Regarding Campaign refinance reform...so you're suggesting that the U.S. went to war and is involved in counter-terrorism effects so that some special interests groups here State Side could make some money on guns and ammo??? And, the U.S. sends aid to Nations affected by Ebola or natural disaster to bolster the pockets of CEOs who make drugs and water purification tablets? So, do you feel the same way about special interest groups like Planned Parenthood having a lobbying stake in Washington too. Or, do you only want those who have a stake/say in Washington to be with the lobby organizations who share your worldview?
To address your points:
#1) The 1998 article you pointed to says that the budget was balanced under Clinton (It says, "We have a balanced budget today" and "So the budget is balanced"), but it says that Clinton doesn't deserve the credit. The budget remained balanced, and in fact had we had a budget surplus peaking at $325.17 Billion in 2000.
And I'm glad you asked "Oh and wait, what about the current Democrat president, what has HE done to balance the budget?" Short answer: A LOT. The deficit has been reduced almost every year since Obama took office (with a slight increase from 2010 to 2011), from $1.41 Trillion (with a T) in 2009 to $483 billion in 2014.
The following article is a little dated (from November 2010), but it contains a key fact "Over 2/3 of the total national debt is from the last three Republican administrations -- more than twice as much as all other presidents combined": http://speakingofdemocracy.com/2010/11/deficits-dont-matter/
And since this thread is about Hillary, I'll add that I believe Hillary would have done a better job than Obama on the deficit, since Obama capitulated to the Republicans and agreed to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for households earning over $250,000.
#2) Even George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have now acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. We went to war in Iraq because of WMDs that never existed. Yes, ISIS is a serious threat, and a president who has served admirably as secretary of state would be well-equipped to take on that threat.
#3) I can easily say that Obama has made unemployment drop. When Obama assumed office, the unemployment rate was still rising sharply from the Bush years. It topped out at 10% in October 2009, before beginning a steady decline at the end of 2010. In March 2015, the official figure from the U.S. Department of Labor was 5.5%.
#4) Some war efforts have been influenced by defense contractors, oil companies, and others who had a financial interest in the outcome of the war or the process itself. I freely admit that the Democrats are beholden to certain special interest groups as well.
As one example of the problem, 92% of voters support background checks prior to all gun sales. After the massacre in Newtown, a key amendment to a bill requiring background checks for firearm sales at gun shows, through classified ads, and on the Internet, requiring 60 votes in the Senate, was defeated by a 54-46 vote. 48 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 4 Republican senators voted for the amendment. 41 Republican senators and 5 Democrats voted against it. It's no secret that the NRA and their lobbyists had a strong influence on this vote. Whatever your position on gun control, it's hard to deny that Congressional actions do not reflect the will of the people.
Money is a toxic influence on our political system. The Supreme Court Justices who decided in Citizens United that corporations could make unlimited campaign contributions were Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito -- all appointed by Republican presidents. Three of the four dissenting Justices -- Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, were appointed by Democratic presidents. This is a Supreme Court decision that must be reversed, as a starting point. We then need Congress to put in place more restrictions to corporate contributions and move toward public financing of elections.
#1 ISIS isn't actually our biggest threat in regards to National Security. Right wing extremism is.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/
Additionally, to engage ISIS directly is exactly what they want and would only escalate the probability of attacks within the US. The Middle East needs to stand on its own two feet and address ISIS themselves. Saudi Arabia has the 5th largest defense budget in the world, they can handle the ISIS threat.
#2 The first thing the Republican majority did when they took over Congress was to vote to repeal the estate tax. How is that going to lessen the deficit? Our country is in debt as a result of an expensive, unnecessary war and the excess in corporate welfare.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101917093
I already said this somewhere else but Hillary is basically a Republican wearing blue. She has only recently changed her tune on a number of issues in order to win back the progressive votes she's rapidly losing to Bernie Sanders. I recently changed my registration from Independant to Democrat just so I can vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries. If you have some time to research candidates, take a look at him, his policies, his proposed legislation, and his voting record.