I suppose it might be more disturbing if it wasn't already expected. Personally I would prefer that Hillary not be allowed near any sort of political office or position of authority.
QFT.
Although the World Bank is (probably) worse for her Presidential aspirations than SoS. Unfortunately, it's not as bad as VP...
I am curious. Why is Hillary Clinton in a position of authority or President of the United-States is such a bad thing? Anything reasonable/rational?
I mean if she goes at the head of the WB, she ain't that much of a lefty.
Point A: I can't speak for others, but my biggest issue is her credibility vis a vis the Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones scandal. If she honestly believed that her husband was innocent of committing adultery (on multiple occasions with multiple women)and was the "victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy", then she is naive and incompetent and doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the reins of power.
If she didn't believe the things she was saying in interviews, then she's a lying, manipulative, power-hungry bitch that doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the reins of power.
That's the simple explanation. For a more comprehensive one, read Hell to Pay by Barbara Olson (whose life ended on one of the 9/11 flights), which details Hillary's First Lady-dom.
Point B: Really?! Wasn't the former head of the IMF a French Socialist?
From Wikipedia: "Dominique Gaston André Strauss-Kahn (French pronunciation: [dɔminik stʁos kan]; born 25 April 1949), often referred to in the media as DSK,[2][3] is a French economist, lawyer, and politician, and a member of the French Socialist Party."
Yep. Sure was.
Maybe if she gets a high enough position with the world bank she can drive them into the ground and thus save the U.S. economy... (We owe the world banks billions...)
I am curious. Why is Hillary Clinton in a position of authority or President of the United-States is such a bad thing? Anything reasonable/rational?
I mean if she goes at the head of the WB, she ain't that much of a lefty.
Point A: I can't speak for others, but my biggest issue is her credibility vis a vis the Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones scandal. If she honestly believed that her husband was innocent of committing adultery (on multiple occasions with multiple women)and was the "victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy", then she is naive and incompetent and doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the reins of power.
If she didn't believe the things she was saying in interviews, then she's a lying, manipulative, power-hungry bitch that doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the reins of power.
That's the simple explanation. For a more comprehensive one, read Hell to Pay by Barbara Olson (whose life ended on one of the 9/11 flights), which details Hillary's First Lady-dom.
Point B: Really?! Wasn't the former head of the IMF a French Socialist?
From Wikipedia: "Dominique Gaston André Strauss-Kahn (French pronunciation: [dɔminik stʁos kan]; born 25 April 1949), often referred to in the media as DSK,[2][3] is a French economist, lawyer, and politician, and a member of the French Socialist Party."
Yep. Sure was.
Not to mention that during her last campaign, she couldn't seem to give a straight answer on anything she was asked. She would change the subject or make a joke and laugh rather than actually addressing the issue. She was even worse than the GOP when it came to using smear tactics rather than actual debating of issues to try to defeat Obama. And she treats everyone around her like ****, even her protective detail when her husband was in the White House. If she treats the people who have sworn to give their lives for hers like that, just imagine what she thinks of everyone else.
Meh. DSK was a socialist because he was part of the political party. But from what I understood he was more of a centrist, like a lot of politicians.
But he joined the party because he was a Socialist. Isn't that what you and EE were talking about in the other thread? Even if he's only "slightly" leftist, he's still leftist.
Meh. DSK was a socialist because he was part of the political party. But from what I understood he was more of a centrist, like a lot of politicians.
But he joined the party because he was a Socialist. Isn't that what you and EE were talking about in the other thread? Even if he's only "slightly" leftist, he's still leftist.
Left of what? Left of center... you may have a point. Left of the extreme right... not so much.
Left of what? Left of center... you may have a point. Left of the extreme right... not so much.
Left of center.
I wish I could remember to whom this quote is attributed, but I remember reading it ~25 years ago: "Nothing is so like the extreme left as the extreme right." I think it sums up politics entirely too well.
Left of what? Left of center... you may have a point. Left of the extreme right... not so much.
Left of center.
I wish I could remember to whom this quote is attributed, but I remember reading it ~25 years ago: "Nothing is so like the extreme left as the extreme right." I think it sums up politics entirely too well.
Yup...they all suck.