Would You Vote For Hillary?

[Wu Wei]

Would You Vote For Hillary?

hmm, let me think......

 

[Revoltingest]

That's what I thought.
How many other people voted as such and if Trump was in office at the time how would he have voted? I believe he would vote to go in.

When it comes to war I do not have all the answers and without being privileged to all the information available I can not make an accurate decision. I do not trust the media with giving me all the information. I did not agree with George W Bush invading Iraq, however, that was not an issue for my vote. I understand the decision for war involves more than one person in our country.

When it comes to war, if a war is necessary and I believe their are times it is necessary, one should go in full bore to win in as short a time as possible.

Supporting bad invasions is a strong factor in determining whom I vote against.

 

[esmith]

They blamed Hillary for the Benghazi fiasco when that has never been proven. People who think that typically think Hillary killed those 4 men. They think Benghazi was the worst attack since Pearl Harbor. This is what they say.

So if I assumed you held these same positions, I'm sorry. Benghazi is in by no means anything to judge a person on. Republicans in congress were the ones who cut embassy spending anyways which led to the situation with less security at American embassies around the world.

I know you will probably not respond to this tytlyf, you seem to ignore anything that counters your beliefs.
So, you seem to say that Republican's cut embassy spending which led to inadequate security measures at Benghazi. I sure don't know where your getting your information from but I think you had better get a new source; the "It's All The Republican's Fault" crowed seems to have over influenced your thought process. Let's look at some "Facts"
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42834.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/

Look real close at the numbers in the following article
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...farrow-says-inadequate-security-funding-cong/
it seems that funding from 2008 to 2012 went from $2127.7 million to $4076.2 million. I really don't see a "cut" here. But of course the left wingers can play with numbers and confuse many that blindly follow them.

Now let's look at more "Facts"
From http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...ad-less-than-standard-security-before-attack/

The U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was operating under a lower security standard than a typical consulate when it was attacked this month, according to State Department officials.
The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.
There was talk about constructing a permanent facility, which would require a building that met U.S. security and legal standards, the officials said.
Allowing a waiver would have been a decision made with input from Washington, Libyan officials and the ambassador, according to diplomatic security experts.
"Someone made the decision that the mission in Benghazi was so critical that they waived the standard security requirements, which presents unique challenges to the diplomatic security service as you can imagine," said Fred Burton, vice president for Intelligence at STRATFOR, an intelligence analysis group.

Now who's fault was this? Sure wasn't the Republicans. Looks like the "fault" lies with the State Department. I do believe the Sec State is the senior person at State. Who was the Secretary of State at this time.?

Now ask yourself a question. Would any intelligent person not look at the conditions in Libya and say to themselves. " Situation in Libya with numerous groups opposed to the U.S. and the anniversary of 9-11 dictates that this post be closed down, just as the British closed theirs, until additional resources can be brought to bear. Seems that the Hillary was a more preoccupied with other matters, or that her performance at State left a lot to be desired.

 

[Midnight Rain]

I'm giving a solid no to this poll. I was about half and half on Hillary if she won the nomination but now I'm sold with Bernie. Even if the establishment forces Hillary into the spot I'll just write his name in.

 

[bobhikes]

Supporting bad invasions is a strong factor in determining whom I vote against.

Fair enough I have other standards. That's what make the world go round.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough I have other standards. That's what make the world go round.

True dat!
Btw, I look at a range of issues, but how they're weighted varies
depending upon the candidates in a particular election.

 

[buddhist]

Hillary is not eligible under the U.S. Constitution, so any vote for her is a traitorous vote against the Constitution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hillary is not eligible under the U.S. Constitution.....

Why?

 

[buddhist]

Why?

Article II: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years ... he shall have been elected ... he shall take the following oath or affirmation ... " etc.

 

[esmith]

Article II: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years ... he shall have been elected ... he shall take the following oath or affirmation ... " etc.

Woops

 

[Revoltingest]

Article II: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years ... he shall have been elected ... he shall take the following oath or affirmation ... " etc.

No court would ever construe the use of a male pronoun to prohibit women from being in office.
Had the framers intended such, they'd have been explicit.
Their pronoun choice was an expectation rather than a requirement.....who ever expected girlies to run for prez?

 

[4consideration]

No court would ever construe the use of a male pronoun to a prohibit women from being in office.
Had the framers intended such, they'd have been explicit.
Their pronoun choice was an expectation rather than a requirement.....who ever expected girlies to run for prez?

I think you're right there. Traditionally male pronouns were always used when referring to people in general. Terms like "mankind" were used to apply to all humanity, and expected to include women. I can't see it being interpreted as that wording excludes women.

I suppose it's possible, since women were not allowed to vote under the Constitution when it was written, and no amendment has changed it, but I'd be shocked if such an interpretation of it was upheld today.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you're right there.

Oh, come on....you know I'm right!
Not because I can divine the framers' intent so precisely, but because the courts know there'd be a ****storm if they ruled Hillary ineligible.

Traditionally male pronouns were always used when referring to people in general. Terms like "mankind" were used to apply to all humanity, and expected to include women. I can't see it being interpreted as that wording excludes women.
I suppose it's possible, since women were not allowed to vote under the Constitution when it was written, and no amendment has changed it, but I'd be shocked if such an interpretation of it was upheld today.

In contracts I write, I use male pronouns.
But I add a clause explaining that this isn't limited to males.

 

[4consideration]

Oh, come on....you know I'm right!
Not because I can divine the framers' intent so precisely, but because the courts know there'd be a ****storm if they ruled Hillary ineligible.

In contracts I write, I use male pronouns.
But I add a clause explaining that this isn't limited to males.

Yes, there would be a **** storm if any court ruled it unconstitutional for a woman to be president. I don't expect that to happen. And don't tell me what I know.

It is prudent to include the clause explaining the use of male pronouns being meant to apply to everyone in contracts in this day and age. I just don't think that even if the framers' had specifically intended to include women as potential presidential candidates, that they would have written it differently, due to the custom of only using male pronouns for such writings when including both male and female. I agree they would have had to state it explicitly if they had meant to exclude women -- but I'm not opposed to arguing with you about it, anyway.

 

[savagewind]

I am not going to vote for Hillary. If I remember to vote I am going to vote for Bernie. That was my father's name unless they called him by his nickname. I am not going to tell you what it was because I do not like you. Who? The reader, god dam it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, there would be a **** storm if any court ruled it unconstitutional for a woman to be president. I don't expect that to happen. And don't tell me what I know.

I'll tell you what you know!
You know what's what.

It is prudent to include the clause explaining the use of male pronouns being meant to apply to everyone in contracts in this day and age. I just don't think that even if the framers' had specifically intended to include women as potential presidential candidates, that they would have written it differently, due to the custom of only using male pronouns for such writings when including both male and female. I agree they would have had to state it explicitly if they had meant to exclude women -- but I'm not opposed to arguing with you about it, anyway.

Argue away.....just be gentle.

 

[tytlyf]

And why does he have Ted Nugent as his avatar? Teds about as right wing as you can get.

Private Poopy Pants is a champion of conservative patriots. Especially christians. Never mind his 8 kids with 6 baby momma's. And a lot more. Ooops, should that have been a 'spoiler'?

Sorry, But I will believe the testimony of the soldiers who were actually there, who survived, over any politician,

Awesome, surely you have some names? Were they in the recent Benghazi movie?

 

[Revoltingest]

Private Poopy Pants is a champion of conservative patriots. Especially christians. Never mind his 8 kids with 6 baby momma's. And a lot more. Ooops, should that have been a 'spoiler'?
Awesome, surely you have some names? Were they in the recent Benghazi movie?

Don't call him Shirley.
(This problem is becoming epidemic.)

 

[FTNZ]

Would I vote for Hillary? Never in a million years. If people are uninformed enough to vote for a Republican, so be it. I'm confident that Bernie will win the nomination, and the presidency.

 

[savagewind]

Would I vote for Hillary? Never in a million years. If people are uninformed enough to vote for a Republican, so be it. I'm confident that Bernie will win the nomination, and the presidency.

Good. My husband says that Bernie wants to make averyone even and I asked him if he might be reading the news wrong.