Hillary Clinton Running for President

[EM_Guy]

Silicon Waffle said, "I find most policies and promises by Democratic members are great, popular, sound, scientifically concise. Why are there still voters for Republicans?"

I have no loyalty to the Republican party. But let's see here.

People believe, and I agree, that unborn people are ... people who have fundamental rights - the most precious of which is the right to life. Accordingly, abortion should be outlawed (unless the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, in which case you are now dealing with a conflict of rights - the mother's right to life versus the child's right to life).

People believe, and I agree, that individual rights should, for the most part, be defined in terms that maximize liberty and minimize tyranny. For example, my right to life does not oblige people to make sacrifices on my behalf for my well-being. Rather, my right to life obliges people not to interfere with, molest, or kill me as I go about my business. When rights are defined in terms of positive obligations, then all of a sudden we all become enslaved to one another, which means we all become enslaved to the government. So, people believe in limited government and free-enterprise with as little government interference as possible. That obviously doesn't sound like Clinton.

People believe, and I agree, that Clinton severely screwed up Benghazi and then was less than honest and forthright about it.

It is disconcerting to me that so many people seem to be hostile to those of us who believe these things.

 

[WWGD]

Silicon Waffle said, "I find most policies and promises by Democratic members are great, popular, sound, scientifically concise. Why are there still voters for Republicans?"

I have no loyalty to the Republican party. But let's see here.

People believe, and I agree, that unborn people are ... people who have fundamental rights - the most precious of which is the right to life. Accordingly, abortion should be outlawed (unless the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, in which case you are now dealing with a conflict of rights - the mother's right to life versus the child's right to life).

People believe, and I agree, that individual rights should, for the most part, be defined in terms that maximize liberty and minimize tyranny. For example, my right to life does not oblige people to make sacrifices on my behalf for my well-being. Rather, my right to life obliges people not to interfere with, molest, or kill me as I go about my business. When rights are defined in terms of positive obligations, then all of a sudden we all become enslaved to one another, which means we all become enslaved to the government. So, people believe in limited government and free-enterprise with as little government interference as possible. That obviously doesn't sound like Clinton.

People believe, and I agree, that Clinton severely screwed up Benghazi and then was less than honest and forthright about it.

It is disconcerting to me that so many people seem to be hostile to those of us who believe these things.

I am sorry, but "people believe" is a little vague. And, for one, we (implicitly) already put many priorities ahead of the preservation of life; we are willing to , and we actually make, cost-benefit analysis re the preservation of life: we are willing to put out products in the market (cars, medicins, chemicals, etc.) that may have a certain death rate, because it would be too expensive to upgrade them to lower the death rate closer to 0. We could spend millions more making, e.g., our water, our cars, etc. safer, but we are not willing to do so, because that would greatly raise the price of the items. So we do not _ in actuality_ , in practice, believe that life is sacred, that preserving life is our top priority; we are willing to cut corners and accept the price of a few extra deaths in order to have reasonably-priced products. Would you be willing to drive at, say, 25 mph max (except possibly ambulances, police, etc.) if I convinced you that doing so would greatly lower the fatality rate? Most likely not, because most of us do not, in the end , consider preserving life to be a priority, but we pump our chests when someone mentions abortion.

And , frankly, I don't think the application of the " markets(general) will regulate themselves" creed has been very successful. I don't like rules either, but a certain amount/type seems to be necessary. But, of course it is an art to decide just which regulations are necessary , and there is some wiggle room there. I don't know of any real-life scenario where letting society regulate itself has resulted in outcomes beneficial to the majority.

As for Hilary, I don't know that much about Benghazi, but , even if she is responsible, it does not seem fair to judge anyone by their worse act.. I would frankly prefer an end to the Hillary Bush, Jeb Clinton scenario, I vote no for dynasties in politics.

 

[EM_Guy]

I am sorry, but "people believe" is a little vague. And, for one, we (implicitly) already put many priorities ahead of the preservation of life; we are willing to , and we actually make, cost-benefit analysis re the preservation of life: we are willing to put out products in the market (cars, medicins, chemicals, etc.) that may have a certain death rate, because it would be too expensive to upgrade them to lower the death rate closer to 0. We could spend millions more making, e.g., our water, our cars, etc. safer, but we are not willing to do so, because that would greatly raise the price of the items. So we do not _ in actuality_ , in practice, believe that life is sacred, that preserving life is our top priority; we are willing to cut corners and accept the price of a few extra deaths in order to have reasonably-priced products. Would you be willing to drive at, say, 25 mph max (except possibly ambulances, police, etc.) if I convinced you that doing so would greatly lower the fatality rate? Most likely not, because most of us do not, in the end , consider preserving life to be a priority, but we pump our chests when someone mentions abortion.

A few thoughts here:

1. We put other priorities ahead of preserving life generally because we are self-centered, sinful, unethical, wicked, ignorant, etc. To say that we are that way somehow implies that we should continue to be that way is not good. Rather, we ought to acknowledge and turn from our faults. You seem to be implying that since we are the way we are, we should continue to be the way we are.

2. Life is an optimization problem. We have limited time, limited resources, limited information. We should all do what we can to make use of our time, resources, and information to do the best with what we've got. I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to convince me of. Is it that no matter how much I try, I'm going to fall short, so I should just give up and throw out all my convictions? That's like saying, "I can't have a perfect diet, so why bother paying any attention to nutrition at all?"

3. I try to major in the majors. There is corruption everywhere, and you can resolve to do your best to boycott any product that has somehow been tainted by some kind of corruption in order to establish justice. But, see point 2. Who has the time, money, resources to follow supply chains all the way through and then to resolve only to spend money on products and services that are "pure and just"? But some things are glaring and obvious.

 

[EM_Guy]

And , frankly, I don't think the application of the " markets(general) will regulate themselves" creed has been very successful. I don't like rules either, but a certain amount/type seems to be necessary. But, of course it is an art to decide just which regulations are necessary , and there is some wiggle room there. I don't know of any real-life scenario where letting society regulate itself has resulted in outcomes beneficial to the majority.

I actually fully agree with this. As you say, it is an art to decide just which regulations are necessary. I don't think that Clinton has the wisdom, the intelligence, the character, and the integrity to be entrusted with such vast power and authority. Rand Paul on the other hand does seem to me to have more wisdom and virtue and is therefore more worthy of trust.

 

[WWGD]

A few thoughts here:

1. We put other priorities ahead of preserving life generally because we are self-centered, sinful, unethical, wicked, ignorant, etc. To say that we are that way somehow implies that we should continue to be that way is not good. Rather, we ought to acknowledge and turn from our faults. You seem to be implying that since we are the way we are, we should continue to be the way we are.

2. Life is an optimization problem. We have limited time, limited resources, limited information. We should all do what we can to make use of our time, resources, and information to do the best with what we've got. I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to convince me of. Is it that no matter how much I try, I'm going to fall short, so I should just give up and throw out all my convictions? That's like saying, "I can't have a perfect diet, so why bother paying any attention to nutrition at all?"

3. I try to major in the majors. There is corruption everywhere, and you can resolve to do your best to boycott any product that has somehow been tainted by some kind of corruption in order to establish justice. But, see point 2. Who has the time, money, resources to follow supply chains all the way through and then to resolve only to spend money on products and services that are "pure and just"? But some things are glaring and obvious.

Well, I would like to see more consistency between the actions of the anti-abortion crowd and their words (of course this standard should apply to any group, to anyone sponsoring a cause), so we can have a more honest discussion. How about paid leave for moms, dads, etc.? And , don't you think , (If I understood your point correctly) by your own reasoning --which I agree with in this case -- that, while we cannot fight everything everywhere, we should try our best

 

[EM_Guy]

As for Hilary, I don't know that much about Benghazi, but , even if she is responsible, it does not seem fair to judge anyone by their worse act.. I would frankly prefer an end to the Hillary Bush, Jeb Clinton scenario, I vote no for dynasties in politics.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-officials-victims-relatives-testify/2835273/

I implore you to remember and honor the victims of the Benghazi attacks: Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Chris Stevens, and Tyrone Woods.

 

[WWGD]

I actually fully agree with this. As you say, it is an art to decide just which regulations are necessary. I don't think that Clinton has the wisdom, the intelligence, the character, and the integrity to be entrusted with such vast power and authority. Rand Paul on the other hand does seem to me to have more wisdom and virtue and is therefore more worthy of trust.

We should grill each of the candidates until we find the best one available. Rand Paul seems a bit too far to the libertarian side, but I don't know his platform well-enough.

Anyway, on a different note, thanks to you, all, and to Physics Forums for a reasoned disagreement, and to PF for serving as a platform where one can have reasoned disagreements, where people can and do disagree without necessarily being disagreeable/nasty.

 

[EM_Guy]

Anyway, on a different note, thanks to you, all, and to Physics Forums for a reasoned disagreement, and to PF for serving as a platform where one can have reasoned disagreements, where people can and do disagree without necessarily being disagreeable/nasty.

Agreed! Cheers!

 

[jim hardy]

I'd like to see Barbara Bush have a third term.

 

[Evo]

I'd like to see Barbara Bush have a third term.

Yeah, but how many people know that Laura Bush, wife of George W Bush killed someone? Yeah, this has nothing to do with Hillary, except as far as we know Hillary did not personally kill anyone.

http://www.snopes.com/POLITICS/bush/laura.asp

 

[jim hardy]

Yeah, but how many people know that Laura Bush, wife of George W Bush killed someone?

<<<AH--HOOOO--GAH>>>
non-sequitur alert

 

[Evo]

<<<AH--HOOOO--GAH>>>
non-sequitur alert

Ok, we now return to the thread topic.

 

[WWGD]

I think a necessary condition for someone to do an effective job ( at any level) is having/allowing "no men/women" ( as opposed to yes man/women) in their cabinet, someone who will disagree with them when they think s/he is wrong. And the no people need to keep their guts throughout the presidency. It is a matter of going beyond stroking one's ego and having some interest in getting to the truth. But I am not holding my breath.

 

[jim hardy]

It's going to be a muddy campaign season.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/17/clinton-used-personal-email-for-sensitive-libya-negotiations-documents-show/

Documents challenge Clinton claim no classified intel on personal emails

The emails, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/06/17/proposed-quad-deal/, conflict with Clinton's statement that she did not put national security at risk by using a personal account.

 

[WWGD]

It's going to be a muddy campaign season.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/17/clinton-used-personal-email-for-sensitive-libya-negotiations-documents-show/

Interesting you mentioned non-seq's in a previous post. Notice the last two paragraphs. Specifically , Bolton suspects (my bold) the same carelessness with the emails in issue happens with a lot of the intelligence, and then goes on to conclude the problem is pervasive. How can he make a conclusion that the problem is pervasive when he is working under an assumption/suspicion that the carelessness with the given post also happens in general? A suspicion alone seems like a flimsy basis for a generalization of the problem as being pervasive. But you should watch the opposing comedy channel, MSNBC to cancel out the bias of FOX; the two clown channels cancel each other out.

 

[jim hardy]

the two clown channels cancel each other out.

that's the point.

sad state of affairs, eh ?

 

[WWGD]

that's the point.

sad state of affairs, eh ?

Yes, I think it has to see with the fact that they have to compete with 100s of other channels, with the web, etc., for viewers. So they manufacture controversies, become entertainment channels. But sad too that too many people buy into it.

 

[Czcibor]

People believe, and I agree, that unborn people are ... people who have fundamental rights - the most precious of which is the right to life. Accordingly, abortion should be outlawed (unless the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, in which case you are now dealing with a conflict of rights - the mother's right to life versus the child's right to life).

That's an area that I more or less agree with you. (except this justification "people believe")

People believe, and I agree, that individual rights should, for the most part, be defined in terms that maximize liberty and minimize tyranny. For example, my right to life does not oblige people to make sacrifices on my behalf for my well-being. Rather, my right to life obliges people not to interfere with, molest, or kill me as I go about my business. When rights are defined in terms of positive obligations, then all of a sudden we all become enslaved to one another, which means we all become enslaved to the government. So, people believe in limited government and free-enterprise with as little government interference as possible. That obviously doesn't sound like Clinton.

What about people who dislike putting in politics deontological ethics (regardless whether in right wing or left wing version) and prefer consequentialism?

People believe, and I agree, that Clinton severely screwed up Benghazi and then was less than honest and forthright about it.

Screw up within reasonable bounds. (Yes, I seriously mean that. Now everyone is wise to know that more security guards had to been put there.)

It is disconcerting to me that so many people seem to be hostile to those of us who believe these things.

Maybe it somehow related to the level of sabotage (I mean especially "gov shutdown" but other freaks like birthers are also not helpful) caused by Tea Party? I mean no disliked because of views as such but more because of being quite destructive opposition? At least for me, who so far voted in my country for right wing parties, it was an eye opening.

 

[EM_Guy]

That's an area that I more or less agree with you. (except this justification "people believe")

Stating that people believe this was simply a statement of fact - not a justification. The question was asked (in so many words) why anyone votes Republican. I was answering the question.

What about people who dislike putting in politics deontological ethics (regardless whether in right wing or left wing version) and prefer consequentialism?

I'm not sure that I completely understand you here. But I would suggest that the entire purpose of government is to restrain wicked behavior and to reward good behavior. If men governed themselves well, there would be no need for government. It is because men "dislike" (or to put it more strongly, because men refuse) to govern themselves that government is needed.

But I'm not sure what point you are making here. Do you think that rights should be defined in terms that maximize liberty, or do you think that rights should be defined in terms that would oblige all of us to carry each others' burdens?

To be clear, some rights do require all of us to take positive action - such as the right to trial-by-jury. That right requires all of us to make sacrifices so that we can have courthouses, judges, so that jurors can be compensated, etc., etc. But for the most part, I think people should pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. I don't believe that we have any intrinsic right to demand sacrifices from our neighbors (aside from some minimal sacrifices that are necessary to secure some basic and fundamental rights - trial-by-jury for example).

 

[Czcibor]

I'm not sure that I completely understand you here. But I would suggest that the entire purpose of government is to restrain wicked behavior and to reward good behavior. If men governed themselves well, there would be no need for government. It is because men "dislike" (or to put it more strongly, because men refuse) to govern themselves that government is needed.

But I'm not sure what point you are making here. Do you think that rights should be defined in terms that maximize liberty, or do you think that rights should be defined in terms that would oblige all of us to carry each others' burdens?

To be clear, some rights do require all of us to take positive action - such as the right to trial-by-jury. That right requires all of us to make sacrifices so that we can have courthouses, judges, so that jurors can be compensated, etc., etc. But for the most part, I think people should pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. I don't believe that we have any intrinsic right to demand sacrifices from our neighbors (aside from some minimal sacrifices that are necessary to secure some basic and fundamental rights - trial-by-jury for example).

Neither of points. Perceiving it as matter of "rights" is something I used to do maybe ten years ago. (BTW: at that time I preferred negative rights) Now I consider both approach as flawed. Too much speaking about "rights", too little speaking about "making everything work" (that's in plain words deontological ethics vs. consequentialism). So for example (on US politics) when Republicans make gov shut down or cut taxes and raised spending in the same time that I consider as total disaster. (when Obama's administration even fails to make their healthcare program a working web page work or blocks Kingston pipeline that I consider as disaster too, just one degree of magnitude lower). I may explain you it on more scenic examples outside of the US.

Actually trial by jury I consider as weird, but mostly harmless Anglo-Saxon tradition. But understand your intended point.

 

[mheslep]

Getting back to Clinton's record in the thread on Clinton ...

...Clinton severely screwed up Benghazi and then was less than honest and forthright about it.

Screw up within reasonable bounds. (Yes, I seriously mean that. Not [sic] everyone is wise to know that more security guards had to been put there.)

"Everyone" is not expected to be wise enough to ascertain the security situation on the ground. The local embassy staff on the ground is expected to ascertain the security situation, and they did so with some accuracy. There had been numerous previous attacks and indications of more to come in Bhenghazi, and accordingly the US staff in Libya requested more security, repeatedly. It was denied by the US Department of State in Washington, DC, though the locals are responsible for their own security posture. When the locals request more security it should be given, or the embassy/mission should be directed to close.

...Overall, the number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing.

 

[EM_Guy]

Too much speaking about "rights", too little speaking about "making everything work"

This is scary rhetoric. Obviously, the United States became a nation, because a whole bunch of Patriots would not shut up about rights. The main duty of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. A government that doesn't respect, care about, and defend the rights of the citizens is a tyrannical, unjust, and rebellious government. It is the right of the people to throw off (violently if needed) any such government. Such a revolution in my mind should not be characterized as a rebellion, but rather as the lawful actions taken by a people to put down the rebellion of the despotic government.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." etc., etc.

 

[EM_Guy]

Actually trial by jury I consider as weird, but mostly harmless Anglo-Saxon tradition. But understand your intended point.

What would you prefer instead of trial-by-jury? Trial-by-combat? Or should accused persons not be granted a trial at all?

 

[Bandersnatch]

What would you prefer instead of trial-by-jury? Trial-by-combat? Or should accused persons not be granted a trial at all?

Trial by jury is mainly a feature of common law judicial systems. Most of the world uses the civil law system, which typically has bench trials (i.e., trial by judge) - the judge makes the decision; there is no jury.
Both trial systems have some overlap, though. You'll find certain types of cases under the common law system done without a jury, and cases in the civil law countries done with a jury.

 

[Czcibor]

This is scary rhetoric. Obviously, the United States became a nation, because a whole bunch of Patriots would not shut up about rights. The main duty of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. A government that doesn't respect, care about, and defend the rights of the citizens is a tyrannical, unjust, and rebellious government. It is the right of the people to throw off (violently if needed) any such government. Such a revolution in my mind should not be characterized as a rebellion, but rather as the lawful actions taken by a people to put down the rebellion of the despotic government.

You don't have to explain to me your nation creation myth. I already know it. (in the same as I know that those high minded, above mentioned rules were not applicable to blacks or native Americans...) Just curious to what extend you treat seriously other countries national myths?

What would you prefer instead of trial-by-jury? Trial-by-combat? Or should accused persons not be granted a trial at all?

Just by professional judge(s)? The same one(s) who also passes the sentence.

 

[mheslep]

Aside: fascinating contrast between the anglo-sphere and European continental philosophies here. Apropos, Daniel Hanan, UK MP to the EU, wrote this essay dating the difference to the Magna Carta, which just celebrated an anniversary, and the lack of such a document informing the vicious French Revolution.

...Liberty and property: how naturally those words tripped, as a unitary concept, from the tongues of America’s Founders. These were men who had been shaped in the English tradition, and they saw parliamentary government not as an expression of majority rule but as a guarantor of individual freedom. How different was the Continental tradition, born 13 years later with the French Revolution, which saw elected assemblies as the embodiment of what Rousseau called the “general will” of the people.

In that difference, we may perhaps discern explanation of why the Anglosphere resisted the chronic bouts of authoritarianism to which most other Western countries were prone. We who speak this language have always seen the defense of freedom as the duty of our representatives and so, by implication, of those who elect them. Liberty and democracy, in our tradition, are not balanced against each other; they are yoked together.

 

[mheslep]

Most of the world uses the civil law system, which typically has bench trials (i.e., trial by judge) - the judge makes the decision; there is no jury.

I don't think that assertion withstands scrutiny. Much of the world claims to use trial by judge, and I'm sure this is the often indeed the case, but that does not mean the decision is actually made by the judge and not the judge's puppet masters.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I don't think that assertion withstands scrutiny. Much of the world claims to use trial by judge, and I'm sure this is the often indeed the case, but that does not mean the decision is actually made by the judge and not the judge's puppet masters.

Whether that's the case or not has no bearing on the kind of system professed to be in place.

 

[EM_Guy]

You don't have to explain to me your nation creation myth. I already know it. (in the same as I know that those high minded, above mentioned rules were not applicable to blacks or native Americans...) Just curious to what extend you treat seriously other countries national myths?

At the risk of allowing myself to be baited into a foolish argument, I'll respond to this. My (advance) apologies to the rest of PF if by responding to this I am allowing the discussion to be derailed.

"...nation creation myth..."

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My wife has a Ph.D. in history and has studied a number of primary sources. What aspects of the US nation creation story do you believe to be mythical? Do you think that George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin were all fictional characters? Do you believe that the Declaration of Independence never happened? Do you think that there wasn't a war that was waged between the colonists and Great Britain?

And, oh by the way, I don't worship the so-called Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, I have a relatively low opinion of most of them. From the start, the United States has never been a utopia. But I do believe that the Patriots were on to something when they stood up to tyranny.

In any case, to bring this back to topic, I think that Clinton's view is like yours. Clinton cares more about "making everything work" (according to her vision and definition of "work"), than she does about defending and protecting the individual rights of the citizens. I think that she thinks the government can never be too big, and I think that in Clinton's America, the government can and should provide for the citizens - cradle to grave. Meanwhile she refuses to acknowledge the rights of the unborn, and she her actions in regards to Benghazi were dishonorable. Clinton cares about Clinton - not the rights of the people.

 

[mheslep]

Whether that's the case or not has no bearing on the kind of system professed to be in place.

Yes, and what's professed to be in place has little relevance; reality does. That is, what is likely to happen to a common citizen when accused falsely of a crime against a powerful connected official, say, one that appoints judges.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I have no opinion on that, or on the pros and cons of the two systems in general.

 

[Czcibor]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My wife has a Ph.D. in history and has studied a number of primary sources. What aspects of the US nation creation story do you believe to be mythical? Do you think that George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin were all fictional characters? Do you believe that the Declaration of Independence never happened? Do you think that there wasn't a war that was waged between the colonists and Great Britain?

No just your cherry picked interpetation where there is plenty talking about freedom was out of charts. If you don't get it I (sorry for derailing subject) I may show you on some example of let's say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_of_Europe

Sounds funny? But technically speaking partition of Poland is a historical fact, just interpretation may not be taken seriously by any foreigner.

And, oh by the way, I don't worship the so-called Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, I have a relatively low opinion of most of them. From the start, the United States has never been a utopia. But I do believe that the Patriots were on to something when they stood up to tyranny.

I know that George III is depicted by Americans as tyrant... However, which exactly tyrannical deeds he made? Reign of terror? Oh yes... he introduced a few taxes like stamp duty and tea tax, and haven't allowed some rich guys (including slave owners) to send their representatives to parliament. Somewhat unimpressive. Especially when one compares taxes from his times to taxes that Americans passed themselves later.

In any case, to bring this back to topic, I think that Clinton's view is like yours. Clinton cares more about "making everything work" (according to her vision and definition of "work"), than she does about defending and protecting the individual rights of the citizens. I think that she thinks the government can never be too big, and I think that in Clinton's America, the government can and should provide for the citizens - cradle to grave. Meanwhile she refuses to acknowledge the rights of the unborn, and she her actions in regards to Benghazi were dishonorable. Clinton cares about Clinton - not the rights of the people.

I'm not sure about her views, but I think that comparing to two last presidents, her husband was quite successful.

 

[EM_Guy]

Czcibor,

You seem to be missing the point. We can debate forever about whether or not the American Revolution was justified. (And honestly, compared to what we have now, King George's injustices seem pretty minor to me). But the whole point is that governments should acknowledge, honor, respect, and defend the individual rights of the citizens. You have said that we have too much talk about rights and not enough talk about making things work. And you haven't acknowledged that the rights that we have should be honored, respected, and defended by our elected officials. By your own words, rights is pretty much a non-issue. What matters is "making things work" (whatever that means).

Throughout history, all too often, governments have cruelly oppressed the people. Surely, you are not ignorant of this. And yet, you say that there is "too much talk of rights." The power and authority entrusted to elected officials is vast - especially for the POTUS. Any individual to be entrusted with that power should prove himself worthy of the trust. The rights of the people ought to be zealously guarded at all times.

I am not saying that we should all have an entitlement mentality. Since there are obligations associated with every right, we need to distinguish between our actual rights and our desires.

 

[EM_Guy]

I'm not sure about her views, but I think that comparing to two last presidents, her husband was quite successful.

I've brought up three issues:

1. The rights of the unborn.
2. The need to define individual rights in a way that maximizes liberty and minimizes tyranny.
3. Benghazi.

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Benghazi.

Regarding the first two issues, how did Bill Clinton do better than Bush?

Of course, you have been arguing that point #2 should not even be an issue. It is of no surprise to me then that you think that Clinton did better than Bush. (I'm no fan of Bush).

 

[Czcibor]

Regarding the first two issues, how did Bill Clinton do better than Bush?

Of course, you have been arguing that point #2 should not even be an issue. It is of no surprise to me then that you think that Clinton did better than Bush. (I'm no fan of Bush).

Which Bush? Senior? I'd say he was just unlucky - he won Gulf War, which hit economy by high oil prices. He promised no more taxes and reasonably raised taxes which cost him job. Seems good enough. The junior - he got a budget surplus from Bill Clinton times (and Bill Clinton was responsible enough just to keep it to pay back debt to be able to finance already incurred social security promises). Instead he lowered taxes, raised spending (like those Medicare medications), and started one unnecessary and expensive war. (surprisingly a big budget deficit appeared ;) ). Plus he failed supervision job prior to housing bubble (this one was harder, so maybe I should limit blame).

If you mention anything about freedom and free market I'd answer about steel tariffs (not specially legal under WTO) and ethanol fuel production subsidies. ;)