Hillary Clinton, First Woman President of the US. Would you vote for her?

[ousooner 1]

Vote for a female? Yes

Hilary? not if my life depended on it. Only if I was interested in living in a socialist country (which I am not) I really wish J C Watts would get back in politics and run. I would vote for him in a heartbeat!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

It's rather amazing to me that we are so willing to decide what people are thinking, and yes I know both sides do it.

I mean, it didn't help her much to stay with him, look at the flack she takes for it. From people who do talk about the sancity of marriage and all.

And there is a part of me that imagines it would have been a huge scandal, and just another point to hammer them on, if she had left.

Let me find an excuse why I don't like her?

Heads: I Win.

Tails: you Lose.

[lisah25 3]

Let me find an excuse why I don't like her?

Heads: I Win.

Tails: you Lose.

LOL-pretty much. :heh:

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Vote for a female? Yes

Hilary? not if my life depended on it. Only if I was interested in living in a socialist country (which I am not) I really wish J C Watts would get back in politics and run. I would vote for him in a heartbeat!

The people of the state of NY gave Hillary 55% of the vote in 2000 when she first ran for the Senate, and in 2006, they gave her 67% of the vote for re-election.

Maybe it takes actually seeing what she does up close, rather than hearing (and reading) propaganda from her enemies to convince people.

Most of the extra 12% came from upstate NY, a Republican stronghold. It seems that even the Republicans liked her once they saw what she did for her constituency.

She beat her Republican challenger with 1.7 million votes to one million votes in the predominantly Republican areas outside of NYC.

[sunsett 2]

Hillary as president scares the heck out of me.

A woman for president doesn't bother me at all.

[ousooner 1]

The people of the state of NY gave Hillary 55% of the vote in 2000 when she first ran for the Senate, and in 2006, they gave her 67% of the vote for re-election.

Maybe it takes actually seeing what she does up close, rather than hearing (and reading) propaganda from her enemies to convince people.

Most of the extra 12% came from upstate NY, a Republican stronghold. It seems that even the Republicans liked her once they saw what she did for her constituency.

She beat her Republican challenger with 1.7 million votes to one million votes in the predominantly Republican areas outside of NYC.

Since I am not from that part of the world, I don't know who she ran against. She may have been the lesser of two evils. I just know about things that I have read and heard her talk about, such as her healthcare plan. Sounds very socialistic to me. The motto that has stuck with me is that any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you need. Just my 2 cents.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Since I am not from that part of the world, I don't know who she ran against. She may have been the lesser of two evils. I just know about things that I have read and heard her talk about, such as her healthcare plan. Sounds very socialistic to me. The motto that has stuck with me is that any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you need. Just my 2 cents.

Are you also that set against Arnold Schwarzenegger? His health care plan for California is 10 times as agreesive as Hillary's was.

[wootsie73 0]

Very different questions, but I would vote for a woman, if I thought she would qualify for the job. But no way would I ever vote for another Clinton! Her husband, IMO, was one of the worst presidents in the history of this country. His wife was right there with him, so hell no, I would never vote for her!

[ousooner 1]

Are you also that set against Arnold Schwarzenegger? His health care plan for California is 10 times as agreesive as Hillary's was.

Honestly, I am not familiar with his plan, but the answer is yes. If it is as you say, I don't care what Party a person is affiliated with, I would be against it. I find a govenment big enough to have that much power to be very scary. I think charity should be in the hands of the private sector. Those who want to give should and those that don't should have that right as well. I don't want to government to create assistance programs on my behalf and force me to participate. I give to charity all the time, but I get to choose.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Honestly, I am not familiar with his plan, but the answer is yes. If it is as you say, I don't care what Party a person is affiliated with, I would be against it. I find a govenment big enough to have that much power to be very scary. I think charity should be in the hands of the private sector. Those who want to give should and those that don't should have that right as well. I don't want to government to create assistance programs on my behalf and force me to participate. I give to charity all the time, but I get to choose.

Then what do we do with the 45 million people who have no health insurance? Do we let them die?

By the way, since the uninsured wind up at emergency rooms, clogging the ER's and not paying the bills, you wind up paying for their care and you wind up paying more for their care than if you paid for their insurance. This is the rationale behind Arnold's plan in California and a similar plan in Massachusetts by the Conservative Republican governor who is running for the Republican nomination for President; Mitt Romney.

[ousooner 1]

Then what do we do with the 45 million people who have no health insurance? Do we let them die?

By the way, since the uninsured wind up at emergency rooms, clogging the ER's and not paying the bills, you wind up paying for their care and you wind up paying more for their care than if you paid for their insurance. This is the rationale behind Arnold's plan in California and a similar plan in Massachusetts by the Conservative Republican governor who is running for the Republican nomination for President; Mitt Romney.

I obviously don't have all the answers. Apparently no one does or we wouldn't be having this conversation. I am not heartless and don't wish for death for anyone, I simply think there has to be a better way to do things rather than have big government take care of it. I am not a great debater and don't want to get drawn in over my head. Just wanted to chime in with my thoughts.

[skyeblu79 0]

Very different questions, but I would vote for a woman, if I thought she would qualify for the job. But no way would I ever vote for another Clinton! Her husband, IMO, was one of the worst presidents in the history of this country. His wife was right there with him, so hell no, I would never vote for her!

Wow, even worse than Bush?

Why do yal hate Hate Hilary so much? I'm confused......I guess that wasn't really the question, but I am just wondering what she did to be so disliked.

[Carlene 12]

Honestly, I am not familiar with his plan, but the answer is yes. If it is as you say, I don't care what Party a person is affiliated with, I would be against it. I find a govenment big enough to have that much power to be very scary. I think charity should be in the hands of the private sector. Those who want to give should and those that don't should have that right as well. I don't want to government to create assistance programs on my behalf and force me to participate. I give to charity all the time, but I get to choose.

And do you care, at all, that 80% of the people receiving benefits from so-called welfare programs, including state and federal funded medical plans, are children?

[Carlene 12]

Are you also that set against Arnold Schwarzenegger? His health care plan for California is 10 times as agreesive as Hillary's was.

The Conservatives think Arnold is sleeping with the enemy. Oh, wait....he IS sleeping with the enemy. LOL...

[HeatherGurl 0]

Gender would not matter for my vote. I would not vote for Hilary though. Unless she was the lesser of 2 evils, but I seriously doubt I would choose her over a Republican.