08-03-2016, 08:51 AM
Quote:Right wing media? That's barely a blip on the media radar, so who cares? Obama isn't belligerent or obnoxious? Did you watch his presser today? He understood the law through his filter as a man raised by radical/communists. That's not rhetoric. That's fact. We seriously don't know how well educated Obama is on the law, or the Constitution beyond what he claims. Based on how little regard he's shown for the Constitution since taking office, I'd say that if he's educated on the law, he's equally versed on how to get around it. In that regard, he and Clinton have a lot in common.I can see how those who are not a fan of Obama can view him as arrogant. Belligerent and obnoxious? I don't see it. And if you're drawing comparisons there is no contest Trump is far more belligerent and obnoxious than any candidate ever. (See: loser, disgusting pig, video of him taunting the journalist with a muscular disorder, etc.) Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. He may have opinions on laws you disagree with (the communism card is absurd - and beneath you), but he understands the law and what things can and cannot be legally done.
Secretary of State is a feather if you have some accomplishments to show for it beyond cooking up weapons deals or pawning off nuclear material to an organization that just happens to have donated heavily to her slush fund. If she was such a celebrated Secretary of State, why isn't she running on the specific policies she implemented that show how wildly successful she was in that role? For someone who claims to sweat the details, she sure is lacking in providing them to back up her feather. She's tossing out that we got Bin Laden. Other than sitting in the room watching the video when the cameras snapped, what did she do? The one glaring failure was the weapons deal she and her boss cooked up selling Libyan weapons caches to al Qaeda and ISIS to fight in Syria against Assad. And the only reason they had the weapons cache in Libya to do this was because she and her boss supported the expulsion from leadership and subsequent murder of the nations dictator, who BTW, was actually working with the US to deal with al Qaeda and ISIS because they scared the crap out of him too. She supported the Arab Spring and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to leadership in Egypt. She laid the groundwork for the Iran nuke deal which, by any measure, is an unmitigated disaster. Her reset button nonsense with Russia has opened the door to a potential new cold war, and her vacillation on trade agreements is almost comical. Some feather. Maybe a dodo bird feather.
Regarding her other foreign policy views, she opposed the surge in Iraq during the Bush administration. She was wrong. The surge worked.
As far as being Senator is concerned, she carpet bagged her way to a vacancy in NY, ran against a lousy opponent, and won handily because of the D after her name in a state that is one of the bluest of blues. Once she got to the Senate, what did she do? If you look at the bills she proposed, she wasn't some great legislator. She claimed to be a champion for women and children, all the while taking significant donations to her foundation from nations where women are treated like property. She proposed 3 bills that were eventually signed into law. One renamed a highway in honor of Tim Russert. Another renamed a post office. The third created a national historic site. She attached her support to several bills, including the massive recovery act that Obama signed into law for all those shovel ready jobs (yuck yuck), and co-sponsored a fair pay bill (she doesn't even practice this with her own staff).
The woman Obama called the most qualified person in modern history to seek the office was about as equally qualified as he was when he ran in 2008. Her greatest qualification to be the next president is the fact that she married well. Beyond that, she's nothing more than an empty pantsuit with well lined pockets. But, hey, she understands government. Have you looked at the polling numbers for how much faith voters have in government? Have you looked at polling numbers showing how much they trust Hillary? The only thing polling lower is the media.
Our strongest allies loathed Reagan back in 1980. They thought he was going to bring the world to WW3. Turns out they were wrong, so pardon me if I don't really care what our allies think in August of 2016. Much depends on who he surrounds himself with.
To say Hillary's only asset is who she married is rubbish. She has decades of public service. You may hate her (I'm no huge fan myself), but to hold her qualifications next to Trump's it is not even close. Like many others attacking her (including Trump himself) the focus seems to be about anything except why Trump would be a good president or what a Trump presidency would look like. Demonizing her is the only play for him and his supporters because he cannot stand on his own background and experience.
When Obama said he was unfit, he was dead on. A Trump presidency would be a dumpster fire with global implications. If you are solely supporting him because you don't like her or don't think she has done a great job in other areas -- WITHOUT qualifying Trump's abilities, resources and tendencies, then you are being foolish. Assuming EVERYTHING you say, hear, claim about her is accurate (it isn't), she is still a far safer option for America.
Again. I am no Hillary fan or apologist. I am a realist who isn't blinded by extreme dislike of one candidate or party loyalty above all.