The Pro Hillary Thread

Engineer has already started a thread "The future President Hillary Clinton" or something like that.

I get what you are saying about a bit over confident, it seems it always is waiting there to knock you down.

Has Obama given indications he is going to come out and campaign for her?

Oh, I didn't know about Engineer's thread. Drat, I would've just added to that one. Ah well, maybe A2K can bear under the weight of TWO pro-Hillary threads. I haven't seen Obama say anything about coming out for Hillary - he can't really explicitly do that yet while Bernie is still viable. I'm just speculating. I think he WILL come out like gangbusters once it's Hillary vs Drumpf.

I'm pretty sure it is going to Trump, but there is still Indiana to go to for republicans, Cruz is polling pretty good there.




source



source

I have a feeling as badly hated Cruz is, establishment republicans will get behind Cruz more enthusiastically than they try to do for Trump to be Hillary.

Trump or Cruz are both dreadful in different ways. I think Obama will be an effective campaigner against either.

I dislike Clinton for many reason - dishonesty is one of them and her promising us the world in order to get elected. She and Bill are just dreadful people, really.

Yet, should the ballot read Clinton vs. Trump, I definitely will chose the lesser evil and vote for Clinton. However, I really fear that Trump will prevail when pinned against Clinton, I really do!

The other scenario is that the Republicans will elect Ted Cruz as their candidate and ask Trump to run on an independent ticket. Since Cruz just announced his running mate to be Carly Fiorina - something unheard of in the primary, it lets me to believe that this will be the case at the Republican convention. Republicans will choose the lesser evil here too - Cruz over Trump! Whereas I think that they're both equally unelectable.

Then again, I would like to see Bernie Sanders running as independent on the Democratic ticket, Hillary for the Dems, Cruz for the Republicans and Trump for independent too. A huge country like the United States needs more than 2 parties to choose from.

Interesting idea, CJane. It scares me if that happens this election period, but I can also see many ways our election system could conceivably benefit from rethinking how the process works - and that is one of the matters that could use hashing out. Also, I'm scared about the election in general already, even though I and a lot of others predict her winning, I'm wary about stuff that could happen.

Virtually everyone reading these election threads knows my stance by now, that I'm more naturally attracted to Bernie's ideas but am chary of him for a variety of reasons, and I am a worrywort re Hillary for different reasons, some of them strong. But... I am pro her election if she is the nominee.

I'll try not to be repetitive re this stance in this thread, and just listen. I answered because when it comes down to the short hairs, I'll be there for her, and wanted to say so.

I think Edmund Hillary was a wonderful man--a mountaineer, explorer and a philanthropist. I am all in favor of Hillary, although, of course, he's dead now.

Hey, what's one "l" under friends?

Actually, I didn't read the "pro" in Hilary.....sorry!

But in our electoral college system, that would likely result in no majority and the House would choose Cruz regardless of who got more votes.

Right, engineer, which brings me to the electoral vote and how antiquated that system is, not to mention the voting system in general.

In my opinion, in this election we are setting up the stage props for a slide into some interesting history in this century. Europe might have to get more militaristic, and spend more money on their own defenses, since Russia is still their bogey man. Or, actual conflict could break out under either party in the White House. Historians in retrospect might reconsider Bush the younger as a great President who had his Polish missile defense eliminated. We might have to get closer to those nations surrounding China. We live in interesting times. Europeans might have to stop smoking to get through the physical exercise in their basic training.

Since you don't mind attacking Sanders in my pro Bernie thread, thought I would mention, she is not much of an alternative to Trump and if the ballot is her and he, I voting for Jill Stein will be.

Petty, not to mention cowardly since you said you won't talk to "Hillary people."

This is why I don't talk to asses like you. You make it personal.

Hello? You talking to me?

Calling someone an ass isent getting personal? You have adopted Lashes attitude. Next you will claim she started the whole thing so it aint your fault.

Do you even try to source that stuff, or is just being an accusation against Hillary legitimacy enough for you?

Clintons Return White House Furniture

By ABC News

W A S H I N G T O N, Feb. 8, 2001

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1

Former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sent $28,000 worth of household goods back to Washington after questions arose over whether the items were intended as personal gifts or donations to the White House.

“We have been informed that it is being shipped back, and the National Park Service is ready to receive it, take possession of it and take custody of it,” Jim McDaniel, the National Park Service’s liaison to the White House, said Wednesday.

“The property is being returned to government custody until such time that the issues can be resolved. It may well turn out that that property is rightly the personal property of the Clintons.”

Giving Back

After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.

McDaniel discussed the matter Wednesday with Betty Monkman, the White House curator, and Gary Walters, the chief usher, or executive manager of the White House.

They were reviewing the gifts the Clintons chose to keep after $28,000 worth of items were found on a list of donations the Park Service received for the 1993 White House redecoration project. The Washington Post this week quoted three people who said that they assumed the furnishings they donated for the project would stay in the White House.

“As a result of questions about the status of certain property donated to the White House during the Clinton administration, the National Park Service will accept the return of the property in question and act as a custodian of such property,” according to a statement released by the Park Service, which administers the White House as a unit of the national park system.

A person familiar with the Clintons’ move out of the White House, who spoke on condition of anonymity, would say only: “They’ve been returned.”

Furniture Movers

While the Clintons’ decision to return these gifts was a way to get out from under this and other criticism surrounding their departure from the White House, the couple provided scant details about the shipment.

Mrs. Clinton’s office referred all questions about the gift return to the former president’s transition office. Transition office workers said the Clintons would make no statement. They referred all questions to the Park Service, which wasn’t exactly sure which gifts were being returned or where they had been kept.

In a statement released Monday, Clinton’s transition office said every item they accepted was identified by the White House gift office as a present to them. They said none of the gifts taken was on a curator’s list of official White House property.

“Gifts did not leave the White House without the approval of the White House usher’s and curator’s offices,” the statement said. “Of course, if the White House now determines that a cataloging error occurred, ... any item in question will be returned.”

Instead of waiting for the issue to be resolved, the Clintons returned the items.

The gifts in question were: A kitchen table and four chairs valued at $3,650 from Lee Ficks of Cincinnati, Ohio; a $1,000 needlepoint rug from David Martinous of Little Rock, Ark.; two sofas, an easy chair and an ottoman worth $19,900 from Steve Mittman of New York; lamps valued at $1,170 from Stuart Shiller of Hialeah, Fla.; and a $2,843 sofa from Brad Noe, a businessman from California.

The gifts were just one of several flaps that followed the Clintons out of the White House:

Lawmakers are questioning Clinton’s desire to rent expensive office space in New York City at government expense. Because of the contention, the former president’s foundation has offered to pay at least $300,000 of an estimated $790,000 annual rent for the office Clinton favors.

Mrs. Clinton, the new senator from New York, has faced questions about the propriety of accepting the gifts in the period between her election and her swearing-in. Senate rules would have limited what she could accept had she been a senator.

Members of both parties also have criticized Clinton for granting scores of eleventh-hour clemency requests, including the pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive in Switzerland from 51 counts in the United States of tax evasion and fraud.