Hillary for President!

What do my American cousins here think of her? Will she win? And how would she affect the conspiracy/curbing of freedom/mountains/(insert tin foil theory here)

Wait, is the president important? What exactly do they do?

Aside from the fact that she was responsible for getting four people killed, one of them an ambassador? Aside from the fact that she was fired in the 1970's by a fellow Democrat for being a liar and a thief? Aside from the fact that she won't turn over her e-mail server to the Government? She needs to be arrested, not elected.

Wait, who'd she kill?

Wait, who'd she kill?

I think he is referring to Benghazi.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on April 14, 2015, 04:39:53 PM

Wait, who'd she kill?

I think he is referring to Benghazi.

That is correct. She also lied about landing under sniper fire in the wars of former Yugoslavia.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 14, 2015, 05:04:39 PM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on April 14, 2015, 04:39:53 PM

Wait, who'd she kill?

I think he is referring to Benghazi.

That is correct. She also lied about landing under sniper fire in the wars of former Yugoslavia.

Is that relevant to the topic of whether she would be a good president?

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 14, 2015, 07:06:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 14, 2015, 05:04:39 PM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on April 14, 2015, 04:39:53 PM

Wait, who'd she kill?

I think he is referring to Benghazi.

That is correct. She also lied about landing under sniper fire in the wars of former Yugoslavia.

Is that relevant to the topic of whether she would be a good president?

It's worse than that, he thinks she is a criminal for some bizarre reason.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on April 14, 2015, 07:33:37 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 14, 2015, 07:06:06 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 14, 2015, 05:04:39 PM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on April 14, 2015, 04:39:53 PM

Wait, who'd she kill?

I think he is referring to Benghazi.

That is correct. She also lied about landing under sniper fire in the wars of former Yugoslavia.

Is that relevant to the topic of whether she would be a good president?

It's worse than that, he thinks she is a criminal for some bizarre reason.

The fact is she is a liar for one. I don't trust her to be my President. 2, she won't turn over her e-mail server to the Government, which means she's got shit to hide, which means I don't trust her to be my President. 3, in the 1970's, she withheld documents that would have exonerated Nixon, which means she is a thief and I do not trust her to be my President. Four, she gets people killed when they know too much, like the people in Benghazi who could have blown the roof off our true "diplomatic dealings" with that Libya and with Egypt, which means I don't trust her to be my President.

I have a slight feeling that Yaakov is a Republican. Just a hunch

You're right, but just barely. I was a Democrat up until just three weeks ago, and up until a few months ago, I was a Communist, a card carrying member, quite literally, although I was registered as a Democrat for purposes of voting. I still actually agree with much of what Marx said in theory. I just don't think it works in the real world much. As for the Ideal State, refer to the thread on that subject for my ideas there.

The fact is she is a liar for one. I don't trust her to be my President.

Are you 10 or something?  People lie.

2, she won't turn over her e-mail server to the Government, which means she's got shit to hide, which means I don't trust her to be my President.

Again, you sound like you have the maturity of a pre-teen.  Everyone has something to hide.  Maybe it is not nefarious, just embrassing, like perhaps fights between Bill and her about his cigar related activities.

3, in the 1970's, she withheld documents that would have exonerated Nixon, which means she is a thief and I do not trust her to be my President.

How is witholding a document the same as stealing.  You know what stealing means right?

Four, she gets people killed when they know too much, like the people in Benghazi who could have blown the roof off our true "diplomatic dealings" with that Libya and with Egypt, which means I don't trust her to be my President.

This is pretty out there.  If you can provide some sort of evidence, I would be happy to review it, but you sound like a conspiracy nut.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 14, 2015, 07:56:19 PM

The fact is she is a liar for one. I don't trust her to be my President.

Are you 10 or something?  People lie.

Hillary gave up that right when she declared her candidacy.

Quote

2, she won't turn over her e-mail server to the Government, which means she's got shit to hide, which means I don't trust her to be my President.

Again, you sound like you have the maturity of a pre-teen.  Everyone has something to hide.  Maybe it is not nefarious, just embrassing, like perhaps fights between Bill and her about his cigar related activities.

Do you honestly think that the Government cares who Bill was fucking? We already know she's pretty much a lesbian, that they haven't had sex since she conceived Chelsea, and that he fucks anything with a vagina. So how would any of that embarrass her?

Quote

3, in the 1970's, she withheld documents that would have exonerated Nixon, which means she is a thief and I do not trust her to be my President.

How is witholding a document the same as stealing.  You know what stealing means right?

Withholding a document that can get someone exonerated of an offence that costs them their job and reputation? Ok, perhaps not technically theft, although damned close to it. How about withholding evidence? Or covering up evidence? Or any number of other charges.

Quote

Four, she gets people killed when they know too much, like the people in Benghazi who could have blown the roof off our true "diplomatic dealings" with that Libya and with Egypt, which means I don't trust her to be my President.

This is pretty out there.  If you can provide some sort of evidence, I would be happy to review it, but you sound like a conspiracy nut.

How else, and why else, did those people die? Explain to me WHY the fucking Secretary of State of the United Fucking States of America, the most powerful country in the world, couldn't get four people off the ground before a bunch of savages were able to kill them? And then she blames it on an amateur film made in fucking La Jolla, California?! Seriously? I mean, who the fuck outside of Southern California has even HEARD of La Jolla, California?! I have, but I grew up in Southern California, and actually worked in fucking La Jolla, California. Come on!

I just read that one of the perpetrators actually said that that was the reason behind the attack.
Might not be, but there you go.

Additional question: Who are the Republican candidates? Are they any better?

I just read that one of the perpetrators actually said that that was the reason behind the attack.
Might not be, but there you go.

Additional question: Who are the Republican candidates? Are they any better?

Well, Scroto, that depends on what your overall theory of Government is. Currently, the official candidates are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. I am sure more will declare in the next few weeks. Jeb Bush (Bush 43's brother) will probably declare, and Chris Christie likely will. Donald Trump is considering a run, as is Rick Perry. And of course, Mike Huckabee might run as well.

My own opinion is that Cruz is probably the best choice. He certainly respects the Constitution more than any of the others in either party. I would vote for my dog's ass before I would vote for any Clinton or any Bush. Jim Webb might actually make a good President, in spite of being a Democrat. I have to learn more about him.

Hillary is first for the Democrats, and I know Jim Webb will be declaring soon, and so will a few others. The only real alternative on the Democratic side to Hillary is Jim Webb (in other words, he is the only one who stands a chance in Hell of being chosen over Hillary in the primaries).

I just read that one of the perpetrators actually said that that was the reason behind the attack.
Might not be, but there you go.

Of course that is what they will say. After all, Hillary gave them that as a good excuse. Why admit the real reason when you can lie?

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on April 14, 2015, 09:51:06 PM

I just read that one of the perpetrators actually said that that was the reason behind the attack.
Might not be, but there you go.

Of course that is what they will say. After all, Hillary gave them that as a good excuse. Why admit the real reason when you can lie?

They said that before the attack, I'm pretty sure.

I can't really blame them for wanting to kill americans, though.

A symbol of the wealth they don't have in a country of squalor.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 14, 2015, 10:09:03 PM

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on April 14, 2015, 09:51:06 PM

I just read that one of the perpetrators actually said that that was the reason behind the attack.
Might not be, but there you go.

Of course that is what they will say. After all, Hillary gave them that as a good excuse. Why admit the real reason when you can lie?

They said that before the attack, I'm pretty sure.

I can't really blame them for wanting to kill americans, though.

A symbol of the wealth they don't have in a country of squalor.

I don't recall them giving a reason at all regarding the killing of the four. Then again, they are savages. What do you expect? The fact is, Bush should never have gotten involved in Iraq in 2003, and Obama has only made the Middle East more of a clusterfuck. The Middle East has turned into a total mess because of the last two Presidents. Frankly, we should have left the people in charge who had always been in charge. They were assholes, but they kept the place under control.

I realise of course that Clinton is a divisive figure, but surely, Surely, you are not going to allow another Bush in?

By the way, if you guys really want a hereditary monarchy, you could always come back into the fold 

I realise of course that Clinton is a divisive figure, but surely, Surely, you are not going to allow another Bush in?

By the way, if you guys really want a hereditary monarchy, you could always come back into the fold 

I wonder what Yaakov thinks of being a part of the Commonwealth again? 

We don't really want them back, though, do we?

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 15, 2015, 03:10:10 AM

I realise of course that Clinton is a divisive figure, but surely, Surely, you are not going to allow another Bush in?

By the way, if you guys really want a hereditary monarchy, you could always come back into the fold 

I wonder what Yaakov thinks of being a part of the Commonwealth again? 

We don't really want them back, though, do we?

As long as they pay their tea tex and start playing proper sports.

Actually, you are talking to someone who would have been a Loyalist during the "Revolution". So no, I would have no objection to being in the Commonwealth, if they called it the British Commonwealth like they used to, instead of just, the Commonwealth! 

Actually, you are talking to someone who would have been a Loyalist during the "Revolution". So no, I would have no objection to being in the Commonwealth, if they called it the British Commonwealth like they used to, instead of just, the Commonwealth! 

Off-topic: were there many Jews in the colonies at that time? Did they have any leaning towards Loyalism or rebellion?

I'm a republican. Our current system works pretty well. I would just prefer an elected figurehead at the top.

It's interesting though, that in countries that have left monarchy behind, they often end up going back to some kind of hereditary rule.

There were a sizable number of Jews in the Colonies, enough such that there were Jews on both sides in the "Revolution", and of course, Jews who, like about half the population, simply didn't care, and just wanted to be left alone. The oldest synagogue of which I am aware is in Georgia. The Jewish Virtual Library has some good information on the Jewish presence in America dating back to the Colonial Period.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewstoc.html

CORRECTION:

The oldest synagogue is in Rhode Island.

I'm a republican. Our current system works pretty well. I would just prefer an elected figurehead at the top.

It's interesting though, that in countries that have left monarchy behind, they often end up going back to some kind of hereditary rule.

I thought that you were a Pom? Cause I meant Republican as the US political party.

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 15, 2015, 04:50:19 AM

I'm a republican. Our current system works pretty well. I would just prefer an elected figurehead at the top.

It's interesting though, that in countries that have left monarchy behind, they often end up going back to some kind of hereditary rule.

I thought that you were a Pom? Cause I meant Republican as the US political party.

I am a Pom. I meant republican with a small r, not the American kind.

Quote from: Scroto Gaggins on April 15, 2015, 05:12:50 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on April 15, 2015, 04:50:19 AM

I'm a republican. Our current system works pretty well. I would just prefer an elected figurehead at the top.

It's interesting though, that in countries that have left monarchy behind, they often end up going back to some kind of hereditary rule.

I thought that you were a Pom? Cause I meant Republican as the US political party.

I am a Pom. I meant republican with a small r, not the American kind.

Ok, what is a "Pom"? I need some definitions here. I know what a republican is. Someone who wants to eliminate the monarchy.

It's a very affectionate term Aussies use to refer to their old colonial masters. Like Limey.

It's a very affectionate term Aussies use to refer to their old colonial masters. Like Limey.

I see. So, an Englishman who wants to eliminate the Monarch, but wants a President who would serve about the same purpose. That honestly doesn't make much sense. I mean, if you want an elected President, it seems illogical to have the Head of State serve no purpose. I just don't get it.