Hillary is too old

1. 31

   Writer Foxposted 9 years ago

   Hillary Clinton is too old to be president of the U.S.
   
   Hillary would be 69 years old if she assumes office in 2017, which would tie her with Ronald Reagan for being the oldest US president ever elected.  (You remember, Reagan, don't you?  The president who developed Alzheimer's disease while in office and his wife had to finish his sentences for him when he was asked questions by the Press!)
   
   The medium age for a US president is 55 years.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr … tes_by_age

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I have a lot more problems with Hillary other than her age. She has been implicated or around too many scandals with and without Bill. Everyone keeps touting her time has come that a woman should be president. I am sorry but I think that a strong leader with the countries best interests at heart should be in there not based on her sex. Responsibility is a real concern when referring to her.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Marie Flintposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed.

         replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Elizabeth Warren in 2016 for president.
      
      Hillary is better than Cruz, Bush, rubio etc. otherwise including the enitre array  of GOP wannabees.
      
      I am more interested in shared  ideology and governing principles than I am with her age. If I could tolerate Reagan, I can live with Hillaruy.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I hope this one isn't a vote against the other one instead of having two good candidates. On second thought I believe it is hopeless.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I prefer Warren as the true believer and crusader, but her chances are not as good as I one time thought.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I believe the system is far too corrupt to cleanse itself. The years and years of allowing lawyers to write and rewrite procedure, rules and ethics has tainted the system beyond repair. We have an uncaring electorate that shows up once in awhile to place a quick fix band aid candidate in place thinking we actually have a choice. There is no two party system anymore. It is merely an excuse to finagle some deal that benefits their handlers. Their handlers being corporate America with a large contingent of foreign interests as well. How can a congressmen making $174,000 per year become a millionaire in four to six years? And many make much more than that. The apathy of the electorate and the misled idea that there is a difference between the parties is the biggest lie they continue to perpetrate. When the two party element is enacted the result is what we have with the Loretta Lynch confirmation. The senate is too busy with an abortion bill to bother confirmation. What a bunch of morons.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, indeed, RH, the system is incorrigible. As long as the plutocrats continue to run things, I am not optimistic as to our future prospects from either party. It may be an exercise in futility, I have to remain in the game and support the candidate that I have fewer problems with as compared to the others. It is the big money guys that are most resistant to change for obvious reasons.  Which ideological platform counts these people as their core constituency?
                  
                  I have never really been satisfied that Wall Street and money changers were properly chastened for their part in the 2008 meltdown. I need someone really to fight these people and not allow him or herself to be co-opted by them. If for nothing else, just to preclude a repeat of that terrible period.
                  
                  The GOP has shown a greater affinity toward the groups that I have problems with then the Democrat. While neither party will stop the fall, perhaps I can slow the rate of descent until people wake up and realize that far too much of Washington is in the hands of those that benifit from the status quo.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I think the most frustrating thing of all is the apathy and non committed electorate. They either stand on the side lines complaining about the mess yet fail to realize doing nothing only contributes to their plight. On the other hand you have those that do not investigate a thing and allow the party's to give them their stand on the issues. Neither is helping and continue the conundrum.
                     
                     It would seem as you intimated that the GOP has a vendetta with the poor but you have the Dems signing on with big business to pull the rug out from under them none the less. One is more overt than the other but equally paralyzing the poor.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Most stimulated conversation, RH, thanks.
                        
                        Where we disagree is that I think that there is a fundamental difference in the philosophy and ideology of the 2 parties. As there has been a difference between the political parties in most democracies.
                        
                        I believe that the conservatives foundation is the idea that the wealthy and powerful should be running things and democracy, itself, is a secondary concern.
                        
                        Are the Dems perfect, no. The problem that I have with Hillary Clinton is that she is sleeping with the enemy.  She has too much at stake with her own involvement with Wall Street and the powerful finance lobby to really go after them the way I believe that she needs to.
                        Which party more consistently attacks the aspirations and needs of the middle class? Which party when the votes are tallied in Congress, votes for legislation that waters down the needed changes to make Wall Street accountable?
                        Which party's solution to the employment crisis focused on jobs for the middle class (stimulus) rather than more tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful so as to put more money in their pockets at our expense?
                        
                        Yes, as a man, I know that I am mortal and must eventually die, but I am going to look more favorably toward the one offering a glass of orange juice over the one that offers me a cyanide cocktail.
                        
                        Yes, the system, by its very nature, is corrupt but I can't support those individuals or ideologies that makes a bad situation worse. They exacerbate the source of the corruption, rather than ameliorate it. Short of a revolution, capitalism remains king, but what can we do as voters to allow the system as  corrupt as it is to remain viable for the most people over the longer period? You can't do that by supporting the plutocrats and their political representative. One party has a fundamental ideological base for dismissing the middle class and poor the other does not, IMHO.

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           I agree that historically the two parties maintain a different posture. The GOP favoring the wealthy with their extreme right leaning sub elements and then the Dems with their message leaning towards the masses and their extreme left progressive wing. But where I disagree is that they use those postures to base a ruse. They tell us that they are going to do the things they do based on those ideas when in actuality they work at the underbelly of the process to pad their pockets and future as a politician. As you said Hillary is sleeping with the enemy and that is something she will deny and promise to "look" into once she is elected. But as Obama has showed us the proof is in the history. When the taxpayer bailed out Wall Street who was punished? Who lost their jobs or went to jail? We were punished and well we should be continually punished until we get off of our dead a$$e$ and do something about it.
                           
                           The same can be said of why do the two parties keep nominating horrible candidates? Because they want no change. The don't want to lose control of the purse strings. Why is it they pass feel good legislation but fail to fund it? Control is the key element and money is the vehicle. Money corrupts every aspect of our system of government and social lives. What else could you expect from a capitalist system! Is capitalism bad? In no way is it bad but if it is run with the ability to buy regulatory and policy initiatives then we see what it has wrought.
                           
                           Until we find a way to elect officials and not politicians who will look out for the good of the country this paradigm will never change. That is why I harp on that we need term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform as the only solution. You have to ask yourself why won't the current crop of politicians Republican and Democrat opt to take this tact?

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              there may well be a 'ruse' to certain extent. Politics have always been dirty and certain realities of the system is a given.
                              
                              Obama wanted to come down much harder on the money changers, but again he was stimied by a obstructionist GOP and a very powerful finance and banking lobby. These people and their power is at heart of much of our problems and you can bet that they are well entrenched into the system.
                              
                              When Mr. Obama wanter to create a consumer advocacy arm within the Government headed by Elizabeth Warren, you should have seen the gathering storm that basically sunk the concept before it started. Warren is a no nonsense politician that had no fealty toward the money changers and would not be bought. The lobbiests and the so called 'free market' conservatives would have none of it. They sunk that ship before it left port. The President, as a prior community organizer with a doctorate from Harvard, was someone whose instincts I basically trusted.
                              
                              So while the reform came short of what I would of liked, I  am certain that the 'free market' republicans with their anti-regulation attitude would have given the thieves everything they wanted, without any kind of restraint. Check out who is getting most of the seed money from them for future campaigns, it is not the Democrats.
                              
                              So who is making Capitalism all the more untenable, despising the idea that we need to regulate against excess and that the free market may not take into account other concerns that we have regarding how wealth is distributed within this society? This stuff is coming from the conservatives, and their advocates is the GOP. 
                              Politics have always been corrupt since its inception. I say along with you that term limits are a good idea, taking the big money out of politics making representatives accountable to the people they serve. Which group is going around saying corporations are people? Do you really think they are going to so much as lift a finger in the right direction?  I will accept Obama who tries to resist over a Romney that would add that much more fuel to the fire.
                              
                              I think the sea change you are talking about may well be beyond the reach of even the most well meaning people. A little effort is better than none at all and even better still than those that would take us in the opposite direction.

                              replyreport
                              1. 71

                                 rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 In your effort to find a reason for the failure you have fallen into the trap. Obama had all the power of his office to chase down the egregious  misconduct of wall street but chose to just write a check. He could have and should have mobilized every available lawyer in the justice department as well as the treasury department. Instead nothing happened. Why? Because if you look at his largest campaign donor you will find a litany of Wallstreet firms. It's alright as they were behind Romney as well. Hillary will have the same sort of support and her opponent too. I voted for Obama as a vote for Romney would have been a sell out to the corporate America that was behind him. Don't feel bad as I think Obama is a good man. But he is a career politician and a very good one at that. Obama is also 100% behind the TPP which will totally finish what Clinton and NAFTA began. The enilation of more middle class jobs. Don't feel that my angst is only for Dems with regard to this. George Bush expanded NAFTA to South America as well. These efforts by these men has destroyed working America in favor of huge profits by corporations to sell us poorly made products that become more expensive to fix rather than replace.
                                 
                                 I still maintain our system is broken and overcome by money and the ethics that buys career politician longevity. We need accept that until we can make the running of the country for the countries own good we cannot believe the group as a whole will work in our best interests.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                    Got waylayed, We agree to disagree on this one but you have to admit that there was a sensible reason why you voted for Obama over Romney.  Your point of view was that the political parties were identical. However, you saw that a vote for Romney represented giving your nod of approval toward the greater certainty of movement in a negative direction, one where neither one of us wanted to go. My sentiments exactly.....

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 71

                                       rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       It was more a leap of faith. Not in Obama as he had not been tested in an executive position. Romney just let everyone know he was there for the rich. I just wish we could get away from the influence that is big money to support THEIR candidate.

                                       report
      2. 72

         Marie Flintposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Never voted for Reagan, as I was doing a home birth that election morning!

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Hello, Marie, I did not vote for Reagan either, but I was home on that day in November, 1980 biting my nails after voting for Carter. I was hoping for a Carter upset, which was not forthcoming.

            replyreport
   3. 73

      junecampbellposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that age is an issue. I am 70 and I know that I do not have the energy necessary for a demanding , stressful job, nor do any of my friends in the se age bracket.

      replyreport
2. 80

   Sed-meposted 9 years ago

   I wouldn't vote for Hillary if my life depended on it, but her age is meaningless if her health is good. On the average, women live much longer than men, and thrive as well. I can't imagine she doesn't have 4 good years in her. I just pray it's as a contestant on the apprentice and not in politics.

   replyreport
3. 61

   FleaMarketposted 9 years ago

   Yeah, those wall street monsters. I guess the politicians can go to the middle east to get their donations like Hillary did. OH wait, sorry that makes her a better choice, what was I thinking. (Sarcasm)

   replyreport
4. 61

   FleaMarketposted 9 years ago

   I can't say what I want to say without starting a hate war between the two sides, but I must say this. Carter? Really, what were you smoking?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      FM, no war, i would always prefer a moderate Democrat over a right wing cowboy. I knew that Reagan was with Goldwater and had an anti-progressive stance since the sixties in California, when he was governor. No way could I vote for him

      replyreport
   2. 71

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I did not vote in that election but Reagan scared the hell out of me. His hard stance on Russia and nuclear proliferation was of great concern to many. I did not like either candidate. The economy had collapsed and as a carpenter at the time work was non existent. I had to burn old cabinet doors in my fireplace to keep the family warm I was so broke.

      replyreport
5. 92

   Anne Harrisonposted 9 years ago

   As an outsider (viewing the game from Australia) it worries me that the message given by Hillary running, whatever her strengths and weaknesses, is that the only way for a woman to become president is by who she marries - such as a president.
   Also, the Bush - Clinton - Bush - (Obama) - possibly Clinton sequence hints a bit too much of heredity/dynastical inheritence (not to mention the role of wealth). The cynic in me bemoans how, in so many countries, the world of politics is beyond the grasp of most people, especially those people politicians chould be defending.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Anne, nice to have a perspective from outside the fray....
      
      You know, it never crossed my mind that the fact that Hillary's husband was once president has been an advantage for her. Having been a Senator for the State of New York and Secy. of State, she has credentials that can stand on their own.
      
      I never thought much of the dynasty thing just a series or rather strange coincidences. I don't know,  people may has suspected such a possibility with Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt,  John and John Quincy Adams or William Henry Harrison and his grandson Benjamin.  The though might have crossed our mind with the Kennedy's, if John had lived we could easily have seen Robert as the heir apparent. Had Robert lived, I am sure he that he would have got the Democratic nomination in 1968. Obviously, this was not to be.

      replyreport
6. 61

   Steven Slivkaposted 9 years ago

   I think as a country we must get out of this "too old" mantra when it comes to determining who should be in office. Bernie Sanders is 73 and I think he would be a great president, one who represents the middle-class working families instead of the 1 percent. He is more than qualified, even during his mid-70s.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I like Sanders and agree that he would be a fighter for middle class issues. I just think that he is too far to the left to get alot of play right now.

      replyreport
7. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Hilary is too old. Jeb Bush will win and Obama Care will not be repealed.
   ...are we doomed for this reason alone?
   OR NOT?

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would choose that we are doomed but for a different reason. Our currency is at stake. While we war over ISIS and the so called jihad against America there is a more catastrophic failing in the cross hairs. We have worked ourselves into a corner with the petro dollar. Our currency is the basis by which the world trades on. It is upheld by the Arab oil industry as the preferred currency for trade. If Saudi Arabia is invaded or compromised the basis will falter throwing the world in a economic tailspin. Who will want it when the country backing it would no longer exist. Israel may contribute to it with a war with Iran but if allowed to go beyond that their economy will fail as well because of their dependence on the US. This is the underlying reason why we continue to mess with the middle east. Our so called moral war against evil Islam is secretly a greedy volley into self economic preservation.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         We are doomed without and within. WWIII has started.
         We need to start putting up our dukes.
         
         And what that means…
         I have no idea.
         
         It's difficult to fight your own government.
           - especially when we have no experience…except through voting.

         replyreport
8. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

   Voting is good enough! 
   ...as long as we still have a vote!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Do you really have a vote? The two parties throw an approved candidate at us who meets their requirements. Mind you I said THEIR requirements. We find more and more their requirements don't neccesary work very well for the country. The vetting process allows the candidate to fine tune their message to tell us what we want to hear. They love to talk about abortion or gay rights or whether God belongs somewhere in the venacular. This is all driven by the money. Unless we eliminate the money we shall never get our leaders to lead.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         - or have anyone worthwhile to vote for.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Castlepalomaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Vote Paul
            He would be too honesty and  too good to be allowed in anyway.
            Call me when the revolution starts.

            replyreport