Can a President Hillary Clinton be a good thing for Liberty?

[Timsup2nothin]

Change of heart?

Feel free to point out where I ever suggested that he wasn't.

 

[civman110]

Why must you insist on arguing over petty minutia? Especially off topic ones. Every thread you take it off-topic into these petty disputes.

 

[JollyRoger]

Better petty than wrong.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Better petty than wrong.

I wish I'd said that.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm just hoping we have someone not named Bush or Clinton.

 

[Kyriakos]

So to avoid the Dynasty of Bush, people can still vote for the Clintons.

 

[Antilogic]

Sticking with the issue in the OP, I don't think Hillary or Jeb would be significantly different on issues like domestic wiretapping, spying, drone policy, etc.

But Bush just doesn't seem to be in as strong a position as he should be for a prohibitive establishment favorite. If Walker declares, I think he can jump out in front and hold it.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think if Walker gets a lead too early, he will spare voters to death.

 

[thecrazyscot]

In my eyes democrats and republicans are essentially the same except for a few hot-button issues.

Two-party system sucks.

 

[Antilogic]

The hawkishness on ISIS and in the Middle East in general is a great example. Even Rand Paul has backed off his former stances on foreign aid, militarism, and intervention, and now has signed on to bills significantly increasing the defense budget, and so on.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's really more of an offense budget than a defense budget.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Any offense budget is more of a defense budget.

Spoiler :

Source: the best defense is a good offense

Spoiler :

 

[JollyRoger]

We overpaid for the equivalent of Tim Tebow though.

 

[civman110]

I'm just hoping we have someone not named Bush or Clinton.

Agreed.

Both are exactly the same and will be just as awful.

The hawkishness on ISIS and in the Middle East in general is a great example. Even Rand Paul has backed off his former stances on foreign aid, militarism, and intervention, and now has signed on to bills significantly increasing the defense budget, and so on.

Rand Paul has always been somewhat of an isolationist. Definitely never a supporter of militarism and intervention. His stance on this matter has be strikingly similar to Ron Paul.

 

[MobBoss]

So to avoid the Dynasty of Bush, people can still vote for the Clintons.

Voting for one dynasty over another isn't really avoiding a dynasty.

 

[Kyriakos]

Voting for one dynasty over another isn't really avoiding a dynasty.

Eh..

..

You sure got me there, MB...

On the other hand i could have also just responded with:

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Voting for one dynasty over another isn't really avoiding a dynasty.

It would not be surprising if I'm wrong, but I associate 'dynasty' with multiple generations so I am less inclined to think of Clintons as a dynasty.

Of course, it also is easier for me to be opposed to a dynasty that has already given us a loser like GW.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Technically speaking, "dynasty" simply refers to rulers from the same family - not necessarily in generational order.

If you want to be nitpicky.

 

[MobBoss]

Link to video.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Technically speaking, "dynasty" simply refers to rulers from the same family - not necessarily in generational order.

If you want to be nitpicky.

I had a hunch I might be wrong, from a nitpicky perspective...but how about this...

In terms of dynasty, are you sure that 'family' doesn't mean 'bloodline'? In which case relation by marriage would not constitute dynasty.