Hillary

[Boatrocker]

. . . And then Reagan's fiasco in Lebanon made Carter look like a military genius by comparison.

And how many $millions did we piss away investigating the bombing deaths of 240-some marines?

Did you know that the Ambassador missed being in the count by about 30 minutes.

I did not.

[Vrede too]

Is it only democrats who go on to do great works after the presidency?

It's almost like they have always wanted to help people, maybe that why the Dems make better presidents.

George H. W. Bush wasn't bad after office, but he was almost 69 years old. Jimmy Carter was only 56 and Bill Clinton only 54.

Then, Reagan was already senile, Nixon was disgraced, Ike was 70, Hoover was disgraced, and everyone is happy that Shrub has kept to himself.

HW took his top level security briefings and went to work as a consultant for Saudi Arabia

I guess I forgot that.

[rstrong]

I'm with billy.pilgrim and Seth Milner. A pretense to snobbishness is as bad as a pretense to Bubba-hood. He was"Jimmy" his entire life, including as Governor and probably among his Navy peers when he was on an admiral track.

The Chalk River Nuclear Lab here in Canada supplied plutonium for the Manhattan Project, and today produces a large percentage of the world's medical radioisotopes.

In 1952 it had a meltdown similar to the ones in Japan a few years ago. Partial loss of coolant followed by jammed control rods, followed by meltdown followed by hydrogen explosions disassembling the reactor building and the reactor-vessel itself.

Jimmy Carter, then a nuclear engineer in the U.S. Navy, was among those who went into the nuclear nightmare to help in the emergency response and cleanup.

As much as Trump and Dubya and Reagan tried to look heroic, Jimmy Carter is the real thing.

[Vrede too]

Given the timespan we're discussing, it's probably fair to mention that George H. W. Bush was also heroic and I'm unaware of any physical heroism by Bill Clinton or Obama.

[Seth Milner]

similar to Seth Milner's gripes about Hillary's grooming.

Griping? I didn't create the meme, and I only commented on why I thought the meme was created to begin with.

You're going to have to sling a better insult than that; maybe you could borrow rstrong's Screwdinger Douchebag thingy or something else like that that was created with a higher degree of intelligence.

[rstrong]

Given the timespan we're discussing, it's probably fair to mention that George H. W. Bush was also heroic and I'm unaware of any physical heroism by Bill Clinton or Obama.

True. Though a black kid in early 1960s America going on to become President certainly deserves honorable mention.

[Seth Milner]

Given the timespan we're discussing, it's probably fair to mention that George H. W. Bush was also heroic and I'm unaware of any physical heroism by Bill Clinton or Obama.

True. Though a black kid in early 1960s America going on to become President certainly deserves honorable mention.

Yessir --- $$$$$ backing deserves honorable mention, given that Trump is twice as inexperienced but pays his own way.

Now that the novelty of the first Black as POTUS has worn off, we're possibly going to get another "first" novelty: Hillary Clinton.

[Vrede too]

Given the timespan we're discussing, it's probably fair to mention that George H. W. Bush was also heroic and I'm unaware of any physical heroism by Bill Clinton or Obama.

True. Though a black kid in early 1960s America going on to become President certainly deserves honorable mention.

That's why I posted "physical" heroism. Other kinds are more subjective. Even though I'm not much of a fan, I'd call Hillary heroic. She's taken more crap for longer than anyone I can think of and has just kept fighting when most others would have said, "Screw it," and done other things.

[O Really]

, given that Trump is twice as inexperienced but pays his own way.

Has a history of "paying his own way" with other people's money.

[O Really]

Eisenhower and JFG would have been in the hero category. But I don't think "heroism" is limited to military service or hauling someone out of a burning building. Sometimes the things that earn medals are a product of accident and timing.

[rstrong]

True. Though a black kid in early 1960s America going on to become President certainly deserves honorable mention.

Yessir --- $$$$$ backing deserves honorable mention, given that Trump is twice as inexperienced but pays his own way.

$$$$$ backing? through the primaries he was up against Hillary, who had even more "$$$$$ backing."

Sure, in the general election he had more $$$$$ then McCain, but this was following eight years of Republican rule so bad that Republicans STILL try to write it out of history. With McCain having summoned Palin as his running-mate. Donors were expecting a Democrat win, and weren't going to waste their money.

It's a Presidential run. What are you expecting? You think that Billionaire Trump or venture capitalist Romney with his overseas tax-haven bank accounts didn't have "$$$$$ backing?" They inherited theirs, as super-rich white kids. Obama started as a poor back kid in the early 1960s, and built his own wealth. Which really seems to bother you.

Now that the novelty of the first Black as POTUS has worn off, we're possibly going to get another "first" novelty: Hillary Clinton.

Yes, Seth. We know that it's the "novelty" of a black President or female President that annoys you.

[Seth Milner]

, given that Trump is twice as inexperienced but pays his own way.

Has a history of "paying his own way" with other people's money.

Regardless it's source, it was his to spend

[rstrong]

, given that Trump is twice as inexperienced but pays his own way.

Has a history of "paying his own way" with other people's money.

Also the $millions of his own money that he put into his campaign early on, are as a LOAN. It'll be paid back with money raised through other means. (Corporate and small donors, selling his donor lists, etc.)

[rstrong]

, given that Trump is twice as inexperienced but pays his own way.

Has a history of "paying his own way" with other people's money.

Regardless it's source, it was his to spend

How is that different from say, Hillary?

[Seth Milner]

Obama started as a poor back kid in the early 1960s, and built his own wealth. Which really seems to bother you.
Bothers me?? I'm glad he was able to better himself. Oh, and this: I voted for him; twice, which seems to bother you.[/quote]

Now that the novelty of the first Black as POTUS has worn off, we're possibly going to get another "first" novelty: Hillary Clinton.

Yes, Seth. We know that it's the "novelty" of a black President or female President that annoys you.
We? Who's we? Do you always voice everyone else's opinion?
. . . as much as I annoy you and cause you to constantly grasp straws to make foolish statements?

[Seth Milner]

, given that Trump is twice as inexperienced but pays his own way.

Has a history of "paying his own way" with other people's money.

Regardless it's source, it was his to spend

How is that different from say, Hillary?

You should have asked Dear Abby that when you wrote her.
Seriously, none.

[Vrede too]

Trump may make history for spending more money as a donor or candidate than any individual ever has on a failed election, and that's not even including the damage he's stupidly done to his businesses.

[JTA]

I donated to my first ever political campaign yesterday. Twenty bucks to Gary Johnson. I don't necessarily agree with all of his stances, and he doesn't stand a chance of becoming president. I really want to see him in the debates.

[Vrede too]

Good investment! If Trump keeps crashing, I suppose it's possible that Gary Johnson will do well enough that SC's electoral votes will go to Hillary.

I wonder - Which hurts Trump more, a donation to Johnson or one to Hillary?

[O Really]

It takes a lot of money to run for President. It may behoove the public to put some limits on how that money is raised, who can contribute, and how it can be spent, but no matter what, it takes a lot to run. If you say candidates must self-fund, then you're limiting public office to the super-rich, which doesn't sound like a good idea. Consider, for example, how would you even go about running a campaign without funding? Trump got a lot of free press, and he could fly around paying himself for the ride, but unless we limit candidates to TV stars or Kardashian-types, that wouldn't work for most people (would it, Mr. O'Malley?)