If Hilliary Clinton were elected, would defense workers immediately lose their jobs?

Question

Ms. Clinton, I feel, would cut back dramatically on jobs in the defense sector, employing millions of people. This cut back would affect all and cause a severe increase in unemployment which would cause an immediate recession if too many were discharged . Ms. Clinton is noted as being anti-military and would down-size our defenses to dangerously low levels, due to her dislike for the military. Granted, we have had losses in the Middle East. It is unavoidable in the name of defense. Ms. Clinton should take a long hard look at her situation before cuting off heads due to her disliking the military.If she terminates our defenses to sub defensive levels, Osama Bin laden could become our new Dictator/Ruler due to weakness via passive attitudes. Therefore, I oppose her attempt to become President and cause our demise due to her passive attitudes with the military.

Answer 1

She does not have passive attitudes with the military. She aggressively hates them.

Answer 2

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a smart lady. Smart enough to not want to cut off her nose to spite her face, which is what destroying those jobs would be doing. She is smart enough to leverage assets, not wave a wand of power and pretend (unlike some presidents) she is queen.

The sad and bitter tone of your question concerns me. "Granted, we have had some losses in the Middle East" and "Osama bin Laden ... passive attitudes" says a lot about your concerns. If I were you, I'd oppose her too.

But it's not so simple, and HRC is not a simple-minded lady. I doubt she has a serious chance to be elected (I wish this country were ready for a female president, but it's not likely - in fact the wagers are on for another 'minority' leader before a woman, based on some perceptions in our society - perceptions and actions of people), but if she did she wouldn't make the jumps you imply.

I'm sorry someone/something has put this fear in your heart. Being anti-military force is not a blanket statement about being anti-military. For example, some modern Quakers (Quakers are taught to be pacifists) acknowledge that war may be necessary and certainly understand the need for military. It's a matter of how to use it and how to fund it and how to make it beneficial, not a laughingstock in the world. It's a matter of efficiency (yes, Virginia, it's mostly in the military where we here buyers spend outlandish sums for wrenches and toilet seats, not to mention weapons which may be questonable), not a matter of devaluing the wonderful people who have committed their lives to defending America.

Please, look a little closer to see where more details tell a different story. The 'fact' she's not 'pro military' doesn't mean she wants to sink your battleship.

Answer 3

No they would not, we are so far behind in equipping our military forces, it is a shame. It will take much to get it back to a an adequate level. Only the President now if he orders someone to do something or if someone doesn't agree with his policy for some reason, they are unpatriotic.
This is non-sense.
Hillary understands the perimeter of laws much more than Bush.
She also has never said anything bad about our military. Where is your proof?
As far as Osama, if we would not have attacked Iraq, and instead went after Osama and had him now. We would be much safer. And be in less debt. And would have not lost the lives we have lost in Iraq.

Answer 4

I know what you're saying about her disliking the military, but I wouldn't worry too much about her decimating the defense industry. 80% of economic activity in this country begins with a government contract, and a lot of that is in defense. Additionally, the Executive Office does not have the power of the purse, congress does. A president cannot unilaterally cut anything without congress signing off on it. Congress will not sign off on it because, let's face it, congress is made up primarily of cowards who don't want to risk their incumbency. Here's a little something to think about....In truth, most of our nations "leaders" don't care about our problems or the social platforms they use to win votes and divide this country. Here's why; THE RICH CAN BUY THEIR WAY OUT OF SOCIAL ISSUES! They know that the "culture wars" are for the uneducated and the fanatical. They don't really care about abortion laws, because if their daughter gets knocked up, they can send her to Sweden to get an abortion. They don't care about our school system, because if their child's school sucks, they can send him to private school.

As for Senator Clinton's well documented disdain for the Armed Forces, I think the area where she will most greatly affect the military will be in social engineering. The democrats have a bad history in this area, from "don't ask, don't tell" to admitting women to VMI and the Citadel. I have a feeling that if she were elected, gays and transsexuals would be allowed to openly serve in the military, regardless of the impact it would have on morale.

As an aside, I caution you to avoid those that use the term "liberal" or "republican" as dirty words. I have no love for Senator Clinton, but her and President Bush are opposite sides of the same coin. Neither of them have your best interest at heart, and neither does most of Congress. We need more leaders who unite this country, not divide them on idiotic social issues. The "Balkanization" of America may be what takes our country on a downward spiral. Historically, we have achieved great things only when the nation was united.

Answer 5

As technology unfolds, there will be a greater eliteness to our military. No longer will the soldier have to be a large adult male. We will be putting people in the military with very high IQs, sometimes frail in their appearance but with the modern weaponry coming up, remote in their location from the fighting and when they are local to it, protected by very sophisticated body armor and weopons that don't kill but temporarily maim the enemy. There will not be a necessity for the larger armed forces we have been used to having. It is going to be a new day and that change is going on even now. Hillary is not the reason for it, technology and reasoning and the internet perhaps, but not Hillary. I too was raised with questions about female leadership, but I think they are proving themselves quite worthy! I am glad to be surrounded by capable women for the times.

Answer 6

Yes, the Clinton's are war protesters and Bill is a draft dodger and a hater of anything military.. Bill Clinton cut the military budget by 2/3 when he was in office .. you can't expect any less from Hillery..

Answer 7

No. She is a Wolfowitz in a sheep's outfits. :P a low-value shot, i comprehend. As for Obama, i do no longer comprehend sufficient approximately him to have a significant opinion. i'm hoping he or another liberal minded man or woman will win the White domicile this time around. Too undesirable Nader will by no potential win. --- i do no longer comprehend what being a woman would be a clarification for her to no longer be president. a woman is basically as able or incapable as a guy. King George has carried out little to make one think of purely a guy would be ideal.

Answer 8

Hillary Clinton is PRO military, anti-Bush strategy.

You are completely wrong on this subject, as Clinton has repeatedly stated we need to use our military to counter the growing threat of a resurgent China.

Answer 9

That's a stretch. Then again:

It will be great day in America when teachers have all of the supplies they need to do their jobs and the Navy has to have a bake sale to purchase an aircraft carrier.

Answer 10

hillary clinton has openly stated " I loathe the military",so, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.