I agree with the one guy; Hillary Clinton has the signs of being a sociopath. She has no or very little reguard for anyone who does advance her agenda.
Her senior's thesis went missing when Bill announced for the White House. It turned up a couple of years ago and it was a very favorable piece on a communist named Saul Alinsky. She had the power to hide this embarrassing thing.
In Arkansas she dressed in army jackets and combat boots. They had to hire people to show her how to dress.
She has never practiced law, she was a rain maker for the Rose law firm. She got the job when her husband became the Attorney General of Arkansas. She became a partner when Bill became governor. She abused her security detail in Arkansas by requiring them to do things outside their duties or else be punished.
When her husband lost reelection she blamed the man who was unsucessfully trying to correct her behavior. She called the man a F$#^&&G JEW!
Years later when running for the Senate she claimed to be part Jewish. Her "jewish" roots was the husband of a black sheep aunt that the family had disowned and she hadn't spoken to in decades.
She was put in charge of national health care, an industry that is about 17% of the gross domestic product but she never went through a nomination process or confirmation.
When her father died she gave an interview to ABC in the Lincoln room. She spoke of walking through the White House at midnight and seeing a cleaning woman on her knees. She said that she stopped and looked down at this women and (get this) suddenly realized that this woman was a HUMAN BEING who had hopes and dreams of a better life for her and her children! She was 46 years old when she had this revelation! That certainly doesn' t speak well of her.
She attacked Newt Gringrich for a $8 million book deal (Newt has written several books) and forced him to give up the money. Then she turned around and accepted a $20 million dollar book deal just days before she was sworn into the Senate. She had already been elected, but not sworn in was her defense. There was no law that said a serving member could not write books for money.
She said that Iraq was dangerous and needed to be attacked in 1998, she voted for military action in 2003, and now she would like you to forget all that as she was always against the use of force.
She did fire the travel staff so she could get her friends (Harry Thomason and wife) into those positions. Then she had the FBI put a case together against the chief to justify what she did! He was found not guilty in four hours after spending one million dollars defending himself. Fire someone yes, destroy someone no.
2007-05-24 19:26:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Well I mainly don't like how she tends to get on the "let's ban violence in the movies and video games and make all culture safe for 5 year old morons" bandwagon from time to time.
Other than that she's mostly ok I guess.
It's true she did vote to let George carry out his war in Iraq, which I maybe wouldn't have done.
But as is often pointed out, many democrats had likewise issued warnings about Saddam in the past. On the whole I think it was pretty fair minded of her to let Dubya have his stab at the situation.
More fair minded than he deserved, as it develops.
2007-05-24 18:57:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I believe she is fake. She does not have real beliefs she is passionate about, but says what she thinks people want her to say. Everything she has done and is doing was solely to put her in the position to get to the Presidency. That's all being a senator in New York was for. I honestly feel she doesn't stand for the average American. She's wishy-washy (ex., Iraq). She talks to Americans like they are dumb. She's bought out. She's "more of the same." She feels like the presidency is owed to her. She is a politician, in every sense of the word. And I consider myself liberal-independent.
2007-05-24 18:51:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Frank 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
Powerful women scare the rank and file. She has done nothing different than the men,in both parties, have done before her. It is a challenge to the male domination,which for me has not worked so well. She dares to play the game using the same tactics as men without batting her eyes or crying. I personally think it is funny how the men have degrading labels for her when she is actually mirroring their own political behavior.
I am a 52 year old straight male, who thinks it is time for a change.
2007-05-25 03:08:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by drdrt2 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Other than the fact that all of her views and proposed policies favor a european like socialist government where the government takes all of your money and decides how it should be spent for you I guess I have no problem with her
I would have absolutely no problem with a woman president if I agreed with any of her views.
Regardless this election will be a circus like none we have ever seen!
2007-05-25 07:18:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by pokeskickazzzz 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The obvious thing is that shes a woman! And Well she wrote a book a while ago and she admitted she only married Mr. Clinton to get herself to where she is today. So people think she's very manipulative and mean. People consider her sneaky because after Mr. Clinton's term was over she IMMEDIATELY went into the political scene.
2007-05-24 18:40:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by powerpuffcutie24™ 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
Let's face it, her husband has had to cover for her. Everybody wonders what happened to Vince Foster? And how did her records show up on a table in the WH? She can't tell the truth about a thing.
2015-03-29 05:49:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bric White 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Research it and you will find out. Not just info from republicans, but from people who worked with her or for her. She is a Sociopathic LIAR. More corrupt than Richard Nixon. This is truth, not someone's opinion.
2016-01-25 07:01:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by MSKA 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hillary Clinton is a self-server. She has her own ambitions, and none of them serve the American people, as she so boldly claims. She is power hungry, money hungry, and will do or say anything to achieve her personal goals. Even at the expense of this country.
She claims to be an advocate of the American people, but we know her all too well as an advocate of socialism and communism. Her dealings in the past prove that, and her proposed policies now reflect that. She would love nothing more than to impose socialist policies in this country, for whatever her reasons.
She has been involved in crooked scandals from the time she was a lawyer, to present. Her latest being that she attempted to pay off black leaders in the South to win herself the black vote come election time, rather than let her stance of the issues do the talking for her. It was not only corrupt, but a blantant insult to the black voters, that they could not make a rational choice for candidate, but would turn their vote due to money. It's a total scandal.
She cannot stand on an issue. She flip-flops according to the polls, and goes wherever it's in her favor. She's about as two-faced a politician as you can get.
Generally, she's here to take all this country has to offer, but does nothing to serve the people who put her in office. She's the queen of spin, and that's how she remains in her job. If people would see her for what she really is, they would have kicked her to the curb a long time ago.
2007-05-24 18:45:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by C J 6
·
6⤊
5⤋
She is a war monger-plain and simple. Use deodorant and make love-not war!
2007-05-24 23:26:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6
·
1⤊
2⤋