2007-07-07 04:36:40 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is an affirmative.
2007-07-07 07:01:36 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Being in "national Politics" isn't inevitably the excellent direction to the Presidency. A sitting member of congress has not gained the Presidency on account that Kennedy in 1960. So claiming greater adventure interior the Senate than a competitor won't be as vast an benefit as you think of. maximum modern presidents have not been in national politics in the previous winning the Presidency. Bush replaced right into a Governor Clinton replaced right into a Governor Reagan replaced right into a Governor Carter replaced right into a Governor Eisenhower held no previous political submit yet replaced into actual a countrywide management discern, yet it incredibly is over a million/2 a century in the past. Bush sr, and Nixon have been VPs and that they are the exceptions quite than the guideline.
2016-11-08 09:51:19 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely not. Mr. Chimp has. If I remember correctly he was reading a book upside down to a bunch of kids when we were attacked by terrorists and he didn't know what to do....Cheney had to direct fighter jets into the air. Bush did know how to get the only flight out for the Bin Laden family though. I don't think Mrs. Clinton would let us down. Certainly not more than we have been already.
2007-07-07 04:52:04 · answer #3 · answered by daBreezemeister 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'm not so certain that she would. However, I truly believe that there are many surprises in store for her followers. The large corporate backing that she's receiving, tells me pretty much everything that I need to know. The fact that she tells her supporters that she proposes to enact heavier taxation to the top earners in this country and pass that down to the middle income and poor, indicates to me that she's lying through her teeth. Nobody in their right mind is going to support the very person who plans on siphoning their profits. :)
2007-07-07 04:54:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course not. NO American President will let this nation's guard down. How dare you insinuate otherwise about Americans.
2007-07-07 07:32:09 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Our guard is up? Check the borders.
2007-07-07 04:54:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
What guard against terrorism? Are our borders secured yet?
2007-07-07 04:46:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
I am 110% sure she will allow you to travel with shampoo and keep your duct tapes + plastic bags
2007-07-07 04:56:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't know who *you* are talking about, but HILLARY Clinton is the most-qualified candidate running for President. And after she's elected, she WILL do a good job of fighting ACTUAL terrorists, instead of fomenting invasive and undeclared wars against sovereign nations that weren't associated with it, as our current Warmonger-in-THIEF did.
2007-07-07 04:49:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 6⤋
No, She'll defend this nation against both forms of terrorism- the al Qaeda threat and the Republican agenda.
2007-07-07 04:48:26 · answer #10 · answered by brian2412 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
NO she should NOT be elected President - NOT EVER.
She is not a strong LEADER. The polls would tell her to embrace the terrorists and she would...she HAS by not speaking out in favor of FIGHTING them.
2007-07-07 04:50:58 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋