I've been reading a lot of blogs and there are people who are saying that Bush and Clinton are compatriots, and that a vote for Hillary is going to be like having 16 years of Bush.
Do you agree, disagree, and why do you think so or not?
2007-12-15 05:18:04 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I've also heard the same thing...they supposedly have a lot of similar game plans, and strive for some of the same goals. It gets pretty deep on their ideas (especially when it comes to Iraq). My dad is addicted to the news and politics and was telling me this a few days ago....he got pretty deep and explained their coincidal thoughts. I'm sure there is a lot of material that also supports this idea.
2007-12-15 05:25:08 · answer #1 · answered by Princess D 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In a sense, yes. They both are fiscal liberals, but Clinton is much more like Hugo Chavez in that she thinks the government should nationalize everything and that taxes are a good thing.
I believe the grass roots popularity of Ron Paul, and the rapid assertiveness of the extreme far left, are indications that the current structure of the political parties is changing. Clinton and Bush administrations will probably go the way of the Nixon and Johnson administrations: no longer in step with either party, relegated to history.
2007-12-15 08:55:04 · answer #2 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In terms of war, losing our sovereignty, foreign policy, and illegal immigration stances, they are about the same. Those four are the main problems of today. The rest of the fluff is comparatively inconsequential, as long as you can see through that, they are in fact, of the same cloth.
The rest of the other issues that I consider a gimmick, is abortion, health care, frivolous tax cuts/raises in the system w/o changing the system itself, and gay marriage. It doesn't mean that those things aren't important, it's just not the Presidents job - unless people feel we live in a monarchy. Environmental protection sounds great, but we need scientists, and education, and perhaps lawmakers to handle that, not be taxed for this and that type of pollution, especially from outside coalitions, and politicians that know nothing about the science behind it.
BTW, Bush did not bumble on like an idiot while he was governor, he spoke pretty clearly, and didn't fumble words around like he does while at the helm. I wonder if it's an "everyman" shtick. I voted for him when I was naive enough to do so, and I freely admit my mistake. When will others?
2007-12-15 06:24:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I need to imagine them as job applicants at an interview. Let's also imagine their resumes are blank and we interviewers have no idea who they 'really' are. Now what would we say about them after they would leave the room? George: He seems to be a down-to-earth guy, likeable, easy to get along with, a team player. If our company would be in a no-brainer business (e.g. FMCG, raw materials, automotive) and the overwhelming majority of our buyers males, we would hire him for sales. If he proves himself, he would have the potential to become head of sales someday. Hilary: She is goal-orientated, knows what she wants and is working hard to get there. A convincing talker, demands respect. Upper management material, probably strategic development, HR (or given her actual background, legal dept). If she proves herself she could become CEO. *** George has already proven his sales skills, hasn't he? The question now is if Hilary has proven herself enough to be promoted to CEO, or if there isn't a better candidate for that position.
2016-05-24 02:10:17 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes she is allot like Bush not as dumb though. She's anti War LOL she signed on for the Iraq war and basically agreed to Iran when she signed so to me yes she is allot like bush time for a change.
2007-12-15 05:29:28 · answer #5 · answered by leif c 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All politics is b.s. All the canidates might have a good heart. However, the nature of the game requires them to be con artists. The question you should be asking yourself. Which candidate will do the least amount of harm?
2007-12-15 05:24:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
She is another Bush but without the charisma.
Probably not as smart as Cheney. So yes, it would just be more of the same. Differeny face, same BS.
2007-12-15 05:38:24 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
All the top politicians are cut from the same cloth , and they decide who should lead the country between themselves
2007-12-15 05:21:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Hillary is cut from Armani; Bush is cut from a bar rag.
2007-12-15 05:26:56 · answer #9 · answered by Bob H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm not saying she is qualified for the job...but she is certainly better suited for it than Bush ever was or ever will be
2007-12-15 05:23:59 · answer #10 · answered by T Leeves 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋