Who is this Ron Paul?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

.

Care to explain the lack of congressional record a bit?
One could ask for just what you mean and/or looking for from her as well as any other current candidate.
Remember not all current or past candidates or POTUS even had Congressional records to show.
Just to help:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2...llary-clinton/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16123860/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can...y.clinton.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youd...index.html#c=6
http://www.reuters.com/news/globalco...hillaryclinton

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Care to explain the lack of congressional record a bit?
One could ask for just what you mean and/or looking for from her as well as any other candidate.
Remember not all current or past candidates or POTUS even had Congressional records to show.

Jon -

Seriously, the newsbot.org bit is fine, but the above isn't English. At all. Say what you mean.

Here's a good example of what I'm referring to:
Voting record

Hillary has certainly showed up more than the average Congressman, but pretty much at average for a Senator. Look at the "NV" issues, though - some of the ones she rails against the most, which is certainly interesting. For instance, she has a perfect Appropriations record, but a very spotty record on the Budget, one area where she assails the current administration (and for the record, I think she's right - but the record speaks for itself).

Her ability to push things through, which would seem to be a part of being President, is not particularly special, as well:
See here.

She's average or worse at sponsoring, voting on or enacting bills, which should be a negative considering public opinion polls for Congress. For all of the shit that Obama gets for inexperience, Hillary hasn't exactly made the most of her time in Congress. This is what I mean by "Congressional record" - I realize she was there, Jon. I realize Governors and other officials get elected all the time. However, look at the record and tell me what I'm missing.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Jon -

Seriously, the newsbot.org bit is fine, but the above isn't English. At all. Say what you mean..

POTUS=President of the United States.
Now do you understand?
Your posted argument stated out with a comment about just one current candidates' apparent lack of a Congressional/Senate record.

I just tried or attempted to point out that not all candidates have/had a record to show.
Thus some of those elected to the office of President never had one.

As for the links; thank you.

And thank you for providing some to back-up some of your augment or POV.
However it would have been rather interesting to have posted that same link for all the other candidates as well.
For us all to be able to compare the rest of the group.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jon1856

POTUS=President of the United States.
Now do you understand?

I clearly understood the acronym, and for you to insinuate otherwise is condescending and douchey.

I was telling you that your sentence did not make any degree of sense to me, because of what I intended in my post. Wires must have been crossed - and I'll explain below:

Originally Posted by jon1856

Your posted argument stated out with a comment about just one current candidates' apparent lack of a Congressional/Senate record.

I just tried or attempted to point out that not all candidates have/had a record to show.
Thus some of those elected to the office of President never had one.

You're being too literal - I mean that her actual Senate record is sparse, spotty at best, and not indicative of any degree of involvement that would set her apart from Joe Average Senator (and in many ways, she comes in below par).

She doesn't have a good record in the Senate, even though she served - that was my point, not that it was some sort of awkward requisite for being President. Frankly, that final assertion would have been both asinine and literally wrong, so I'm not sure why you would think that was my point, but hey - my bad, I'll be more clear in the future.

Originally Posted by jon1856

As for the links; thank you.

And thank you for providing some to back-up some of your augment or POV.
However it would have been rather interesting to have posted that same link for all the other candidates as well.
For us all to be able to compare the rest of the group.

What?

Just like you said, not every candidate has a similar Senate experience to draw from, so "side-by-side" comparisons are a joke - not to mention that individual candidates should be examined for their own merits, unless you think the goal should be to elect the "lesser evil" candidate. Comparison is a beautiful thing for finding differences between the candidates, but it is not at all necessary for rational discussion. Sorry - feel free to find Mike Huckabee's veto record as Governor, if you think it's comparable . . . I don't. Meanwhile, I think Hillary's "skeletons" include her overblown Senate experience - hence, I pointed out proof of that. Life is easy, brother.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I clearly understood the acronym, and for you to insinuate otherwise is condescending and douchey.

I was telling you that your sentence did not make any degree of sense to me, because of what I intended in my post. Wires must have been crossed - and I'll explain below:



You're being too literal - I mean that her actual Senate record is sparse, spotty at best, and not indicative of any degree of involvement that would set her apart from Joe Average Senator (and in many ways, she comes in below par).

She doesn't have a good record in the Senate, even though she served - that was my point, not that it was some sort of awkward requisite for being President. Frankly, that final assertion would have been both asinine and literally wrong, so I'm not sure why you would think that was my point, but hey - my bad, I'll be more clear in the future.




What?

Just like you said, not every candidate has a similar Senate experience to draw from, so "side-by-side" comparisons are a joke - not to mention that individual candidates should be examined for their own merits, unless you think the goal should be to elect the "lesser evil" candidate. Comparison is a beautiful thing for finding differences between the candidates, but it is not at all necessary for rational discussion. Sorry - feel free to find Mike Huckabee's veto record as Governor, if you think it's comparable . . . I don't. Meanwhile, I think Hillary's "skeletons" include her overblown Senate experience - hence, I pointed out proof of that. Life is easy, brother.

The hazards and dangers of internet "conversation"
I think we are on same page.
I did a rather quick look at some of the other site and many of the records are just about equal to hers. However, as you pointed out, many other components to look at.

And as we are now finding out, many of the candidates have some sort of "skeleton" in their back ground.
Which does being it to, unfortunately, "the lesser of the evils" level. Or it at least adds that component to many of the
candidates

No one is perfect. While the US may have one of the better ways of electing officials, it too is not perfect.

[PeppyGPhiB]

If I recall correctly, the last Senator to be elected President was JFK. All of your arguments about Senate records is exactly why - Senators have voting records, Governors do not.

Huckabee scares the crap out of me, but that's because I tend to weigh social issue stances seriously. And Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, even with all of his crazy "Pauline" supporters. They're all over the place in Seattle, vandalizing public infrastructure with their crappy homemade signs. Stop it! Hillary is very intelligent and I used to love watching her interviews, but now she's gotten all politician-slick and it's totally turned me off. McCain is too old, I'm afraid, and even he is wavering on things he used to be so strong on. Giuliani is a phoney that has personal issues that make me seriously question his decency as a person.

You know what? I don't even care about "experience" anymore. NO ONE has the experience needed to be the Most Powerful Person in the World. The President is surrounded by advisors that can help in the experience category. At this point I'm looking for someone that's fresh, intelligent, of good character, and will inspire Americans again, someone that's not afraid of candor and who hasn't been spoiled by national politics yet. Frankly, someone that is different and will actually get young people in this country to care about politics again. So my support is behind Obama, who is the only candidate my Republican boyfriend also supports.