How can anybody seriously argue that Hilary Clinton would make a good President?

She's a politician. What do you expect?

Still, whatever her faults, at least she has a brain. With the possible exceptions of Chris Christie and George Pataki, all of the Republican candidates so far appear to be utterly insane.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Erm, excuse me.
I want a women in the white house

if we had more women in power we'd have less wars and more fashion shows >: (

2) I support the Iraq War. I'll never agree with the libertarians and pacifist on such things though.

how was being against the iraq war, a non-provoked war, "pacifism"? if we need to pwn all non-allied countries with WMDs which iraq didn't have, do we need to pwn north korea now?

I should have separated them, libertarians tend to adopt the 'its not our problem' rather than violence is always wrong attitude.

North Korea can't be touched due to its location. Iraq was in my mind, the completion of the first Gulf War.

1) what do you mean "can't be touched" though? if our missiles (US/UK) is limited by that distance, does that mean half of the world is protected from us?
2) "completion of the first gulf war"? by killing saddam, you mean?

It shares a border with China. You don't play next to a dragons head.

Yes. He's a genocidal tyrant and it was a mistake to obey the UN in not crushing him in 91.

Out of interest, what's the Libertarian take on obeying the UN.

I wouldn't say that sharing a border means that it cannot be attacked to a capacity proportional to its size, because even the atomic bomb from WWII would ruin them if a few of them were dropped and I can't see it affecting china unless it was literally upon their border

is that really our business as a nation state though? is that really our mess to clean? many nations today (and in the past during the cold war) massacre their citizens and we don't do anything about that so why is genecide worse than politicide/massacres?

it's an influence but not an absolute legal~ authority from this libertarian's perspective

Unfortunately, China is one of the few nations i'd not risk irritating in their locale.

If you believe that the UK has a moral duty to the world as i do then Yes. It was'nt worse than others but in this case we had the support of a large coalition.

her bad sides:

1) she used to argue feverishly *against* gay marriage and now, suddenly, when it gets popular, favours it. what made gay marriage wrong back then compared to now? mob-mentalities? career-politician mentalities? when mitt romney (who was a bad candidate, of course) flip flopped like this, everybody attacked him for this, yet when hillary clinton does it, where are the cries of "flip flopper"? this really just gives out the message that she's willing to whore herself out to publish opinion - if she, perhaps, was in favour of gay marriage *before* the LGBT movement became widely accepted, I wouldn't be saying this. if she perhaps was a cause of gay marriage being something supported in the US, again, I wouldn't be saying this. she seems, based on this, nothing but a band-waggoner, and a sheep, not a leader.


3) she is a part of the former clinton circle - she will essentially be a revival of a past president and the creation of a political dynasty/tradition in one sense, bringing nothing remotely "fresh and new". this is because bill clinton will obviously be a huge influence on the way she operates as her husband. to all those who complain about jeb bush (such as myself) potentially becoming the republican candidate, you are being totally two-faced if you are willing to let hillary slide for no good reason. I cannot stress enough how much she belongs to the status quo/elitist "establishment" and not for any kind of good or honest cause when charging $200,000 for "speaking engagements".

She never argued 'feverishly' against gay marriage. And Hillary has been a big supporter of gay rights for a very, very long time. She marched in the NYC Pride Parade in 2000 and and that same year she said gay people need to be able to have registered domestic partnerships. Even back in the late nineties she spoke out against the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy that the Clinton administration passed into law and said it needs to be repealed. She spoke at gay events and spoke about advancing gay rights in several of her speeches even 15 years ago. In 2006 she voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
She has a long history of being an ally.

Yes she did 'flop flop around the subject' and so did others. Obama also voted for same sex marriage in the 90's and then when he became president suddenly he only supported civil partnerships.

But you know they are politicans and politicians do lie sometimes and sometimes they have to.

It was a risky thing to support gay marriage even as recently as 2008 so Obama, Clinton etc chose the middle ground to appeal to the redneck population and the southern racist grandma types as well. You have to have a strategy to win an election... the reason most people easily forgive Hillary & Obama for this sort of stuff is because we are smart enough to realize that they aren't actually homophobes, they just play their cards rights. It was always obvious they would both come out and say they support same sex marriage when Obama's second term came.

And you cannot possibly compare Obama and Clinton to someone like Mitt Romney, as I said Obama and Clinton both have a strong track record of supporting gay rights and speaking up for gay people even in the 90's. Mitt Romney would never speak up for gay rights and wouldnt give a **** if all gays were lined up and shot in the head. That is the difference.

On the subject of her being a revival, well, that might seem like a negative thing to you, but remember that Bill Clinton is generally regarded as one of the better presidents of recent history, his ratings are high even among Republicans, so Hillary being a revival is a positivity for a lot of her older supporters who liked Bill Clinton as president and would like him to be a background figure. This does not mean she will not bring anything 'fresh and new'.

I dont think it makes sense to argue about whether she belongs to the 'establishment' etc, do you think there will be a president who doesnt belong to the establishment? Like who? I dont know what you are expecting. It is politics. Presidents will always belong to the Establishment.