2016 POTUS Election Thread

Rev said:

Usually it's because they don't care what they do to get what they want. Legal or not. Well, for an overly ambitious person that is. Cutting corners. Deleting emails (j/k kind of). That is my interpretation of why at least.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Jiggyfly said:

And that could be attributed to anybody who has run for president in the last 70 years.

Go back and read up on LBJ, Nixon, Kennedy or Eisenhower.

Click to expand...

Eh. I don't think that's true. For some it's true. Certainly true for Nixon and LbJ.

I don't think we want that as our gold standard, regardless.

Genghis Khan said:

Eh. I don't think that's true. For some it's true. Certainly true for Nixon and LbJ.

I don't think we want that as our gold standard, regardless.

Click to expand...

It's debatable but who out of the 30 or so candidates we have had since 2000 who fit the not overly ambitious?

My point is why is that used as a hammer against Hillary and not say Cruz?

Jiggyfly said:

It's debatable but who out of the 30 or so candidates we have had since 2000 who fit the not overly ambitious?

My point is why is that used as a hammer against Hillary and not say Cruz?

Click to expand...

Cruz got drummed out of the Bush administration for being a spotlight stealing little weasel. But I don't think he would have had any legitimate chance at the presidency. His weasel nature would have come under spotlight and probably have been a big part of his media portrayal.

I think we want politicians that act like they aren't ambitious even when they are. I think that's why Clinton, Bush, and Obama all tried to cultivate a laid back persona. Hillary's nakedly ambitious which is off putting for most people, but especially for a woman really rubs people the wrong way.

jsmith6919 said:

Argue qualifications all you want, to anyone who values a fair and balanced SCOTUS she is not a choice.

Click to expand...

To that point, neither would any conservative candidate.

The court has gotten to politicized and neither party is looking at qualifications as much as they are about ideology.

Jiggyfly said:

It's debatable but who out of the 30 or so candidates we have had since 2000 who fit the not overly ambitious?

My point is why is that used as a hammer against Hillary and not say Cruz?

Click to expand...

I'd argue that Bernie Sanders wasn't running because of ambition.

I think their ambition argument leans to her career moves have been training spots or stepping stones for the POTUS position. That is all she ever really cared about, and I tend to agree.

2233boys said:

I'd argue that Bernie Sanders wasn't running because of ambition.

I think their ambition argument leans to her career moves have been training spots or stepping stones for the POTUS position. That is all she ever really cared about, and I tend to agree.

Click to expand...

I'd say you're right about Sanders. That's what made him such an attractive candidate. But it's also the reason that he was fighting against the grain the entire primary. I also think it's weakened him as a candidate, there were more than a few times that Sanders got caught off guard by an issue that wasn't his talking point. I think a lack of ambition made him more out of touch with some vital issues (such as our energy portfolio).

I don't think anyone could argue that Clinton has a level of knowledge that dwarfs every single other candidate on either side of the aisle. Her ambition is a big part of that.

Jiggyfly said:

It's debatable but who out of the 30 or so candidates we have had since 2000 who fit the not overly ambitious?

My point is why is that used as a hammer against Hillary and not say Cruz?

Click to expand...

You said the last 70 years, not since 2000.

Cruz isn't currently running, which is why I didn't say Cruz. However, to indulge your non-sequitur, I DID have those very same caveats regarding Cruz and I've said as much in this thread when it was relevant. Cruz has mostly allayed those fears for me, however, by standing up to Trump.

I have the same dangerously ambitious fears about Trump btw, but I didn't state it in that post because the context was about Hillary.

Since 2000...I'm not going to list everyone, but Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain, as examples.

To clarify, by dangerously ambitious I mean willing to do ANYTHING, including break major laws and trampling the constitution, to get elected. In other words I'm talking about more than just morally deficient.

2233boys said:

I'd argue that Bernie Sanders wasn't running because of ambition.

I think their ambition argument leans to her career moves have been training spots or stepping stones for the POTUS position. That is all she ever really cared about, and I tend to agree.

Click to expand...

Maybe not his driving factor but there is some ambition mixed in there.

And Hillary taking the proper training spots is an issue why?

She used the the established playbook to being president, why is that now a mortal sin?

She has a real record of public service which is ignored when using the too ambitious narrative.

Being ambitious was once considered a prime trait of being an american now it's not when concerning Clinton.

townsend said:

Cruz got drummed out of the Bush administration for being a spotlight stealing little weasel. But I don't think he would have had any legitimate chance at the presidency. His weasel nature would have come under spotlight and probably have been a big part of his media portrayal.

I think we want politicians that act like they aren't ambitious even when they are. I think that's why Clinton, Bush, and Obama all tried to cultivate a laid back persona. Hillary's nakedly ambitious which is off putting for most people, but especially for a woman really rubs people the wrong way.

Click to expand...

One thing that has solidified that perception of Hillary for me is the emails from the DNC plotting to discredit Sanders and manipulate the media. Major smoking gun.

But, she started with that naked ambition. Domiciling in NY and running for Senate. She didn't care about that job or her NY constituates. It was all with an eye on the white house from day one and it was obvious.

Most politicians start at the bottom with a local / state level focus.

Genghis Khan said:

You said the last 70 years, not since 2000.

Cruz isn't currently running, which is why I didn't say Cruz. However, to indulge your non-sequitur, I DID have those very same caveats regarding Cruz and I've said as much in this thread when it was relevant. Cruz has mostly allayed those fears for me, however, by standing up to Trump.

I have the same dangerously ambitious fears about Trump btw, but I didn't state it in that post because the context was about Hillary.

Since 2000...I'm not going to list everyone, but Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain, as examples.

To clarify, by dangerously ambitious I mean willing to do ANYTHING, including break major laws and trampling the constitution, to get elected. In other words I'm talking about more than just morally deficient.

Click to expand...

This is a matter of opinion so we will differ on the ambitious line of demarcation.

But Hillary has broken no major laws or trampled the constitution to be president so how is she dangerously ambitious?

And I think Ron and Rand were both very ambitious and both have done things to compromise their morals.

Genghis Khan said:

One thing that has solidified that perception of Hillary for me is the emails from the DNC plotting to discredit Sanders and manipulate the media. Major smoking gun.

But, she started with that naked ambition. Domiciling in NY and running for Senate. She didn't care about that job or her NY constituates. It was all with an eye on the white house from day one and it was obvious.

Most politicians start at the bottom with a local / state level focus.

Click to expand...

I will say that Hillary's co sponsoring the post 9-11 GI Bill is a big deal to me(since it's the only reason I can be in college right now) I'm not saying she didn't just make a stop in the senate for the resume bullet (she absolutely did), but she took care of her constituents in that instance more than a lot of longer tenured Senators have.

Jiggyfly said:

Maybe not his driving factor but there is some ambition mixed in there.

And Hillary taking the proper training spots is an issue why?

She used the the established playbook to being president, why is that now a mortal sin?

She has a real record of public service which is ignored when using the too ambitious narrative.

Being ambitious was once considered a prime trait of being an american now it's not when concerning Clinton.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily saying it is an issue, but her only purpose for anything she has ever done (since she was Flotus), was to be president. It makes her seem calculating and insincere. Ambition is one thing, but ambition as our only driving force, (man or woman) tends to turn folks off.

I question whether or not she really cares about the issues she talks about or is just saying what she needs to say to gain votes. Like the President in 08 I think she says what she thinks she needs to say to gain votes.

She was late to marriage rights, late to Iraq war, late to income inequality, late to most progressive values, yet since she saw that is the direction the Democratic Party was leaning, she jumped on board. One minute she says call me a moderate then the next day she's a progressive that likes to get things done.

To me, she is an ambitious opportunist, and nothing more. I don't want a president like that.

*constituents

townsend said:

Cruz got drummed out of the Bush administration for being a spotlight stealing little weasel. But I don't think he would have had any legitimate chance at the presidency. His weasel nature would have come under spotlight and probably have been a big part of his media portrayal.

I think we want politicians that act like they aren't ambitious even when they are. I think that's why Clinton, Bush, and Obama all tried to cultivate a laid back persona. Hillary's nakedly ambitious which is off putting for most people, but especially for a woman really rubs people the wrong way.

Click to expand...

Got that right.

The majority of men are scared shitless and intimidated by strong women.

Jiggyfly said:

This is a matter of opinion so we will differ on the ambitious line of demarcation.

But Hillary has broken no major laws or trampled the constitution to be president so how is she dangerously ambitious?

And I think Ron and Rand were both very ambitious and both have done things to compromise their morals.

Click to expand...

I said MORE THAN just compromising morals.

Again, this isn't just ambition I'm talking about. It's willing to cross just about any line you could imagine. Think Watergate and worse.

It's the way I see her. It's even more true of trump btw. At least Hillary I think has some competence. At least Hillary I think has some Machiavellian purpose to her (as in, her endgame is probably to improve the country), as opposed to Trump who appears to be just pure, unadulterated ego.

2233boys said:

Not necessarily saying it is an issue, but her only purpose for anything she has ever done (since she was Flotus), was to be president. It makes her seem calculating and insincere. Ambition is one thing, but ambition as our only driving force, (man or woman) tends to turn folks off.

I question whether or not she really cares about the issues she talks about or is just saying what she needs to say to gain votes. Like the President in 08 I think she says what she thinks she needs to say to gain votes.

She was late to marriage rights, late to Iraq war, late to income inequality, late to most progressive values, yet since she saw that is the direction the Democratic Party was leaning, she jumped on board. One minute she says call me a moderate then the next day she's a progressive that likes to get things done.

To me, she is an ambitious opportunist, and nothing more. I don't want a president like that.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion and even if true, so what?

There is usually a a path one takes to become president, if you look at everybody who has run outside of Trump they have used the senate or a governorship as a means to become president.

I understand why these traits can turn people off I just don't understand why they are used against Hillary to such a degree.

Genghis Khan said:

I said MORE THAN just compromising morals.

Again, this isn't just ambition I'm talking about. It's willing to cross just about any line you could imagine. Think Watergate and worse.

It's the way I see her. It's even more true of trump btw. At least Hillary I think has some competence. At least Hillary I think has some Machiavellian purpose to her (as in, her endgame is probably to improve the country), as opposed to Trump who appears to be just pure, unadulterated ego.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying we just differ on how much Hillary is different than any other candidate.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

And I am glad that Hillary is not skating through this election, it is good that there is a contingent that will continue to hold her feet to the fire, but they also need to understand they are not the only constituency she will have to listen to.

Jiggyfly said:

That's your opinion and even if true, so what?

There is usually a a path one takes to become president, if you look at everybody who has run outside of Trump they have used the senate or a governorship as a means to become president.

I understand why these traits can turn people off I just don't understand why they are used against Hillary to such a degree.

Click to expand...

You are right, it is my opinion, never said it was anymore.

I think I addressed why i believe her driving ambition to be president only and her record of saying whatever she thinks will gain her a vote, lend me to believe she gets hammered for it. She seems seem calculating and insincere