What Would A Hillary Presidency Be Like?

[Underhill]

But presidents appoint the justices.
Thus their influence is strong, albeit delayed & indirect.

I disagree. I think the influence ends when they take the seat. It's not like they can be fired.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree. I think the influence ends when they take the seat. It's not like they can be fired.

We don't disagree.
The president selects a justice.
Then the influence occurs as a result of this choice.
Once made, it is the influence of this choice which continues.

 

[columbus]

Right, except that Obama can't fund aid to veterans. So how much chance will Hillary have with UHC? Obama could barely pass his health care bill with a majority in both houses.

If Obama hadn't wasted so much time and opportunity and political capital trying to "unite the country" by being bipartisan, he could have actually delivered more on his campaign promises.
I don't think Godzillary will make that mistake. That is one of the main reasons I am supporting her this go 'round. She is a hardened political player and won't fall for crap Obama did.
Tom

 

[Underhill]

If Obama hadn't wasted so much time and opportunity and political capital trying to "unite the country" by being bipartisan, he could have actually delivered more on his campaign promises.
I don't think Godzillary will make that mistake. That is one of the main reasons I am supporting her this go 'round. She is a hardened political player and won't fall for crap Obama did.
Tom

Except that Obama had the house and senate marginally democrat. That would never happen with Hillary (or Bernie) in the white house. The people always seem to push back against whatever party holds the white house. It isn't right, but whoever is in the seat gets blamed for every mosquito fart that causes a cool breeze.

 

[Underhill]

We don't disagree.
The president selects a justice.
Then the influence occurs as a result of this choice.
Once made, it is the influence of this choice which continues.

I've seen too many justices disappoint those who appointed them to buy that completely.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've seen too many justices disappoint those who appointed them to buy that completely.

Presidents don't always get the results they wish for.
Nonetheless, there is still general influence by this means.

You wouldn't argue that presidential appointment exerts no influence, would you?

 

[columbus]

Except that Obama had the house and senate marginally democrat.

Unfortunately for the country, the Democrats don't vote in lockstep like Obama's opposition. Look at the voting record.
What you will see is the Democrats voting however they think they should, and the Republicans voting the way the RNC tells them to vote.
That is a huge difference in the parties.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately for the country, the Democrats don't vote in lockstep like Obama's opposition. Look at the voting record.
What you will see is the Democrats voting however they think they should, and the Republicans voting the way the RNC tells them to vote.
That is a huge difference in the parties.
Tom

How is this known?

 

[columbus]

That would never happen with Hillary (or Bernie) in the white house.

This is why I support Hillary and not Sanders.
I prefer Sanders vision. But I think Clinton is better able to get elected and also better able to implement the vision she has. She won't waste time playing nice with the Koch brothers, the RNC, or extremists of any sort. She'll play hardball in a way that Obama never had the ability to play.

Clinton is a hard core political *****. Her schitck is better for the 99% than the Republican schitck. Not a lot, but it is better. And she will make it happen more than Obama ever had a chance to do.
Tom

 

[columbus]

How is this known?

Look at the voting record.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Look at the voting record.
Tom

This wouldn't say whether the Pubs were voting based upon RNC orders, & against their own values, as you appear to claim.

 

[Adramelek]

A Hillary Clinton administration would be similar to Borak Obama's. However, it would be a woman in charge of irrelevant policies and failed ideology both domestic and foreign. ISIS will grow and continue to attack on US soil. Hillary Clinton does not demonstrate or exude in any way strong authoritative leadership. Which our enemies fear and our allies expect and admire. Hillary Clinton is just another fool in a field of many political fools. She should never become president of the United States.

 

[metis]

But presidents appoint the justices.
Thus their influence is strong, albeit delayed & indirect.

And could any Hillary appointee to the SCOTUS be any worse than the fruitcake five Republican appointees on the Court now? Citizen's United has to go down as one of the most idiotic decisions ever made, and it reversed three previous decisions. Ever hear Scalia speak? Remember Alito saying Obama was wrong when he said the monies flowing from Citizen's United would be too difficult to trace, which goes to show how much Scalia really "knew"?

With Citizen's United, we are getting the best corporatocracy money can buy.

 

[Sunstone]

Hillary is a tool of the corporations and as such, does not represent a radical change from her immediate predecessors.

 

[Revoltingest]

And could any Hillary appointee to the SCOTUS be any worse than the fruitcake five Republican appointees on the Court now? Citizen's United has to go down as one of the most idiotic decisions ever made, and it reversed three previous decisions. Ever hear Scalia speak? Remember Alito saying Obama was wrong when he said the monies flowing from Citizen's United would be too difficult to trace, which goes to show how much Scalia really "knew"?

With Citizen's United, we are getting the best corporatocracy money can buy.

Well, whether hers would be better or worse would depend upon one's desired agenda, eh.

 

[Underhill]

Presidents don't always get the results they wish for.
Nonetheless, there is still general influence by this means.

You wouldn't argue that presidential appointment exerts no influence, would you?

That's an impossible question to answer definitively. But I would say, in general, they aren't influenced by it more than other factors like public opinion.

 

[Underhill]

Unfortunately for the country, the Democrats don't vote in lockstep like Obama's opposition. Look at the voting record.
What you will see is the Democrats voting however they think they should, and the Republicans voting the way the RNC tells them to vote.
That is a huge difference in the parties.
Tom

That may have been true in the past. It may be true in the future. But there is no guarantee of that.

But I don't see this record as unfortunate. It is how politics is supposed to work. The fact that the stagnation is only getting worse is bad news any way you look at it.

 

[Underhill]

This is why I support Hillary and not Sanders.
I prefer Sanders vision. But I think Clinton is better able to get elected and also better able to implement the vision she has. She won't waste time playing nice with the Koch brothers, the RNC, or extremists of any sort. She'll play hardball in a way that Obama never had the ability to play.

Clinton is a hard core political *****. Her schitck is better for the 99% than the Republican schitck. Not a lot, but it is better. And she will make it happen more than Obama ever had a chance to do.
Tom

Sounds good. But not likely. Hardball only works if the other team is playing the game.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's an impossible question to answer definitively. But I would say, in general, they aren't influenced by it more than other factors like public opinion.

To see multiple influences (as do I too) doesn't mean that one of them is insignificant.
This explains why so many often say they'll vote against a particular candidate in
order to avoid his appointing either liberal or conservative justices.

 

[Underhill]

This wouldn't say whether the Pubs were voting based upon RNC orders, & against their own values, as you appear to claim.

The historical evidence is in their actions. Look at how democrats continued working with Bush even when his numbers were at an all time low. Clearly they had the upper hand, but they didn't just close the door as republicans did almost immediately after Obama won the white house.