• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Will Hillary Actually Do?

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, and I was a Republican until my former party nominated Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
Is a shame the GOP practically HANDED the presidency over to them, but then they countered with the Hildabeast, and he may actually win now.
 
chuckiechan said:
That appears to be what the "new America" wants.

We can't have socialism and open borders, but the Democrats are going to try!
Click to expand...

We are indeed on a bad trajectory.
 
joG said:
We are indeed on a bad trajectory.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you all wanted to change that trajectory, you should not have nominated a buffoon. Nothing on earth has done more to ensure a Hillary presidency than Donald Trump.

Nothing.
 
calamity said:
Hey, if you all wanted to change that trajectory, you should not have nominated a buffoon. Nothing on earth has done more to ensure a Hillary presidency than Donald Trump.

Nothing.
Click to expand...
It's a lot like McCain/Palin helping to get Obama elected in '08.
 
Dittohea[B said:
d not!;1066401479]I expect she'll continue pretty much the same policies we have in place now, the same ones that were in place during the past administration. I don't expect any major changes after the election. Congress will continue to be deadlocked due to hyper partisanship, medical care costs will continue to soar, the Middle East will continue to be a hell hole, and wages for unskilled labor will still stagnate.
Click to expand...

do you think Trump, Romney or McCain would have been any better?

Since when is the GOP all for higher wages for unskilled labor??
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
As Hillary pulls ahead in the polls, and it looks increasingly like she'll win the election, the question for her supporters is "what will she actually do?". You can't go by anything she's said because she lies about everything. Which of the groups that she's promised things to will actually get what they want? Which will find their concerns ignored?

My grand unified field theory of Hillary is that what she will do will be those things that further enrich her, the same sorts of things she's done all along. So she will be returning to her base in Wall Street and the other crony corporate fat cats. Those are the people who will get what they want from a President Hillary. The rest of you can go pound sand. This means we'll see her open the borders and bring more cheap labor in, and to Hell with poor US citizens. Hillary's friends in the corporate world will get special dispensation and small businesses and other competitors will suffer. Hillary's friends will do no wrong while everyone else will be oppressed and harassed by government regulators and taxing authorities. Overall prosperity will sink while the rich get richer still.

It follows the same general rule that was so accurate in predicting what Obama would do. What she's done in the past and the associations she's made in the past will predict what she does in the future. She will continue to sell influence, collect bull**** speaker's fees and other goodies from corporations, and so on, all while giving them what they want -- cheap labor, protection from competition, protection from regulators and taxing authorities.

For the social side of things it will be the same general rule. Her previous associations and projects will continue. She has always been hard left in that regard, and so we can expect more of the same when it comes to social questions. More and more racial and gender divisiveness and contention as a general rule.
Click to expand...


Hillary with be a centrist-left pragmatist with the usual amounts of lies and scandals.

She will not be the most uncouth, undeserving, and childish candidate ever elected....however.
 
calamity said:
Hey, if you all wanted to change that trajectory, you should not have nominated a buffoon. Nothing on earth has done more to ensure a Hillary presidency than Donald Trump.

Nothing.
Click to expand...

That is exactly right. It is a marvel that the voters nominated that man above the competent alternatives. But the same is true of the Democrats, who chose Clinton instead of someone that didn't smell of corruption.
 
joG said:
That is exactly right. It is a marvel that the voters nominated that man above the competent alternatives. But the same is true of the Democrats, who chose Clinton instead of someone that didn't smell of corruption.
Click to expand...

Sure. And the D would have lost big time had the R not chosen the buffoon. The D would have been frozen out of all Four: president, House, Seante and SCOTUS. Now? It's all up in the air. The D will control SCOTUS and President, have at least half the Senate and gain seats in the House.
 
calamity said:
Sure. And the D would have lost big time had the R not chosen the buffoon. The D would have been frozen out of all Four: president, House, Seante and SCOTUS. Now? It's all up in the air. The D will control SCOTUS and President, have at least half the Senate and gain seats in the House.
Click to expand...

except it would still be the establishment, so nothing would change. perhaps nothing would change politically anyway, with Trump, but at least there would have been a chance.

THAT is why trump was nominated.
 
Mr Person said:
Hillary with be a centrist-left pragmatist with the usual amounts of lies and scandals.

She will not be the most uncouth, undeserving, and childish candidate ever elected....however.
Click to expand...

Oh, well let the Republic fall so long as the President is not uncouth!
 
I personally see Clinton as the bigger threat not because Trump is better but because Clinton might actually get things done. I think Trump would have enough opposition that he would accomplish changing very little.


I believe Clinton will push for amnesty/guest worker program and will allow the UN more influence in US politics. I also believe she may push for a SPS which I cannot see ending well with our current political environment. Her SPS will amount to bleeding taxpayer money into big pharma and the US will still have super high medical costs.
 
Hypothetical said:
except it would still be the establishment, so nothing would change. perhaps nothing would change politically anyway, with Trump, but at least there would have been a chance.

THAT is why trump was nominated.
Click to expand...

"The establishment"? What is it with you people?

The establishment....sheesh.
 
calamity said:
All I can say is that if the deplorables really did not want to see Hillary as president, they should have voted for someone who can beat her. Any of the top 4 or 5 GOP candidates not named Trump would have done that.
Click to expand...

You weren't paying attention. All of the other GOP candidates were establishment, Trump was the only genuine alternative. Vote for them and you might as well vote for Hillary.

Again, I don't see how any of Hillary's supporters can expect to get from her what they hoped to. Only the big players who gave the big bucks can hope to benefit.
 
LowDown said:
You weren't paying attention. All of the other GOP candidates were establishment, Trump was the only genuine alternative. Vote for them and you might as well vote for Hillary.

Again, I don't see how any of Hillary's supporters can expect to get from her what they hoped to. Only the big players who gave the big bucks can hope to benefit.
Click to expand...

That's crazy talk. A vote for Kasich, Christie or Paul, not to mention Cruz, is nowhere near like voting for Hillary. To think that one has to be completely ignorant of nuance in politics.
 
calamity said:
That's crazy talk. A vote for Kasich, Christie or Paul, not to mention Cruz, is nowhere near like voting for Hillary. To think that one has to be completely ignorant of nuance in politics.
Click to expand...

I don't want NUANCE in politics, I want the idiots we send to office to DO what we sent them there to do... y'know, what they promised? it's quite evident that neither side has an interest in doing that, therefore, yes they are part of the "establishment".
 
eohrnberger said:
The public doesn't have a single clue as to what Hillary will do. Since she has a public position and a private position, which are as often as not diametrically opposed, no one knows which one she'll land on.
Click to expand...
:roll:

If you dislike your boss, do you walk into his office and tell him he's a bastard, because you want your public and private positions to be identical?

Your snark and smears doesn't change the fact that after 30 years in the public eye, we have a decent idea of what she will try to do. We can base this not only on her record, but on her campaign proposals.

Believe it or not, Presidents usually get done about 75% of what they promise, with at least partial success. As with any President, for the vast majority of her proposals, the wild card will not be what policies she tries to enact; it will be what survives Congress.

E.g. I have no doubt she will push a variant of her pledged tax plan; that she will be slightly more aggressive with international conflicts than Obama; that she will try to shore up the ACA; that she will nominate a pro-choice justice for the SCOTUS; that she will try to do something to make secondary education more affordable.

The main thing I expect her to flip on will be free trade. I don't know / seriously doubt if she really will reject the TPP or "renegotiate" NAFTA.

Ironically, the truly unpredictable one in this respect is Trump, as he flips on most of his policies 6 times before breakfast, shows little understanding of policy, and talk about backroom deals and lack of transparency....
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

If you dislike your boss, do you walk into his office and tell him he's a bastard, because you want your public and private positions to be identical?

Your snark and smears doesn't change the fact that after 30 years in the public eye, we have a decent idea of what she will try to do. We can base this not only on her record, but on her campaign proposals.

Believe it or not, Presidents usually get done about 75% of what they promise, with at least partial success. As with any President, for the vast majority of her proposals, the wild card will not be what policies she tries to enact; it will be what survives Congress.

E.g. I have no doubt she will push a variant of her pledged tax plan; that she will be slightly more aggressive with international conflicts than Obama; that she will try to shore up the ACA; that she will nominate a pro-choice justice for the SCOTUS; that she will try to do something to make secondary education more affordable.

The main thing I expect her to flip on will be free trade. I don't know / seriously doubt if she really will reject the TPP or "renegotiate" NAFTA.

Ironically, the truly unpredictable one in this respect is Trump, as he flips on most of his policies 6 times before breakfast, shows little understanding of policy, and talk about backroom deals and lack of transparency....
Click to expand...

Meh. So what you are saying, or admitting, is that Hillary dislikes the electorate? Yeah, I can see that. It's pretty clear she has contempt for the 'little people', just look at the abuses her security details over the years and her mocking the mentally disabled. Why should she be concerned with what the 'little people' of the electorate pay with her anticipated flip on trade? We see her economic plan, a continuation and expansion of the present trajectory, likely to lead to a continuation of tepid economic growth, just as the present policies have done.

Hillary getting even 75% of her agenda is already scary enough. It's also pretty clear that corruption of the DOJ and FBI can now be added to her orbit, and those in her orbit. Should she be elected POTUS, I'd only expect her to continue in the same trajectory, past performance being a good indicator of future performance. Wouldn't it be ironic should the second Clinton president be impeached as well?

If you think about it, 3 families have been running the office of POTUS for 30 some years, an exemplification of what's wrong with career politicians as well as an exemplification of what's wrong with the political elite class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom