2016 United States Presidential election
Comments
-
We don't technically have the vote that counts. The electoral college comprised of electors from all 50 states actually elects the president so our vote doesn't count as much as I'd like it too. Therefore Clinton could win the popular vote but still lose the presidency because Bush (God forbid) has more of the electoral votes. Wouldn't be the first time it's happenedChizz said:the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.
This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.
This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.
(This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).0 -
Don't think many people vote a particular way based on the way their parents or grandparents voted. In this country or the US.limeygent said:
Absolutely correct. "Granma always voted Democrat, my Dad and mum always voted Democrat, I've always voted Democrat, not going to change now," no matter the candidate. Same with Republicans, that's why the "undecided" voter is "key". Unfortunately they often don't go for the candidate who's the most qualified.Red_in_SE8 said:
I don't think it is that different. Like here, the vast majority of democrats will vote for the democratic nominee irrespective of what they think of him and the vast majority of Republican voters will vote for the Republican nominee irrespective of what they think of him.Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.0 -
The answer from me is "not likely"! If we had an election for head of state I am prepared to declare that I'd vote for the Queen all day over either of those two toss-pot career politicians. Hopefully she would stand. Even at her age she'd do a better job. You, I take, it, would vote for Ed in that hypothetical three horse race?Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
I don't see how you can have a choice of Prime Minister at the ballot box without fundamentally reforming the system of government. I'm no expert but I don't perceive that I prefer the US system to ours. How would you do it as a matter of interest?0 -
Totally agree.Bryan_Kynsie said:
The answer from me is "not likely"! If we had an election for head of state I am prepared to declare that I'd vote for the Queen all day over either of those two toss-pot career politicians. Hopefully she would stand. Even at her age she'd do a better job. You, I take, it, would vote for Ed in that hypothetical three horse race?Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
I don't see how you can have a choice of Prime Minister at the ballot box without fundamentally reforming the system of government. I'm no expert but I don't perceive that I prefer the US system to ours. How would you do it as a matter of interest?
We have a constitutional monarchy as ceremonial Head of State and an executive cabinet headed by the Prime Minister - with ultimately the commons holding sway. The Prime Minister is just the leader of the party forming the government and has one vote in the legislature along with every other elected MP. I like it that way.0 -
I don't. Technically I am subservient to the head of state, mp's swear allegiance to the monarch, as do the police the army the judiciary the civil service etc. this all because of who her father was. If there was an elected head of state then the authority is not dubious. Even if their function is just mainly ceremonial.bobmunro said:
Totally agree.Bryan_Kynsie said:
The answer from me is "not likely"! If we had an election for head of state I am prepared to declare that I'd vote for the Queen all day over either of those two toss-pot career politicians. Hopefully she would stand. Even at her age she'd do a better job. You, I take, it, would vote for Ed in that hypothetical three horse race?Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
I don't see how you can have a choice of Prime Minister at the ballot box without fundamentally reforming the system of government. I'm no expert but I don't perceive that I prefer the US system to ours. How would you do it as a matter of interest?
We have a constitutional monarchy as ceremonial Head of State and an executive cabinet headed by the Prime Minister - with ultimately the commons holding sway. The Prime Minister is just the leader of the party forming the government and has one vote in the legislature along with every other elected MP. I like it that way.0 -
I don't. Technically I am subservient to the head of state, mp's swear allegiance to the monarch, as do the police the army the judiciary the civil service etc. this all because of who her father was. If there was an elected head of state then the authority is not dubious. Even if their function is just mainly ceremonial.bobmunro said:
Totally agree.Bryan_Kynsie said:
The answer from me is "not likely"! If we had an election for head of state I am prepared to declare that I'd vote for the Queen all day over either of those two toss-pot career politicians. Hopefully she would stand. Even at her age she'd do a better job. You, I take, it, would vote for Ed in that hypothetical three horse race?Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
I don't see how you can have a choice of Prime Minister at the ballot box without fundamentally reforming the system of government. I'm no expert but I don't perceive that I prefer the US system to ours. How would you do it as a matter of interest?
We have a constitutional monarchy as ceremonial Head of State and an executive cabinet headed by the Prime Minister - with ultimately the commons holding sway. The Prime Minister is just the leader of the party forming the government and has one vote in the legislature along with every other elected MP. I like it that way.0 -
.
OK, I am going to say now that I am going to drop a name in this post. So if that offends, please stop now!Bryan_Kynsie said:
The answer from me is "not likely"! If we had an election for head of state I am prepared to declare that I'd vote for the Queen all day over either of those two toss-pot career politicians. Hopefully she would stand. Even at her age she'd do a better job. You, I take, it, would vote for Ed in that hypothetical three horse race?Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
I don't see how you can have a choice of Prime Minister at the ballot box without fundamentally reforming the system of government. I'm no expert but I don't perceive that I prefer the US system to ours. How would you do it as a matter of interest?
I have always thought that the system should work like this...
1. We should each have two votes at the General Election
2. One vote would be for our local constituency MP, from a list of candidates who are either selected by parties or stand as independents
3. One vote would be from a national list of candidates for the role of "Speaker". The Speaker would not (necessarily) be aligned to a party.
4. The nationally-elected Speaker would select the Prime Minister, on the basis of representations MPs. That is, in the current set-up, if David Cameron could convince the Speaker that he had the confidence of the membership of the House of Commons, then the Speaker would appoint him as PM, until such time as it became clear to the Speaker (through a vote) that he no longer held the confidence of the House, at which time he would select an alternative PM. And so on, until the end of the five-year term. Then, another General Election.
(The reason I started to think about this is that I *used* to live in the constituency of the Speaker. And, by tradition, the main national parties don't stand against the Speaker at a General Election. Which meant that I - and everyone in the constituency - did not have a chance to vote for any of the main parties).
*Name-drop warning* I was lucky enough to have met, and had a long conversation with, Tony Benn. I told him about my proposal, which I was convinced was utterly appropriate, and he dismissed it out of hand, telling me it was a terrible idea! The reason - he said - was that it would mean that the Speaker would have a bigger electoral mandate than the PM - or anyone else. He didn't like that idea!
0 -
Did you meet him at the Costume shop, just off Festive Road? ;o)Chizz said:.
OK, I am going to say now that I am going to drop a name in this post. So if that offends, please stop now!Bryan_Kynsie said:
The answer from me is "not likely"! If we had an election for head of state I am prepared to declare that I'd vote for the Queen all day over either of those two toss-pot career politicians. Hopefully she would stand. Even at her age she'd do a better job. You, I take, it, would vote for Ed in that hypothetical three horse race?Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
I don't see how you can have a choice of Prime Minister at the ballot box without fundamentally reforming the system of government. I'm no expert but I don't perceive that I prefer the US system to ours. How would you do it as a matter of interest?
I have always thought that the system should work like this...
1. We should each have two votes at the General Election
2. One vote would be for our local constituency MP, from a list of candidates who are either selected by parties or stand as independents
3. One vote would be from a national list of candidates for the role of "Speaker". The Speaker would not (necessarily) be aligned to a party.
4. The nationally-elected Speaker would select the Prime Minister, on the basis of representations MPs. That is, in the current set-up, if David Cameron could convince the Speaker that he had the confidence of the membership of the House of Commons, then the Speaker would appoint him as PM, until such time as it became clear to the Speaker (through a vote) that he no longer held the confidence of the House, at which time he would select an alternative PM. And so on, until the end of the five-year term. Then, another General Election.
(The reason I started to think about this is that I *used* to live in the constituency of the Speaker. And, by tradition, the main national parties don't stand against the Speaker at a General Election. Which meant that I - and everyone in the constituency - did not have a chance to vote for any of the main parties).
*Name-drop warning* I was lucky enough to have met, and had a long conversation with, Tony Benn. I told him about my proposal, which I was convinced was utterly appropriate, and he dismissed it out of hand, telling me it was a terrible idea! The reason - he said - was that it would mean that the Speaker would have a bigger electoral mandate than the PM - or anyone else. He didn't like that idea!1 -
I know loads of people in the UK who vote for a party because their dad votes for that party, yet I know for a fact their political views don't really align with that party. For a lot of people, supporting a political party is like supporting a football team.Red_in_SE8 said:
Don't think many people vote a particular way based on the way their parents or grandparents voted. In this country or the US.limeygent said:
Absolutely correct. "Granma always voted Democrat, my Dad and mum always voted Democrat, I've always voted Democrat, not going to change now," no matter the candidate. Same with Republicans, that's why the "undecided" voter is "key". Unfortunately they often don't go for the candidate who's the most qualified.Red_in_SE8 said:
I don't think it is that different. Like here, the vast majority of democrats will vote for the democratic nominee irrespective of what they think of him and the vast majority of Republican voters will vote for the Republican nominee irrespective of what they think of him.Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
2 -
No, it was a Champagne reception at the Speaker's residence in the Palace of Westminster. I met lots of other politicians there too, like Dianne Abbott, Lembit Opik and David Cameron. But I prefer to remember meeting Tony Benn!Greenie said:
Did you meet him at the Costume shop, just off Festive Road? ;o)Chizz said:.
OK, I am going to say now that I am going to drop a name in this post. So if that offends, please stop now!Bryan_Kynsie said:
The answer from me is "not likely"! If we had an election for head of state I am prepared to declare that I'd vote for the Queen all day over either of those two toss-pot career politicians. Hopefully she would stand. Even at her age she'd do a better job. You, I take, it, would vote for Ed in that hypothetical three horse race?Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
I don't see how you can have a choice of Prime Minister at the ballot box without fundamentally reforming the system of government. I'm no expert but I don't perceive that I prefer the US system to ours. How would you do it as a matter of interest?
I have always thought that the system should work like this...
1. We should each have two votes at the General Election
2. One vote would be for our local constituency MP, from a list of candidates who are either selected by parties or stand as independents
3. One vote would be from a national list of candidates for the role of "Speaker". The Speaker would not (necessarily) be aligned to a party.
4. The nationally-elected Speaker would select the Prime Minister, on the basis of representations MPs. That is, in the current set-up, if David Cameron could convince the Speaker that he had the confidence of the membership of the House of Commons, then the Speaker would appoint him as PM, until such time as it became clear to the Speaker (through a vote) that he no longer held the confidence of the House, at which time he would select an alternative PM. And so on, until the end of the five-year term. Then, another General Election.
(The reason I started to think about this is that I *used* to live in the constituency of the Speaker. And, by tradition, the main national parties don't stand against the Speaker at a General Election. Which meant that I - and everyone in the constituency - did not have a chance to vote for any of the main parties).
*Name-drop warning* I was lucky enough to have met, and had a long conversation with, Tony Benn. I told him about my proposal, which I was convinced was utterly appropriate, and he dismissed it out of hand, telling me it was a terrible idea! The reason - he said - was that it would mean that the Speaker would have a bigger electoral mandate than the PM - or anyone else. He didn't like that idea!
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Might try to work your way through this.Jints said:Executive orders have been used by nearly every President since Washington. Obama has used them less frequently than any President since Cleveland
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Of course , if there is a Republican in the WH, the Dems complain that he is using EOs unconstitutionally and vice versa.
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/The Legal Limit/The Legal Limit Report 4.pdf0 -
That wouldn't surprise me one little bit! I can imagine a good few of the people you mix with are complete idiots who are not capable of independent rational thought.Fiiish said:
I know loads of people in the UK who vote for a party because their dad votes for that party, yet I know for a fact their political views don't really align with that party. For a lot of people, supporting a political party is like supporting a football team.Red_in_SE8 said:
Don't think many people vote a particular way based on the way their parents or grandparents voted. In this country or the US.limeygent said:
Absolutely correct. "Granma always voted Democrat, my Dad and mum always voted Democrat, I've always voted Democrat, not going to change now," no matter the candidate. Same with Republicans, that's why the "undecided" voter is "key". Unfortunately they often don't go for the candidate who's the most qualified.Red_in_SE8 said:
I don't think it is that different. Like here, the vast majority of democrats will vote for the democratic nominee irrespective of what they think of him and the vast majority of Republican voters will vote for the Republican nominee irrespective of what they think of him.Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
1 -
The funny thing is you support Labour like a football team so really you're admitting to being a complete idiot incapable of independent rational thought, although every single post you make on this board is evidence enough of that already.Red_in_SE8 said:
That wouldn't surprise me one little bit! I can imagine a good few of the people you mix with are complete idiots who are not capable of independent rational thought.Fiiish said:
I know loads of people in the UK who vote for a party because their dad votes for that party, yet I know for a fact their political views don't really align with that party. For a lot of people, supporting a political party is like supporting a football team.Red_in_SE8 said:
Don't think many people vote a particular way based on the way their parents or grandparents voted. In this country or the US.limeygent said:
Absolutely correct. "Granma always voted Democrat, my Dad and mum always voted Democrat, I've always voted Democrat, not going to change now," no matter the candidate. Same with Republicans, that's why the "undecided" voter is "key". Unfortunately they often don't go for the candidate who's the most qualified.Red_in_SE8 said:
I don't think it is that different. Like here, the vast majority of democrats will vote for the democratic nominee irrespective of what they think of him and the vast majority of Republican voters will vote for the Republican nominee irrespective of what they think of him.Chizz said:@Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?
*That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.0 -
I think the football analogy is valid although I think less so these days where the political edges are now very blurred and in particular because political interest amongst the young is worryingly declining. Voters these days are far more likely to switch allegiance. Years ago when I was cutting my political teeth the parties were very different beasts. The actual differences between Tory and Labour was very clear cut. My father always voted Labour. He did so not because of tribal reasons but because he was a socialist and as such could never vote Tory. I am the same. My grandmother on the other hand born in 1902 was a Conservative for no other reason than her father and brothers always voted blue. I don't doubt some people vote without thought but I think it's far less than in years past.1
-
Sure. A report by Ted Cruz will be a paradigm of objectivity.limeygent said:
Might try to work your way through this.Jints said:Executive orders have been used by nearly every President since Washington. Obama has used them less frequently than any President since Cleveland
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Of course , if there is a Republican in the WH, the Dems complain that he is using EOs unconstitutionally and vice versa.
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/The Legal Limit/The Legal Limit Report 4.pdf
3 -
Try to be open-minded, he has the credentials and he's laying out facts, not his opinion.Jints said:
Sure. A report by Ted Cruz will be a paradigm of objectivity.limeygent said:
Might try to work your way through this.Jints said:Executive orders have been used by nearly every President since Washington. Obama has used them less frequently than any President since Cleveland
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Of course , if there is a Republican in the WH, the Dems complain that he is using EOs unconstitutionally and vice versa.
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/The Legal Limit/The Legal Limit Report 4.pdf0 -
Of course it's his opinion. His primary accusation is that Obama has instructed federal officials not to implement certain laws. For example, in states where the sale of cannabis has been approved by referendum, Obama has instructed the FBI not too intervene even though the sale of cannabis breaches federal law.
a) Every single President has done the same. Congress makes laws. Presidents choose whether and in what way to enforce them. This is constitutional law 101
b) It doesn't sit well with Cruz's position on states' rights.
I'm very open minded on US politics. I like and dislike both Republicans and Dems. But I can't stand politicians like Cruz and Warren who do nothing more than shout within their own echo chambers0 -
Carry on reading down. Obama is changing "Obamacare" as it suits him and his cronies. The rest of us are picking up the tab, over and over and over. That's just one law he's messing with. Not enforcing a law is also very different from changing a law. The President's PRIMARY responsibility is to ensure that the laws that Congress passes are enforced.
By the way, I appreciate your respectful discourse, more than I get from some on here.1 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
Hillary Clinton on gay marriage just 10 years ago. Makes her seem like a bit of a fraud that says whatever she thinks will get her elected.0 -
SELR_addicks said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
Hillary Clinton on gay marriage just 10 years ago. Makes her seem like a bit of a fraud that says whatever she thinks will get her elected.
this except like most politicians, she is a total fraud .. I digress, BUT, I would like to know if, during a same sex 'marriage', does one participant opt to be 'the wife' and the other 'the husband' ? .. or is it 'do you take this man to be your lawful wedded man' .. etc. etc. ?
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Or someone who has views which have evolved with time.SELR_addicks said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
Hillary Clinton on gay marriage just 10 years ago. Makes her seem like a bit of a fraud that says whatever she thinks will get her elected.4 -
I sided with Bernie Sanders, whoever he is.......?JessieAddick said:Just saw this quiz and thought it was quite interesting:
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
You'll have a general idea about who you would be most likely to vote for in the 2016 US presidential election.0 -
Marco Rubio with Hilary 2nd.
My ideology couldnt be more in the middle of graph - am the most central of Centrists apparently.0 -
Clinton, Sanders, Rubio in that order for me.
I'd rather swear allegiance to my Monarch than a flag though.0 -
Interesting that her views have evolved in time with what was politically advantageous to her at the time. Like it has for a lot of other subjects (such as workers rights, Iraq War etc.)Red_in_SE8 said:
Or someone who has views which have evolved with time.SELR_addicks said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
Hillary Clinton on gay marriage just 10 years ago. Makes her seem like a bit of a fraud that says whatever she thinks will get her elected.
1 -
an interesting quiz .. we in GB, before the European Union Referendum could do with a similar 'quiz' outlining contentious and expensive EU policies and issuesJessieAddick said:Just saw this quiz and thought it was quite interesting:
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz
You'll have a general idea about who you would be most likely to vote for in the 2016 US presidential election.0 -
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"SELR_addicks said:
Interesting that her views have evolved in time with what was politically advantageous to her at the time. Like it has for a lot of other subjects (such as workers rights, Iraq War etc.)Red_in_SE8 said:
Or someone who has views which have evolved with time.SELR_addicks said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
Hillary Clinton on gay marriage just 10 years ago. Makes her seem like a bit of a fraud that says whatever she thinks will get her elected.
- John Maynard Keynes
Apparently I side with Bernie Sanders. I have no idea who this person is.0 -
Keynes way of saying I never admit I might be wrong!0
-
What information changed for Hillary then? Homosexuality didn't magically go from being wrong to being right. The only thing that changed is public opinion. If you change something which is essentially a moral/conscience issue purely because public opinion has shifted, you are basically saying you have no moral compass, you just do whatever is popular whether it is morally right or wrong. The fact is Hillary has only very recently switched her allegiance to pro-LGBTQ after the tipping point of the gay marriage fight, despite having never helped campaign for gay marriage previously and in fact probably helped set back the issue in the previous decade due to her vocal opposition to it. I have seen several LGBTQs in the USA express utter contempt for Hillary for exploiting an issue for political gain since they have not forgotten that she was once the enemy.IA said:
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"SELR_addicks said:
Interesting that her views have evolved in time with what was politically advantageous to her at the time. Like it has for a lot of other subjects (such as workers rights, Iraq War etc.)Red_in_SE8 said:
Or someone who has views which have evolved with time.SELR_addicks said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
Hillary Clinton on gay marriage just 10 years ago. Makes her seem like a bit of a fraud that says whatever she thinks will get her elected.
- John Maynard Keynes
Apparently I side with Bernie Sanders. I have no idea who this person is.
Are most/all politicians guilty of this on this or other issues? Yes, of course, but Hillary's supporters are trying to paint it as someone who has now become enlightened, rather than the more obvious truth that she is a naked opportunist (which her husband has had experience with in the Oval Office...)1 -
Fiiish, I make no comment on Hillary Clinton, but of course people are entitled to change their opinion.
Thirty years ago I would have been anti gay marriage and now I'm pro.
3
