Originally Posted by Got Stripers
Bill Clinton is right there with them all, powerful man abusing his power because he can; oh I assume you did mean Bill. Still power corrupts absolutely and it isn't gender specific, so the guys don't have a monopoly on that behavior, but if we are going to do the math; I'm sure the men abusing women far overshadows the same happening to men.
Since far more men, at this point in time, have had political or corporate power than women, it stands to reason that the number of men corrupting that power far overshadows the number of women who have. Really not an indicator of anything.
Certainly Bill Clinton wasn't and probably won't be the last man in the oval office to get away with behavior which in today's corporate world, would likely lead to trouble or termination.
Which provokes the question: if so many men who were morally corrupt in sexual behavior were so successful in governing or making corporations profitable, how relevant was their sexual behavior to their ability to perform their jobs? Would it have been better to have morally pure incompetents as Presidents or corporate leaders? That's not to condone immorality, but if the choice is between two corrupt candidates, shouldn't the concern be how they will govern not how they diddle?
And as far as the bullying goes, Hillary doesn't take a back seat to Trump in that respect.
I don't like Hillary, but man I've come to detest Trump. I think he is a corporate bully, the definition of a narcissist, he is abusive to women clearly and I don't trust him to not take our country to the brink of military action that will do more harm to our economy, than the policies the democratic party brings to the table.
Hillary has been a political bully. She is an ideological narcissist, which is more dangerous than run-of-the-mill narcissism, and she has abused the women who were Bill's victims. And her defense of her husband's sexual depravity is as equally corrupt as his immorality.
And I thought that Hillary was militarily considered a hawk. How does she now get a pass on ability to start a war? And I thought the conventional wisdom per WWII was that war brought us out of the depression. I don't agree with that, but I agree with Slipknot that Hillary is more likely to start a war than is Trump.
And, besides, Trump's economic policies will be more beneficial to our economy than Hillary's policies.
But he knows more the all the generals combined, so I guess he might not be as dangerous as all that. Bombing the sh*t out of countries sounds really promising to route out the terrorists, but how many countries are you going to go at, its not like they are all in one camp just hoping Trump doesn't get elected.
I think he said, or meant, that he would bomb the sh*t out of ISIS not out of countries. And it's that old notion of cutting off the head of the snake--bomb them where their power resides. Kill the movement before it becomes a country.
Like I said, I've voted and left the oval office ticket blank, I can't wait until it's over and fear for what might be yet to come.
|