The criminal is poor; he is uneducated, unsophisticated and simple-hearted. The politician is a hypocrite -- cunning, diplomatic, sophisticated. But their essential reality is the same. In other words, the criminal is a politician who could not succeed, and the politician is a criminal who has succeeded in attaining power.But their psychologies are not different. They both want power and domination; they both want to do things without any concern for the consequences; they are both end-oriented, they don't bother about the means. Their basic philosophy is the same: the ends justify the means. If you succeed, then how you have succeeded -- using right means or wrong means -- does not matter. Success proves that your means were right. It is the end that proves your means were right.
They are both violent. But if you have to choose between the two, the criminal is certainly the better. He does harm, but his harm is very limited -- maybe he kills someone. But Genghis Khan alone killed forty million people; Tamerlane killed thirty million people; Nadir Shah killed forty million people. The exact numbers Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte and Ivan the Terrible killed are not available. But they must have succeeded in killing far more than Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, Nadir Shah.But numbers for Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler are available. Joseph Stalin alone killed more than one million people after the revolution in Russia. Adolf Hitler killed six million Jews inside Germany, and in the whole second world war he killed nearabout thirty million people.
A firm woman can make a good president, I do believe that a woman can make tough decisions, they are just not soft, there are some women who are actually very tough, they even make tough decisions than men, but with Hillary Clinton, am sure she will make a good president,Bill Clinton was a good president and birds of the same feathers flock together, so she would make a good president.
I think you may be right, the fact that she married Bill Clinton is a huge positive for her, she already knows the demands that are put upon a President better than anyone else, because she saw it first hand.
I don't see what people find impressive about her all. She doesn't seem all that bright or interesting to me. I think she's just getting buy on her last name. If she wasn't Bill Clinton's spouse I don't think people would think twice about electing her to anything based on her merits alone.
If Hilary was elected I think it would be a another big step in regards to civil rights. In a perfect world, I'd say we should definitely elect presidents based on character. But the reality is... 1. Most presidents are corrupt. So, really you're just trying to pick the lesser evil. 2. The US doesn't have a good track record in regards to racial and gender equality. The fact we have had presidents since 1789 and Obama, all the way in 2009, was the first "official" non-white president says a lot. What happened to the Native Americans and Hispanics and Asians??? "Action speaks louder than words." And so far what we have said to Americans and to the world is: until 2009, white males have been the only ones qualified to lead America.
I think that SHE thinks she has it all under control but I still question what she would be like. I think that Obama was far enough for a change and we need to stop thinking if we get a different type of person that it's going to change everything. I will not be someone voting for her. I have a sister who has cancer and medical marijuana is the only thing that gives her relief. Clinton is still opposed to any type of legalization legal or otherwise and I can't stand behind her. You never know she could be good but I could see it going bad a lot easier. We'll just have to wait and see.
