Hillary says would cede some presidential powers

Hillary says would cede some presidential powers

www.reuters.com

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused President George W. Bush in an interview published on Tuesday of a "power grab" and said she would cede some executive powers if elected.

"Oh absolutely," she said. "I mean that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that," she said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Looks like Hillary is trying to play on some of Ron Pauls success in being anti-government when she says things like this.

Of course Hillary is a lying sack of # and doesnt have anywhere close to the integrity and honesty of Ron Paul.

Who is going to trust what Hillary says?

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think you would be surprised how many people are fooled by Hillary. My own Mother, who is a very VERY educated women, is leaning in that direction. Not due to any issue but because of Gender. I was floored to say the least. Not surprising to me is that she had no idea who Ron Paul was. Like a lot of issues, if it is not plastered all over the MSM the majority is clueless.

I highly doubt that Hillary would cede anything and like the OP I think Hillary is completely and totally full of poop.

This thread should have been posted here .
If elected Hillary actions will speaker louder then any of her campaign promises . At this stage I must say I am sceptical of Hillary promise because she hasn't the specific said which presidential powers she would role back.
IMO a review in the world of politics equals a way of scoring political points and doing nothing with the issue at hand or making token gestures to keep voters happy.

Originally posted by xpert11
This thread should have been posted here .

Yes, probably. But let me just say that I think a lot of the issues of free speech and government control ties into politics in one way or the other. In fact, even the conspiracy theories are almost always tied into politics.

I mean, this thread could be seen as part of the neocon conspiracy and be posted in the political conspiracies section as well.

So basically, do we really need AbovePolitics? Cant we just merge the sites? This is not what the thread is about, but I feel that a lot of the interesting Breaking News stories are of course political in nature, because they have to do with control of government and media.

Basically everything has to do with politics...


[edit on 24-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Copernicus ultimately a mod will decided where this threat belongs . The general rule of thumb seems to be if there is a conspiracy involved then the topic belongs on ATS . Otherwise if the topic is purely political in nature it belongs over on AP. So far no one has tied a conspiracy to this thread that is not to say that valid issues that deserve to be debated haven't been raised.

Pff please... shes going to use the powers bush has grabbed in his presidency which have already limited or nullified certain freedoms, and use them to further take away even more freedoms...

This two party system will be the end of this once great nation, each party takes away certain freedoms, while doing so they focus attention onto what freedoms the other party is chipping away at, while ignoring the ones they themselves have chipped away...


Two sides of the same coin people


Your personal views on gay marriage are just that personal, Congress cant Constitutionally pass any laws regarding it as doing so would be a violation of the 1st amendment,

congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Regardless of rather or not that law is for or against a religion, congress shall pas NO laws...


Your stance on guns like em or don't like em, should have no bearing on who you vote for, why? because congress cant vote on it constitutionally, its a right rather you agree with it is again your personal opinion..

And just because they do vote on these things, doesn't mean they can, they get by with it because we allow it..

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness people, If someones not violating your individual rights, then what they do, own, or say, to be perfectly honest, is none of your damn business, if that offends you, then well thats your problem.


Stop falling into the trap of voting for the lesser evil, or voting for people over issues they have no power to vote on, Vote on a person who will protect your constitutionally insured rights, (you know what they swore to do in that little oath they take?) Don't vote Democrat, Don't vote Republican, Vote American.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by C0le]

reply to post by Copernicus


Anyone who believes a politician that claims to be a libertarian, needs to look "integrity" up in the dictionary. It's like believing a strongman who calls himself a communist.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by The Walking Fox]

Hopefully whether it's Ron Paul or Clinton (Oh FSM no) they will relinquish the Executive Orders Bush has put into effect. The ones that pretty much give the president unarguable military state powers that can't be questioned by congress for months if he sees a threat to 'national security'.

One real way to respond to that.


Bull#.