4 ms·

Back in 2008 not one of you HN entrepreneurs would have hired him to run any kind of a startup. Absurd. Running a country is not even remotely similar to runni

Back in 2008 not one of you HN entrepreneurs would have hired him to run any kind of a startup. Absurd. Running a country is not even remotely similar to running a startup. Bill Clinton presided over the largest economic expansion since World War II; he was a lawyer just like Obama, would you have hired him to run your startup? There are those who are quick to point out that president Clinton can't really take that much credit for the complex factors that supervene in the emergence of an economic boom, they then go on to contradict themselves by suggesting that Romney does have the power to give everyone a job. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/11/romney_obama_and_economics_the_economy_s_already_recovering_so_whoever_wins.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/11/romn... Beyond that, it's simply silly to suggest that Obama or any president isn't qualified to preside over an economy. It's not as if Obama stays up late crunching stats, he obviously defers to qualified economists culled precisely for their particular expertise. while I fear that my vote will not count because I live in California, I had to vote for the idea of a better potential future for both myself and my kids. The future is not in peril; four more years of Obama won't destroy America any more than the last four, just like the world didn't end when Bush was elected for a second term.

robomartin 14y ago
> Bill Clinton presided over the largest economic expansion since World War II; he was a lawyer just like Obama, would you have hired him to run your startup? I've seen this used over and over again. The economic expansion you refer to was fueled by what was happening with the Internet. Clinton had nothing to do with that. He just happened to be there while it was happening. Some folks choose to ignore the facts and attribute the economic expansion to his administration. The economic expansion that took place during his administration was the consequence of series of events spanning a couple of decades before he even ran for office. If we are going to play that game you might as well attribute the 9/11 attacks in NYC to Clinton. In other words, if we are going to credit a president with everything that happens during their administration you can't pick the good and ignore the bad. He had a chance to get Bin Laden and did not. The plans and training of the dozens of terrorists who conducted the attack happened under his watch, right here, in our soil. In eight years he failed to re-shape our security services in order to make them more effective at dealing with terrorism on our soil. Was he responsible? Who, then? Don't say Bush. The attack happened during his watch, but all the preparation and training --right under our noses-- happened under Clinton's watch. My point is that it is important to get past a partisan defend-your-team-no-matter-what attitude and make an effort to understand the underlying facts. Of course Clinton was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, just like he can't take credit for the economic expansion. Events like these are often the result of decades of interrelated issues that, ultimately, trigger them. It's like the infamous "overnight success" entrepreneur. From the perspective of his or her neighbors they made it big overnight. The reality, though, is often very, very different involving hard work, insight, sacrifice, failures and often years of investment and dedication. Nobody sees that. Nobody tries to understand that. All people see is a new car in the driveway. They choose not to think and reach inaccurate conclusions. To get back to 9/11 briefly, it was probably the result of maybe fifty years of making questionable foreign relations and internal decisions. Possibly even longer than that. Hard to say. If you want to blame anyone I think we need to blame the process, not the people involved.
- vectorpush 14y ago
  The economic expansion you refer to was fueled by what was happening with the Internet. Clinton had nothing to do with that. He just happened to be there while it was happening. Some folks choose to ignore the facts and attribute the economic expansion to his administration. It's clear you merely skimmed over my post since in the very next sentence I stated: There are those who are quick to point out that president Clinton can't really take that much credit for the complex factors that supervene in the emergence of an economic boom, they then go on to contradict themselves by suggesting that Romney does have the power to give everyone a job. I follow it up with an explanation of how the president generally defers to advisers with regard to issues of the economy.
  - robomartin 14y ago
    Go take a logical reasoning class and then we can have a discussion. There is no nexus between these scenarios. None.
    - vectorpush 14y ago
      You can attempt to levy personal insults against me, but it only makes you look foolish. You cannot confidently claim that Romney will fix the economy while simultaneously dismissing the supposed economic accomplishments of Clinton without contradicting yourself. The logic is simple, no classes necessary.

robomartin 14y ago

> Bill Clinton presided over the largest economic expansion since World War II; he was a lawyer just like Obama, would you have hired him to run your startup? I've seen this used over and over again. The economic expansion you refer to was fueled by what was happening with the Internet. Clinton had nothing to do with that. He just happened to be there while it was happening. Some folks choose to ignore the facts and attribute the economic expansion to his administration. The economic expansion that took place during his administration was the consequence of series of events spanning a couple of decades before he even ran for office. If we are going to play that game you might as well attribute the 9/11 attacks in NYC to Clinton. In other words, if we are going to credit a president with everything that happens during their administration you can't pick the good and ignore the bad. He had a chance to get Bin Laden and did not. The plans and training of the dozens of terrorists who conducted the attack happened under his watch, right here, in our soil. In eight years he failed to re-shape our security services in order to make them more effective at dealing with terrorism on our soil. Was he responsible? Who, then? Don't say Bush. The attack happened during his watch, but all the preparation and training --right under our noses-- happened under Clinton's watch. My point is that it is important to get past a partisan defend-your-team-no-matter-what attitude and make an effort to understand the underlying facts. Of course Clinton was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, just like he can't take credit for the economic expansion. Events like these are often the result of decades of interrelated issues that, ultimately, trigger them. It's like the infamous "overnight success" entrepreneur. From the perspective of his or her neighbors they made it big overnight. The reality, though, is often very, very different involving hard work, insight, sacrifice, failures and often years of investment and dedication. Nobody sees that. Nobody tries to understand that. All people see is a new car in the driveway. They choose not to think and reach inaccurate conclusions. To get back to 9/11 briefly, it was probably the result of maybe fifty years of making questionable foreign relations and internal decisions. Possibly even longer than that. Hard to say. If you want to blame anyone I think we need to blame the process, not the people involved.

vectorpush 14y ago
The economic expansion you refer to was fueled by what was happening with the Internet. Clinton had nothing to do with that. He just happened to be there while it was happening. Some folks choose to ignore the facts and attribute the economic expansion to his administration. It's clear you merely skimmed over my post since in the very next sentence I stated: There are those who are quick to point out that president Clinton can't really take that much credit for the complex factors that supervene in the emergence of an economic boom, they then go on to contradict themselves by suggesting that Romney does have the power to give everyone a job. I follow it up with an explanation of how the president generally defers to advisers with regard to issues of the economy.
- robomartin 14y ago
  Go take a logical reasoning class and then we can have a discussion. There is no nexus between these scenarios. None.
  - vectorpush 14y ago
    You can attempt to levy personal insults against me, but it only makes you look foolish. You cannot confidently claim that Romney will fix the economy while simultaneously dismissing the supposed economic accomplishments of Clinton without contradicting yourself. The logic is simple, no classes necessary.