I do because during his run as president the economy was great, unemployment was very low, groceries and gasoline was affordable, people's attitudes in general were nicer & more upbeat then and the music & movies were far better then.
shareWas any of those things really thanks to Clinton though?
shareI don't know, I just thought America was a much greater place during his reign as president.
shareWe were not being invaded by Putin. We were not hated by other countries.
shareWe hacked Russia's election and installed Boris Yeltsin, who sold off all the old Soviet assets in a firesale and created the oligarchy.
shareWe didn't hack anything. There was no public internet or electronic voting machines in 1991 when he was elected president.
We were "invaded" by Putin!?
I'm mocking you. "meddling", "tampering", "disrupting", etc... You whine about a Facebook ad for Trump when Facebook itself is part of the Hillary campaign.
Our "Intelligence Community" has been going around the world murdering everybody's elections for decades. Can't deny it.
I'm mocking you because you can't cite a fact to save your life.
You just lie and can never back it up. You have never provided one citation ever to prove your fake claims. Like trying to say the US hacked the 1991 Russian elections when that wasn't even technologically possible in 1991.
If you're trying to say the US engineered the victory then prove it. Yeltsin was the overwhelming popular choice by Russians in 1991. The election wasn't even close. Cite one link.
We were not hated by other countries.
The economy was in a tech bubble which burst and was replaced with a housing bubble at the behest of people like Paul Krugman of the New York Times formerly of Enron. Greenspan created the Greenspan Put. NAFTA destroyed manufacturing. The only things worse than Clinton were Bush and Obama, who wielded more power under a more powerful government.
shareAs usual, your big thing is pushing fake news.
Here's Krugman in 2005 warning of the housing bubble:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-sound.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/paul-krugman_0_n_3118069.html
"Paul Krugman Advised Fed To Create A Housing Bubble In 2002"
He literally said "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
You know what's funny? After the housing bubble, Krugman called for the government to create a fake alien invasion. This guy is like the hitman for crass consumerism.
OMG, did you even bother to read Krugman's original article instead of relying on a huffpo piece back when Arianna Huffington was a Republican?
Of course you didn't, because you're dense like that. So here it is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?pagewanted=1
If you read the entire piece you see it's devoted to criticizing bubbles in general and is critical of Greenspan for ignoring the NASDAQ bubble. It should be OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain that he was being tongue in cheek that the only way to fight this NASDAQ bubble induced recession is to do as "Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble". He was citing economist Paul McCulley making the original joke. HE WAS SO OBVIOUSLY JOKING.
There is NO WAY a Keynesian economist like Krugman would EVER be advocating for a bubble. It's stupid right wing smear merchants that either don't know any better or are deliberately trying to take his quote out of context to smear him that write dumb articles that sheeple NPC like you believe.
I'm a conservative through and through, but if I have to be honest, I will say that Bill Clinton was very middle of the road and even leaned right domestically to get re-elected for his second term. He stayed left on foreign policy. In any case, where George Bush was very right in foreign policy, he was decidedly more left than Bill Clinton domestically.
For all his warts (yeah, those kind too), Bill Clinton was against illegal immigration and pretty much reduced welfare to help balance his budget.
Kinda, sorta miss him. Great accent! I saw him years ago in a limo when I worked in Los Angeles. He waved to everyone on the sidewalk. Nice guy.
shareYes. Things seemed better when Slick Willie was in office.
shareI don't miss him, but life in the '90s did seem somewhat more stable, and everybody wasn't screaming at everybody else about ideological BS all the time. I doubt he had anything to do with it.
shareAnyone is better that the current POTUS!!! I liked Clinton!
share8 years of peace and prosperity, like only a Democrat can deliver.
shareThe WTC's first attack by the blind sheikh, impotent aspirin factory bombings...and...wait for it...911!
Why you may ask?
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-dec-05-oe-ijaz05-story.html
MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief.
President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.