-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official CNN 1/31 Democratic Debate Thread: Obama v. Clinton
- Thread starter crisdecuba
- Start date
- Status
ding ding dingharSon said:
she got kolby bryant wife syndrome. he rapes a women, or has out of marriage sex, and she forgives him cause he bought her a 3 million dollar ring.
same with hillary. at thats a huge character flaw. as Michelle obama said how can you run the white house when you cant run your own house.
Francois the Great said:
I guess FDR didn't do much about the Economy.
The President sets the agenda, if Congress were left to their own devices they would not get much done because it generally needs political power from the top down to fight through the armies of lobbyists. The President's involvement in the issue is what makes it completely mainstream, it's a catalyst for action.
As far as foreign policy goes you have 3 problems that need addressing: China/Russia, Trade and Fundamentalism. To resolve all of these issues you need to form partnerships and coalitions in addition to having a willingness to engage in dialogue. From the candidates running, those with the best foreign policy + highest likelihood to succeed seem to be
Obama/ Hillary (automatic and complete international support)
.
.
Ron Paul (although unrealistic)
.
.
Huckabee (willing to form international partnerships)
The Republican's continue to espouse the same spiel that have left your foreign relations in a state they haven't managed to reach since Vietnam (arguably much worse now). I'm being unfair to Huckabee here though, he seems rather more willing than others to work with the international community. The rest of the Republican candidates are proposing the same narrow-minded, unilateral Team America Fuck Yeah! stances that will never achieve the goals that are common amongst people of the world. McCain is not even close to moderate on foreign policy. Hes a card carrying Neo-con when it comes to that.
judicial liberals or political liberals?FLEABttn said:
nothing wrong with putting conservative judges on the bench. strict constructionists are okey dokey with me because, in my mind, it just means you've only gotta convince Congress and don't have to rely on a bully court to get your shit taken care of. Personally I'd rather have McCain choosing SC nominees in that regard than Hillary because hillary is guaranteed to put activist judges on the bench to bolster her nanny-state ideals.
People think that the SC only matters whenever Roe is challenged or a death penalty case comes up, but a constructionist judge is going to do light years more to help, say, in decriminalizing marijuana than an activist judge ever will. The activist is going to look at it and say that Federal law creates an implied jurisdiction circumventing state rights on the issue due to possible trafficking; a convservative judge will look at it and say that there's no evidence of trafficking then there's no reason for the 10th to be invoked at all and will either dismiss the case back to the apellates or strike down the stupid laws that are overarching to begin with.
This is extremely retarded reasoning. Honestly I can't believe how many stupid right-wing memes and talking-points the Obama Nation has absorbed and spew-out unblinkingly. Of course, I assume most of you guys weren't even born when Bill was President, so perhaps the myopic stupidity can be explained...Cooter said:
If I were even interested in this spat then I'd turn to you, good sir, and say that if the talking points of the Republicans are taken up so easily by those whom ascribe to like ideals, then maybe it's not everyone else with the problem in perception.hAPF said:
edit: but i'm not. so whate'er. hillary blah blah blah. obama blah blah change. iraq iraq taxes here's president mccain.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
APF said:
You're not proving to be much better than the Obama crazies. You don't have to attack every Obama supporter with that sort of sentiment. I'm an Obama supporter and would rather not have Clinton be president. What are you gonna do?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
..
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
harSon said:
Okay and you're not making true, logical Obama supporters look good. At all. Shut up.
Wait, didn't you just attack her for believing Bill? Now you're attacking her because she uh didn't believe him...? And further to the point why is it any of our business whether or not a couple remains together after an act of infidelity? This is a personal decision, not a political issue, and it's just divisive politics-as-usual--in a very real, Republicans have been using this attack for ~a decade sense--to attack her for supporting her husband like the majority of the country at the time.Cooter said:
Edit: what's Rur0ni right about?
I don't think that's his point. I think his point is that Hildog is getting slammed on both sides of it and can't win no matter what she does. I think he also had something in there about it not being anyone's business what she did, as if the caretaker of the President's penis isn't a matter of national security. APF has a tendency to ignore the scientific fact that those with blue balls are 110% MORE likely to resort to violence than to seek peaceful solutions to international problems.RubxQub said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
APF said:
It really is amazing to have to argue the same talking points over a decade later. The circle of life.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
where were you?Cheebs said:
um...
1980 - not born yet
1992 - only six years old
Lv99 Slacker
Member
Did anybody record the debate? If yes, please send me a pm. I'd like to have a word with a you.
Maybe there is a little bit more to being the president then just GETTING A F*CKING BLOW JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The bush family loves to show that they are good ol americans who love to eat apple pie and go to church, but at the cost of killing 3000+ american soldiers and 600,000 iraqis?
This was an unimportant issue blown out of proportion and i still cant beleive that we fight about it today. Millions of spouses cheat on each other whether they know it or they dont, where is the media attention on them? Even a show like "cheaters" doesnt get the job done. Can we seriously get our priorities and 'values' in order please?
I mean i prefer obama, but god damn.
Father_Brain
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
Especially since said talking points are now coming from people on the side that should know better than to regurgitate right-wing smears.
Look, I prefer Obama overall, particularly because of Clinton's questionable judgment on foreign policy, but she hasn't done anything that comes close to being worthy of the kind of hate she gets from left-leaning posters here and on SA. But I don't expect to change anyone's mind about that.
Stoney Mason
Banned
MeowMeow said:
Well thank god the Kennedy's are pretty moral people at least when it comes to these issues.
If you will excuse someone for a blow job for the power it may one day..... What actions you excuse for someone that can give you more power now. No one is talking about the blowjob. It's the agreement (less heinous) or excusing of said blowjob for future power that we're talking here. Blow job was a ok in my book. A modern feminist putting up with that particular part of the marriage is.... well scary.
Bill's part was understandable human nature. Hilliary's wasn't.
Stoney Mason
Banned
AmishNazi said:
That post says a lot more about you than you realize imo.
Stoney Mason said:
How's that? 95% of the relationships I've seen with as much infidelity as that one are done and over. Mostly ended by the woman, and after the man cheated. So what does saying that a man is more likely to cheat and that a woman will most likely end the relationship because of it say about me?
Stoney Mason
Banned
AmishNazi said:
You are allowed to believe whatever you want. Just like the people who accuse our current president of being an alcoholic, draft dodging, born into privilege, cocaine weasel are entitled to that. Or anybody who believes the criteria for being president is based on a personal moral breakdown of the merits and non-merits of said person.
I would argue those type of evaluations have often had very little correlation to how they actually do the job. You don't know Hillary Clinton. You don't know how she feels. You don't know what goes on in her head or how she feels about any of this stuff. You are entitled to guess and I don't take away that right from you. I just argue it is fairly useless and immaterial. You will never know why she decided to stay with him and I doubt it was as simple as one thing but everybody is entitled to play the guessing game. Just don't be surprised when you base your decision making solely on that, that nobody is able to pass certain ethical high water marks.
To stay more on topic though it says you have a certain view of how people should react and behave in these situations based on your anecdotal life experiences. I would argue your anecdotal life experiences aren't accurate to model how everyone will, can, and should act. Although as I said, you are entitled to that right.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
APF said:
Republicans? Howard Dean?
Stoney Mason
Banned
AmishNazi said:
Actually my position more accurately is you can't know why she stayed nor can I. More pressingly why somebody decides to stay married or not stay married is a personal matter I wouldn't presume to guess in either direction. Even If it did, it wouldn't effect my judgment on whether I vote for them or not just like I often don't judge all sorts of personal life choices the candidates make whether they be Democrats or Republicans. People are different thought. Not saying you aren't allowed to make your choice. Just noting the fact that these aren't simple factual position statement that fall under true or false designations.
CowboyAstronaut
Banned
Uh oh the big guns are coming out
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGVFQ
Wow talk about a triple threat.
Obama's wife is incredible. Everytime she speaks I think "They need to have her speak even more!"
This is going to be a pretty big deal for Obama.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGVFQ
Wow talk about a triple threat.
Obama's wife is incredible. Everytime she speaks I think "They need to have her speak even more!"
This is going to be a pretty big deal for Obama.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
who are you kidding??Stoney Mason said:
Some of you Hillary apologists are hilarious! What kind of woman would stay with a man that cheated on her more than once..and that the whole world knows??
One that would do it for her own personal conniving political power hungry gain! If she doesn't become president, she will divorce him within 3 years... and if she does become president, she will divorce him 3 years after her term.
OBAMA is the only true candidate here.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Schattenjagger said:
More than welcome to your opinion. I like both candidates myself and don't share your overt fascination with one (my characterization) but that's the way the world spins.
topsyturvy
Member
Get the fuck out, not only was that cheesy as fuck but thats pretty much on the basis of irrelevancy. what do her personal life and staying with her husband after he cheated has to do with anything? She stand by her husband just like anyone else would in political life.Cooter said:I argue that she had bad judement in believing her husband after all the things that occurred in the past with Bill.
It's not enough to have expierence on day one, you need good judgement on day one.
That was the most egregious interpretation of the commerce clause I have ever seen. I really don't know what they were thinking. I'm especially surprised at Scalia (who I don't tend to agree with, but he can usually back his arguments with the constitution & reason).Mandark said:
Of course, legalized marijuana in any state would have an effect on several states, but so could any intrastate commerce.
The commerce clause included interstate commerce to prevent states from doing things like imposing tariffs and duties on goods from other states or to enter into any other trade deals you would normally see between nations.
That ruling gives the federal government the power to regulate pretty much any intrastate commerce.
topsyturvy said:
As a Hillary supporter, how do you reconcile her claims to white house experience with her claim that she voted for the Iraq war because of misinformation from George Bush. There were only 3 years between her tenure in the White House and the invasion, so shouldn't she have known the real deal?
Also, what about Bill Clinton's incursions into Iraq, Kosovo (which I think ultimately was the right thing). Why doesn't she talk about these?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked