Is Biden the most qualified?

[TVoffBrainOn]

What are everyone's thoughts on him? Obviously he has a slim to none chance of winning the nomination. But is he the most qualified democrat running? Is he the most electable Democrat running?

I thought he did another excellent job in the debates last night. Even though the time was dominated by the big 3. Unfortunately the only part that gets coverage by the media was his Giulliani "zinger".

as for the rest of the debate. Hillary finally showed some cracks, but continued to skirt the issues and avoid talking about policy. Obama fell on his face again. Edwards gave his best performance yet. Biden was the only 2nd tier guy to stand out.

[Bunz]

I wont disagree
I think Biden would make a fine President. I wasnt impressed overall with Richardson, Edwards did alright. Obama and Hillary treaded water Dodd scored well, Kucinich needs to brush up on reality.

[USMC the Almighty]

I didn't think people actually watched the debates.

[Bunz]

Yeah I try to catch them when there are on. I actually prefer the GOP debates more for the laugh factor. I wish the formats were different. They ask the top 3-4 questions as the focus. There is nothing at all close to fairness in air time.

[Popeye]

There are a lot of things to like about Biden. Though I don't agree with him on all the issues, he definitely comes across well. You would think his name would be on the short list for VP. Edwards however, remains my favorite.

[Bunz]

God I dont want another Clinton. Nor Bush. This is gonna turn out like a bad version of a "Friends" spin-off series if Hillary wins.

[TVoffBrainOn]

There are a lot of things to like about Biden. Though I don't agree with him on all the issues, he definitely comes across well. You would think his name would be on the short list for VP. Edwards however, remains my favorite.

I think Biden is a logical candidate for Secretary of State. He's the only one with a real SOLUTION for Iraq.

[Bunz]

Regardless, if the democrats are to win...As future cabinet members, you will see Richardson, Gen. Clark, Biden, Byah, possibly Edwards in various capacities. This is on the assumption that Hillary or Obama win the nomination

[Truth-Bringer]

What are everyone's thoughts on him?

I thought he did the best in the last debate. To me, he's the most credible Democrat. It amazes me you people are going for Hillary and Obama over an articulate, experienced guy like this.

[Truth-Bringer]

I think Biden is a logical candidate for Secretary of State. He's the only one with a real SOLUTION for Iraq.

He'll make a good Secretary of Defense in a Ron Paul administration. ;)

[USMC the Almighty]

He'll make a good Secretary of Defense in a Ron Paul administration. ;)

You mean a Paul administration would actually have a Defense Department?

[Bunz]

You mean a Paul administration would actually have a Defense Department?

Hey Jarhead...
Im just going to use you as an example, but I have seen a lot of other wise dead set GOP guys not be a fan of his. Why is this? I think America is ready for a dark horse. He could win if his own party would get behind him.

I dont necessarily like is very small government deal, but I dont think he has the executive power to dismantle large departments(Maher mentioned dept of Ed) as he would dream. I doubt that is something he would actually get done if he were to be elected.

All I am saying is that I want new blood. Fresh start. I have seen to much Hillary...bad taste in my mouth. Tired of Rudy. No chance in hell for Romney, Id like to hear more Obama. Im curious about Ron Paul.

Ultimately though, the parties have hijacked the entire election process. Those who are most qualified rarely win in Presidential elections.

[USMC the Almighty]

Sure, Bunz. My opinion on RP comes down to this: I love his domestic policy and I think he would set this country on the right path domestically not only for his term or two, but into the future by gutting a lot of the expensive and inefficient bureacratic BS (at least that's what he says he'll do). He's also a very humble and principled man which is a rare quality in a politician. I believe he's the only one to vote against raising Congressional pay, he doesn't take the gov't pension and he refused to use government money to send his kids to school. In short, I like the man a lot and adore his domestic position and his philosophy on the role of government. He would make an outstanding peacetime president.

There are two things I don't like about him:

(1) his "foreign policy" -- it has many flaws in it and isn't anything remotely close to solution-oriented. He's all about blaming the U.S. for every attack we sustain. While, in some cases, he may have a valid historical argument it is not very productive or helpful in the modern fight against terrorism. Bluntly, he doesn't understand jihad and that's dangerous in a president.

(2) his supporters -- most of them are spamming, tin-foil hat wearing, obscene, obnoxious, obtuse, conspiracy theorists and do nothing but turn away substantial amount of voters. I just can't see myself aligning with the majority of these people.

[vyo476]

(1) his "foreign policy" -- it has many flaws in it and isn't anything remotely close to solution-oriented. He's all about blaming the U.S. for every attack we sustain. While, in some cases, he may have a valid historical argument it is not very productive or helpful in the modern fight against terrorism. Bluntly, he doesn't understand jihad and that's dangerous in a president.

Please explain how he is wrong in this regard.

[USMC the Almighty]

Please explain how he is wrong in this regard.

vyo, I don't have enough time right now to fully get into this issue but my basic thoughts on why I believe Paul is wrong are in this thread:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1636&page=2&highlight=pretext

[TVoffBrainOn]

Another strong showing from Biden last night.

[Bunz]

Another strong showing from Biden last night.

I missed the debate...I am glad to hear he did well. Anything else happen that is noteworthy?

[TVoffBrainOn]

I missed the debate...I am glad to hear he did well. Anything else happen that is noteworthy?

- The first 15 minutes was all Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. It was quite unfair. They basically let them address Media created controversies. Obama did well, Edwards attacked hard and then cowered in the corner. Hillary deflected all criticisms with brilliantly crafted rhetoric without confronting a single issue.

- Finally Blitzer abruptly cut to Biden and asked him about Pakistan. The look on Biden's face said it all. After the media circus that took up over 15 minutes, when it was time to get to the real issues and hard question they go right to Biden.

- Biden announced he has 75 Senators signed on to his bill to end the war, and that most republicans in the Senate only support Bush and the war out of party loyalty.

- Richardson fell on his face. It was a pretty open forum. No timers or anything like that. Blitzer would try to reign in the candidates here and there, but of course they would always finish there point. Anytime Wolf tried to "wrap up" Richardson he would just go silent mid sentence.

- Dodd had one of his better outings, but nothing impressive.

- Hillary was dominant again. The crowd loved her. She didn't say anything of substance. Nothing at all.

- Edwards did well attacking hillary on being a part of the washington establishment, the lobbyists, the corruption. But as soon as Hillary defended herself he basically apologized. I dont know why he's considered a contender

- Hillary and Obama had a little joust over the differencies in their health care plans.

- Biden had the best answer on supreme court nominees/roe v wade/abortion. Addressing as a constitutional/privacy matter, instead of the usual "i support roe v wade/pro choice" answers.



I tuely believe that if over the last year every time the Media (print and tv) mentioned Edwards, they instead were talking about Biden, he'd be neck and neck with Hillary.

[top gun]

Another strong showing from Biden last night.

I myself have thought very highly of Biden all along.

He's smart, a really good public speaker & he has just tons of foreign policy experience.

The problem is always MONEY. Biden doesn't have it (comparatively speaking). If he could manage to pull off some very high showings in the early primaries maybe the money would catch up... but right now I don't see it happening.

It appears to me he's only going to be a help at forming the debate... and maybe be in line for a cabinet position after the fact.

What do you think?

[Truth-Bringer]

You mean a Paul administration would actually have a Defense Department?

Yes, right now under Master Bush it's the Department of War, but it will become the Department of Defense again under Ron Paul.

[Truth-Bringer]

Bluntly, he doesn't understand jihad and that's dangerous in a president.


Let the fearmongering begin. "Jihad's coming boys and girls! The Jihad's gonna get you! Are you scared now? Better be, cause the Jihad will wind up right in your back yard if you don't brush your teeth every night!"

As I've written before:

It's never too late to change a bad policy. I'm not saying, and have never said, that we shouldn't have a strong military. We should have a strong national defense. What I'm saying is that the military should only be used defensively and our foreign policy should be noninterventionism, the original U.S. foreign policy:

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams

The threats and dangers that most Neocons fantasize about are all the result of the actions of the U.S. overseas.

Al qaeda declared jihad because:
(1) the U.S. supplies weapons to and gives military aid to the Zionists in Israel
(2) the U.S. keeps military bases on ground in Saudi Arabia that they consider sacred
(3) and that the sanctions in Iraq (and now the occupation) are hurting the Iraqi people

Keep on doing these things, and you'll make yourself a terrorist target. Get out of their territory and stay out of their business, and they'll forget about you and would probably be open to a dialog.

They don't hate us for our "wealth" and "freedom." That's just sheer propaganda. THAT'S what you have to be gullible to believe at this point (not that I'm saying you do believe Bush's "argument" about that point - just that the general public believes it).

But there is no true threat. There is no true threat because we are the cause of much of the bad blood - the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Iran in the fifties was a spark to much of this. (http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/07/29_kinzer.html) The CIA's own declassified documents, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight" specifically stated that the U.S. should expect "blowback" from that action. "Blowback" meaning violent, life-threatening actions. Obviously the CIA feared that the Arabs would think retaliatory action was justified. The CIA has created many enemies for us:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

Certainly, our initiation of force in the region on the behalf of British Petroleum was not justified. Certainly our initiation of force against any nation that isn't directly attacking us or declaring war against us isn't justified. Certainly, America has committed many atrocities which were not justified. They're all detailed here:

Why do they hate us -

http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html

As far as protecting our "rights" and "freedom" go, Bush has done nothing but restrict our rights and slowly take away more of our freedoms.

There's a reason the Founding Fathers warned us about domestic enemies of the Constitution - and Bush is definitely a domestic enemy of the original intent of the Constitution:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...
[There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

...Continual warfare as in the neverending "war on terror"... hello, anybody awake out there in America?

Now, why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

[USMC the Almighty]

I love when the RuPaulites talk about fearmongering. Never in the history of modern American politics has there been more of a fearmongering group. PATRIOT Act is incipent fascism. "Under God" in schools is imminent Christian theocracy. The dollar is going to zero. Bush blew up the World Trade Center. You can find the rest on Alex Jones' website or Prison Planet.

You're right Truth, there is no jihad. It didn't affect the 3,000 Americans who were just going to work one Tuesday morning. Jihad is a myth. There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. :rolleyes:

And Truth, this goes back to the core disagreement that we've had a hundred times. You say that if we just apologize for deposing the shah of Iran and whatever other excuses you make up for the Islamic fascists, and pull out of the Middle East entirely, then they will leave us alone. This is wrong. History proves it's wrong. The Islamists need no pretext for war other than that their prophet muhammend commanded them to declare war on all infidels.

[Truth-Bringer]

I love when the RuPaulites talk about fearmongering. Never in the history of modern American politics has there been more of a fearmongering group. PATRIOT Act is incipent fascism. "Under God" in schools is imminent Christian theocracy. The dollar is going to zero. Bush blew up the World Trade Center. You can find the rest on Alex Jones' website or Prison Planet.

You're stretching. For example, no one has ever said "the dollar is going to zero." You want to talk about what history proves? History does prove that governments can wreck an economy with fiat currency. See pre-Nazi Germany as a prime example. But the difference between some of the things that we're warning people about and that your side claims to be warning people about, is that we're not dropping bombs and killing a lot of innocent people as collateral damage to pursue our goals.


You're right Truth, there is no jihad.

But there is a Straw Man here folks! Now that's not what I said, is it? Nice mischaracterization.

It didn't affect the 3,000 Americans who were just going to work one Tuesday morning.

It wouldn't have affected them if the U.S. had not been creating enemies in the Middle East.

Jihad is a myth. There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.

Again, you can stop with the Straw Men.


And Truth, this goes back to the core disagreement that we've had a hundred times. You say that if we just apologize

No, I never claimed an apology would do us any good.

for deposing the shah of Iran and whatever other excuses you make up for the Islamic fascists, and pull out of the Middle East entirely, then they will leave us alone.

They will be far less likely to attack, if we leave their territory - which is specifically why Bin Laden has stated jihad against us was necessary.

This is wrong. History proves it's wrong.

No, a correct view of history proves it is right.

The Islamists need no pretext for war other than that their prophet muhammend commanded them to declare war on all infidels.

And here you are with this same old meaningless fallacy - which is refuted by the fact that only a tiny percentage of Islamists are involved in terrorism.

If declaring war on all infidels is something they believe in, why aren't all Muslims, or at least a majority, engaged in a non-stop war against all other non-muslim nations???????????????????????

[USMC the Almighty]

You're stretching. For example, no one has ever said "the dollar is going to zero."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/081007_dollar_collapse.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

You want to talk about what history proves? History does prove that governments can wreck an economy with fiat currency. See pre-Nazi Germany as a prime example. But the difference between some of the things that we're warning people about and that your side claims to be warning people about, is that we're not dropping bombs and killing a lot of innocent people as collateral damage to pursue our goals.

Nice touch to sum up your weak deflection with a cheapshot at the U.S. military.


But there is a Straw Man here folks! Now that's not what I said, is it? Nice mischaracterization.

It's what you implied, TB. You mocked people who are concerned about Islamic jihad which suggests that you don't believe jihad is something to be worried about. There are families of 3,000 people who might disagree.


It wouldn't have affected them if the U.S. had not been creating enemies in the Middle East.

What enemies did the U.S. have in the Middle East when the Barbary Pirates (18th century term for terrorist) declared a jihad against the U.S. three times from 1786 to 1814.

Again, you can stop with the Straw Men.

Do you have a competition with berreal to see if you can say "staw men" more times than he says "chicken hawk"?

No, I never claimed an apology would do us any good.

Okay.


They will be far less likely to attack, if we leave their territory - which is specifically why Bin Laden has stated jihad against us was necessary.

The jihadists and their apologists (you) will always find excuses to justify their war on the "Big Satan" (U.S.) and "Little Satan" (Israel). When we eventually pull out of the ME, they will still be citing deposing the Iranian shah in 1953 as the justification. There is absolutely nothing the U.S. can do to appease them.

Their stated goal is Sharia law in the U.S. Surrendering won't stop them.

And here you are with this same old meaningless fallacy - which is refuted by the fact that only a tiny percentage of Islamists are involved in terrorism.

If declaring war on all infidels is something they believe in, why aren't all Muslims, or at least a majority, engaged in a non-stop war against all other non-muslim nations???????????????????????

This is such a stupid argument. "If declaring war on the U.S. because of our (1) support for Israel (2) bases on their Saudi Arabian 'sacred' ground and (3) sanctions in Iraq is something they all believe in, why aren't all Muslims engaged in a non-stop war against the U.S.?"

The answer to your dumb question is that not all Muslims interpret the koran and mohammed's teachings literally. But the fact that some do is enough to warrant preemption and elimination of the threat.

If religion plays no part in the motivation for Islamic terrorism, then why aren't non-Muslim Arabs/Middle Easterners waging war against the U.S.? Why do they pray in the name of allah before walking into a pizza parlor with bombs strapped to themselves? Why do they use religion to indoctrinate the children into becoming homicide bombers?

As I've said before, mohammed commanded the destruction of all cultures except islamic fanatic submission in the 6th century AD, when the West, including Britain, didn't even know the Middle East existed. Islamic imperialists have engaged in one war of cultural conquest after another since the beginning, and what we face in the 21st century is precisely the same war for precisely the same reasons that the Byzantines died because they were so divided over internal political dogfighting that they failed to defend their people from the world's most adamant and dedicated racial and religious bigots.

The war started in the 6th century AD and has absolutely nothing to do with our foreign policy.

[vyo476]

Once again USMC you're misconstruing the point. The point is not to deny that religion is a motivator (clearly it is). The point is that the religion is not the main motivator for all 32-59 million Islamic jihadists out there. I'd be surprised if even one million of them are the pure religious fanatics who are doing this solely because the Qur'an seems to say to. How about the other 31 million? They're attracted to the cause because of what we're doing in the Middle East.

As for the Barbary Pirates, that situation was a lot more complicated than our historians like to think about. At that time we were a new nation getting bullied unjustly by a foreign power and that's really all we wanted to think about on the topic. We didn't want to consider the hundreds of years of history behind where the Barbary Pirates even came from and why they were doing what they were doing.

For your info, the Barbary Pirates and the settlements they used as ports were made up largely of Muslim Moors expelled from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition. To them (as to the rest of the world at that point) we were just more British, albeit with different accents and a different flag. Before you start rambling at how unfair that is, think about how we tend to lump all the various Arab and Muslim peoples together.

And yes, they were kicking us while we were down, especially during the eighteenth century - but they weren't exactly "up" themselves. The Barbary states relied heavily on the revenues from those pirating ventures to maintain their governments, which is the only thing that prevented their states from being invaded by the British or the French and getting turned into a colony.

Please note, I'm not trying to justify what they did. It was certainly wrong and unjust and we were right to fight them off. However, it is necessary to recognize that they were driven by inborn racial and national prejudices and economic purposes at least as much as they were driven by religion. Please note also that I don't try to justify terrorism. It is certainly wrong and unjust, however today we have more options than simply balling our fists and trying to knock them out, and we'd do well to remember that.

[Truth-Bringer]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/081007_dollar_collapse.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

Well I had never heard him say that before. I would have to disagree with him on that statement, but devaluation and hyperinflation are possibilities. Regardless, I agree with him that money backed by precious metal value is superior and more stable than fiat currency.


Nice touch to sum up your weak deflection with a cheapshot at the U.S. military.

I don't take cheapshots. I state facts.

"Taking somebody's money without permission is stealing, unless you work for the IRS; then it's taxation. Killing people en masse is homicidal mania, unless you work for the Army; then it's National Defense. Spying on your neighbors is invasion of privacy, unless you work for the FBI; then it's National Security. Running a whorehouse makes you a pimp and poisoning people makes you a murderer, unless you work for the CIA; then it's counter-intelligence." ~ Robert Anton Wilson


What enemies did the U.S. have in the Middle East when the Barbary Pirates (18th century term for terrorist) declared a jihad against the U.S. three times from 1786 to 1814. .

I'll let vyo's response stand for this one.

[LibertyHawk]

Can we please have *one* thread that doesn't talk about Ron Paul?

Anyway on to Biden.
Biden is a bright guy. And I'm disappointed he hasn't been given a chance by the media.

I know you could point out that the media picks winners because people are too stupid/lazy to do their reseach, but I still wish they'd show some discretion when picking.

For me, the only two Democrats running that are capable of running the country and not further ploarizing it are Richardson and Biden.

Obama's a nice guy. But I don't think he's capable.

I've seen several of the debates and Biden is the only one that sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
Clinton Obama and Edwards all mirror each other on Iraq. IE
"We need to get out fast!... In 2017..."
Some splendid plan for a person planning to occupy a country for nine more years.

As it stands there is an excellent chance I simply won't vote in this election. Biden is seriously the only Democrat I'd be likely to vote for. The others...are just not there for me. On Iraq or a montage of other issues.

[USMC the Almighty]

Can we please have *one* thread that doesn't talk about Ron Paul?

Point taken. It is kind of interesting that a guy polling within the margin of error attracts so much attention on internet forums -- says a lot about his supporters.

We (the other mod and I) haven't made any rules limiting the number of Ron Paul threads or even made a separate forum for Ron Paul like a number of other forums have because our resident RP supporters are generally active members of the board who do participate in other threads and don't exclusively spam for Paul.

[LibertyHawk]

Point taken. It is kind of interesting that a guy polling within the margin of error attracts so much attention on internet forums -- says a lot about his supporters.

We (the other mod and I) haven't made any rules limiting the number of Ron Paul threads or even made a separate forum for Ron Paul like a number of other forums have because our resident RP supporters are generally active members of the board who do participate in other threads and don't exclusively spam for Paul.It looks like its mostly this section. That was a post I made after I'd only reading a few other threads(all in this section)

Still, it would be nice for threads that have nothing to do with Paul to stay that way.
It would be different if it were like a general Iraq/foreign policy thread. Paul is fairly unique there and its natural for him to come up.

But how does a thread about Joe Biden turn into yet another Paul thread?

[Mr. Shaman]

There are a lot of things to like about Biden. Though I don't agree with him on all the issues.....
Name some (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm)..........

[Mr. Shaman]

I think Biden is a logical candidate for Secretary of State. He's the only one with a real SOLUTION for Iraq.
....Or, quite-possibly Secretary of Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet#Current_Cabinet).

[Popeye]

Biden is an interesting guy, obviously intelligent, though I don't agree with him on everything, I like him a lot. I'm not sure why he hasn't caught on, but that hair, or lack of it, doesn't help.

He also says, "The whole notion that the surge is working is a fantasy". Since there has been no progress, on a political level, the success is temporary.

http://www.joebiden.com/newscenter/pressreleases?id=0228

[TVoffBrainOn]

....Or, quite-possibly Secretary of Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet#Current_Cabinet).

Biden would've been Secretary of State if Kerry had won. Kerry had already recruited him. Sourced from Joe Biden's book.

[Bunz]

I am one who will vote for him in my state primaries
It wont matter though with our current partisan controlled primary system. It is a shame that the amount of money one can raise controls how much air time they get despite the value of thier views and policies.