Clinton & Biden stand out in debate!

[USMC the Almighty]

I know you guys are already off topic, but I just wanted to say something about these "debates" on both sides.

They are pretty meaningless when it all comes down to it. You have cattle calls of 10 people giving 30 second solutions to the Iraq War or Social Security or health care. Then you've got these self-centered moderators interfering with the discussions while simultaneously asking mostly inane and pointless questions. For instance, at the end of the Republican debate one of the moderators asked what the candidates thought of Hilary being in the White House. Questions like this are an incredible waste of time. You're asking what a panel of Republicans think about Hilary, a liberal Democrat, being President -- of course they're all going to say they don't like the proposition.

What is really needed and what the Americans people deserve is for real dialogue about the issues. This way, candidates couldn't get away with their absence of solutions and substitution of pure rhetoric due to the 30 second time constrictions.

Personally, I would like to see candidates, no more than 4 at a time, sit down for an hour and a half and ask each other questions. A timekeeper but no moderator, and the candidates have time to elaborate on exactly what they would do. This kind of resembles the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where there were 7 3-hour long debates. Candidates are forced to lay it all out there, and that's what Americans need to see.

 

[michaelr]

I know you guys are already off topic, but I just wanted to say something about these "debates" on both sides.

They are pretty meaningless when it all comes down to it. You have cattle calls of 10 people giving 30 second solutions to the Iraq War or Social Security or health care. Then you've got these self-centered moderators interfering with the discussions while simultaneously asking mostly inane and pointless questions. For instance, at the end of the Republican debate one of the moderators asked what the candidates thought of Hilary being in the White House. Questions like this are an incredible waste of time. You're asking what a panel of Republicans think about Hilary, a liberal Democrat, being President -- of course they're all going to say they don't like the proposition.

What is really needed and what the Americans people deserve is for real dialogue about the issues. This way, candidates couldn't get away with their absence of solutions and substitution of pure rhetoric due to the 30 second time constrictions.

Personally, I would like to see candidates, no more than 4 at a time, sit down for an hour and a half and ask each other questions. A timekeeper but no moderator, and the candidates have time to elaborate on exactly what they would do. This kind of resembles the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where there were 7 3-hour long debates. Candidates are forced to lay it all out there, and that's what Americans need to see.

I would like to see that . Your also correct about the moderators. If the maintain status quo, then I think after a question is asked, all the candidates should be able the SAME question.

 

[OPGhostdog]

HEY......Lets ALL stop a minute to think. Just in case that you have
forgotten USMC, Everyone is entitle to express their opinions regardless
to if one agrees or dis-agree. Situations like we are talking about here
isn't solving the problems nowhere.

To me Politics is a game that's to be played, and as we all know there
is rules & guidelines for playing the game. You are speaking about
Moderators. Where will these Moderators be picked from, and who will
be the ones to pick them?

However I think we all (the ones with good senses) can see that we
went into Iraq for the wrong reason, and now the US Government is
to embarrassed to admit that they made a mistake. So now we have
the Democrats-vs-The Republicians over who's fault is it that we're
in the Middle East?

The up-coming Presidential Election will show exactly how things will
turn out, but don't forget there is other political parties that can be
powerful enough to over rule the Dems & Republicians. In closing can
any of you guess why this can happen? Because there is others who
don't agree with the Democrats & Republiicians BS.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Your also correct about the moderators. If the maintain status quo, then I think after a question is asked, all the candidates should be able the SAME question.

That's true. What really pisses me off is the, "Senator McCain, please tell us how you would deal with healthcare if you were president. 30 seconds."

Now how the hell can anyone solve provide any real solution in 30 seconds? Americans deserve a real dialogue and these debates do not provide it.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

HEY......Lets ALL stop a minute to think. Just in case that you have
forgotten USMC, Everyone is entitle to express their opinions regardless
to if one agrees or dis-agree. Situations like we are talking about here
isn't solving the problems nowhere.

I really do not know what you are trying to get at. Everyone is entitled to their opinion -- of course, when did I say to the contrary? In fact what I am advocating allows for candidates to express their opinions more thoroughly so you're not really making much sense.

To me Politics is a game that's to be played, and as we all know there
is rules & guidelines for playing the game. You are speaking about
Moderators. Where will these Moderators be picked from, and who will
be the ones to pick them?

I don't want Moderators at all who ask these inane questions. I want the candidates themselves to spur the dialogue. Perhaps there can be timekeepers (who make sure the candidates don't go over say, a 15 minute time limit rather than 30 seconds).

However I think we all (the ones with good senses) can see that we
went into Iraq for the wrong reason, and now the US Government is
to embarrassed to admit that they made a mistake. So now we have
the Democrats-vs-The Republicians over who's fault is it that we're
in the Middle East?

What does this have to do w/ anything?

 

[dls]

Tell me again why the Democrats couldn't have continually sent bills that would have allowed just enough funds to bring our troops home and not a dime more? They could have attached instructions demanding this. And if Bush wanted to veto them fine, send another one and tell the people that Bush is playing chicken with the troops' welfare and they (Congress) are not going to budge.

The Democrats proved how they lack backbone.

They did exactly what had planned. The first bill with time lines knowing it would get vetoed. Then the next with the pork they were after knowing the Pres. would sign it to get the funding for the troops. The whole lot of them make it increasingly hard to be a proud American. Our unfortunate men and women in Iraq are nothing but political pawns to these power brokers. The rest of us are just played as suckers.
It's all about the money don't ever think differently.

 

[michaelr]

They did exactly what had planned. The first bill with time lines knowing it would get vetoed. Then the next with the pork they were after knowing the Pres. would sign it to get the funding for the troops. The whole lot of them make it increasingly hard to be a proud American. Our unfortunate men and women in Iraq are nothing but political pawns to these power brokers. The rest of us are just played as suckers.
It's all about the money don't ever think differently.

I could not have said it any better.

 

[top gun]

I would do just about anything to bring Americans home from Iraq. However, I don't think that any of the Democrats running will do that. They will not want their party to look week. If they do bring any home, they will be combat troops only, that is not a good idea. Remember Saigon 1975? We are building fourteen permanent bases along with an embassy the size of a small town. This war(i usually call it "this mess") will continue for many years to come. Only a strong willed president will be able to do any thing about it.
As far as votes go, they have the option to send the same bill time and time again until it gets signed. Now they want to wait to see what happens in Sept. BS! How many more will have to die or kill until then. The truth of the matter is, the surge isn't working, will not work, and it will take generations until Iraq becomes stable again, not till Sept.

I totally agree that this surge... any surge will never work. But we still come back to the bottom line which is... which side is more likely to bring the troops home sooner? Then pick a candidate. And then tell me he or she has a reasonable chance at winning.

Who would that be in your opinion?

 

[top gun]

They did exactly what had planned. The first bill with time lines knowing it would get vetoed. Then the next with the pork they were after knowing the Pres. would sign it to get the funding for the troops. The whole lot of them make it increasingly hard to be a proud American. Our unfortunate men and women in Iraq are nothing but political pawns to these power brokers. The rest of us are just played as suckers.
It's all about the money don't ever think differently.

It's a difficult situation and I can understand how someone might think you could just force the matter but it's not really like that. I think Biden said it best... Biden responded... Come on folks, the Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate. We need a Democratic President to end this war or 66 votes in the Senate.

The thought of Bush not bringing the troops home until the casualties increased significantly is a real possibility. I think those who voted against the funding were trying in their way to send a message that if elected they would end it quickly but Biden (the only one on the stage that voted to continue funding) felt you needed to have the votes or the presidency to actually end it BEFORE you took away funding to troops in the field. Different strategies to trying to win the presidentcy. Because let's face it. If the democrats don't win either the presidentcy or pick up about 16 more seats in Congress... this occupation may drag on for at least another 4 years after the election.

 

[michaelr]

I totally agree that this surge... any surge will never work. But we still come back to the bottom line which is... which side is more likely to bring the troops home sooner? Then pick a candidate. And then tell me he or she has a reasonable chance at winning.

Who would that be in your opinion?

I am pretty much an old fashioned type. I am also a Independent, however I vote a little more republican then I do Democrat. I can see only one person that will get us out of this mess and bring a little sanity back to our country, that would be Ron Paul.

 

[top gun]

I know you guys are already off topic, but I just wanted to say something about these "debates" on both sides.

They are pretty meaningless when it all comes down to it. You have cattle calls of 10 people giving 30 second solutions to the Iraq War or Social Security or health care. Then you've got these self-centered moderators interfering with the discussions while simultaneously asking mostly inane and pointless questions. For instance, at the end of the Republican debate one of the moderators asked what the candidates thought of Hilary being in the White House. Questions like this are an incredible waste of time. You're asking what a panel of Republicans think about Hilary, a liberal Democrat, being President -- of course they're all going to say they don't like the proposition.

What is really needed and what the Americans people deserve is for real dialogue about the issues. This way, candidates couldn't get away with their absence of solutions and substitution of pure rhetoric due to the 30 second time constrictions.

Personally, I would like to see candidates, no more than 4 at a time, sit down for an hour and a half and ask each other questions. A timekeeper but no moderator, and the candidates have time to elaborate on exactly what they would do. This kind of resembles the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where there were 7 3-hour long debates. Candidates are forced to lay it all out there, and that's what Americans need to see.

I don't disagree that the debates are more political theater than substance. But you know the really sad thing? There are a lot of people that eat it up. They actually like the sound bite candidate.

The other thing is though, right now there are just too damn many candidates. That will willow down.

And once you get someone in mind or you go to a few different candidates appearances you get a lot more in depth information. Also their websites often have much more specific information on their position and proposals on issues.

We'll get there as time marches on... we're just a long way out right now.

 

[dls]

Because let's face it. If the democrats don't win either the presidentcy or pick up about 16 more seats in Congress... this occupation may drag on for at least another 4 years after the election.

The war isn't the only thing to consider when voting in the upcoming election. I for one don't agree with socialist values (lack of values) proposed by what appears to be the Democratic front runner.
An immediate pull out in Iraq would lead to a blood bath. We started this mess (both Republican and Democratic parties) we need to assure stability before we pull the troops out IMO.

 

[michaelr]

The war isn't the only thing to consider when voting in the upcoming election. I for one don't agree with socialist values (lack of values) proposed by what appears to be the Democratic front runner.
An immediate pull out in Iraq would lead to a blood bath. We started this mess (both Republican and Democratic parties) we need to assure stability before we pull the troops out IMO.

We have been there for more than 4 years now. Things continue to get worse and worse. We can leave today and let the Iraqi's sort this mess out for themselves. We also need to hold the sponsors of this mess to justice. This was nothing more than a war of aggression, that in it self is a war crime. Both parties are responsible, and changes are needed with both.
I watched all of the debates for both parties. All of the candidates sounded the same. They try to look like they are against the war, or how it was conducted. BS! They all want to nuke Iran, they all sound like mouth pieces for Israel. We need better, we sure as hell deserve better.

 

[top gun]

The war isn't the only thing to consider when voting in the upcoming election. I for one don't agree with socialist values (lack of values) proposed by what appears to be the Democratic front runner.
An immediate pull out in Iraq would lead to a blood bath. We started this mess (both Republican and Democratic parties) we need to assure stability before we pull the troops out IMO.

I think that's true. But the Republicans hold no more moral high ground and have no more values than the Democrats. From Mark Foley to Scooter Libby and on and on the problems are there just as much as anywhere. And the Republican front runner is pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-gun control himself.

I'll agree when a Republican like Mark Foley or Ted Haggart comes out of the closet it gets highlighted. But that's because the bigotry is so intense against any group that does not toe the Christian conservative line they deserve the spotlight when they get caught up in a hypocritical situation.

As far as Iraq goes. There doesn't have to be an immediate pull out. But even if we started today, a phased redeployment would have major American forces in Iraq over 5 probably closer to 6 full years in total. That's a long time.

Even the longest journey begins with the first step my friend. We need a Democratic President that will allow us to take that first step.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What the hell is a "phased redeployment"?