The ..2012.... Political thread
-
For the curious and our international friends...... presidents have term limits...they can only serve two terms (8 years). The constitution was amended after Roosevelt served 4 terms in office. Congressman (house of representatives) have two year terms, while the senate has a six year term. Amending the constitution would also be required to change these. You need a 2/3 majority of the states' vote to amend the constitution. Not easy to do....I'm guessing that there are only 25 or 26 amendments since the US' inception.
-
In case some is interested, there are elections in Spain in March 9th. Presidential-congress elections, we only have one. The party with more congressists elects the presidents, if they have more than half of the congressists, if not they need upports of minor parties. And tonight there's a debate too in TV between the two "leaders" : of the majors parties : with polls kind of tied. P.S. You know no-one countrie is "safe", and no-one can make it safe. Security is just an illusion. Maybe the only way of make it safe is letting know the other that you can destroy them too. And that's the nuclear era. That's why so many countries want to have nukes. But I don't think that make the world very "safe". And if the agressor "accept" to be destroyed too... then there's just no way of be safe. In the 80s the USSR and the USA got enough nukes to destroy the world 80 times, and they reduced it to 40 times or so.
-
jaipur:
mustangsally10:
[ just need to listen more carefully...he said he intends to protect our country by having the largest and most efficiently run military in the world. Check it out for yourself..that's the best way
If I may? how does one get the "largest and most efficiently run military in the world? If the military is already having difficulty getting individuals to join and the d r a f t seems to be unlikely, Obama hasn't explained how that will be accomplished. Seems to me that is where jennylp is going. This is an example why many voters believe obama is all rhetoric and nothing more.
Here is specific quote from transcipt from debate 2/21/08 where Obama talks about protecting our country: BROWN: Senator Obama? OBAMA: I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was prepared to be commander-in-chief. (APPLAUSE) My number one job as president will be to keep the American people safe. I will do whatever is required to accomplish that. I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm. Now, that involves maintaining the strongest military on earth, which means that we are training our troops properly and equipping them properly, and putting them on proper rotations. And there are an awful lot of families here in Texas who have been burdened under two and three and four tours because of the poor planning of the current commander-in-chief, and that will end when I am president. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: But it also means using our military wisely. And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. And I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. (APPLAUSE) Now, that has consequences -- that has significant consequences, because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001. so Obama talks about training the military properly, equipping them properly, proper rotation and most important using them wisely, all things that are not being done now-that should help recuitment. Information is all out there people are just unwilling to seek it.
-
mustangsally10:
Here are bu$h and Powell lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction while wearing their flag lapel pins:
I can't believe you're still beating that dead horse. What exactly is your definition of "lying"? Who told this "lie"? "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." Sound like Dick Cheney? No, it was Ted Kennedy on September 27, 2002 How about this whopper? "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Who said that? Condoleezza Rice? No, it was Al Gore in 2002 Who is this "liar"? "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." Colin Powell, maybe? Try Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, in April of 2003 Who is this duplicitous creature? "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." George Bush at the UN? No, it was Madeleine Albright in 1998. How about one more dishonest coot? "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Now, that one must be George Bush, right? Sorry, Sally. It was your precious Prevaricator in Chief, Bill Clinton in 1998. So, it turns out Bush and Powell are in a pretty good company of "liars", eh?
-
Don't forget politics is all about lying, here, there and everywhere. The big problem is that it works for winning.
-
The middle east has been a threat for a long time. I am not a huge fan of Bill Clinton (much better than bu$h) but he did recognize that threat and took precaution. Bush ignored threats that OBL was going to attack us and we had 9/11 (information is everywhere-do your own work). Then he attacked a country that was not involved in the attacks using the excuse of WMD when at that time it had been proven that they did not have WMD...it was for oil. That is common knowledge now-the world knows.
-
Yellow_Submarine_Sandwich:
Anyone hear that Ralph Nader is running again? Thats one more thing that makes me laugh about this election.
Michael Moore must really be pleased. He first supported him for the last election, then switch to Kerry. I think there is a Michael Moore curse - it seems anyone he supports, looses. I wonder if he can control himself to keep his views & who he supports to himself : . . . . Not very likely
-
I' read the debate before posting here. Obama is not being specific enough from what I see. It's intentionally vague. The military did training (and still does) long before this. What is he proposing that is different? I'm not sure if it is...and that's the rub I have and I would guess others have too.
-
CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama. The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya. The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa. "Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of 'shameful offensive fear-mongering' for circulating the snap. Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed." Developing...
-
21st Century Paul:
In case some is interested, there are elections in Spain in March 9th. Presidential-congress elections, we only have one. The party with more congressists elects the presidents, if they have more than half of the congressists, if not they need upports of minor parties. And tonight there's a debate too in TV between the two "leaders" : of the majors parties : with polls kind of tied. P.S. You know no-one countrie is "safe", and no-one can make it safe. Security is just an illusion. Maybe the only way of make it safe is letting know the other that you can destroy them too. And that's the nuclear era. That's why so many countries want to have nukes. But I don't think that make the world very "safe". And if the agressor "accept" to be destroyed too... then there's just no way of be safe. In the 80s the USSR and the USA got enough nukes to destroy the world 80 times, and they reduced it to 40 times or so.
That was part of the cold war strategy as you suggested. It seems to have worked for nearly half a century despite the other members of the nuke club: england, france, india, pakistan, china, israel. We're all still here I'm curious how your debates will go...it sounds like you guys are split amongst candidates.
-
peacetrain:
PHILLIP:
Your comment that if your white you can't understand is in itself a racist comment. You just lost all credibility. :
Lol! Your mind is a joke and you are kidding no one! It's amazing how the last stand of so many people on racism is to say that if it exists, the people who say it does must be racist for saying so! Your comments, Phillip, are completely laughable, except they're also sad.
That's not what I said at all. You are the one that's laughable. I think this discussion is way over your head.
-
Here in Spain, the real thing candidates want is not fighting against the other but making vote the people that doesn't vote. That's the real point. Is not about taking votes from the other side but encourage the votes "from your side" to really happen. In Spain if more of the 70% people vote, the left wins. And in less of the 70% people vote the right wins. So maybe there it's kind of the same...
-
jaipur:
I' read the debate before posting here. Obama is not being specific enough from what I see. It's intentionally vague. The military did training (and still does) long before this. What is he proposing that is different? I'm not sure if it is...and that's the rub I have and I would guess others have too.
I assumed all knew that too frequent troop rotations to Iraq have been controversial for a couple of years. Here is link with info re congress trying to change that as troops are stressed http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/11/senators-prevent-vote-on-us-troop-rotation-changes/ I also assumed everyone knew about the controversy re troops being ill equipped and having to purchase their own body armour etc: Here is link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm The military has been mismanaged and Obama with his statements above says that he will make sure military is properly managed and wisely used. Sorry, I assumed too much
-
jaipur:
mustangsally10:
[ just need to listen more carefully...he said he intends to protect our country by having the largest and most efficiently run military in the world. Check it out for yourself..that's the best way
If I may? how does one get the "largest and most efficiently run military in the world? If the military is already having difficulty getting individuals to join and the d r a f t seems to be unlikely, Obama hasn't explained how that will be accomplished. Seems to me that is where jennylp is going. This is an example why many voters believe obama is all rhetoric and nothing more.
Yes you may.....and thank you. That is exactly what I have been trying to say.......he has given me nothing yet......I know nothing about him and so far he has done nothing to help his cause. And for Obama supporters.....don't tell me to read or listen to him......been there, dont that. I am hoping tomorrow night is different.
-
I think the military (and the CIA) will do everything it can to keep Obama out of the White House. I just wonder how far they will go.
-
PHILLIP:
I think the military (and the CIA) will do everything it can to keep Obama out of the White House. I just wonder how far they will go.
I don't agree. They are not that powerful The people would rise up against any hint of a military type of government Phillip - please promise that you make peace with Peace Train even if all two of you can do is agree to disagree. I'm not taking sides - you just post more frequently that Peace Train. We all need to stand for peace and live up to that name.
-
Andy_Shofar:
PHILLIP:
I think the military (and the CIA) will do everything it can to keep Obama out of the White House. I just wonder how far they will go.
I don't agree. They are not that powerful The people would rise up against any hint of a military type of government Phillip - please promise that you make peace with Peace Train even if all two of you can do is agree to disagree. I'm not taking sides - you just post more frequently that Peace Train. We all need to stand for peace and live up to that name.
I'm not saying a military style government, but the military and the CIA have alot invested in Iraq, and they are not going to let someone who promises a full pullout( though I think he will change his position before the election) as commander in chief. They will do everything to get McCain in there if Obama is the democrat nominee. As for peacetrain, he/she likes to distort what I meant, but he/she is a student so I don't take much stock in his/her opinion. the engine's not quite running.
-
mustangsally10:
jaipur:
I' read the debate before posting here. Obama is not being specific enough from what I see. It's intentionally vague. The military did training (and still does) long before this. What is he proposing that is different? I'm not sure if it is...and that's the rub I have and I would guess others have too.
I assumed all knew that too frequent troop rotations to Iraq have been controversial for a couple of years. Here is link with info re congress trying to change that as troops are stressed http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/11/senators-prevent-vote-on-us-troop-rotation-changes/ Rotations happen because there aren't enough mainstream military (hence the use of the national guard). I'm aware of the controversy. I also assumed everyone knew about the controversy re troops being ill equipped and having to purchase their own body armour etc: Here is link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm I'm aware of this too. Making a blanket statement they will be well equip I'm afraid simply isn't enough for me. The military has been mismanaged and Obama with his statements above says that he will make sure military is properly managed and wisely used. Sorry, I assumed too much
And this is my point exactly.....he doesn't indicate how he will do so. this is what some of us are looking for from him.
-
JennyLP:
jaipur:
mustangsally10:
[ just need to listen more carefully...he said he intends to protect our country by having the largest and most efficiently run military in the world. Check it out for yourself..that's the best way
If I may? how does one get the "largest and most efficiently run military in the world? If the military is already having difficulty getting individuals to join and the d r a f t seems to be unlikely, Obama hasn't explained how that will be accomplished. Seems to me that is where jennylp is going. This is an example why many voters believe obama is all rhetoric and nothing more.
Yes you may.....and thank you. That is exactly what I have been trying to say.......he has given me nothing yet......I know nothing about him and so far he has done nothing to help his cause. And for Obama supporters.....don't tell me to read or listen to him......been there, dont that. I am hoping tomorrow night is different.
you're welcome. I understand some voters are satisified with what he has said so far. For some other voters, more is needed. Nothing wrong with either one of those.
-
PHILLIP:
Andy_Shofar:
PHILLIP:
I think the military (and the CIA) will do everything it can to keep Obama out of the White House. I just wonder how far they will go.
I don't agree. They are not that powerful The people would rise up against any hint of a military type of government Phillip - please promise that you make peace with Peace Train even if all two of you can do is agree to disagree. I'm not taking sides - you just post more frequently that Peace Train. We all need to stand for peace and live up to that name.
I'm not saying a military style government, but the military and the CIA have alot invested in Iraq, and they are not going to let someone who promises a full pullout( though I think he will change his position before the election) as commander in chief. They will do everything to get McCain in there if Obama is the democrat nominee. As for peacetrain, he/she likes to distort what I meant, but he/she is a student so I don't take much stock in his/her opinion. the engine's not quite running.
I still don't agree the military has had its ups & downs depending upon the leadership. When the Democrats controlled the Congress & Senate while Bill Clinton was President - the military was weakened and even made more vunerable (case in point USS Cole). Bill Clinton made very big military cuts - it was considered a luxary for the Navy to refuel at sea in some semi-unfriendly nations. The oilers used to refuel at sea were junked following his directive, & the rest is history.