Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

[Albinonewt]

Without going into the politics of the thing some things really suprised me.

1) They HATE Lieberman. I mean, here's a guy that was almost Vice President a few years ago and the audience (all or mostly Democratic) HATES HIS STUNKING RAT GUTS. He would have done better with me in the audience. That kind of suprised me.

2) All the candidates are making a big mistake by talking about the economy and foreign polivy in absolutes at this point. The election is still a very very long way away. They're not thinking about that though, they're thinking is very short sighted. What will they do if in the next 12 months something changes? Something will change in the next 12 months and then what will they say? The economy could improve in 12 months and then they'll be speechless. Iraq could go well and they'll have nothing to say. They are taking a serious gamble with what they're doing and the odds don't look good for them.

[Kevmaster]

yep...their constant bashing of EVERYTHING bush does is kind of scaring me for their sake. They are taking a HUGE gamble that it will continue to suck...and what happens if it HAPPENS to get better? Maybe they'll say its because they brought up the critical issues?

[-Carnifex-]

Re: Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Without going into the politics of the thing some things really suprised me.

1) They HATE Lieberman. I mean, here's a guy that was almost Vice President a few years ago and the audience (all or mostly Democratic) HATES HIS STUNKING RAT GUTS. He would have done better with me in the audience. That kind of suprised me.

2) All the candidates are making a big mistake by talking about the economy and foreign polivy in absolutes at this point. The election is still a very very long way away. They're not thinking about that though, they're thinking is very short sighted. What will they do if in the next 12 months something changes? Something will change in the next 12 months and then what will they say? The economy could improve in 12 months and then they'll be speechless. Iraq could go well and they'll have nothing to say. They are taking a serious gamble with what they're doing and the odds don't look good for them.

They could always change their plans assuming something will happen with the economy, but I highly doubt anything will (On G.W.'s part anyway).

Iraq isn't going well, and I highly doubt it will suddenly turn around.

[Collegeboy]

There is no chance that Iraq qill get better, so they are not taking a chance there.

There is hardly any chance of Bush's tax cuts to work, so they are not taking any chances there.

[madgoat33]

Originally posted by Kevmaster
yep...their constant bashing of EVERYTHING bush does is kind of scaring me for their sake. They are taking a HUGE gamble that it will continue to suck...and what happens if it HAPPENS to get better? Maybe they'll say its because they brought up the critical issues?

Actually, that is a GREAT strategy to be taking, because EVERY day on the news there is another report of a soldier dying or being injured in Iraq. NOT to mention this news about 20,000 soldiers having to stay another year i believe...Let's face it, you can't exactly call our office completly competant can u? "There are biological weapons in Iraq" did they ever find any? Has anyone noticed how intellictual bush's speaches are?~whats intellictual? I have to say, I deffinatly do not sleep well at night knowing that man controls our country...especially since he can declare war without congress.....

[Kevmaster]

mad goat.... its 8 days now without a combat [death]. pretty damn good. i hope it continues, although sadly, it prolly wont

just fyi, its ~150,000 combined forces soldiers there for at least a year....prolly about 100-120,000 of whom will be US

Id say they've done alright by me. Militarily, they've toppled two corrupt regimes in unprecidented speed. Remember Russia in Afganistan just 15 years ago? Slaughter for the Russians. We've done MUCH better. On the economy, its been slow. I'll give them that. However, the president is not the sole cause of a strong and poor economy

there were, im 95% confident, biological/chemical weapons in iraq, at the start of the conflict. The UN and France even admit this. In numberous statements by their top representatives in 2002 and 2003, they claim high probabilities of those mentioned programs. Nobody high up doubts they were there. And...if Bush wasn't confident they were there, wouldnt he have been wise to plant some along the way that we could find? even if he's not the brightest guy, his staff has some powerhouses that would surely have come up with that idea.

dammit...i told myself never again
** casualty changed to death after rereading article and seeing post below

[Restola]

Let's not bring up the justification for the war, thats not really the topic here.




Someday the Democratic Party wont simply be hatefully reacting to whatever the Republicans are doing. Maybe then they can be taken seriously.

But we still need to realize two things:

1. Both parties are basicly the same.

2. Both parties are basicly the same.

Government will NEVER decrease in size with either party in control.

[Konigballer]

Kevmaster what are you talking about, six american soldiers were wounded in a carbombing today in Iraq. Wounded are counted as casualties too, not just KIA. The only reason they didnt die was luck.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Restola
Let's not bring up the justification for the war, thats not really the topic here.




Someday the Democratic Party wont simply be hatefully reacting to whatever the Republicans are doing. Maybe then they can be taken seriously.

But we still need to realize two things:

1. Both parties are basicly the same.

2. Both parties are basicly the same.

Government will NEVER decrease in size with either party in control.

Someday the Republican Party wont simply be hatefully reacting to whatever the Democrates are doing. Maybe then they can be taken seriously.

[nastymag]

Well after studying about the economy all day ... if the economy gets any better it will only be temporary.

i really think that one of these Candidates should think about what the would do with Social Security , thats a mandatory spending of the budget, and right now all the money we pay from SS go to the Budget but the government can reallocate the money ( i am having trouple putting into words) to anything else, but it still has to pay for people who on SS. So in other words every SS dollar spent comes from the whole budget. it would be alot better if all the money from SS goes into its own little money pot... then comes out of that one spent , instead of dipping into the whole budget. The reason why this is importent is because the baby boomers ar starting to retire , and that if how many of them there are ... wow our SS spending is going to go thrue the roof , and others things from the budget will get cut.


oops i was ranting

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Someday the Republican Party wont simply be hatefully reacting to whatever the Democrates are doing. Maybe then they can be taken seriously.

That's not the case right now, if for no other reason then they control both houses of congress and the white house, so it is they who are iniating and the democrats who are reacting

[Albinonewt]

Re: Re: Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


They could always change their plans assuming something will happen with the economy, but I highly doubt anything will (On G.W.'s part anyway).

Iraq isn't going well, and I highly doubt it will suddenly turn around.

Hold on, the economy has improved considerably over the summer, with GDP growth at 3.1% Now, the jobs rate has not picked up considerably (although it has just started showing signs of life) so the economy isn't fixed yet, but it's shown signs of life. If the current trend continues then the Democrats have pinned themselves into a corner. It seems a poor idea to me to bank on a current trend reversing itself and staying reversed for the next 12 months

As for Iraq, it frankly is going pretty well everywhere but in Central Iraq, where the insurgency is. However, with no super powers backing the insurgents they will ventually just run out of guys and guns. It's already begeinning to happen. What CNN doesn't show us when it reports on Iraq is that for every Amrican death there are 15 dead insurgents and hundreds of weapons captured. They simply won't be able to slug it out forever. The fact that it's been a week since an American died is extremely positive news. Now, the recontruction has not gone extremely well in Central Iraq and I can't for the life of me figure out why nobody planned it better, but in a year I can't imagine that ZERO progress will have been made. A year is a long time.

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention from watching the debate. There were a lot of protesters in the audience, and every once in a while of them would pop up and shout something. I could never really understand what they were saying, but Al Sharpton took every opportunity to jump in take the spotlight for a moment. Sharpton is many things, but a poor orator he is not.

[Marchborne]

Re: Re: Re: Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

Originally posted by Albinonewt

Now, the recontruction has not gone extremely well in Central Iraq and I can't for the life of me figure out why nobody planned it better, but in a year I can't imagine that ZERO progress will have been made. A year is a long time.

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention from watching the debate. There were a lot of protesters in the audience, and every once in a while of them would pop up and shout something. I could never really understand what they were saying, but Al Sharpton took every opportunity to jump in take the spotlight for a moment. Sharpton is many things, but a poor orator he is not.

Neeeeewwwwt! Sorry I dodn't get to hang with you guys Sunday night at Shatnerball.

On the reconstruction: I know this sounds like stating the obvious, but the concept of rebuilding an entire country's economy, civil society and government is a HUGE undertaking. My wife just finished her master's in a somewhat esoteric field: conflict analysis and resolution. This included peacekeeping studies, as well as civil reconstruction. I know other folks on other threads have said this, but two specific examples come to mind: Germany and Japan after WWII. I respectfully disagree with Collegeboy,in that progress will be made. Progress will also be seen before the election. However, it may not make too much of an impact, as by it's very nature, such progress is not the kind you can point to on camera and make decent soundbites.

On Sharpton: I don't know about orator, maybe "cagey opportunist?"

[Collegeboy]

What is the difference between WWII Japan, WWII Germany, and Iraq now?

Look at my responses to why I was and still am against this war in Iraq. You will see the answer to the above question and why you can not compare the three.

Read the book "Soul of Battle" by Victor David Hanson.

[Albinonewt]

Hehe,

Yeah, Sunday was a good time, it's too bad we missed you there

I'm not Sharpton fan, but man that guy can talk and he sure knows how to work a crowd.

Rebuilding Iraq is very important work and it really should be done. Frankly though, rebuilding I don't think is really the right word, since that implies that it was fine before we broke it. We certainly did do some damage to that country and saying otherwise isn't true, BUT, it wasn't exactly a thirving metropolis before we got there. I think it is argueable that rebuilding Iraq is as or more important then the reconstruction of Germany and Japan.

But regardless of what anyone thinks about the reconstruction, the point remains that it is a huge gamble to bank your campaign for president on the assumption that no progree will be made there at all, ever