2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Hammer Of The Gods]

Hm. Rand (white male) or Walker (white male). You are reinforcing what I've been saying, which is only a white male has a chance to head the Republican ticket. The two minorities you list are both relegated to the role of expandng the appeal of yet another white male at the head of the Republican ticket. When will a Rubio or Carson actually have a chance to be the Republican standard bearer in a presidential election?

Do you just not want a White Republican in office? or a Republican at all? I'm confused by the hang up on the " white male" deal.

I think Carson is in the sleeper role to be honest, similar to Herman Cain, unless he's got some dirt they can dig up. Cruz, Rubio, they add a positive to the conversation, but i do agree with you, not sure they have 'it' just yet.

The dreaded white male's ...Walker is a serious contender, Rand Paul, who is my pick needs to get his temper/ego in check, and Jeb (vomit) are serious contenders in my opinion.

In terms of party's ' Bush' and 'Clinton' carry a lot of weight for some reason.

I'm being general when I say this...

Democrats have good idea, they just don't work in the United States.

Republicans have good ideas, just nobody wants to try them.

 

[wizards8507]

I think Carson is in the sleeper role to be honest, similar to Herman Cain, unless he's got some dirt they can dig up.

Carson eliminated himself when he said that he knows homosexuality is a choice because sometimes people go in prison straight and come out gay. You can't say things like that and be taken seriously as a national candidate.

In terms of party's ' Bush' and 'Clinton' carry a lot of weight for some reason.

Money. Money is the reason. Hillary seems to be an equal opportunity bribe-taker, and Bush is a puppet of the Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

Carson eliminated himself when he said that he knows homosexuality is a choice because sometimes people go in prison straight and come out gay. You can't say things like that and be taken seriously as a national candidate.

Oh man! I totally forgot about that, lol. Some things you just can't say, whether you think it not.

 

[EddytoNow]

Do you just not want a White Republican in office? or a Republican at all? I'm confused by the hang up on the " white male" deal....

I have no objection to a moderate Republican, but the candidates getting all the attention are the extremists in the party. Let me hear more about what you stand for and less about what you oppose. If you want to dismantle social security or medicare, what is your plan to replace it. If you oppose a path to citizenship for immigrants, what is your plan for the millions of immigrants who are already here. If you oppose big government, how would you fund the military, law enforcement, education, etc.? If you want the country to follow the principles of Christianity, what is your plan for the millions of Americans who are not Christians? Do you have a plan for the LGBT community other than denying them the rights that everyone else has? If you want more money in the hands of the wealthy, what do you plan to do with the unemployed and underemployed? So my hang up with the white male deal is more a reflection on who is excluded by Republican policies and practices. When I see a representative sampling of non-Christians at your conventions, I will begin to believe that they are part of your plan. When I see a representative sampling of LGBT at your convention, I will begin to believe that your policies don't discriminate against them. When I see a representative sampling (not one or two self-proclaimed candidates) of blacks and Hispanics at your convention, I will believe that you welcome them with open arms. When public employees are portrayed as the civil servants they are and not as someone undeserving of a job and a decent income, I will begin to believe that they are welcome in your party.

The white male deal is just a symbol of the Republican Party's exclusionary policies. It's not the presence of white males in the party that bothers me. It's the absence of other faces.

 

[RDU Irish]

Possible presidential candidates, 2016 - Ballotpedia

Could you scroll down this list and tell me which party is loaded with bigots again?

 

[wizards8507]

I have no objection to a moderate Republican, but the candidates getting all the attention are the extremists in the party. Let me hear more about what you stand for and less about what you oppose.

They're answering those questions but your head is too far in the sand to listen.

If you want to dismantle social security or medicare, what is your plan to replace it.

1. I don't think I've heard any candidate say they want to dismantle social security or medicare. Please provide a source.

2. Allow people to keep their own money and invest it as they see fit. Leave the existing system in place for anyone who wants it, but allow people to opt out. If someone opts out, risks their money in the market, and loses it due to a downturn, that's his own fault. Nobody is robbing seniors of anything or pushing granny off a cliff because the entire thing is optional.

If you oppose a path to citizenship for immigrants, what is your plan for the millions of immigrants who are already here.

"Extremist" Marco Rubio was one of the "Gang of Eight" who wrote the comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2013, along with four democrats, John McCain, and Lindsey Grahamnesty. Hardly bastions of conservatism.

Immigration’s Gang of 8: Who are they? - The Washington Post

Even MSNBC acknowledges that "extremist" Ted Cruz hasn't ruled out legal status for illegal aliens currently in the country. Cruz' objection to Obama's executive action on amnesty is not that it's a bad idea per se, but that the method by which Obama went about it is unconstitutional (which it is).

Ted Cruz hasn't ruled out legal status for undocumented immigrants | MSNBC

"Extremist" Rand Paul has also said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to obtain legal status.

Sen. Rand Paul: Illegal immigrants should be allowed to obtain legal status - The Washington Post

If you oppose big government, how would you fund the military, law enforcement, education, etc.?

1. Military - Nobody has argued that national defense is an illegitimate function of the federal government. Nobody.

2. Law enforcement and education - These functions are much more effective and efficient when run at the state and local level. "One size fits all" policies like Common Core or the nationalization of police (as Al Sharpton has been calling for recently) are doomed to fail because one size does not fit all. Rural Montana has much different education and law enforcement needs than East Harlem. Further, there's far more money wasted in the various levels of bureaucracy when things are funded from DC.

If you want the country to follow the principles of Christianity, what is your plan for the millions of Americans who are not Christians?

Those principles have their roots in Christianity but have universal application. "Love thy neighbor" is universal. Nobody is saying "go to church and worship Jesus." I don't think there's been a single policy proposal from any candidate that mandates any kind of Christian worldview. Please provide a source if you disagree.

Do you have a plan for the LGBT community other than denying them the rights that everyone else has?

Irrelevant. Marriage is not a federal issue so the Office of the President should have no say in the matter whatsoever. It's a matter for the states and the courts.

Remind me who signed the Defense of Marriage Act? Right, William Jefferson "BJ" Clinton, noted Republican extremist.

If you want more money in the hands of the wealthy, what do you plan to do with the unemployed and underemployed?

1. Nobody is "giving" the wealthy money or "putting money in the hands of the wealthy." The wealthy already HAVE the money (per the definition of the word "wealthy"). There's nothing extreme in letting someone keep more of what's theirs in the first place.

2. The unemployed and underemployed wouldn't BE unemployed an underemployed if we had an economic environment that promoted job creation, growth, and rising real wages.

3. The purpose of capitalism is not acquisition, but increase. Rich people aren't Smaug, laying around all day on piles of money doing nothing. That money is in several places: Banks, as loanable funds for people to buy homes and start small businesses (a path out of poverty); Businesses, which employ people to create goods and services (a path to employment); Stocks and bonds, which make up the pensions and retirement funds of the middle class (a protection against poverty).

TL;DR - Every point you made is wrong and unsupported by facts.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

I have no objection to a moderate Republican, but the candidates getting all the attention are the extremists in the party. Let me hear more about what you stand for and less about what you oppose. If you want to dismantle social security or medicare, what is your plan to replace it. If you oppose a path to citizenship for immigrants, what is your plan for the millions of immigrants who are already here. If you oppose big government, how would you fund the military, law enforcement, education, etc.? If you want the country to follow the principles of Christianity, what is your plan for the millions of Americans who are not Christians? Do you have a plan for the LGBT community other than denying them the rights that everyone else has? If you want more money in the hands of the wealthy, what do you plan to do with the unemployed and underemployed? So my hang up with the white male deal is more a reflection on who is excluded by Republican policies and practices. When I see a representative sampling of non-Christians at your conventions, I will begin to believe that they are part of your plan. When I see a representative sampling of LGBT at your convention, I will begin to believe that your policies don't discriminate against them. When I see a representative sampling (not one or two self-proclaimed candidates) of blacks and Hispanics at your convention, I will believe that you welcome them with open arms. When public employees are portrayed as the civil servants they are and not as someone undeserving of a job and a decent income, I will begin to believe that they are welcome in your party.

The white male deal is just a symbol of the Republican Party's exclusionary policies. It's not the presence of white males in the party that bothers me. It's the absence of other faces.

Wizard just pretty much handled everything. but I'd like to add...

Bruce Jenner is a republican. For all intents and purpose that's a pretty big hitter in that community, now, I realize he might not be gay or lesbian, but the same 'arena' per se

 

[connor_in]

Wizard just pretty much handled everything. but I'd like to add...

Bruce Jenner is a republican. For all intents and purpose that's a pretty big hitter in that community, now, I realize he might not be gay or lesbian, but the same 'arena' per se

Log Cabin Republicans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) is an organization that works within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for gays and lesbians in the United States. The group's constituency supports the Republican Party and advocates for the rights of gay and lesbian Americans.

Log Cabin Republicans was founded in 1977 in California as a rallying point for Republicans opposed to the Briggs Initiative, which attempted to ban homosexuals from teaching in public schools. In addition to sanctioning the termination of openly gay and lesbian teachers, the proposed legislation authorized the firing of those teachers that supported homosexuality.[5]

While mounting his imminent presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan publically expressed his opposition to the discriminatory policy. Reagan’s contention of the bill—epitomized in an op-ed piece in a California newspaper—played an influential role in the eventual defeat of the Briggs Initiative.[6]

In the midst of this victory, gay conservatives in California created the Log Cabin Republicans.

To add to this, many minorities do not like to let people know they are R's due to the treatment they receive for doing so. Many black people who identify as R in public routinely get called Uncle Toms and House *******...by D's. In another example, Bruce Jenner. Even Diane Sawyer doing the interview who had no problem (same as most) with Bruce wanting to be a woman, blanched and almost gagged when Bruce told her about being an R. And the hate he got on twitter for that was amazing.

 

[wizards8507]

Jeb Bush is failing miserably.

Student confronts Jeb Bush on ISIS - CNNPolitics.com

If a Republican candidate can't explain why ISIS exists beyond "agree to disagree," he'll get his clock cleaned in the general election by both Mrs. Clinton and the media.

 

[Black Irish]

Wizard just pretty much handled everything. but I'd like to add...

Bruce Jenner is a republican. For all intents and purpose that's a pretty big hitter in that community, now, I realize he might not be gay or lesbian, but the same 'arena' per se

I've always wondered about that. LGBT, and whatever other initials get tacked on, seems like a thoughtless grab bag of for the sake of political expediency. There are significant differences just in the gay male community versus the lesbian community (case in point, the spread of AIDS and the prevention of that). And then the whole "Trans" aspect is really something quite different. I imagine there are quite a few people who don't want to necessarily be associated with some of the other people in that coalition. This is similar to what was being discussed in this thread a little ways back, with regard to The Hispanic Vote. Hispanics in this country are not some monolithic entity. You have culture and regional differences not to mention how long someone has family roots in this country (e.g. there's a big difference between the recent Mexican immigrant in southern California versus the third generation Cuban-American in south Florida).

I don't know if anyone has done the research, given how touchy the subject is, but I wonder how much the members of the LGBT coalition really feel like they are all in this together. The whole coalition is pretty nebulous, and you don't have to drill down too much to see that there are stark differences between the groups that could well be in conflict. It wouldn't surprise me if there is resentment from gay men and lesbians who feel that the Trans community is something quite different from their own lifestyle and should not be riding on their political coattails.

 

[wizards8507]

I've always wondered about that. LGBT, and whatever other initials get tacked on, seems like a thoughtless grab bag of for the sake of political expediency. There are significant differences just in the gay male community versus the lesbian community (case in point, the spread of AIDS and the prevention of that). And then the whole "Trans" aspect is really something quite different. I imagine there are quite a few people who don't want to necessarily be associated with some of the other people in that coalition. This is similar to what was being discussed in this thread a little ways back, with regard to The Hispanic Vote. Hispanics in this country are not some monolithic entity. You have culture and regional differences not to mention how long someone has family roots in this country (e.g. there's a big difference between the recent Mexican immigrant in southern California versus the third generation Cuban-American in south Florida).

I don't know if anyone has done the research, given how touchy the subject is, but I wonder how much the members of the LGBT coalition really feel like they are all in this together. The whole coalition is pretty nebulous, and you don't have to drill down too much to see that there are stark differences between the groups that could well be in conflict. It wouldn't surprise me if there is resentment from gay men and lesbians who feel that the Trans community is something quite different from their own lifestyle and should not be riding on their political coattails.

From a strictly political battle, the gay marriage debate is more or less over. Only a small percentage of people object at this point, and those that do lack the political will to do anything about it. Further, it's going to be decided by the courts such that it won't matter what politicians say anyways. Without the gay community as an aggrieved class any longer, the Democrats need a new class of people that they can take under their wing and say "we're going to protect you from the big, bad Republicans." They're hoping that the transgendered community will fill that role.

 

[EddytoNow]

Jeb Bush is failing miserably.

Student confronts Jeb Bush on ISIS - CNNPolitics.com

If a Republican candidate can't explain why ISIS exists beyond "agree to disagree," he'll get his clock cleaned in the general election by both Mrs. Clinton and the media.

Jeb is haunted by the actions of his brother. It is hard to argue with the fact that Iraq was de-stabilized when Saddam Hussein was overthrown. The ability of ISIS to march across Iraq unopposed for the most part is a direct result of George W. Bush's actions in removing Hussein from power. Hussein was a brutal dictator, but his presence prevented groups like ISIS from gaining a foothold.

Following George W. Bush's administration, the American public wanted nothing to do with yet another war in Iraq. Obama did the public's bidding and removed our troops, further de-stabilizing the region. However, Obama has had to walk a very tenuous line. It would take a large ground presence to thwart ISIS, and Americans would not support sending troops back to the area. Obama has used drone strikes to impede the further growth of ISIS, but the next president will have to reintroduce ground forces or sit back and let the Sunnis and Shiites fight this one out on their own. Poor Jeb is in the position of having to defend his brother's mistakes without appearing to be the third Bush to take us into a war in Iraq.

The dilemma for Democrats and Republicans alike is to be tough on foreign policy without scaring off an electorate that has had its fill of wars in the Middle East. Hillary, Jeb, and all the other candidates from both parties better be ready to answer tough questions about their Middle East policy. It's tough to criticize Obama without a plan to do something different.

 

[wizards8507]

The dilemma for Democrats and Republicans alike is to be tough on foreign policy without scaring off an electorate that has had its fill of wars in the Middle East. Hillary, Jeb, and all the other candidates from both parties better be ready to answer tough questions about their Middle East policy. It's tough to criticize Obama without a plan to do something different.

That's my biggest problem with Jeb's answer. Not the merits of what he said as much as the fact that he seemed surprised that someone would ask him such a thing.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I have no objection to a moderate Republican, but the candidates getting all the attention are the extremists in the party. Let me hear more about what you stand for and less about what you oppose. If you want to dismantle social security or medicare, what is your plan to replace it. If you oppose a path to citizenship for immigrants, what is your plan for the millions of immigrants who are already here. If you oppose big government, how would you fund the military, law enforcement, education, etc.? If you want the country to follow the principles of Christianity, what is your plan for the millions of Americans who are not Christians? Do you have a plan for the LGBT community other than denying them the rights that everyone else has? If you want more money in the hands of the wealthy, what do you plan to do with the unemployed and underemployed? So my hang up with the white male deal is more a reflection on who is excluded by Republican policies and practices. When I see a representative sampling of non-Christians at your conventions, I will begin to believe that they are part of your plan. When I see a representative sampling of LGBT at your convention, I will begin to believe that your policies don't discriminate against them. When I see a representative sampling (not one or two self-proclaimed candidates) of blacks and Hispanics at your convention, I will believe that you welcome them with open arms. When public employees are portrayed as the civil servants they are and not as someone undeserving of a job and a decent income, I will begin to believe that they are welcome in your party.

The white male deal is just a symbol of the Republican Party's exclusionary policies. It's not the presence of white males in the party that bothers me. It's the absence of other faces.

I'm fascinated by this fantasy world that you and GoIrish41 live in.

1) There is nothing extreme about Rand or Walker.

2) To your argument, show me a moderate Dem and I'll show you some no name schmuck from Wyoming no one knows or cares about. The NY and CA dems have taken over and it's ugly statism.

 

[phgreek]

Jeb is haunted by the actions of his brother. It is hard to argue with the fact that Iraq was de-stabilized when Saddam Hussein was overthrown. The ability of ISIS to march across Iraq unopposed for the most part is a direct result of George W. Bush's actions in removing Hussein from power. Hussein was a brutal dictator, but his presence prevented groups like ISIS from gaining a foothold.

Following George W. Bush's administration, the American public wanted nothing to do with yet another war in Iraq. Obama did the public's bidding and removed our troops, further de-stabilizing the region. However, Obama has had to walk a very tenuous line. It would take a large ground presence to thwart ISIS, and Americans would not support sending troops back to the area. Obama has used drone strikes to impede the further growth of ISIS, but the next president will have to reintroduce ground forces or sit back and let the Sunnis and Shiites fight this one out on their own. Poor Jeb is in the position of having to defend his brother's mistakes without appearing to be the third Bush to take us into a war in Iraq.

The dilemma for Democrats and Republicans alike is to be tough on foreign policy without scaring off an electorate that has had its fill of wars in the Middle East. Hillary, Jeb, and all the other candidates from both parties better be ready to answer tough questions about their Middle East policy. It's tough to criticize Obama without a plan to do something different.

So when the healthcare bill went through strictly on partisan lines...and w/o a majority of Americans supporting it....THAT was leadership.

Doing what is necessary in Iraq...can't do that because...blah, blah blah, American sentiment...blah, blah, blah...

The fact of the matter is he didn't know what the fuck he was doing when he left w/o a status of forces agreement...was told time and again not to do it, but, when it came time for him to be a politician AFTER the race...and go sell it...WHAT HAPPENED? He sucks at being the politician we need AFTER the damned election, PERIOD.

 

[EddytoNow]

...Doing what is necessary in Iraq...can't do that because...blah, blah blah, American sentiment...blah, blah, blah...

The fact of the matter is he didn't know what the fuck he was doing when he left w/o a status of forces agreement...was told time and again not to do it, but, when it came time for him to be a politician AFTER the race...and go sell it...WHAT HAPPENED? He sucks at being the politician we need AFTER the damned election, PERIOD.

Two questions about your plan for Iraq. How many American troops are you prepared to send back into Iraq? How long will you keep them there?

 

[pkt77242]

So when the healthcare bill went through strictly on partisan lines...and w/o a majority of Americans supporting it....THAT was leadership.

Doing what is necessary in Iraq...can't do that because...blah, blah blah, American sentiment...blah, blah, blah...

The fact of the matter is he didn't know what the fuck he was doing when he left w/o a status of forces agreement...was told time and again not to do it, but, when it came time for him to be a politician AFTER the race...and go sell it...WHAT HAPPENED? He sucks at being the politician we need AFTER the damned election, PERIOD.

It is significantly more complicated then you are making it but nice try.

Refereeing the John McCain-Jay Carney spat over Iraq - The Washington Post

 

[pkt77242]

Two questions about your plan for Iraq. How many American troops are you prepared to send back into Iraq? How long will you keep them there?

You should add, would he leave troops there without an SOFA that the Iraq government has signed off on?

 

[phgreek]

Two questions about your plan for Iraq. How many American troops are you prepared to send back into Iraq? How long will you keep them there?

1) ignoring the fact that Iraq was won after the surge in 07-08, and could have been supported with a FRACTION of the troops that will be needed to stand it all back up...and would have been a stabilizing element today, had 07-08 status quo been VALUED and HELD.

2) ignoring that asking someone w/o stars on their shoulders "how many" is a waste of time. I would defer to the joint chiefs, and be smart enough to take their advice.

3) ignoring that there are objectives in war. Those objectives should be achieved with all haste, BUT...those objectives should be pursued without a publicized dimension of time...which is beyond a STUPID thing to do.

ignoring all of that...

I surge to levels defined by the joint chiefs which drive out undesirables. I'm not willing to lose any soldier. However, being as we have an all volunteer force...and it grows daily, and it is composed of people who have known our middle Eastern issues, and signed up anyway...I don't presume to be sending anyone not willing. Loss of life is never something you passively accept, even if you are engaged in war, that makes it likely. But to put things in perspective, we have lost 4,500 people in Iraq over 10 years or so...twice that died at Gettysburg over 3-4 days. Each death is tragic, and has huge meaning, but lets not continue the narrative that distorts reality...we aren't sending our volunteers into a meat grinder where they'll be killed by the tens of thousands...

 

[phgreek]

You should add, would he leave troops there without an SOFA that the Iraq government has signed off on?

Pretty sure thats an easy sell that even this president could sell today...

 

[phgreek]

It is significantly more complicated then you are making it but nice try.

Refereeing the John McCain-Jay Carney spat over Iraq - The Washington Post

no its not...the negotiations weren't given shit for effort, they waited too long, the president offered shit troop numbers, that wouldn't have helped, and he knew it, he couldn't/wouldn't sell what was needed to either or both of his constituents at home and the Iraqis...I mean it is that simple.

 

[pkt77242]

Pretty sure thats an easy sell that even this president could sell today...

Funny because at the time the Joint Chiefs of staff was against staying without an SOFA and I doubt their reasoning would have changed.

But here’s another part of that hearing that McCain does not mention.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Are you willing to have those forces remain without an agreement relative to immunity for those troops?

DEMPSEY: No, sir, I’m not. It was the recommendation, advice and strong belief of the Joint Chiefs that we would not leave servicemen and women there without protections.

LEVIN: And why is that?

DEMPSEY: Because, of the many institutions in Iraq that are still evolving and immature, the Iraqi judicial system is certainly among those. And we did not believe it was appropriate, prudent, to leave servicemen and women without judicial protections in a country that still had the challenges we know it has and a very immature judicial system.

no its not...the negotiations weren't given shit for effort, they waited too long, the president offered shit troop numbers, that wouldn't have helped, and he knew it, he couldn't/wouldn't sell what was needed to either or both of his constituents at home and the Iraqis...I mean it is that simple.

Your hatred for President Obama is showing through as usual. He took the stance that if Iraq wanted our troops there then they needed to ask for it. Did you read the article? Only about 20% of Iraq's parliament was willing to vocalize support for our troops to stay and for a SOFA to be passed. Did you want the President to beg the PM Maliki for our forces to stay? What the fuck would you expect him to do when they wanted our troops gone?


This is right after the previous quote. The assurance is the SOFA.

LEVIN: Is it your understanding that that was the sticking point, that Iraq was not willing to provide that assurance?

DEMPSEY: That’s hard for me to understand exactly what Prime Minister Maliki’s fundamental bottom line was, though I have spoken to him within the past six months. What I will say is it was part of it. I think the other part of it was that he believed it to be in his political interest to cause us to live up to the agreement we made to withdraw from Iraq in the 2008 agreement.

Yes it must have been just that simple as you stated.

 

[phgreek]

Funny because at the time the Joint Chiefs of staff was against staying without an SOFA and I doubt their reasoning would have changed.





Your hatred for President Obama is showing through as usual. He took the stance that if Iraq wanted our troops there then they needed to ask for it. Did you read the article? Only about 20% of Iraq's parliament was willing to vocalize support for our troops to stay and for a SOFA to be passed. Did you want the President to beg the PM Maliki for our forces to stay? What the fuck would you expect him to do when they wanted our troops gone?


This is right after the previous quote. The assurance is the SOFA.


Yes it must have been just that simple as you stated.

I never said stay w/o a SOFA. Also, WE were in a position to get one had we wanted one and worked for one.


Your article:

"An excerpt from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s memoir bolsters McCain’s position. “Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none was willing to take that position publicly,” writes Panetta, who pins the blame on the White House for failing to use its leverage to get a deal. “To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away.”]

Miss this part of YOUR article did ya...???

Also you make it sound like some pre-pubescent dating game..."no you ask me"...and you present it like thats a tenable policy position????

The part that kills me is...you have the same type shit supposedly playing out with Iran, where I am supposed to be sophisticated enough to understand that Iran's leadership doesn't mean "death to America"...but they have to say it to save face with their people. Great, but then as relates to Iraq thats not a valid consideration? Especially when we now KNOW they were indeed playing that exact game...and told us as much.

I thought the President was told no way, no how, not ever...but thats not the case. A SOFA was possible. It should have gotten done. It is that simple if you prioritize it as something you need to get done...you can point to it being hard. But your article again alludes to the fact he DIDN'T WANT A SOFA. He wanted to claim victory on a political promise.

Let me ask you something...Do presidents close hard deals foreign and domestic, or is that not the expectation of THIS president.

He didn't workthis particular issue as a priority...he didn't trust his military people who tried to give him a sense of urgency, he didn't value Iraq as it was handed to him, he took the wrong advice from someone...and it went real bad. As president you CAN'T wish we weren't engaged, fuck it all up, and blame the guy who handed it to you because you wished we weren't engaged....thats what 10 year old kids do. Aim higher.

As well, Indeed, I do not think this president was good at being president...just running for president. So what.

 

[connor_in]

Funny because at the time the Joint Chiefs of staff was against staying without an SOFA and I doubt their reasoning would have changed.





Your hatred for President Obama is showing through as usual. He took the stance that if Iraq wanted our troops there then they needed to ask for it. Did you read the article? Only about 20% of Iraq's parliament was willing to vocalize support for our troops to stay and for a SOFA to be passed. Did you want the President to beg the PM Maliki for our forces to stay? What the fuck would you expect him to do when they wanted our troops gone?


This is right after the previous quote. The assurance is the SOFA.


Yes it must have been just that simple as you stated.

Why is it always if an R disagrees with a D president it is due to hatred but if a D disagrees with an R president it is because dissent is good and justified?

Just curious...asking for a friend...

 

[pkt77242]

Why is it always if an R disagrees with a D president it is due to hatred but if a D disagrees with an R president it is because dissent is good and justified?

Just curious...asking for a friend...

I disagree with your whole premise. During the Bush years there were some liberals/Democrats who hated Bush (which I think is irrational, Bush wasn't a great President by any standards but there is no reason to hate him, just to dislike his policies). I would say that the vitriol against Obama has far exceeded anything we have seen in our lifetime. People questioning if he love the U.S. and make personal attacks about him.

 

[ACamp1900]

I disagree with that entirely, there was a cottage industry of Bush Hitler, Bush Sniper, Bush Devil shirts, hats, whatever during the Bush era,... There were acclaimed books and films about how wonderful the world would be if someone would just assassinate Bush already, stuff being physically hrown at him and national media members openly laughing about it and high fiving each other on TV over it, Bush lied people died, Bush blew up the towers, much of this was supported or even started by members of the fed on the left. The big difference is Bush rarely if ever resorted to that level, and just ignored it as a leader should. Obama straight up takes part in the vitriol, and he completely brought what little he gets on himself. Honestly, for large part, Obama has been completely coddled IMO.

 

[wizards8507]

I disagree with your whole premise. During the Bush years there were some liberals/Democrats who hated Bush (which I think is irrational, Bush wasn't a great President by any standards but there is no reason to hate him, just to dislike his policies).

Then you are unique among your liberal brothers and sisters. Bush-as-Hitler was an extremely popular meme. Bush-the-Idiot another.

People questioning if he love the U.S. and make personal attacks about him.

Obama does not love the US as founded. Otherwise, he would have stopped his campaign rhetoric at "hope and change." He went way beyond "hope and change" to "fundamental transformation." When you want to fundamentally transform something, it means you do not love it as it is.

 

[pkt77242]

I asked this

You should add, would he leave troops there without an SOFA that the Iraq government has signed off on?

So you respond with this

Pretty sure thats an easy sell that even this president could sell today...

I call you out for saying that they should stay without an SOFA and you say this

I never said stay w/o a SOFA. Also, WE were in a position to get one had we wanted one and worked for one.

Hmm. Really? That is what you just said in response to my question.

Your article:

"An excerpt from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s memoir bolsters McCain’s position. “Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none was willing to take that position publicly,” writes Panetta, who pins the blame on the White House for failing to use its leverage to get a deal. “To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away.”]

Miss this part of YOUR article did ya...???

Also you make it sound like some pre-pubescent dating game..."no you ask me"...and you present it like thats a tenable policy position????

The part that kills me is...you have the same type shit supposedly playing out with Iran, where I am supposed to be sophisticated enough to understand that Iran's leadership doesn't mean "death to America"...but they have to say it to save face with their people. Great, but then as relates to Iraq thats not a valid consideration? Especially when we now KNOW they were indeed playing that exact game...and told us as much.

I thought the President was told no way, no how, not ever...but thats not the case. A SOFA was possible. It should have gotten done. It is that simple if you prioritize it as something you need to get done...you can point to it being hard. But your article again alludes to the fact he DIDN'T WANT A SOFA. He wanted to claim victory on a political promise.

Let me ask you something...Do presidents close hard deals foreign and domestic, or is that not the expectation of THIS president.

He didn't workthis particular issue as a priority...he didn't trust his military people who tried to give him a sense of urgency, he didn't value Iraq as it was handed to him, he took the wrong advice from someone...and it went real bad. As president you CAN'T wish we weren't engaged, fuck it all up, and blame the guy who handed it to you because you wished we weren't engaged....thats what 10 year old kids do. Aim higher.

As well, Indeed, I do not think this president was good at being president...just running for president. So what.

The difference is that we had to get Iraq's parliament to vote for a SOFA and they didn't want to do it because the public didn't want it. Of course they wanted the U.S. to stay (I never questioned that), they wanted the political victory of having the U.S. soldiers leave or that the U.S. had to beg them to keep their soldiers there so that they could give in and save face (the part of the article that you quoted speaks nothing of a SOFA just that they wanted troops to stay). Lets say that Obama had begged them to keep our soldiers there and then they had agreed, do you really think that the Republicans/Conservatives would be happy? Nope they would call him a weak President for begging. Also a big difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran is willing to publicly negotiate with us, Iraq wasn't willing too during that time. Do I think that Obama could have done a better job? Yep, he could have, do I think it is as nice and neat and simple as you think? Not by a mile. In fact I would say that Iraq is exceedingly tricky in comparison to Iran which is relatively straightforward.

The truth is that we can't fix Iraq even though we broke it. If we had kept soldiers there for 5 more years (or 10), the violence just would have broken out once we left. Iraq with its disagreements and differences between its population is difficult to govern effectively. As Iraq currently stands there is little hope for peace and it has nothing to do with US troops being there or not (unless you want to permanently leave 25K soldiers there but that opens a whole other can of worms).

 

[GoIrish41]

Why is it always if an R disagrees with a D president it is due to hatred but if a D disagrees with an R president it is because dissent is good and justified?

Just curious...asking for a friend...

It's because of the rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of those on the right ...

"Our No. 1 goal is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president."

"He is a muslim"

"He is not an American"

"LIAR!!!!"

"He hates America"

"He is friendly with terrorists."

"He is ruining America."

"He wears mob jeans."

"He does not love the US as founded"

The list could go on and on and on. Ask your friend why the Republicans insist on saying things that make their hatred so obvious.

 

[pkt77242]

Then you are unique among your liberal brothers and sisters. Bush-as-Hitler was an extremely popular meme. Bush-the-Idiot another.


Obama does not love the US as founded. Otherwise, he would have stopped his campaign rhetoric at "hope and change." He went way beyond "hope and change" to "fundamental transformation." When you want to fundamentally transform something, it means you do not love it as it is.

I agree that some people were out-of-line in how they treated Bush.

The second part is where you and I disagree. Here is the quote that I presume you are talking about from when he ran back in 2008

"Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

"In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor."

There is nothing in there that says he doesn't love the U.S. There is nothing in there that says he thinks the Constitution sucks. He is talking about fundamentally changing how governmental policies, which really is what all people running for President (besides incumbents) do. Do you truly believe that any Republicans in this years field aren't going to be running on a platform of fundamentally changing our government policies after 8 years of Obama? Republicans talk of getting rid of the Department of Education, or even the IRS. Isn't that fundamentally changing our government's policies? I think that the idea that he wants to fundamentally change the US gets blown completely out of proportion.