Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-15-2014, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,892,050 times
Reputation: 3497

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
So.

Chalk it up to temporary stupidity.
No, I think it was a calculated move. She, like virtually all the people in Congress, knew it was a pack of lies but they were all afraid of being called weak and unpatriotic. Screw that, when the chips were down Hillary didn't stand up and instead cowardly went along to get along. She's not someone I would vote for.

That said, there isn't another viable candidate from either party. I desperately want a viable third party candidate but that is impossible because the only thing the two parties can agree on is making legalistic restrictions to prevent viable third parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2014, 10:59 AM
 
8,861 posts, read 5,347,088 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport View Post
There can be no discussion as we all know how she voted. You failed to prove that her vote disqualifies her as a presidential candidate.
As I don't believe there is a clause in the US Constitution saying Shall not have voted to invade Iraq of course it doesn't disqualify her. Democrats merely have to behave in a hypocritical manner to vote her in. Shouldn't be a problem for them, heck she was re--elected to the Senate by voters in New York. Yet the same Democrats wantd Connecticut voters to vote out Joe Lieberman .... so glad we told you to go jump off in a lake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 11:00 AM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,488,745 times
Reputation: 4621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport View Post
No. More democrats voted against than for the war. That's not a bi-partisan effort.

Fortunately I am old enough to remember it and it was never a bi-partisan effort: republicans pushed for war in Iraq and some democrats simply tagged alone, scared to be branded cowards and unpatriotic by republican propaganda machine. We all remember proud " Mission Accomplished" event and many others. You have to wait with rewriting history at least another 50 years. Lol
Are you crazy. I've seen bills passed with a handful of support from the other party called bipartisan. With Iraq, the D Senate could have stopped the Joint Resolution. Instead, Clinton and a majority of D Senators voted YES. Anyway,...

if Clinton and the others voted Yes because, as you say, they were scared to be called cowards and unpatriotic by Republicans, then they were cowards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 11:01 AM
 
12,268 posts, read 6,440,885 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
No kidding; this country doesn't declare war any more, unless it's against something like terrorism, drugs, obesity.

All those D party leaders voted to give Bush authority to 'use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.' The D's voted to fund the war.

Sure, Bush as the final decision-maker is mainly responsible, but giving Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Biden, etc. a pass is the definition of party hack.
Not mainly responsible but totally responsible. Clinton, Kerry, etc. Aren`t getting a pass. They are of no significance when the discussion is about throwing Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors out of Iraq because they found NO wmd`s. If they voted to eject the UN team then they are as guilty as Gomer but there was no such vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 11:02 AM
 
56,989 posts, read 35,122,003 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
No, I think it was a calculated move. She, like virtually all the people in Congress, knew it was a pack of lies but they were all afraid of being called weak and unpatriotic. Screw that, when the chips were down Hillary didn't stand up and instead cowardly went along to get along. She's not someone I would vote for.

That said, there isn't another viable candidate from either party. I desperately want a viable third party candidate but that is impossible because the only thing the two parties can agree on is making legalistic restrictions to prevent viable third parties.
Wouldn't that still qualify as temporary stupidity?

I mean, you're right. Of course she was scared. Senators (with the exception of Rand Paul) have no balls. They always go along to get along.

The only real courage in Congress is in the House...and even they come up short.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,795 posts, read 13,215,255 times
Reputation: 19952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Anne View Post
When she was Senator Clinton, she, Biden and a few others (?Kerry) voted yes in the War Resolution in Congress to invade Iraq under Bush.

Now, at that time I was dumbfounded that she would do that. I opposed the invasion because I knew that Bush and Cheney and Rice and all of that crowd were either lying or stupider than I already thought they were. When Colin Powell argued in front of the U.N. Security Council for permission to invade, they voted no. I sat up at 1 AM to listen to him live on the radio and just KNEW he didn't believe it himself and thought he was being a loyal, good soldier and I was beyond disgust.

So, here we are now with Democrats giving Hillary a pass and supporting her as a candidate for President. I suppose that they figure she has the best chance to beat a Republican and so I do understand that, but it makes me very angry that she is being given a pass on one of the most terrible votes a senator could have ever made. It is positively inexcusable.

There will be readers here who will say they supported the invasion but I am so sorry to say that I have very little sympathy for them for having "not known" and now regretting their support. If anyone had a basic comprehension of the way the Bush administration operated they would not have supported this invasion. And to think that our Hillary, a Democrat, didn't know any better. Wasn't she in a far better position than we average people were, being so up close to the players in the White House and Congress to have a clue? I find it absolutely abominable that she didn't "know" that the reasons to invade were a sham. Didn't she appreciate the expertise of Hans Blix? Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | theguardian.com If you don't even know who he is, you are really not even qualified to enter this discussion. I mean it. Do some reading so you can speak with an understanding of who he was. Why invading Iraq was a terrible mistake - CNN.com

I have no respect for General Colin Powell. A disgrace, what he did.

So, back to Hillary. Here we to the left are supposed to support her. I am not a happy camper. But I don't know who else will be nominated other than her and so I MUST support her, most reluctantly. I certainly would never support a Republican. [MOD CUT/off topic]
Hillary was punished for her Iraq War vote by the Democrats in 2012. If not for her vote, she probably would have won the nomination. Since Obama was against the war in Iraq, that edged Hillary out. I think she is now very sorry for that vote. In her defense, there was a lot of political pressure on her and the rest of congress at the time by Bush/Cheney to vote for the war. The GOP used the distasteful tactic of labeling people "unpatriotic" if they did not support the war (reminiscent of McCarthy accusing people of being communists).

Cheney also put out a lot of dishonest PR and outright lies such as claiming there was proof Saddam was behind 9/11 due to a meeting in Prague, ad nauseum. Neither I, nor a number of other Dems, believed the admin or wanted the war. We were called left wing-nuts by the right wingers, as they are wont to do when someone doesn't agree with them. I worked at a very conservative firm at the time, and if I said anything against the war the bots at work automatically replied 'gotta support the president.' It's almost comical looking back on it and knowing what a waste the Iraq War was.

As far as 2016, I think it is really fruitless worrying about an election two years away. A lot can happen between now and then. We still have to wait and see who Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Bros. and Ham Rove pick as GOP candidate. Regarding the Dems, Hillary may not run, or a dark horse candidate may emerge. Bill Clinton came into the 1992 election fairly late in the game and two years prior to that nobody would have predicted he would win the primaries or the general.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 11:03 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,800 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapaport View Post
No. More democrats voted against than for the war. That's not a bi-partisan effort.
Obamacare is partisan legislation. Not one Republican voted for it.

The legislation authorizing military action against Iraq was bipartisan. It had "yea" votes from both parties.

You can't rewrite history no matter how much you wish you could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 11:06 AM
 
78,016 posts, read 60,232,230 times
Reputation: 49415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Anne View Post
When she was Senator Clinton, she, Biden and a few others (?Kerry) voted yes in the War Resolution in Congress to invade Iraq under Bush.

...................

So, back to Hillary. Here we to the left are supposed to support her. I am not a happy camper. But I don't know who else will be nominated other than her and so I MUST support her, most reluctantly. I certainly would never support a Republican. [MOD CUT/off topic]
She was also a NAFTA supporter which hurt US unions pretty badly....Biden, Kennedy, Kerry and others all signed that one too.

So here is what is going to happen.

You will do the same thing you've done the last umpteen elections and vote for those people because you can never support a republican.

So instead, you vote for the republican that calls themselves a democrat.

Congratulations.

P.S. Hillary says thanks for the free milk. Consider not voting or voting 3rd party and holding your politicians accountable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 11:08 AM
 
78,016 posts, read 60,232,230 times
Reputation: 49415
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Obamacare is partisan legislation. Not one Republican voted for it.

The legislation authorizing military action against Iraq was bipartisan. It had "yea" votes from both parties.

You can't rewrite history no matter how much you wish you could.
Most democrats supported the war despite misgivings because the POLLS showed the american people were behind the idea.

A few good persons of conscience voted against the war.....the rest voted to cover their rears come re-election time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 2,279,735 times
Reputation: 1072
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Fair enough.

That said, I don't see his death as being of any consequence. He might not be laughing, but neither are you. I'm not laughing either.

In truth, we're the laughingstock now, and I don't like my country being laughed at for being so stupid and gullible.
I imagine you don't like it being despised for killing thousands for no reason and having people kidnaped and tortured either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top