• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hillary endorses McCain over Obama

aps said:
Iriemon, you clearly are not seeing the forest through the trees. She stated in no uncertain terms that McCain was more qualified than Obama. What kind of piece of $hit person does that to someone in their own party? A b!tch obsessed, absolutely obsessed, with being president--plain and simple.

I hope her words come back and bite her on her fat a$$.
Click to expand...
Maybe someone that thinks Obama is not up to the job and puts her Country's welfare above her party. ;)
 
TOJ said:
Maybe someone that thinks Obama is not up to the job and puts her Country's welfare above her party. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh really? So explain this statement at the Febryary 21st debate in Austin:
And, you know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about.

The CNN Democratic presidential debate in Texas - CNN.com
Click to expand...

So she says that "no matter happens in this contest . . . we're going to be fine." If Obama is so unqualified, how can she state that "we're going to be fine"?
 
galenrox said:
I swear to God if Obama stays in this thing much longer I'm gonna suffer severe eye damage from rolling them this much. All I can say is that if Obama gets elected, we will deserve everything we get because of it (the collapse of the dollar, galvanizing international opposition to us, further involvement in quagmires, etc.).
Click to expand...

I find it incredulous that you think don't seem to think McCain will do any of this. Remember, McCain himself has stated many times how little he knows about economics, and has said there will be more wars (quagmires, anyone?). I think you're getting just a bit alarmist on us, Gal.
 
aps said:
Iriemon, you clearly are not seeing the forest through the trees. She stated in no uncertain terms that McCain was more qualified than Obama. What kind of piece of $hit person does that to someone in their own party? A b!tch obsessed, absolutely obsessed, with being president--plain and simple.

I hope her words come back and bite her on her fat a$$.
Click to expand...

I did not hear her say that, in the clip, much less in no uncertain terms. Please provide the direct quote of what Clinton said that you are referring to rather than paraphrasing, just like you did in post #27. Thanks.
 
Iriemon said:
I did not hear her say that, in the clip, much less in no uncertain terms. Please provide the direct quote of what Clinton said that you are referring to rather than paraphrasing, just like you did in post #27. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.

Clinton Says She and McCain Offer Experience, Obama Offers Speeches - From The Road
Click to expand...

"I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," Clinton said yesterday. "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy."

Clinton Does McCain's Bidding - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

We can all infer different things from her words, but it is clear that she is bashing Obama and saying he's not experienced enough to be president, but John McCain is.

Here's an interesting editorial by Bob Herbert of the NYT:

More serious was Senator Clinton’s assertion that she was qualified to be commander in chief, and that John McCain had also “certainly” crossed that “threshold,” but that the jury was still out on Mr. Obama.

In other words, if a choice on national security had to be made today between Senators Obama and McCain, voters — according to Mrs. Clinton’s logic — should choose Senator McCain.

That is a low thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to do to a rival in a party primary. Can you imagine John McCain saying that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or even the guitar-strumming Mike Huckabee might be less qualified than Hillary Clinton to be commander in chief? It couldn’t happen.

But Senator Clinton never gave a second thought to opening the trap door beneath her fellow Democrat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08herbert.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Oh really? So explain this statement at the Febryary 21st debate in Austin:


So she says that "no matter happens in this contest . . . we're going to be fine." If Obama is so unqualified, how can she state that "we're going to be fine"?
Click to expand...
Maybe she thinks if Obama get nominated, McCain will win. ;)
 
TOJ said:
Maybe she thinks if Obama get nominated, McCain will win. ;)
Click to expand...

Or more likely, she will say anything to get elected.
 
galenrox said:
Similar to how the person who suggested the Titanic go around the icebergs was an alarmist, sure. I'm not concerned that McCain is not an economist because the President should not be involved enough in the economy so as to necessitate extensive economic knowledge. I'm not concerned that Obama and Clinton aren't economists either. What I am concerned about is that Obama and Clinton are only talking about increasing spending, and not only that, they're talking about massive new entitlement programs that would practically ensure the collapse of the US dollar. If they had the right idea, lacking economic knowledge isn't a bad thing, which is why it's not a bad thing with McCain. Obama and Clinton do not have the right idea, and it is that, not their lack of knowledge of economic matters, that means that means that anyone who cares should be at the very least alarmed.

Where did he say there will be more wars?
Click to expand...

It can be inferred from his "Bomb Iran" song. ;)
 
galenrox said:
Similar to how the person who suggested the Titanic go around the icebergs was an alarmist, sure. I'm not concerned that McCain is not an economist because the President should not be involved enough in the economy so as to necessitate extensive economic knowledge. I'm not concerned that Obama and Clinton aren't economists either. What I am concerned about is that Obama and Clinton are only talking about increasing spending, and not only that, they're talking about massive new entitlement programs that would practically ensure the collapse of the US dollar. If they had the right idea, lacking economic knowledge isn't a bad thing, which is why it's not a bad thing with McCain. Obama and Clinton do not have the right idea, and it is that, not their lack of knowledge of economic matters, that means that means that anyone who cares should be at the very least alarmed.

Where did he say there will be more wars?
Click to expand...

YouTube - John McCain: 'There Will Be More Wars'
 
TOJ said:
And your point is?

They all will say whatever they think will get them elected. ;)
Click to expand...

She's the queen of double speak. The more she does it, the more transparent she looks. Does she think he is ready to be President or not? Doesn't the VP have to be ready? :roll:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
She's the queen of double speak. The more she does it, the more transparent she looks. Does she think he is ready to be President or not? Doesn't the VP have to be ready? :roll:
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what she really thinks. The objective is to get voters to doubt Obama's readiness and to put him on defense and it looks like it may be working.
 
galenrox said:
And from where did you draw the assumption that these wars would be of the nature of Iraq and generate a quagmire?
Click to expand...


Because our military is strained enough as it is, and unless we instituted a draft or something equally drastic, we'd be ill-equipped to handle a third war. What nation that we'd realistically invade do you see us invading and occupying easily?
 
galenrox said:
We'd be ill equipped to handle another war right now, yes, but I didn't see him say that we're getting into another war right now or anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear what countries you think we could invade and occupy anytime in the near future.
 
galenrox said:
Of what possible significance could that be?
Click to expand...

In the clip, McCain is talking about treating war casualties. He is specifically talking about the war on terror. This suggests that the wars he speak of will happen relatively soon. I don't know about you, but I see another war anytime soon to be of major significance, and I'm asking you what wars you think that we could possibly win.

"it's a tough war we're in, it's not going to be over right away. there's gonna be other wars... we will never surrender but there will be other wars."
 
galenrox said:
So let me get this straight...

so I have to tell you what nations we intend to invade and occupy (something I haven't suggested)...
...in defense of the Presidential candidate who I support...who hasn't suggested this either?

Really?
Click to expand...

No, you're twisting my words. You are supporting a candidate who says in no uncertain terms that there will be more wars, and implies they will be relatively sooner than later, and I am challenging to name a single country that wouldn't be a quagmire if there was another war.
 
galenrox said:
And the only evidence you have of this supposed implication is that he referenced the war on terror?
Click to expand...

Will you please just answer the question asked; we could play 20 questions all day.
 
galenrox said:
The question where you ask me to choose nations to occupy despite me never suggesting such a thing because the presidential candidate I support said something from which you made an assumption which is at BEST questionable?
Click to expand...

What "other wars" do you think he is predicting there will be?
 
galenrox said:
Who knows? Ideally there would be none, but that's not realistic, which is why John McCain felt obliged to acknowledge that that's not realistic.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of countries that aren't, and haven't been at war recently. I doubt they will be anytime soon. Peace is not unrealistic.
 
galenrox said:
Yes it is, those countries have the benefit of having relatively limited interests and avoid the consequences of having influence.
Click to expand...

True. But what about China?
 
galenrox said:
Um, you here about the Vietnam war? How about a little country called Tibet? And China testing nukes right off the coast of Taiwan?
Click to expand...

Vietnam, yes I heard. Tibet, yes. Testing nukes, while wrong, was not war.

Who will they be at war with next, in your opinion?

John Hagee says Israel. :mrgreen:
 
galenrox said:
Who knows? Ideally there would be none, but that's not realistic, which is why John McCain felt obliged to acknowledge that that's not realistic.
Click to expand...

So its not realistic that we WON'T go to war, but you have no idea who we might go to war with? Not even a theory? It seems a tall sell to say "vote for this candidate who says with no qualifications that there will be more, though no one has the slightest clue where they might be." I'm asking you, personally, where you think we might go to war in the future.
 
galenrox said:
Well I can lay out a million different scenarios where we'd do a million different things, so it's really a bizarre question. There are obviously scenarios where we'd be drawn into conflict with Iran and Syria, Myanmar, Somalia, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Sudan, etc. not to mention that we know regimes will change meaning really any country could take a turn making armed conflict a viable possibility (considering we're only 20 years removed from being allied to the mujahideen).
Click to expand...

It's not a bizarre question. The candidate says there will be other wars, and I want to know what wars that I, as a draft age taxpayer, might be getting into if he's elected. It gets old that anytime someone wants more details about McCain's jingoistic statements, you start talking about how bizarre it is.

Also, any invasion of Iran would be an unmitigated disaster, worse than Iraq right now. Syria, I don't know enough of its small details, but I'm hestitant to be in middle east combat any more than needed. Mynamar... well, we have an indicator how that might go.

By the way, I really want to know how you possibly see us invading Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom