• 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!

Jimmy Carter Named Most Trusted U.S. Politician in New Poll.....

CaptinSarcastic said:
There should be two questions asked about Benghazi, what could we have done better to protect these people, and what should we change to prevent this from happening again.

Everything else is political.
Click to expand...

So then why bring up Bush?
 
Americans will never forgive him for not starting any wars while president.
 
jonny5 said:
So then why bring up Bush?
Click to expand...

I was actually bringing up the hypocrisy of the current Republicans in Congress, their reaction to Embassy attacks under Bush is simply prima facie evidence of their hypocrisy.

You see, I never claimed, then or now, that Bush was culpable for those deaths in any way. That does not mean something could not have been made of them, but if had been, it would been understood to have been purely partisan political hackery.

Republicans are shielded from understanding their own idiocy by the echo chamber that tells them they are not only right and sane, but that everyone else is wrong and crazy.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I was actually bringing up the hypocrisy of the current Republicans in Congress, their reaction to Embassy attacks under Bush is simply prima facie evidence of their hypocrisy.

You see, I never claimed, then or now, that Bush was culpable for those deaths in any way. That does not mean something could not have been made of them, but if had been, it would been understood to have been purely partisan political hackery.

Republicans are shielded from understanding their own idiocy by the echo chamber that tells them they are not only right and sane, but that everyone else is wrong and crazy.
Click to expand...

To nobody's surprise you could say exactly the same thing about Democrats and be equally accurate - or innacurate as the case may be.
 
MMC said:
I know that.....I was wondering what happened to Dodge? Why Dodge didn't mentor anyone going forward?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Perhaps a change in administration especially from one party to another, JFK had his own ideas. What is important to one or some isn't all that important to others.
 
Rocketman said:
All of the people that voted for jimmy must be too young to remember double digit interest and inflation, those were miserable years for the middle class
Click to expand...
They remember it for Reagan's budget struggles while fighting a cold war, and blame Reagan.

I forget, how many years did it take before those interest rates dropped to single digits?
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I don't disagree as a matter of principal, but from what I have seen, these "whistleblowers" do not earn the label. IMHO, a whistleblower is someone who wants to report a crime and is threatened with negative consequences if they do. Someone who wants to disagree with their bosses assessment and characterization is not a whistleblower. If you disagreed with your boss and went public with that disagreement, you are not likely to have a great career path with that boss. If that boss committed a crime, and threatened you if you made that crime public, you are still not going to have a great career path with that boss, but that boss is not going to have a great career path either.

Do you see the difference?

I see this as a witch hunt for one simple reason. An investigation means that a crime has been committed and the process begins to find out who did it. A witch hunt is a process where an evident is investigated to try and find a crime committed by a specific party.

We know there was a crime in Benghazi, that is the murder of the diplomats, and that is being investigated.

Beyond that, the investigation should be on what could have been done differently for the purpose of making changes in the future, and if a crime is uncovered in that process, fine, investigate it.

Do you see the difference?

I would not normally be too bothered by this stuff, but I remember White Water and the disaster that was for this country, over nothing. White Water was the reason that we allowed the Independent Counsels law to expire in 1999. With enough resources and a mission to find a crime, a crime is going to be found, eventually, even if they have to cause the crime to prosecute it.

Democrats have never seemed too keen on the whole Witch Hunt thing, and even Watergate only ultimately moved toward impeachment because of Republican support.

Maybe that's the key, if only one party is pursuing a thing, it is probably partisan politics.
Click to expand...

Watergate, no, not with Republican help at the beginning. It too was viewed as a witch hunt for about the first year it went along. Remember Watergate involved pretty much all of 1973 and 7 plus months of 1974. That is a very long time to keep searching for that smoking gun, which was eventually found. Watergate was so long ago I don't remember when the first Republicans started to leave Nixon, but it probably wasn't until around May 74 or a bit latter.

But since Watergate finally over turned an election result, it seems almost every little thing that comes up is turned into a gate. The Democrats tried Irangate with Reagan, but unlike Nixon he finally did a mea culpa which saved Reagan's presidency if it was really in danger to begin with. Whitewater was a farce, I don't remember much about it as I didn't pay it much attention. Clinton on Lewinski and impeachment, was really about lying to congress and not the sex, although the sex gets media attention. It was basically a show trial in house, it was plain stupid because Clinton wasn't in danger either.

But as of today, I am not so sure it was a policy difference with this Hicks and Thompson as much as they wanted to tell their story and may have been coerced into not doing so. Time will tell. A policy difference would be like Hicks not wanting to aide Libya and the president wanting and then Hicks gets mad because the president went ahead. Now blaming the incident on a video when it was known to be terrorist doesn't really fall under the policy purview.

Is it a big thing to lie about something like this? Probably not to the majority of Americans, but for me, I fail to see the benefit if this is a lie of not coming right out and admitting this was a terrorist attack. This has me flummox. As I said, on the rescue or the use of military force if we had the assets and they were strong enough, that is the presidents call. There are times to do and times not to do so. Sometimes it is a lose, lose situation. This does not bother me.

I suppose the only reason I am half way paying attention to it, I want to know the benefit of saying this wasn't a terrorist attack when apparently, pretty much everyone knew it was.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
I was actually bringing up the hypocrisy of the current Republicans in Congress, their reaction to Embassy attacks under Bush is simply prima facie evidence of their hypocrisy.

You see, I never claimed, then or now, that Bush was culpable for those deaths in any way. That does not mean something could not have been made of them, but if had been, it would been understood to have been purely partisan political hackery.

Republicans are shielded from understanding their own idiocy by the echo chamber that tells them they are not only right and sane, but that everyone else is wrong and crazy.
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with the failure of THIS President?
 
Jimmy Carter isn't a politician, he currently holds no elected government office.
 
Cephus said:
Jimmy Carter isn't a politician, he currently holds no elected government office.
Click to expand...

Heya Cephus. :2wave: But doesn't Carter have Habitat For Humanity? Isnt that a NGO/NFP?

jimmy-carter-library.jpg
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
This President hasn't failed, it has everything to do with the failure of this Congress.
Click to expand...

Looks Like his Foreign Policy.....Is a Failure! I doubt that it can be construed as being adequate.

th


Mebbe that's why they have them down together in this Book. ;)
 
MMC said:
Heya Cephus. :2wave: But doesn't Carter have Habitat For Humanity? Isnt that a NGO/NFP?

jimmy-carter-library.jpg
Click to expand...

That doesn't make him a politician, sorry.
 
There's no doubt that HFH and his other charitable organizations have made him "trusted".

Also consider the fact that he was just an ignorant Georgia hick. His incompetence wasn't fueled by malice but just a sheer lack of capability to run the office.
 
jonny5 said:
It wasn't defended. Everyone died or fled, and it was set on fire and ransacked. Back to the topic.
Click to expand...

The US Embassy in Libya was never attacked, though it was defended, the Consulate was attacked. Back to the topic.
 
Sure people will trust the man when he doesn't do anything. He has no opportunity to mess anything up.
 
I don't actually know anyone on that list, I like a whole bunch of them, and I dislike some too....trust, though?.. I find it difficult folks whom I know very little of, beyond the persona they present in the public arena
 
Gipper said:
There's no doubt that HFH and his other charitable organizations have made him "trusted".

Also consider the fact that he was just an ignorant Georgia hick. His incompetence wasn't fueled by malice but just a sheer lack of capability to run the office.
Click to expand...

A hick with a naval career and graduate work in nuclear science and 13 years of holding political office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom