• 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!

Would Joe Biden be a better president than Hillary Clinton

Would Joe Biden be a better president than Hillary Clinton?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 26.9%

  • No

    Votes: 19 73.1%
  • Total voters
    26
MildSteel

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think Joe Biden brings more experience and it better connected on the international stage than Hillary Clinton. He has done a good job supporting the presidency of Barack Obama. Does not try to get out in front, but when called upon does not hesitate to give his best shot at the task he is assigned. I would rather see Biden president than Clinton. What do you think?
 
MildSteel said:
I think Joe Biden brings more experience and it better connected on the international stage than Hillary Clinton. He has done a good job supporting the presidency of Barack Obama. Does not try to get out in front, but when called upon does not hesitate to give his best shot at the task he is assigned. I would rather see Biden president than Clinton. What do you think?
Click to expand...


I don't know about the future but... I have always thought he would have been a better choice as Pres. in this admin.

Thom Paine
 
MildSteel said:
I think Joe Biden brings more experience and it better connected on the international stage than Hillary Clinton. He has done a good job supporting the presidency of Barack Obama. Does not try to get out in front, but when called upon does not hesitate to give his best shot at the task he is assigned. I would rather see Biden president than Clinton. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I really do not think he would be better. But that sorrily does not say she would be good. But she does have more experience than Obama.
 
Thom Paine said:
I don't know about the future but... I have always thought he would have been a better choice as Pres. in this admin.

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

I don't know. He seems so out of it, somehow. Does he have any real opinions?
 
I don't think it matters that much in foreign relations. After all, foreign powers, when discussing with the president, don't talk to the actual president, the person that occupies it, they talk to the office of the president of the US. And again, that goes both ways, when one official of a state talks to another official, they talk to the office, not really the person.
 
This is like asking if you'd rather have cockroaches or worms on your pizza. God bless America if this is the best you've got.
 
joG said:
I don't know. He seems so out of it, somehow. Does he have any real opinions?
Click to expand...

He always has but as VP protocol says he must generally reflect the Pres.

I'd have preferred neither be where they are but c'est la vie.

Thom Paine
 
Rainman05 said:
I don't think it matters that much in foreign relations. After all, foreign powers, when discussing with the president, don't talk to the actual president, the person that occupies it, they talk to the office of the president of the US. And again, that goes both ways, when one official of a state talks to another official, they talk to the office, not really the person.
Click to expand...

While there is some truth to what you have said, the flaw is that a person, the President, actually makes decisions. As such, in order for foreign powers to effectively have influence on those decisions, they MUST take into account the person who occupies the office.
 
CanadaJohn said:
This is like asking if you'd rather have cockroaches or worms on your pizza. God bless America if this is the best you've got.
Click to expand...

While I understand what you are saying, I don't think your analogy is good because it's not that bad. It's more like having to choose between collard greens or turnips on your pizza. You would likely prefer neither, but if you had to make a choice, you would at least have something that is edible.
 
MildSteel said:
While there is some truth to what you have said, the flaw is that a person, the President, actually makes decisions. As such, in order for foreign powers to effectively have influence on those decisions, they MUST take into account the person who occupies the office.
Click to expand...

Most diplomatic decisions are already made. They're negotiated and decided by the foreign office of both parties and the president, like the heads of state of any country, is usually just there for ceremony.

Only decisions that are done in the spirit of the moment, like, critical decisions, where the president actually calls the shot, under advisement. And Obama is a person who at least seems to be very open to advisement. So from that respect ,he seems good.

As for the 2 you mentioned.
Biden seems to be more open to advice than Hillary... but then again, I have a poor opinion of Hillary ever since she did that stupid "reset button" strategy with Russia. I mean, how naive can you be...
 
Rainman05 said:
Most diplomatic decisions are already made. They're negotiated and decided by the foreign office of both parties and the president, like the heads of state of any country, is usually just there for ceremony.

Only decisions that are done in the spirit of the moment, like, critical decisions, where the president actually calls the shot, under advisement. And Obama is a person who at least seems to be very open to advisement. So from that respect ,he seems good.

As for the 2 you mentioned.
Biden seems to be more open to advice than Hillary... but then again, I have a poor opinion of Hillary ever since she did that stupid "reset button" strategy with Russia. I mean, how naive can you be...
Click to expand...

Decisions like whether or not we are going to bomb ISIS in Iraq are made by the President. And although it is true that such decisions are made under advice, someone who is seeking to influence such a decisions must take into account the person who is in office such that their power of persuasion will be effective. For example, someone like George W Bush is more likely persuaded with emotional appeals and simplistic examples, whereas Obama is more likely persuaded with logic arguments and facts.
 
MildSteel said:
While I understand what you are saying, I don't think your analogy is good because it's not that bad. It's more like having to choose between collard greens or turnips on your pizza. You would likely prefer neither, but if you had to make a choice, you would at least have something that is edible.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I happen to think that even after 5 plus years of Obama's disastrous Presidency things could even get worse. I'd rather go on a starvation diet than be forced to digest 4 or 8 years of Biden or Clinton. Neither Biden nor Clinton look like they like golf, vacationing, fundraising and ego trips so they'd be spending too much time in Washington for any good to come out of it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Sorry, but I happen to think that even after 5 plus years of Obama's disastrous Presidency things could even get worse. I'd rather go on a starvation diet than be forced to digest 4 or 8 years of Biden or Clinton. Neither Biden nor Clinton look like they like golf, vacationing, fundraising and ego trips so they'd be spending too much time in Washington for any good to come out of it.
Click to expand...

Well we are going to be forced fed whether we like it or not. It's better someone like that than Michelle Bachmann. That would be like worms on your pizza.
 
MildSteel said:
Decisions like whether or not we are going to bomb ISIS in Iraq are made by the President. And although it is true that such decisions are made under advice, someone who is seeking to influence such a decisions must take into account the person who is in office such that their power of persuasion will be effective. For example, someone like George W Bush is more likely persuaded with emotional appeals and simplistic examples, whereas Obama is more likely persuaded with logic arguments and facts.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying when I said that the decisions are more of the spirit of the moment ones rather than diplomatic ones.
I wouldn't say that Bush is more sentimental or succeptible to emotional appeal than Obama. I mean, lets face it, it's not quite that straightforward.

Anyway. while the decision to bomb or not bomb ISIS is indeed up to the president but I don't think Obama will go to the meeting and say "let's bomb ISIS". I think that one of the people, his military advisors or council or whatever, come in and say what the situation is and what are the courses of action.


Today, much of the whole process of governing and administrating the country is not run by politicians. The politicians set " a course" and not much else. It's just too much to be handled by non-specialists. Especially in regards to military action.
 
MildSteel said:
Well we are going to be forced fed whether we like it or not. It's better someone like that than Michelle Bachmann. That would be like worms on your pizza.
Click to expand...

No, Michelle Bachmann would be like regurgitated salmonella poisoned chicken on your pizza. I'm passing that option too.
 
Gee, I don't know. Neither would be worth a damn. Why don't you ask if it would be better for a man to cut off his left testicle or his right.
 
MildSteel said:
I think Joe Biden brings more experience and it better connected on the international stage than Hillary Clinton. He has done a good job supporting the presidency of Barack Obama. Does not try to get out in front, but when called upon does not hesitate to give his best shot at the task he is assigned. I would rather see Biden president than Clinton. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Definitely not. In the words of Robert Gates he has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." He isn't the right man for the perilous world we face. Hillary Clinton would be a dramatic improvement over Obama and leagues ahead of Biden.
 
~"If ya hear a noise just go outside, shoot your shotgun and they'll run away!"
 
Joe Biden??????? President?????????????????????

3872487-+aw+hell+no+gif+.gif
 
Sherman123 said:
Definitely not. In the words of Robert Gates he has been "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." He isn't the right man for the perilous world we face. Hillary Clinton would be a dramatic improvement over Obama and leagues ahead of Biden.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Hillary has a tendency to take a hard line in order to prove that she is tough, although she is a woman. Also, too much baggage from various scandals.
 
Rainman05 said:
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying when I said that the decisions are more of the spirit of the moment ones rather than diplomatic ones.
I wouldn't say that Bush is more sentimental or succeptible to emotional appeal than Obama. I mean, lets face it, it's not quite that straightforward.
Click to expand...

I would say that. Obama has been reported to be a person to grill his team on the details of policy. Never heard anyone make that observation about Bush. Obama is an academic and an intellectual. Such people tend to be like that.

Rainman05 said:
Anyway. while the decision to bomb or not bomb ISIS is indeed up to the president but I don't think Obama will go to the meeting and say "let's bomb ISIS". I think that one of the people, his military advisors or council or whatever, come in and say what the situation is and what are the courses of action.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to stop him from doing so. Obama may come to a meeting and say "Iraq is problem, what are the pros and cons of targeted airstrikes", and then get feedback from advisors. Or it may play out as you have indicated. It just depends on the situation, how closely the President has been following it, how strongly he feels about it, and how confident he may feel in his analysis of the situation.

Rainman05 said:
Today, much of the whole process of governing and administrating the country is not run by politicians. The politicians set " a course" and not much else. It's just too much to be handled by non-specialists. Especially in regards to military action.
Click to expand...

The course is the main thing. For example, the President may say we are going to invade Iraq, the details of how to go about doing that are, of course left up to military experts. But it's the decision that is important, and those who wish to exercise effective influence over such decisions must take into account the type of person who is occupying the office of President so that they can be persuasive.
 
That's like saying ebola is better than the black death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom