T
TRGLDTE
Guest
It might help if read some of Gorbie's writing before showing your ignorance. You're an idiot.
Clinton/Obama feud - what's your take?
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
Litmus
Verified User
Right, I point out the simplistic nature of your posts and all you have to say is "You're an idiot."
You have already lost.
I prefer a more educated approach to Foreign Policy. Unlike Bush with sweeping preconditions, which I realize are often counterproductive, I realize that preconditions exist in every meeting with two or more nation's leaders. They are careful who comes to whom, etc. Ignoring the importance of set conditions in such meetings is simplistic in nature and shows a determined lack of logical thought, let alone experience in regard to the topic.
Attempting to render how important where and when are in how it appears to the rest of the international community, as well as what would be the reason behind the meeting, as pointless to the "symbolism" is based on nothing in Gorbachev's books. That Reagan broke the ice with a joke does not mean that they met with no conditions, and it is simplistic to say that they had and shows that if you read the book that you insist I should read you skipped about 30 of the chapters. Attempting to use meetings so set with precondition before the arrival of two leaders as an example of how conditions do not need to be set because Reagan could tell a joke is based on true ignorance of the topic at hand.
Truly, it's like arguing physics with an art major. You might understand a bit of math, but the concept seem to elude all comprehension and any attempt at comprehension is dismissed as unimportant to their art. If feels good to be the "not Bush" so you want to desperately cover up a clearly inexperienced candidate that you seem to have unwitting love for.
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
I wonder how many of you agree that when you relegate a person to Veep status, you are really writing him off as a presidential candidate. Look at history, there is only One VEEP who ever became a good president, that was Trueman, and quite by accident. JOHNSON? NIXON? BUSH I, ??
Look at it this was, the President is a decision maker, the Veep is primarily a yes man. and doesn'eteasily become a good decision maker.
Look at it this was, the President is a decision maker, the Veep is primarily a yes man. and doesn'eteasily become a good decision maker.
Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams were VPs. I think Al Gore would have made a good Prez, especially looking in hindsight at the Chimp's performance.
Calvin Coolidge was a VP. I'm not a fan, but Cons like him.
I think history will ultimately be kinder to LBJ. We take a lot of things for granted today, that didn't exist before his presidency. It was tranformational in that respect.
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
I guess I should have indicated "modern day" veeps, those were all before my time. except LBJ, in his case, as I have said before, Lady-bird was the pres. not LBJ.
Not really, many times you are giving them the experience necessary to take it to the next level.
Ford was a capable, if not great president. But then, how many of the 43 presidents themselves were "great". Not many.
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
Ford doesn't equate in this issue. he was appointed, and was never effectively a VEEP
doniston
Aint I a cutie? HEH HEH
I totally disagre. the only one who learned while on the job was Truman. He had taken many of the duties of pres before he became president. I repeat, Johnson, Nixon, bush I -----all thumbs down.
and Bye the bye, that is one reason I did not, and would "never" vote for Gore.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You're absolutely correct. Parameters should be assumed by anyone honestly critquing his answer.
And, you're also correct in that he has gotten the best of her by highlighting this is the same kind of imperial hubris that caused her to sign onto the invasion of Iraq, the worst strategic blunder in American history.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Unfortunately, Hillary's "experience" did not prevent her from blundering into Iraq.
He's got you there Damo. Obama was speaking against the invasion at the same time Clinton was voting for it.
That is true, of course if that is the only requirement than Ron Paul is a political prodigy as well... However that doesn't change the idea of whether you speak without condition to leaders of those nations.
I think his answer reveals his lack of experience. I also dislike his lack of a firm stance on most issues. On this he makes a firm stance, and it was a quick and simplistic answer of "I am so opposite Bush that I will err in the other direction just to prove it!"
While Clinton's was "I am different from Bush, but know that it isn't as easy as all that."
I'd prefer Clinton's answer from a Presidential Candidate any day over, "Yah! I'm so not Bush I'll blunder in the other direction!"
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Being against the war hardly makes Paul a prodigy. 138 other politicians voted against it and millions of people all over the world stood against it.
Again, the argument of preconditions is a strawman and far from intellectually sound. The real question is would he as president seek to engage in talks with nations we're opposed to.
Additionally, earlier this year Clinton said she would reach out immediately to the Syrians and Iranians in order to further Washington's interests in the Mideast.
"I don't see it as a sign of weakness," Clinton said in the January 27 interview. "I see it as a sign of strength. You know our president will not talk to people he considers bad. Well there are a lot of bad actors in the world and you don't make peace with your friends. You've got to deal with your enemies, your opponents, people whose interests diverge from yours."
No mention of preconditions, which would have been assumed.
Americans must learn how to think beyond political-spin-speak.
In this one, the question and answer specifically mentioned "no preconditions" attempting to say it is a "strawman" when it was specifically stated is preposterous and a weak position.
I know you like the candidate, but this is just one more sign that he isn't yet ready for this job.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I have questions and criticism of Obama myself, but this isn't one of them. Nor is the question of is he ready for the job. Intelligence makes one "ready for the job", a quality that Bush is lacking in which explains why he's such a miserable failure.
You are correct about the specifics of the question, but I'd have no problem with any US President simply picking up the phone and calling Castro or Chavez, and I think many people would agree with that. I think it far more important to discern a willingness to talk and a different course than the cowboyism of Bush. Those who profess that it isn't done that way .. yes it is. We haven't done it that way, but I think it's time that we do.
I prefer a more thoughtful approach to foreign policy. It isn't like I'm here cheering Bush on for his great handling of our foreign policy or something. However, Hillary's response was far more pragmatic. Opening dialogue does not take irresponsible reactionary FP based on "See I'm not Bush" mentality.
In Hillary's response it was far clearer she had more of a clear knowledge how it must work. In his it was clear he was desperate to be the "anti-Bush", so much so his answer was not well-thought out and showed his green gills.
I think we should meet with them, but with regular conditions on the meeting.
Also, you should note that meetings with Iranian leaders are happening, pretty much as we type.