Democratic Debate

[Erose]

Just to elaborate on this point a little.
The Labour Party has historically seen more Catholic support than it's opposing party, the Conservatives.(though I wouldn't call it Catholic)

This is, I would think is in large part, due to inheriting the mantle of "Conservative's primary opposition" from the Liberal Party and it's forebear parties.
The Conservative Party's predecessor party, the Tory Party strongly supported the monarchy and by extension the Church of England. In turn it did it's best to privilege the CofE and keep rights from religious minorities.

Tony Blair is Catholic...I'm unsure if he identified as such while Prime Minister though.

If I remember correctly, he converted to Catholicism either just after his political career ended or just before. I don't remember which.

 

[Erose]

I do find it sad that the one guy who is the best qualified to be president, probably in both parties potential nominees, doesn't even get a look at by the Democrats. Mr. Webb, is by far the best Democratic option; and people would prefer either a socialist draft dodger, or a woman who thinks she is above the law, over a highly decorated war hero whose integrity and foreign policy knowledge is second to none.

I tell you what Democrats, if you want my vote select Mr. Webb as your nominee.

 

[SolomonVII]

Americans will have to hit bottom before they come to their senses.
There will be no choices in this election cycle to prevent that fall to the bottom.

 

[Cos-play]

I do find it sad that the one guy who is the best qualified to be president, probably in both parties potential nominees, doesn't even get a look at by the Democrats. Mr. Webb, is by far the best Democratic option; and people would prefer either a socialist draft dodger, or a woman who thinks she is above the law, over a highly decorated war hero whose integrity and foreign policy knowledge is second to none.

I tell you what Democrats, if you want my vote select Mr. Webb as your nominee.

If you think Gov. Webb is such a good choice draft him as a Repub (which he is really), but he's actually a politician with experience in governance so he'd be reject by the GOP rank and file.

As far an Saunders:

He was a conscientious objector.

So if you object of participating in a war for matters of conscientious you're "a draft dodger"

If you refuse to do your job as a county clerk for matters of conscientious you're a "hero" and deserve to legal protection.

I find this dichotomy interesting. If speak volumes about the conservative mindset.

 

[Tallguy88]

I didn't know he was a contientius objector

 

[Cos-play]

I didn't know he was a contentious objector

Why would you ? He doesn't talk about (it was half a century ago) and people who talk about it now throw around words like "draft dodger", "coward" and "hypocrite" because, you know, it's cool to diss old people.

 

[Tallguy88]

 

[Cos-play]

Actually, he does sort of look like Col. Sanders.

Who was also a really nice guy.

 

[Tallguy88]

Why would you ? He doesn't talk about (it was half a century ago) and people who talk about it now throw around words like "draft dodger", "coward" and "hypocrite" because, you know, it's cool to diss old people.

I've got no problem with it. I'm totally against the draft, including the modern selective service.

 

[Cos-play]

I've got no problem with it. I'm totally against the draft, including the modern selective service.

I'm actually pro-draft.

If we're going to be in a state of endless war we, as a society need to be all in.

If ISIS is such horrible, bad thing I want everyone's kid in harms way. If you're not willing to put your kid in harm's way then the conflict isn't important enough for us to be all in.

The draft is the equalizer that keeps the military/industrial/Congressional complex in check .

 

[Erose]

If you think Gov. Webb is such a good choice draft him as a Repub (which he is really), but he's actually a politician with experience in governance so he'd be reject by the GOP rank and file.

As far an Saunders:

He was a conscientious objector.

So if you object of participating in a war for matters of conscientious you're "a draft dodger"

If you refuse to do your job as a county clerk for matters of conscientious you're a "hero" and deserve to legal protection.

I find this dichotomy interesting. If speak volumes about the conservative mindset.

I wouldn't mind it. But your right the Dems aren't known for electing qualified people for President anyway.

Concerning him being a conscientious objector; if you are truly one the military makes sure you are put in a non-combatant role. So yeah draft dodger and a past experience of hating this country, makes him the perfect Democratic nominee. Dems seem to hate war heroes, who are actually qualified for the job.

 

[Cos-play]

I wouldn't mind it. But your right the Dems aren't known for electing qualified people for President anyway.

Concerning him being a conscientious objector; if you are truly one the military makes sure you are put in a non-combatant role. So yeah draft dodger and a past experience of hating this country, makes him the perfect Democratic nominee. Dems seem to hate war heroes, who are actually qualified for the job.

Still diss the Saunders contentious ....

....And still no mention of the troll in Kentucky who is still a hero who deserves protection.

Still an intriguing dichotomy

 

[LoAmmi]

Dems seem to hate war heroes, who are actually qualified for the job.

Why would a war hero be qualified for the job?

 

[Cos-play]

I was thinking the same thing but didn't even want to go there.

Somehow, in this conservative mindset which I find so interesting, every buck private with a GED who ever served a 2 year hitch in any branch of the military is immediately an expert on strategic military and foreign policy.

 

[LoAmmi]

Why would a war hero be qualified for the job?

Just to clarify: I'm not saying a war hero couldn't be qualified but I don't see what being a war hero has to do with it. Being a war hero doesn't magically instill some property in people that makes them good presidents.

 

[Albion]

Why would a war hero be qualified for the job?

I suppose you ought to ask the Democrats that question, considering that they wanted to run General Eisenhower as their nominee for president, did nominate John Kennedy and make a big deal out of his service on a PT boat, and tried to sell the country on the idea that John Kerry was qualified to be president in 2004 mainly because he was supposed to be a war hero.

 

[LoAmmi]

I suppose you ought to ask the Democrats that question, considering that they wanted to run General Eisenhower as their nominee for president, did nominate John Kennedy and make a big deal out of his service on a PT boat, and tried to sell the country on the idea that John Kerry was qualified to be president in 2004 mainly because he was supposed to be a war hero.

You obviously talk up the achievements of whatever candidate you run. But it was just the wording as if being a war hero is some kind of automatic qualification.

 

[Albion]

You obviously talk up the achievements of whatever candidate you run. But it was just the wording as if being a war hero is some kind of automatic qualification.

I understand, but all of this comes in response to a poster who identifies as a Republican, so it's apparently a matter of doubting what he wrote.

We have a long history of nominating and electing war heroes in this country. Many of our presidents before World War I were war heroes, but this mainly refers to generals, not simply brave enlisted men. The officers could well be seen as having proven themselves capable of leading men, maintaining focus, being able to think and make decisions decisively--all of which would seem applicable to the challenges of being president. (None of it sounds like our current president, though.)

 

[LoAmmi]

I understand, but all of this comes in response to a poster who identifies as a Republican, so it's apparently a matter of doubting what he wrote.

Why do people assume I wouldn't say the same thing if a Democrat said it? I'm pretty equal on these things.

We have a long history of nominating and electing war heroes in this country. Many of our presidents before World War I were war heroes, but this mainly refers to generals, not simply brave enlisted men. The officers could well be seen as having proven themselves capable of leading men, maintaining focus, being able to think and make decisions decisively--all of which would seem applicable to the challenges of being president. (None of it sounds like our current president, though.)

Yes, generals and officers who have been placed in a leadership role that is similar to that of the President, I completely agree. John McCain was qualified because he was a long standing senator that knew how government worked not because of his war hero status. Now, you can point to a war hero to show the person has character, but that's different than qualified.

 

[Albion]

Why do people assume I wouldn't say the same thing if a Democrat said it? I'm pretty equal on these things.

They may not doubt it. However, that's the record of this particular exchange--a Republican wrote something and the response was to ask why that would make sense.

Yes, generals and officers who have been placed in a leadership role that is similar to that of the President, I completely agree. John McCain was qualified because he was a long standing senator that knew how government worked not because of his war hero status. Now, you can point to a war hero to show the person has character, but that's different than qualified.

Sounds reasonable to me, but we Americans do tend to think that war heroes have the moral fiber and judgment necessary for national leadership. Maybe we're nuts for thinking that way, but the record is there.