Democratic Debate

[Cos-play]

There is no question, however, that the public considered him to be a war hero--and that was the point there.

No - the point was that any war hero should be considered a superior Presidential candidate (You have to back track the chain about 7 post on this). I disagreed.

Baloney. Have you completely forgotten that it was planned that when he first stepped onto the stage at the Dem National Convention he immediately stopped and gave a military salute to the delegates and home viewers in order to play that role? Laughably affected, but that was the story his campaign and the DNC had decided to sell in tandem with them calling Bush a draft dodger. Oh yes. And there had been a lot of build-up about his alleged leadership in VietNam. All of that was ruined by the "Swift boat" veterans, but that was indeed the Democrat game plan.

I sorry you're make way to big a deal out a salute. Kerry had an issue with using this tactic right from the start and it wasn't ever going to work it you used it. Kerry was a serious member of Vets against the War after his tour and threw his medals, publicly, over into the White House lawn as a protest.

No way selling yourself as a war hero works with that on tape and on the web.

 

[Albion]

No - the point was that any war hero should be considered a superior Presidential candidate

...by the voters, of course.

I do agree that the train of thought got a bit blurry as, for example, when you wrote this:

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.

...which amounts to a 'rebuttal' of something that NO ONE here had written.

 

[Cos-play]

...by the voters, of course.

...well specifically by one poster

 

[Fantine]

I would support compulsory "national service" with a guarantee of a certain amount of grant aid for college, community college, or vocational school at the end of the term.

I wouldn't support mandatory military service--there should be other opportunities in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, camps, offices, inner cities, rural areas, etc.

In South Korea all males have to serve in the military (I believe it's a two-year commitment. They can choose community service work instead, but they have to serve a longer term--perhaps six more months.)

But of course there's no "carrot" at the end because most other countries offer free college anyway.

 

[Erose]

My point is that if a CO in a war is a "Draft Dodger" (your words dude)

Then if the Troll gets a an exception can I call her, I don't know, how about

"A welfare queen living off the goverment teat" because she's refusing to do her job ?

I mean, fair is fair.



I'm going with yes on this one.

If you want a government job that requires you to enforce secular laws and you can't see your way to contentiously enforce those laws you need to not be in that goverment job.

A CO in a war is objecting to being forced into service - the idea of a CO in an all volunteer army is sort of stupid. "I want to join the Army but I'm a CO so pay me for being in the Army but leave me alone otherwise"

Same thing with the Troll. "I want my paycheck I just only want to enforce laws I like".

So you admit he is a draft dodger. Now we are getting somewhere.

And since you seem to not know that there are plenty of non-combatant jobs in the military. If he had a legitimate reason for being a CO then he could have become a nurse or ambulance transport or whatever. Heck he may not have had to go to Vietnam at all. But instead he fled from his duty and responsibility, and now he claims he is ready to be responsible?

If you want to vote for him by all means; not saying don't. I won't.

 

[Cos-play]

So you admit he is a draft dodger. Now we are getting somewhere.

And since you seem to not know that there are plenty of non-combatant jobs in the military. If he had a legitimate reason for being a CO then he could have become a nurse or ambulance transport or whatever. Heck he may not have had to go to Vietnam at all. But instead he fled from his duty and responsibility, and now he claims he is ready to be responsible?

If you want to vote for him by all means; not saying don't. I won't.

You're a very strange thinker. Do you honestly believe you can batter me with as blunt an intellectual instrument as an intentional straw man by misinterpretation ?

You hold me in insultingly little regard.

 

[Erose]

You're a very strange thinker. Do you honestly believe you can batter me with as blunt an intellectual instrument as an intentional straw man by misinterpretation ?

You hold me in insultingly little regard.

Perhaps, since you are comparing a CO to a DD. A CO would have still served in the military, albeit not in combat arms, for COs I have the highest respect., because even though they are pacifists on religious grounds they are still willing to support their country when it needs them. DDs bailed on their country when it needed them, and are nothing more than cowards. That is the difference. Besides ole Bernie really isn't much of a candidate anyway. He's kind of like the Dems version of Ron Paul. Has some ideas that get extremists excited, but has zero chance of getting elected to a higher office.

Jim Webb has far more experience as he has not only been a US Senator, but also a Secretary of the Navy, and Assistant Secretary of Defense, not including being an actual war hero and a graduate of the Naval Academy. Quite frankly he is the only Democrat that I may vote for. The rest of the group of Dems is pretty pathetic. Of course the Repubs are sadly not much better right now. So I'm with Solomon on this one.

 

[Erose]

Why would a war hero be qualified for the job?

Have you looked into Mr. Webb's background?

 

[Erose]

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.

What an ignorant comment. I guess outside of Bernie and Hillary, you really have no clue about the other potential nominees do you? Mr. Jim Webb is hardly a buck private.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hillary Clinton was the only serious candidate in the debate. With all the muck that she is in up to her chin, her Democratic opponents needed to come out swinging against her and capitalize.
They didn't, and Bernie even was magnanimous about it.
And Joe Biden has even reached the start line yet.
Passive people really don't stand a chance of breaking the ribbon upon reaching the finish line.

 

[Erose]

Hillary Clinton was the only serious candidate in the debate. With all the muck that she is in up to her chin, her Democratic opponents needed to come out swinging against her and capitalize.
They didn't, and Bernie even was magnanimous about it.
And Joe Biden has even reached the start line yet.
Passive people really don't stand a chance of breaking the ribbon upon reaching the finish line.

That is true. Presidential debates are more comparable to a pit fight, than a true debate; and if you aren't willing to get bloody, you ain't going to cut it. Perhaps the other Democratic candidates learned their lesson now. Heck unless Bidden gets into the race or some dark horse, Bernie basically gave the nomination to Hillary. Anyone giving money to his campaign now is just throwing money away.

But oh well, it is what it is.

 

[mark46]

Bernie basically gave the nomination to Hillary. Anyone giving money to his campaign now is just throwing money away.

But oh well, it is what it is.

Hillary has a 67% positive rating among Democrats, even higher with regard to the email issue. Sanders did what he could to help his own campaign. Attacking Hillary on emails would have immediately ended the campaign of Sanders. All the Democratic media (those for Sanders and Hillary) agreed on this point. Only Republicans are upset that Hillary wasn't attacked on her emails.

 

[Tallguy88]

They handled themselves like adults, not little kids at recess arguing over who's cooler.

 

[mark46]

They handled themselves like adults, not little kids at recess arguing over who's cooler.

Personally, I have thought that Sanders had no chance at the nomination. However, now it is really up to him and his campaign. I still think that they will not be able to raise the kind of money needed to compete in the large primaries in March and April. But he certainly has his chance. Also, I think that he has made Biden's decision irrelevant.

 

[Erose]

Hillary has a 67% positive rating among Democrats, even higher with regard to the email issue. Sanders did what he could to help his own campaign. Attacking Hillary on emails would have immediately ended the campaign of Sanders. All the Democratic media (those for Sanders and Hillary) agreed on this point. Only Republicans are upset that Hillary wasn't attacked on her emails.

Perhaps, but somewhere the kids gloves are going to have to come off. If not he is going to stay where he is at 2nd place.

 

[mark46]

Perhaps, but somewhere the kids gloves are going to have to come off. If not he is going to stay where he is at 2nd place.

I agree. And that will need to happen, eventually.

However, there are no votes until the four small primaries in February. Sanders is at least equal to Hillary in both Iowa and New Hampshire. There are a couple of things that Sanders needs. First, he needs Biden out or the race. I think that this will happen soon. The second thing Sanders needs (although he won't admit it) is acceptance from party leaders in major states. At that point, he can start raising enough money to compete in March when many, many states will vote.

However, for the next four months, being equal in the first two primaries and gradually increasing in polls in other states is quite enough.