Apr 24, 2008 11:17PM GMT
Question
•
Politics - Other
Are the Clintons closer to Republicans than we think?
Hillary Clinton says she will ensure we have a Democrat as our next President but she is helping to cripple every chance the Democratic party has at repairing the country. She and MCcain say they have the experience for the job and Obama does not. They say Obama is elitist and out of touch. Bill Clinton has even went out on a limb and said " MCcain and Hillary get along so good America would get (bored) with a campaign between the two. It would be the most civilized campaign in history."Sen. Richardson said " Democrats have this negative battle going on while MCcain is on a honeymoon with the rest of America fund raising, and uniting the Republican party. We need to get behind one candidate and not let him pick up any ground."
Obama can be made out to be whatever you like but what you don't know about Hillary and her hubby might hurt us in the end.
Check out these videos before you leave your comments please!!
Loading...-
raves +1 posted May 04, 2008 10:54PM GMT
Answered No
We know a lot more about the Clintons than we do Obama, and what little we do know about Obama is mostly bad. As far as Bill Richardson goes, I have to wonder what Obama promised him (Maybe VP) to get him to turn traitor against what were supposed to be his friends. Before he was out of the running there was no Richardson/Obama lovefest. -
raves +2 -2 posted Apr 30, 2008 01:39PM GMT
Answered No
Ridiculous question. Yes she is (thankfully) more centrist than far left wing Obama but in these days we need to come to the middle, not swing to the other extreme.
And "Obama can be made out to be whatever you like"... exactly. He changes his policy, opinions and even personal history to appeal to his audience of the moment. He is a chameleon. At least with Hillary we know we can depend on her to not not be swayed 'any way the wind blows'. -
raves +1 May 01, 2008 05:41AM GMT'Oh yes and its color too and I have a computer and the internets and I read good too... '
Ok, what kind of idiotic statement was that and what the hell did it have to do with my comments? And yes, I more than *have* a television... I watch it and read and research. Call me on any concrete statement I make and I will be happy to back it up with cites and sources. Can YOU say the same? -
raves +3 -1 posted Apr 27, 2008 10:20PM GMT (edited)
Answered No
The Clintons are center left and McCain is center right. There are many differences between them. Obama is far, far left. Americans, according to people who study this sort of thing, is a centrist nation. If that is true, and it is, then Obama is the least electable. -
raves +6 -4 posted Apr 25, 2008 01:29AM GMT
Answered Yes
Both Clintons are very much centrists -- it was, after all, not some Republican who thought up "don't ask, don't tell" or changed welfare in our time, just to mention a couple of fairly conservative things that happened on B Clinton's watch.
However -- John McCain is way more conservative than the fawning press allows us to see. There are huge differences between McCain and Clinton. -
raves +1 Apr 25, 2008 03:35AM GMTWould you like to wager that(don't ask - Don't tell) it was (you say) Bill Clinton and it was not (I say) it was someone else ?
John McCain is a pro-Life Conservative you are correct. He has had some issues in the past that I would like to call "moderate" but they are few.
You are also right the the Clinton's IMHO are at times centrists ( Bill more so than Hillary )
RWD
Vote McCain -
raves +4 -1 Apr 27, 2008 08:54PM GMThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush.
So yes, I know who approved it. -
raves Apr 28, 2008 12:34AM GMTOK, then you know:
1) It was not Clinton who thought it up and,
2) You know it was not some Democrat who thought it up.
I also assume you know that while a complete reversal of military thought on the subject, it was voted down by the members of the Chiefs of Staff as unworkable. The policy has never worked out well according to the military.
RWD
Vote McCain 2008 -
raves +2 -1 Apr 28, 2008 12:39AM GMTIt happened under Clinton's watch, which is what I said in the first place, and is what is important here. He promised the gay community he would fight for their rights to be in the military; instead he caved. It was a disgrace. And I certainly don't care a whit what the military thought about the reversal he promised; the military said exactly the same thing about integrating the Armed Forces but Truman had more balls than Clinton and id it despite their objections.
It was a Clinton betrayal. And, by the way, I'm straight. -
raves -1 Apr 28, 2008 12:49AM GMTYou said that it happened un der B.C. watch AFTER you eluded to it being thought by him and "not some Republican.
A Republican would have never put himself oin a box that big and then had reneg and get out. Clinton did not give a damn about the military, he was embarrassed he ducked being in the service and hated the military. How we got from gays in the military to integrating the services I have not the foggiest idea. Once again I have to say you are right. Truman had more balls than Clinton. In fact Hillary has more balls than Bill Clinton.
I never thought that you were or weren't. Makes not difference to me.However, I think you should think how the military feels about anything, they are protecting you.
RWD
Vote John McCain 2008 and GOOD MILITARY MAN from a GOOD MILITARY FAMILY! -
raves +1 -1 Apr 28, 2008 06:57PM GMTDumb thing to fight about -- in fact, it's a pretty good analogue to how we look at presidential candidates. In my original statement, I talked about things that happened on Clinton's watch. That's all I was referring to, so go find something else unimportant to argue about.
Sounds like you're lacking in some history -- Truman integrated the US military, over the huge objection of the leaders of that military. Those objections were virtually identical with the ones being raised by the military today against gay folks being fully integrated into the military. Identical. I'll say it again, in case you're having trouble hearing. Identical. Don't want to shower with a black guy; don't want to be in a trench with a black guy. Don't trust a black guy to have your back. Except the word wasn't black; it was something that started with an "n".
With the exception of Eisenhower, those presidents we have elected who came primarily out of the military haven't exactly been great shakes -- I'm thinking of Grant and Taylor -- maybe Harrison. And Eisenhower warned us against the military-industrial complex that All Good Republicans now adore.
We want civilians in charge -
raves Apr 28, 2008 07:09PM GMTBlacks or gays it is still biggoted thinking!
Makes no difference to me either way. I hear just fine and I no not whether they are identical or not as I say makes not a bit of difference to me.
The military instills order and respect (you can easily see Bill Clinton was never in the military) and I am not sure ALL Republicans "adore" the military industrial complex as you state.
We have beat this into the ground, lets look for something else to debate.
RWD
Vote for John McCain 208 and military man! -
raves +1 -1 Apr 28, 2008 09:26PM GMTI agree, but I have to say
"Blacks or gays; it's still biggoted thinking" is precisely my problem. The military was bigoted about blacks; now they are bigoted about gays. Either way is wrong and Clinton should have integrated gays fully into the military despite the bigoted objections of military leaders.
Also, I don't want a President to impost order but respect would be nice.
Now -- on to other pastures. -
raves May 01, 2008 02:02PM GMTThere are several reasons I can see and none have the ability of the gay men to fight for their contry. They all have to do with livability (I think that's the word I want) of and in conditions. I really don't care if a person is gay, I don't have to be around them if I choose not to. The same goes for them being around straights. In the military, at least when I went to boot camp, you had no choice and in combat there is defenitely no choice.
It could create problems and a moral problem.
RWD
Vote McCain 2008 -
raves +1 May 08, 2008 10:56PM GMTIf you believe two people can travel to opposite ends of the spectrum with eachother in a single day, it has happened with us.
I think your comment above was very honest and human. I'm not gay, so I can't say with any certainty what they want or how they want it, but you put the issue on a human scale. I agree with you and am sure that gay guys aren't anymore roguish than hetero.
By the way:
Thank you for proving me wrong on the issue of blocking. -
raves -1 Apr 27, 2008 10:46PM GMTNope -- not that conservative.
Unlike you, I was around then -- around and politically aware. Yes, there were what we called Cold War Democrats -- liberal fiscally and socially (although social liberal is a very recent sort of idea), but backers of a strong military presence in the world, because of the dangers of Communism. There were also all those Dixicrats -- racist to the core, and therefore against any sort of legislation or other actions that would end segregation and allow black folks to be complete equals with white folks (I was really, really happy when they become Republicans).
But the only people who were as conservative as McCain actually is were Republcans then, too. -
raves +2 -1 Apr 29, 2008 11:40PM GMTPlease look here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/jo...
This isn't a partisan place -- it just lists where candidates stand on issues, including votes when applicable.
He is completely pro-birth (what most call pro-life)
While he clearly doesn't care much or know much about things dealing with the economy, all his votes are solidly Republican, except where he's taking on his colleagues about earmarking and balanced budgets -- I would say those are conservative positions
He has a mixed record on civil rights, but his ratings from the liberal pro-civil rights groups are pretty low
He's very law and order on crime, drugs and such
Well -- you can go there and see for yourself. He's not Rush Limbaugh; he is conservative
And Ron Paul is libertarian, not conservative
Answered Yes
Of the rich/ by the rich/ FOR the rich..... OR Obama...... Lets take our country back!!!!!