|
Democratic Debate (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rizen |
pretty much with MisterOpus1 on this.
just like to addon, do generals make good presidents? |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
pretty much with MisterOpus1 on this.
just like to addon, do generals make good presidents? |
i watched a town hall meeting last night on CSPAN with clark and i must say that i was really impressed with the guy. this was the first time i had seen him or heard any of his policies directly and from what i heard the majority of it is very sound. 
rizen, i tend to look favorably at ex-generals for positions of power, not because of their military backround but becuase of the skills and experiences that come with that positions. generals are good leaders, that is their job basicly. they have proven that they can communicate well, have a certain degree of charisma, associate with and know how to work with other people (hence the promotion to the top of the ranks). Presidents shouldnt expect to know everything but given the info needed they sound be able to make reasonable and sound desicions, another traits generals use often. also probably the most crucial desicion a president must ever make is wether or not to go to war, there is no better person who knows the implications of that then someone who came from that field. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
pretty much with MisterOpus1 on this.
just like to addon, do generals make good presidents? |
Former Generals who later were president:
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
Zachary Taylor
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
Chester A. Arthur
Benjamin Harrison
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Of those 3 were the top general during times of war:
Washington led the US in the American Revolution.
Grant was the commander of the Union armies at the end of the Civil War.
And Ike was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in WWII.
One thing generals, especially in today's military, get which most people overlook is experience in "politics". To be promoted to that type of position requires one to do a lot of political manuevering inside the military. If you don't play military politics right you will never rise to the general staff no matter how qualified you are.
MrS |
|
|
| rizen |
| yeah youre right MrS, thanks :D |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| - He.. no surprise, Clark is very close friend with the Clintons.. something good has to come out of that... ;) |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
- He.. no surprise, Clark is very close friend with the Clintons.. something good has to come out of that... ;) |
Perhaps he will abandon this abstinence only "sex ed" nonsense? :D :stongue: Or maybe he's not that close to the Clintons. ;) |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
Yes I've heard Clark say all those things, but anyone will say anything he or she thinks the public wants to hear to get elected. ;)I'm more interested in Clark's track record rather than his words. I think since the the Sierra club is a large constituency of the democrats, perhaps he would listen to them for recommendations for who to appoint to the EPA etc. One would hope that he'd appoint people who are actually trained in science, rather than corporate lobbyists.:rolleyes:
Either way, it's still better than having an administration in power who only listens to the most right wing, and unsocially conscious of large corporations. It surprised me to learn the other week that ExxonMobil was in the minority among corporations of its type that were opposed to the Kyoto treaty. Mr. Bush decided to protect the interests of this small percentage of companies instead of siding with most of the rest of the world (including many energy companies) in support of Kyoto.
The former head of the EPA Christy Whitman resigned because the White House wouldn't let her do her job. They told her how to word her press releases, and basically how to run the EPA.
I saw a taped speech of Bush talking about how the EPA under his administration had "simplified" the language of the Clean Air Act so that it would be "easier" for polluters to understand. He also asked the American public to put their confidence in these large companies like ExxonMobil to make the right decisions concerning their environmental policies. This is the same thing he did as governor of the state of Texas. Under his relaxation of Texas pollution laws, Houston surpassed Los Angelos as the most polluted city in North America.
Bush and his rich friends have no conscience. They are made of air, water, and soil just as you or I. They breath the same air, eat the same fish, and consume the same water as you or I. This is one reason I can't even begin to understand the mindset of a person like Bush or Cheney. This is where that fear I've been talking about comes into play. They fear that the scientists may be right, yet they choose to ignore the science (and the health of the world) to line their pockets.
Do you think pollution that is released in Houston stays in Houston? No of course not. The entirety of the world is connected by the atmoshpere, and the water cycle. This is why polar bears in the arctic have high concentrations of industrial toxins in their bodies even though they live far away from the sources of the pollution. |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
people are all gonna start trying to pick Clark apart now. I think Lieberman is the sleeper in this race. he has Dean and Clark in front of him but I think that's his strategy so that he doesnt get the major focus of all the negative campaigns. that and hes at like 25 percent in NY primary with the closest competition 10 points behind and Clark at 6 percent!! surprising huh.
haha I wonder what the middle east policy would look like with a jew in the white house. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by 'mju:zik
I think Lieberman is the sleeper in this race. he has Dean and Clark in front of him but I think that's his strategy so that he doesnt get the major focus of all the negative campaigns. |
I don't think so. Lieberman started off as the leader of the pack when the candidates were first announced, but - up until a few months ago anyway - has had his support dropping off fairly sharply. The preferred candidate numbers went from about 35% to 12%* in the space of about 6 months from memory. Unless he's picked up again in the past couple of months, I don't fancy his chances.
*Edit: See here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
He's been going steadily down on virtually every listed poll.
| quote: | | haha I wonder what the middle east policy would look like with a jew in the white house. |
If it's Lierberman then I wouldn't expect much difference to the current administration (i.e. mainly pro-Isreali). If it's Dean, however (who is Jewish also) then things will be fairly different. He preached greater US impartiality on the road-map issue and he and Lierberman have already had at least one public disagreement about this policy. Still, I doubt this issue is likely to be a major factor in the scheme of things. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by 'mju:zik
people are all gonna start trying to pick Clark apart now. I think Lieberman is the sleeper in this race. he has Dean and Clark in front of him but I think that's his strategy so that he doesnt get the major focus of all the negative campaigns. that and hes at like 25 percent in NY primary with the closest competition 10 points behind and Clark at 6 percent!! surprising huh.
haha I wonder what the middle east policy would look like with a jew in the white house. |
I don't think Lieberman can win the nomination. Of the "important" early primaries the only one he has a good chance in is New Hampshire. When it gets to Iowa he has almost no chance, Gephardt is the local "favorite" there being from Missouri and even "liberal" farmers in the midwest tend to be pretty conservative and pretty leery of big city candidates from out east. I suspect that of the Democratic candidates Gephardt, Graham, Kucinich, and Lieberman will drop out fairly early followed by Edwards in the middle of the campaign. Moseley-Braun and Sharpton will stay "in it" probably to the end though neither has even a remote chance of winning the nod. I forsee at this moment a 3 way battle between Kerry, Clark, and Dean to see who gets the nomination.
This is all up in the air still of course, you never can tell what will happen.
MrS |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| -Daveseanz, I agree with what you said 100%, and to be honest, that is the second most reason, if not the first, of why Im all against Bush, him getting out of the Kyoto treaty, and his anti-environment actions. In todays world, we cant do moves like Bush has done, nor can we act in a couple of years later, because it will be too late. What is been done today, it WILL reflect in a couple years laters. And what will be done tomorrow, can at least decipitate or help on the upcoming problem .. or allright here problem ( Global Warming < One of the biggest phenomenos, and most catastrophic that we humans will experience ).. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
If it's Dean, however (who is Jewish also) |
whoa! is he really a jew? if he is, why the hell is there all this anti-jew press when he made his stance about israel. i really hope he isnt a jew, cause I don't see a jewish president anytime soon. |
|
|
|
|
