Obama Vs. McCain

Abookamongstthemany

slightofjeff wrote:

It doesn't matter what you think. Those aren't in the powers prescribed to Congress in the constitution. If you'd like to get to work on a Constitutional amendment, be my guest.

It's the president's job to appoint his cabinet, not Congress's. Blame the Founding Fathers.

Then why have a vote? Why not have a list of requirements and if she meets them then she's good. How does it take all of Congress to decide this? That makes no sense.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Actually My2Hands is right. Its not up to Congress to appoint the Secretary of State it's part of being President. She had both the experience and the knowledge to serve as that post whether we agree with her on the issues or not.

If Nader was to become president he could appoint whomever he wants to that post and as long as they are qualified they will be accepted whether the Republicans in congress agreed with the Person's policies or not.

I think the fact that Codi Rice received only 13 no votes which was the most since 1825 shows how little congress fights on appointments.

So how could those people vote no? http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3447


Why even have a vote if there was only one clear way to go? I mean, if it's all about qualifications then one only needs to be able to read a resume and hire accordingly. What is the purpose of having a Congress be allowed to vote on these matters if their individual input was not needed?

Rhinocerous Surprise

slightofjeff wrote:

Because that's the fucking point of a Senate confirmation hearing.

You are NOT supposed to vote with whether or not you like the nominee, or agree with his or her beliefs. It is NOT supposed to be partisan.

You are ONLY supposed to vote whether or not she is qualified. That's it.

It isn't an election. It's a vetting process. Didn't you pay attention in civics class?

Sorry if Irish civics classes don't cover American non-elections. Come to think of it, they barely cover Irish politics.

But, yeah, I'd say if you don't agree with her ideals and policies, then you shouldn't really consider her qualified. And if your vote doesn't matter in the end anyway, why not make your opinion known?

slightofjeff

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Do you think Iran is going to ever attack us? Seriously?

No, they are going to attack Israel. Do you not care?

slightofjeff

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Sorry if Irish civics classes don't cover American non-elections. Come to think of it, they barely cover Irish politics.

But, yeah, I'd say if you don't agree with her ideals and policies, then you shouldn't really consider her qualified. And if your vote doesn't matter in the end anyway, why not make your opinion known?

I guess 13 people did.

Sorry for my brusqueness. I didn't realize you were Irish, and therefore probably too drunk to understand American politics anyway. (I kid, I kid).

Rhinocerous Surprise

slightofjeff wrote:

I guess 13 people did.

Sorry for my brusqueness. I didn't realize you were Irish, and therefore probably too drunk to understand American politics anyway. (I kid, I kid).

Sometimes I think being drunk is the only way to understand politics.

slightofjeff

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Then why have a vote? Why not have a list of requirements and if she meets them then she's good. How does it take all of Congress to decide this? That makes no sense.

It's part of the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution. To prevent the president from nominating his best friend Joe from college, who is now working behind the counter at Starbucks, to be Secretary of the Treasury.

But tet's flip it around: If Congress could vote down any candidate they didn't agree with philosophically, why have the president bother to appoint anyone?

Whatever candidate the president appoints is obviously going to reflect his ideals, goals and values. So an opposition Congress would kick back every single nominee.

One of the perks of being elected president is you get to choose your cabinet. Congress just gets to make sure that person is qualified to hold public office.

Checks and balances, checks and balances.

slightofjeff

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Sometimes I think being drunk is the only way to understand politics.

Have you ever tried the John McCain "my friends" drinking game? Holeee shit.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Do you think Iran is going to ever attack us? Seriously?

And so what Obama says he wants to reverse the bad name Bush has given this country? His foreign policy plans say otherwise. And as I already stated, Bush ran on things like 'no nation building' during his campaign, too....so these pretty campaign promises don't mean too much...especially when your voting record can speak for you.

I didn't say they will attack us. Which is why I don't think Obama will lead us to war with Iran. I think he will work to get diplomatically at gaining peace in the Middle East much like Clinton attempted to do. I don't know if it will be successful but that will be his attempt.

All I'm saying is that he has every right to leave war on the table if they develop nukes and threaten to use them on Israel or any other country. If they don't do that Obama won't go to war. Simple as that.

Abookamongstthemany

slightofjeff wrote:

No, they are going to attack Israel. Do you not care?

And that makes so much sense!!! If I were Iran that's exactly what I'd do, too! I'd attack a country with a stockpile of nukes and various other weapons that also has a history of completely destroying other countries when they felt like it and is always 100% backed by the world's only superpower who also happens to be armed to the teeth while me being Iran doesn't even have 1 nuke to my name!!!!!!

Perfect logic there!

Cut off Fox News sometime.

rebornFixer

Even if one has absolutely no intention of going to war, it makes no sense to tell one's opponent as much. Governments usually take the "all options are on the table" stance. Why would one wish to go into negotiations having said "But don't worry, we'd never attack you!"?

Rhinocerous Surprise

slightofjeff wrote:

Have you ever tried the John McCain "my friends" drinking game? Holeee shit.

I'll add it to the list of drinking games, in between My Sharona and Roxanne.

Anyways: *thread integrity*.

slightofjeff wrote:

No, they are going to attack Israel. Do you not care?

I don't see Iran attacking Israel anytime soon. Israel have enough firepower, nuclear and otherwise, to make that fairly unlikely, even if it's not completely unimaginable. But let's say Iran did attack - would you support the U.S. getting involved?

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I didn't say they will attack us. Which is why I don't think Obama will lead us to war with Iran. I think he will work to get diplomatically at gaining peace in the Middle East much like Clinton attempted to do. I don't know if it will be successful but that will be his attempt.

All I'm saying is that he has every right to leave war on the table if they develop nukes and threaten to use them on Israel or any other country. If they don't do that Obama won't go to war. Simple as that.

So Iran is less of a country than the US or Israel then? Because we are allowed to have nukes, our allies are allowed to have nukes but everyone else is open to be bombed to bits if they dare act like they can do what we do????


And yes, that is pre-emptive war...no different than McCain or Bush on the matter.

rebornFixer

Ugh, feels like I've defended Obama.


But truly, though ... In this case, he's right.

Its Evolution Baby

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And that makes so much sense!!! If I were Iran that's exactly what I'd do, too! I'd attack a country with a stockpile of nukes and various other weapons that also has a history of completely destroying other countries when they felt like it and is always 100% backed by the world's only superpower who also happens to be armed to the teeth while me being Iran doesn't even have 1 nuke to my name!!!!!!

Perfect logic there!

Cut off Fox News sometime.

I have to plead ignorance on this... What countries has Israel destroyed? I know they have had war with Palistine and the Arab nation since 1947 but I do not know of countries that have been destroyed.

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

Even if one has absolutely no intention of going to war, it makes no sense to tell one's opponent as much. Governments usually take the "all options are on the table" stance. Why would one wish to go into negotiations having said "But don't worry, we'd never attack you!"?

A world full of animosity, fear and looking over one's shoulder constantly thinking someone is out to get us is what creates the problem we see in this world.

Threatening people doesn't not take away their contempt, it builds on it.

rebornFixer

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I have to plead ignorance on this... What countries has Israel destroyed? I know they have had war with Palistine and the Arab nation since 1947 but I do not know of countries that have been destroyed.

I think she meant "kicked their asses" rather than destroyed, but yeah, that is an important distinction.

Abookamongstthemany

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I have to plead ignorance on this... What countries has Israel destroyed? I know they have had war with Palistine and the Arab nation since 1947 but I do not know of countries that have been destroyed.

Lebanon and Palestine.

rebornFixer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

A world full of animosity, fear and looking over one's shoulder constantly thinking someone is out to get us is what creates the problem we see in this world.

Threatening people doesn't not take away their contempt, it builds on it.

There's a difference between direct threats (which I don't generally believe in) and showing all of one's cards, though.

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

I think she meant "kicked their asses" rather than destroyed, but yeah, that is an important distinction.

I guess it's all relative.

I think the word destruction fits nicely.