Democratic debate

[Laugh O. Grams]

I heard yesterday that 28 Republicans are NOT running for re-election. Sounds like a way to pick up a few seats...

Wow! 28! Looks like maybe that some in the Republican party are already thinking like the writing is on the wall. It's almost as if they're saying "If we don't have a rubberstamp President, we're taking our ball and going home!"

 

[undertheradar]

I don't remember her declaring the specific cost and how it would be paid for.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Wow! 28! Looks like maybe that some in the Republican party are already thinking like the writing is on the wall. It's almost as if they're saying "If we don't have a rubberstamp President, we're taking our ball and going home!"

It wouldn't surprise me. But the trick will be to get the Democratic congress and President NOT to make the same mistakes that Bush and Company made. If they're going to succeed, President Obama (or Clinton ) and their Congress have to GET THINGS DONE. It won't matter a hill of beans if they have a majority if they don't use it to it's full advantage and get us out of Iraq, get health care reform passed and do some real work on the economy to give the middle class some security.

 

["Got Disney"]

I don't remember her declaring the specific cost and how it would be paid for.

She did not go into the cost but in the past she mentioned something like $190 a month for full coverage.

She went into full detail about where the moneys would come from last night....she even broke it woen into millions from here and there....including was I believe 55 million for the savings of Electonic records....

 

[salmoneous]

1996 - Sudanese offer to arrest bin Laden. Clinton administration declines.

Sorry, don't mean to hijack this thread any further, but I feel it important to point out false right-wing talking points whenever they are spread.

No matter how many times Sean and Rush say something, that doesn't make it true. There is absolutely no evidence to support the crackpot claims that Clinton refused an offer to have bin Laden arrested. (And I respectfully request that if anyone wants to try and defend this false claim, you do so in another thread)

As for the actual questions, I walk away from the debates thinking the Democrats have two great candidates for president. I honestly don't care which gets the nomination. As of now, I still haven't figured out who to vote for next week.

 

[undertheradar]

Sorry, don't mean to hijack this thread any further, but I feel it important to point out false right-wing talking points whenever they are spread.

No matter how many times Sean and Rush say something, that doesn't make it true. There is absolutely no evidence to support the crackpot claims that Clinton refused an offer to have bin Laden arrested. (And I respectfully request that if anyone wants to try and defend this false claim, you do so in another thread)

As for the actual questions, I walk away from the debates thinking the Democrats have two great candidates for president. I honestly don't care which gets the nomination. As of now, I still haven't figured out who to vote for next week.

The truth is a matter of public record. The Clinton administration did not believe that it had enough evidence to arrest bin Laden. Nice try.

 

[undertheradar]

In reference to the way that Clinton would pay for her plan, the debate transcripts break it down this way:

Take away tax cut to top 1% American taxpayers - incomes of $250,000. or more = $55 Billion per year

Modernize medical records to electronic storage = $77 Billion per year per Rand Corporation estimates.

Please take into account that this is Washington math, not actual hard earned US currency. Again, there was no specific per insured cost provided. A specific cost would make it more believable in my view.

 

[punkin]

As for the actual questions, I walk away from the debates thinking the Democrats have two great candidates for president. I honestly don't care which gets the nomination. As of now, I still haven't figured out who to vote for next week.

But what a choice to have to make, huh?

 

[wvrevy]

The truth is a matter of public record. The Clinton administration did not believe that it had enough evidence to arrest bin Laden. Nice try.

That simply isn't true. Do a little research from someone other than newsmax or the Washington Times - meaning someone, you know, credible.

 

[ChrisFL]

Impeachment has to be for a "crime or misdemeanor" not because the Republicans hate all things Clinton. I also have a feeling that Congress will be Democratic for the next several years.

Heh, if that's the case, the current president should have been impeached at least a dozen times already

 

[Galahad]

Take away tax cut to top 1% American taxpayers - incomes of $250,000. or more = $55 Billion per year

Top 1% is higher than that.

According to the IRS it's over $368K.

 

[becka]

Impeachment has to be for a "crime or misdemeanor" not because the Republicans hate all things Clinton. I also have a feeling that Congress will be Democratic for the next several years.

I understand that impeachment is for a crime but I think the Republicans will look for any little thing they can think of and try to call it a crime based on some obsure law or something. I was telling a friend that there might be some outdated law from like 1806 that says that everyone who works for the government cannot wear a dress. Well she wore a dress once so lets try to impeach her for a crime. Now this is obviously an exaggerated example but I really do believe they will be looking for the slightest thing they can call her on and try to impeach her because they hate her.

 

[JARNJ3]

I understand that impeachment is for a crime but I think the Republicans will look for any little thing they can think of and try to call it a crime based on some obsure law or something. I was telling a friend that there might be some outdated law from like 1806 that says that everyone who works for the government cannot wear a dress. Well she wore a dress once so lets try to impeach her for a crime. Now this is obviously an exaggerated example but I really do believe they will be looking for the slightest thing they can call her on and try to impeach her because they hate her.

You know - everyone is caught up on this "hate her" mentality. They are only 40% of the public - right now - and who's to say that once she and Obama do a decent job - those numbers go down?

Clinton\Obama '08

 

[undertheradar]

Top 1% is higher than that.

According to the IRS it's over $368K.

My mistake(something Clinton refused to say last night in relation to her vote on the Iraq war), I listened to the candidates.

The actual Clinton statement was the Bush tax cuts set to expire on people making more than $250,000. per year will be about $55 Billion. Very specific.

 

[punkin]

Heh, if that's the case, the current president should have been impeached at least a dozen times already

Tell me about it. After living through the last impeachment I hope never to see another one in my lifetime. However, Bush and Cheney certainly deserve it.

 

["Got Disney"]

My mistake(something Clinton refused to say last night in relation to her vote on the Iraq war), I listened to the candidates.

.

I was not for the war because I hate war but was all for stopping WOMD and also helping to free people from a terrible dictator so.....I went along for the ride assuming that within 2 years we would be out.

so I was also wrong about it and when they did the polls more at the time were for it than against it....Dems and Rep alike.

I believe that Hillary at the time made the right choice given the info that was given. Lets look at it another way....What if it was a success and WOMD were found and it was proven that he was going to use them here and kill millions of us ....

If it went that way and Obama said "NO WAY" than many of us would be dead by know including many children....so it works both ways...unfortunately for all of us BUSH turned out to be well you fill in the blanks.

To me that is not a good enough reason not to vote for her....I would have rather we go to war and find out that he was wrong than not to go and find out he was right....

The mistake was not so much in going...the mistake was that we stayed wayyyyyy tooooo long! and have lost to many lives because of it.

 

[wvrevy]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";22923908]The mistake was not so much in going...the mistake was that we stayed wayyyyyy tooooo long! and have lost to many lives because of it.[/QUOTE]

And this is where MANY will disagree vehemently, including me. It was a mistake to go. PERIOD. There was plenty of evidence out there that Bush was lying, and many people saw it. Shoot, Max Cleland and others lost their jobs over the fact that they saw it and spoke up about it. Using your scenario, it seems that you are supporting Bush's doctrine of preventative war...such and such country could attack us, so therefore we must destroy them.

I will never support anyone that thinks that way, and would have a lot more respect for Hillary if she would simply admit that she was duped and made the wrong decision, even if she would never admit to having done so precisely because of those polls you mentioned.

 

["Got Disney"]

And this is where MANY will disagree vehemently, including me. It was a mistake to go. PERIOD. There was plenty of evidence out there that Bush was lying, and many people saw it. Shoot, Max Cleland and others lost their jobs over the fact that they saw it and spoke up about it. Using your scenario, it seems that you are supporting Bush's doctrine of preventative war...such and such country could attack us, so therefore we must destroy them.

I will never support anyone that thinks that way, and would have a lot more respect for Hillary if she would simply admit that she was duped and made the wrong decision, even if she would never admit to having done so precisely because of those polls you mentioned.

Well none of us had ALL the info to decide either way and it is just our opinions. We were not there, so to say one is right and one is wrong is silly. All we can do is add our opinions on what we heard and what was fact and not fact as presented to us form both sides...and even than at that time it was not clear or cut and dry.

It was not cut black and white there were many gray areas...so for her to say she made a mistake when she feels at the time was a right decision would be her lying about what she felt at the time...

so because you want her to say she was wrong was in your book but not in hers...plain and simple.

 

[dcentity2000]

And this is where MANY will disagree vehemently, including me. It was a mistake to go. PERIOD. There was plenty of evidence out there that Bush was lying, and many people saw it. Shoot, Max Cleland and others lost their jobs over the fact that they saw it and spoke up about it. Using your scenario, it seems that you are supporting Bush's doctrine of preventative war...such and such country could attack us, so therefore we must destroy them.

I totally agree.

By the way, I see you are a Pastafarian



Rich::

 

[undertheradar]

Remember, Clinton spoke directly with the Whitehouse about this. She said so last night. This is why the question was asked if she made a mistake and she never answered the question.

Between Clinton and Obama, Obama appears to be humble and human. He admits that he doesn't know it all and yet his opponent keeps referencing all of the research she does. To me, Clinton takes credit for the years that her husband was in office as her time in office. I don't remember her being sworn in to the office of president.