Clinton, Sanders, and Three Others Set for First Democratic Debate
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
The first Democratic primary debate is being held later tonight and it will undoubtedly be a heck of a lot different than the clown car debates the Republicans have already blessed us with. What I'm most interested to see is how Secretary Clinton handles Senator Sanders. Will she make it personal and go on the attack or hold back out of fear of alienating the progressive base of the party? I have a feeling she will not go after him too much. The progressive wing is showing up by the droves at Sanders rallies and it just wouldn't be smart for her to go on the attack this early against him. I'm also interested to see how Sanders handles himself. He has gone this whole campaign without attacking Clinton or any other Democrat and I would be shocked if he changed that strategy now. He's a policy wonk and I think he will stick with that tonight. He may not be the flashiest of all politicians, but no one can deny that he has a firm grasp on the issues he cares about and no one can deny that he actually says what's on his mind without calculating how each statement will affect him politically. The other three candidates--Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee--hardly deserve a mention on this thread. The only one who actually seems like they are even running a campaign is O'Malley and I just don't see him gaining any traction. Webb and Chafee (both former Republicans) shouldn't even be on the stage, but I guess CNN needs to have some fillers in on the debate stage. Is anyone planning on watching the first debate tonight? Do you think Hillary will play nice or go after Sanders? And do you think she might be in trouble if she does decide to go after Sanders and he is able to handle his own?
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Often the history repeats itself with the sanctimonious, anti-government, anti-military and the wannabees that shout remarks to America about getting out of any world conflict. Maybe if America never got involved with WWI & II maybe people would see what allowing aggression or dictatorships overwhelming a society would do to world dominance. Maybe if America just sticks to its own issues and ignore the cries of a people in other countries become slaves and die from inhumane governments that more Americans would understand and say, "we should have done something". That's too late and as history records from WWI & II, we did not act swiftly enough to mitigate the terror and horror an aggressive nation taking control of Europe. Syria, as well as the entire middle eastern nations, is worthy of being protected and watched to keep out forces with alternative motives, such as Russia has with Syria. So, who cares, I do and so does a lot of other Americans. I see Bernie would be of the cast to eliminate the military involvement around the world and deplete funding for military. This is a major reason why a socialist like Bernie Sanders will get nowhere in American Government and he definitely will not receive my vote. The debate last night showed tow things, Hillary and Bernie are the only candidates, and the other candidates appear running to be seen, but not actually heard. The other candidates are a waste of political funding. We haven't seen all the firepower from Bernie and Hillary, which I anticipate the remaining debates will be more vocal and heated. Although, what other questions are there other than what would be repeated. We can go into more history of Bernie and Hillary, but that would more than likely be catastrophic for Bernie. Read Bernie's biography and you can see that the public should not be aware of these things and that could bring more votes toward Hillary. Hillary.............you go girl..............you "ROCK"!
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:So by "getting the hell out of there" is your solution to withdraw all American presence out of Syria and the Middle East? No planes, no ships, no troops, no nothing? Close all of our bases? Or maybe something in-between? How about the European presence (NATO)? Is it ditto on that as well? Leave it all to the Russians and the Middle East countries to sort it all out? And America can become an isolationist country again, like they were before World War I and World War II? I'm not criticizing (yet) your position. I just want to be sure I understand it. Yes we could use the trillions much better here at home, ask Sanders Look at the rest of the world, do they have bases all over the place? Are they already at war forever since WWII like we do? The US should realize that they can't dictate or rule the whole world, let alone in Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Iran etc. Having bases in Germany since WWII, as well Korea since 1948 etc. This meddling all over will be our demise in the end. How much did we spent on just an 9/11 incident? TRILLIONS afterwards and more than 6000 dead soldiers. Talking about stupid. How about what we already spent on drones and bombing lately, also Billions. What is the result? The result is less peace and we only created more fanatic enemy's. NATO is only there because the US wanted it; NATO among themselves are divided and reluctantly participate. Guess who is stuck with all the refugees because the US created wars? Unbelievable! Please look at the whole picture of what the US is doing to the world; it is not very positive but dumb. Let the Russians do what they want to do; until now they like to change wrong drawn borders after WWI/WWII. Russians live there. The thing in Syria, actually they are correct; if we would have left Hussein in Iraq and not meddled with Syria, sure you would have had dictators, so what; at least the situation would have been much better.( Assad should have fought his own internal war) At least they were smart to leave Afghanistan; now we sit with the 14 year mess costing nothing of course. Don't forget neither Iraq or Afghanistan attacked us. Only a "group" of rebels not an whole country. Yes we are at fault throughout the world. I must say that Obama at least tries diplomacy to change our mentality in the world. Mostly it has been "we demand" and if the demand is not followed up we sent in the drones or bombs. That is our most favored tactic. Don't worry we are no longer number one in the world; forget it.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dutch Wrote: Sorry Schmidt are you brainwashed because you volunteered? I'm an "independent" so I look at it from all sides Dutch -- I volunteer because I want to make this country better. During the 2012 election I spent six months as a volunteer for the Obama campaign, and during that time I rang some 700 doorbells. I met some of the most wonderful Americans, Democrats, Republicans and lots of Independents like yourself. But I also met some of the biggest assholes and bigots....and also a lot of very unknowledgeable people who just didn't have the time to bone up on the issues. I didn't take that work lightly. I did research on every single issue of the day, studying both the liberal and conservative perspectives, and especially Obama's positions and rationale. I really came to appreciate that no issues are black and white, and that to navigate a compromise position between opposing sides took immense political skill. It is very easy for the Republicans to just say no, but very few of them can articulate why they say no. I know why they say 'no' but they'll never admit it. Ditto for my liberal friends. I am often taken aback when some call Obama the "lesser of two evils." It tells me they have little understanding of the difficulties in navigating legislation or policies through a Congress that is hostile not necessarily to the issues per se, but rather to the man himself. I appreciate President Obama because of his intellectualism, critical thinking "long view", and the fact that he remains cool under stress. In other words, he doesn't let his emotions drive knee jerk reactions or solutions to the very complicated world's problems. Republicans would like nothing better than to tag him as the "angry black man". He won't let them do that. He's COOL.
|