Consider that the lives of both Obama and McCain are subject to termination if not by assasination, by age and smoking behavior.
We have very little to go on with Palin, but fortunately we have tons with Biden. No one seems to be bringing up much on Biden though so I’d like to thank Sam Stone for digging up this site in another BBQ VP thread.
There’s plenty to shake your head at but this example of Biden on foreign policy in the wake of 911 is over the top.
Ever see the movie “A Time to Kill” ? Now close your eyes and imagine the scene with Biden speaking…Now instead of Biden, imagine Palin… You’ve got to admit that takes some imagination.
How the fuck did this guy ever get past the Democratic VP vetting committee?
Who’s “we”? You got a U.S. citizen in your pocket?
At least Sam writes smart and organized posts, doesn’t try to obfuscate the fact that he’s not a U.S. citizen, and doesn’t swipe Original Posts from a matter being discussed in the thread you found it in.
I’m bemused that you are more interested in posting stream-of-unconsciousness stuff about the U.S. election than you are in posting anything about the Canadian election.
Biden’s problem isn’t that he’s stupid. He’s got a Ph.D, so I’ll give him smart. And he’s not lacking in knowledge - 30 years sitting on committee hearings has to rub off.
No, Biden’s problem is that he’s distractable, he loves the sound of his own voice, and he disconnects his brain when he speaks. He fires stream-of-conscousness crap out willy-nilly. He’s not disciplined. He goes off-message. And, he thinks he’s brilliant. He’s a know-it-all.
This, to me, is far more dangerous than someone who is inexperienced and knows it. You can at least expect that Palin would defer to foreign policy experts and consult with experienced people in her own party and in the State Department. Biden is much more likely to get a bright idea in his head and run with it. And he’s much more likely to reject the advice of those around him, because he always thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room.
That’s in my opnion, of course. Based on years of watching Biden in action.
I won’t defend Biden on his prior Iraqi policy. He had the asinine idea of the US breaking up Iraw into 3 countries and trying to make ALL work.
However, I do believe he’s got past that idiocy by now, and were he the Pres I wouln’t be concerned about him returning to it and trying to make it happen.
While Palin is still on the “Iraq = 9/11 terrorist” meme.
Heres the article the NYT is running. She is ambitious and ruthless. She is more like Cheney than I can stomach. She knows she is not qualified yet took the spot on the ticket.
This not only is not an asinine idea, it’s probably what we’ll see in the relatively near future. Either that, or we’ll see a Shi’ite dictatorship that will equal Saddam’s for ruthlessness, because that’s what it takes to keep together a country that was created by British colonialists drawing lines on a map.
What are you suggesting? Only US citizens should discuss american politics ?
The fact that you’re confused about my citizenship isn’t my fault. Check out my location which is clearly shown in each and every submission I post. Bu
Now you’ll have to explain that charge to me.
The Canadian election has only been called a few days ago and there’s more to consider in our singular vote than who we want to lead our country including issues that are of no interest to anyone else on this board.
It is asinine in that he believed the US should draw the lines, enforce them, and apparently build 3 governments in place of one.
It’s something that might happen in the future after a civil war as a political solution among Iraqis, but it’s a crazy idea to impose it from the outside.
Again, that is not necessarily asinine. Sheesh. Especially given that partition is a very real possiblity, why should we not facilitate the process and short-circuit the civil war? Y’know, as long as we’ve got a bunch of soldiers over there anyway? They might as well make themselves useful.
It is, at least, worth mulling over and worth discussing. It may or may not be a realistic solution, but it is not an asinine idea.
It’s a crazy and not too good of an idea, but from the article, it looks like he threw it out there in October 2001. At the time, Iran was not yet a part of the “Axis of Evil,” their plans of building two nuclear plants were not revealed until August 2002, and Iran was (at least at the time) an enemy of the Sunni-led Taliban as well as Al Qaeda.
Back in the heady, “we are all Americans now” days of late 2001, when Vladimir Putin was the first foreign leader to contact Bush, it might have seemed like old grudges and animosities could be forgotten. This doesn’t make Biden’s idea any less pie-in-the-sky, but it’s not as if he said this last year.
Ok, we disagree. And I’ll go a little farther and say maybe they could have found a non-asinine way to do it. But I doubt it – imposed post-war lines like this after WWI were a big factor in starting WWII.
The problem I have with this argument is how disingenuous it is.
Cheney had tons more foreign relations experience than either Lieberman or John Edwards. Now, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that this resume didn’t mean much to most of Palin’s more strident critics here.
That sounds like a brain-storming session to me. In every brain-storming session I’ve ever been in, it has been emphasized that one should throw out ideas and thought without any consideration as to whether they’re stupid or not. You never know what will make a connection or lead to a train of thought in someone’s brain. 95% of those never make it out of the brain-storming session, probably because there wasn’t a reporter present.
You’re certainly free to comment on U.S. politics; I never said you weren’t. Lots of people who aren’t U.S. citizens do. Most of them don’t use “we”.
While I agree that most people on the board aren’t going to be interested in reading or posting about Canadian politics, I find it telling that you are one of them. Especially given that there was a multi-page thread in MPSIMS leading up to the election call, and a multi-page thread in GD since then, in which conservative/Conservative Canadians have prominently figured.
If you don’t even care about the politics of the country of which you are a citizen, why do you care about the politics of a country of which you are not?
Hmm? I had no particular objection to Cheney. Should Bush have died in office, I think Cheney would have been a capable and competent President. So would have Lieberman. (And I’m still fairly sure that choosing Edwards cost Kerry the election.) Doesn’t mean I’d have agreed with them or their actions, mind you, nor does it mean that I would not still be rooting for a Democrat.
I certainly can’t speak for others around here, but I remember back in 2000 during the Cheney/Lieberman debate when most of the people I knew wished both Cheney and Lieberman were at the top of the ticket. Being SecDef for Desert Storm and even conducting some diplomacy abroad in support of it was more than any congressperson or senator could claim. But I also recall that during 2000, the focus was also more on Bush’s relative lack of foreign policy experience (since rightly or wrongly, as VP, Gore was pretty secure against any experience attacks).
Perhaps too much of an assertion for me to make - but I will say that such experience certainly won’t sway the votes of committed party voters as a general rule.
Now I don’t think that’s too much of an assertion at all, nor do I see why you think it would be.
I support Democrats, in general, because, in general, they align with my beliefs. You support Republicans, in general, because, in general, they align with your beliefs.
We’re both yapping at the uncommitted in the hopes that one of our beliefs will turn out to be the one that resonates this year.