Romney loses in Florida to McCain...

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

dartagnan wrote:eject everythings he tried to propose. They hate her guts. Even Ted Kennedy is working against her, and after the slime tactics against Obama, she would have turned away even more liberals.

You need to find out what the candidates stand for beforehand, not afterwards.


Umm -- I posted links to her platform? The Boston Globe's analysis? I don't expect you, Mr. ad hoc, to read anything I've posted but I am well-informed about her positions and accomplishments.

Board of Editors of Yale Law Review (Obama was Editor in Chief of Harvard Law Review -- a major accomplishment as well).

Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002), Committee on Armed Services (since 2003), Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions(since 2001) and Special Committee on Aging. She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (since 2001). Nobody can match this record as a first-termer, including Obama and McCain.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton obtained funding for recovery for her state. She investigated and took the leading role in looking at issues faced by first responders. She voted for the Patriot Act and then took a lead role in investigating its abuses and voting for a compromise in March 2006; she worked in that regard to obtain a consensus vote in favor of the compromise.

She helped broker a compromise between Jewish objectors to the Mormon practice of proxy baptisms and the LDS Church.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Clinton supported the Afghan invasion. She strongly supports women's rights in the middle east.

Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. She also voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq. She did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal.

After the Iraq War began, Clinton made trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troops stationed there, such as the 10th Mountain Division based in Fort Drum, New York. On a visit to Iraq in February 2005, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well. Noting that war deployments are draining regular and reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain. In late 2005, Clinton said that while immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake, Bush's pledge to stay "until the job is done" is also misguided, as it gives Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves." She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but added that it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq. This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favor immediate withdrawal. Clinton supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases.

Sources; Some Wiki; some personal knowledge.
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

rcrocket wrote:Umm -- I posted links to her platform? The Boston Globe's analysis? I don't expect you, Mr. ad hoc, to read anything I've posted


Ouch.

Not a bad article, from my favorite journalist, for anyone interested:

http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Hillary will likely have the most reasoned approach to immigration


Why don't you know her approach now?

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton obtained funding for recovery for her state


Gee, that must have been a tough sell.

The fact is Hillary has a history of having her proposed plans shot down by the republicans. She is no where near the middle to be able to build bridges and compromise with the other party members.

There is no reason to think she could get anything done as President.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Sethbag wrote:
rcrocket wrote:Hillary Clinton is the most experienced person to lead this country. She is probably, as well, the most intelligent. McCain is an idiot compared to her. Romney is not experienced.

Hillary will likely have the most reasoned approach to immigration, the most reasoned approach to the war and civil rights.

Wow, this is a side of you that I hadn't expected at all. I'm impressed. You're probably the first hard-core Mormon I've ever heard say a good word about Hillary. I agree with you that she is very smart, and she may well be smarter than all the others. If she wins I won't be upset, and in fact I've seriously mulled over the idea of actually voting for her. I don't know that I will, but I've allowed myself to consider it, and not in a joking way.


There are many Mormons who support the Democratic party. The Stake President of the Glendale, California stake is on the national committee to elect Obama. He and I have our differences of Obama and Hillary. My personal friend, Elder Steve Snow, is a hard-core democrat.

The pros and cons of Mormonism and the Democratic party are these:

1. Abortion. This is directly contrary to the teachings of the church. I rationalize this by saying that abortion is not murder, but it is wrong. I would like to change the abortion laws but I also believe in freedom of choice.

2. Gun control. Most Mormons believe that they have a right to bear arms and that it is close to revelatory status. They are wrong. Guns should be banned.

3. Socialistic regulation. I don't know how that is incompatible with the gospel.

4. Immigration. Current U.S. laws are racist and bigoted. Exactly how did your ancestors get into the country? Even so, both George Bush and Hillary Clinton support amnesty (a dirty word, they sort of fluff over that) and a guest-worker program, and both do not support building a fence (although Bush waffles). Even so, LDS doctrine does not conflict.

5. Taxes. I note that both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon comment upon confiscatory taxation (one/fifth to one/half), but both parties support taxation within that range. During the Vietnam War under the Nixon administration, the highest tax rate was in the 70 percentage area. But, this isn't LDS doctrine.

6. Vice regulation. It is true that Republican administrations tend to regulate vices more vigorously and that the Church tends to support such regulation with its lobbying. Even so, I think that vice should be a matter of choice, not regulation.

I could go on.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Current U.S. laws are racist and bigoted.


Would you mind backing this up with some facts?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by _Mercury »

dartagnan wrote:
Current U.S. laws are racist and bigoted.


Would you mind backing this up with some facts?


Maybe he is against the laws that prevent child rape, even child rape committed by a "prophet of gawd".

That IS what you meant, right Crockett?
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

GoodK wrote:
rcrocket wrote:Umm -- I posted links to her platform? The Boston Globe's analysis? I don't expect you, Mr. ad hoc, to read anything I've posted


Ouch.

Not a bad article, from my favorite journalist, for anyone interested:

http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/


My dear young fellow -- it is naïve to rely upon Slate and Hitchens to convince anybody about anything. There are plenty of other well-written anti-Clinton pieces.
_ozemc
_Emeritus
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by _ozemc »

rcrocket wrote:
2. Gun control. Most Mormons believe that they have a right to bear arms and that it is close to revelatory status. They are wrong. Guns should be banned.



So, you don't agree with the US Constitution?
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk

Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

dartagnan wrote:
Current U.S. laws are racist and bigoted.


Would you mind backing this up with some facts?


U.S. Immigration laws are racist and bigoted.

There is virtually no effort to stem the tide of drug traffic and illegal immigration across the Canadian border. I have first-hand knowledge of observing the trafficking of bales of marijuana across the Montana border in heavy-duty transport trucks. They just drive on dirt roads with nobody to stop them.

On the Mexican border, where my father-in-law served for 30 years in the INS, the laws and their application are completely irrational --- contrary to what existed 100 years ago or more when your ancestors immigrated to the states.

Immigration policy started, as its foundation, to exclude Chinks, Micks and Wops. These were the orginally-targeted groups for U.S. immigration policy, while the English and Scandavians were not subject to the same restrictions. Even today, immigration excludes the poor but admits the wealthy. The effect, therefore, is to exclude the browns.
_ozemc
_Emeritus
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by _ozemc »

rcrocket wrote:
dartagnan wrote:
Current U.S. laws are racist and bigoted.


Would you mind backing this up with some facts?


U.S. Immigration laws are racist and bigoted.

There is virtually no effort to stem the tide of drug traffic and illegal immigration across the Canadian border. I have first-hand knowledge of observing the trafficking of bales of marijuana across the Montana border in heavy-duty transport trucks. They just drive on dirt roads with nobody to stop them.

On the Mexican border, where my father-in-law served for 30 years in the INS, the laws and their application are completely irrational --- contrary to what existed 100 years ago or more when your ancestors immigrated to the states.

Immigration policy started, as its foundation, to exclude Chinks, Micks and Wops. These were the orginally-targeted groups for U.S. immigration policy, while the English and Scandavians were not subject to the same restrictions. Even today, immigration excludes the poor but admits the wealthy. The effect, therefore, is to exclude the browns.


Do you think a country has a right to decide who can come in?
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk

Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
Post Reply