20 historical and political questions (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

And actually see the 1877 dispute along the same lines with the same parties in the same state. The country had been here before which is why there was a federal statute created which we followed albeit its being imperfect but it did the job.

You have a pre-cable news TV mindset. Heads would explode. People would die.

 

[NCCommish]

Maybe Gore could have just taken the loss like a man, like Nixon did. If anybody is to blame for the 2000 election fiasco, it's Gore. Anything that anybody else did during that episode is just part of the predictable aftermath that he created.

Not really. Katherine Harris, you know one of W's co-chairs of his Florida campaign, bears a lot of the blame for stopping the hand counts that were instituted under Florida Law due to the closeness of the race. She should have recused herself. And then there was this:

Only much later did someone discover that Database Technologies had scrubbed 57,700 legal voters off the Florida rolls, most of whom would have probably voted for Gore. At least 8,000 of those disenfranchised voters came from a list of Texas felons provided by ChoicePoint Inc. -- except that those people had actually only committed misdemeanors and not felonies. Thus, they had been improperly barred from casting their ballots. A spokesman for ChoicePoint ultimately admitted, "I guess that's a little bit embarrassing in light of the election." What's more, ChoicePoint had contributed large amounts of money to Republican candidates in 2000, leading to the observation that the company's error coincidentally benefited its partisan leanings. But that hardly surprised anyone.

So that's a problem.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe Gore could have just taken the loss like a man, like Nixon did. If anybody is to blame for the 2000 election fiasco, it's Gore. Anything that anybody else did during that episode is just part of the predictable aftermath that he created.

Not really. Katherine Harris, you know one of W's co-chairs of his Florida campaign, bears a lot of the blame for stopping the hand counts that were instituted under Florida Law due to the closeness of the race. She should have recused herself. And then there was this:

Only much later did someone discover that Database Technologies had scrubbed 57,700 legal voters off the Florida rolls, most of whom would have probably voted for Gore. At least 8,000 of those disenfranchised voters came from a list of Texas felons provided by ChoicePoint Inc. -- except that those people had actually only committed misdemeanors and not felonies. Thus, they had been improperly barred from casting their ballots. A spokesman for ChoicePoint ultimately admitted, "I guess that's a little bit embarrassing in light of the election." What's more, ChoicePoint had contributed large amounts of money to Republican candidates in 2000, leading to the observation that the company's error coincidentally benefited its partisan leanings. But that hardly surprised anyone.

So that's a problem.

I don't think it is. There are mistakes and discrepancies in every election, but usually they don't impact the election. Because the vote count was so close in this instance, people focus on every discrepancy, and even suggest that some may be deliberate, as you do here. IMO, that's no different from blaming the refs for blowing a call in a close game, and then implying that the refs wanted the other team to win.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

but but but.... hanging chads!

It's all flooding back now. There was going to be war in the streets. Clinton was going to simply refuse to leave the White House. Or he was going to resign and make Gore President so that Gore could control the outcome of the election, and Cheney had black helicopters flying over the house of every chad counter in Florida, and Satan himself was seen standing on the Supreme Court steps with a golden fiddle and cats and dogs were going to live together and eat their collective young with a nice chianti and some fava beans.

 

[timschochet]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.

I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

 

[NCCommish]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.

I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

 

[timschochet]

but but but.... hanging chads!

It's all flooding back now. There was going to be war in the streets. Clinton was going to simply refuse to leave the White House. Or he was going to resign and make Gore President so that Gore could control the outcome of the election, and Cheney had black helicopters flying over the house of every chad counter in Florida, and Satan himself was seen standing on the Supreme Court steps with a golden fiddle and cats and dogs were going to live together and eat their collective young with a nice chianti and some fava beans.

The stories I heard were of Democrats driving around buses filled with illiterate Hatians, some of whom were not citizens, taking them to polling booths, giving each a $5 dollar bill and telling them to "Vote for the dude with the G on his last name!"

That was probably apocryphal. But one memory I still have clearly in my mind is a bunch of conservative looking white guys in business suits, yelling protest chants against the window of the Dade County elections headquarters, 60s stuff like "Hell no we won't go!". That was hilarious.

And some old Jewish woman with a Brooklyn accent in Miami Beach, complaining that she had been fooled into voting for Pat Buchanan. "I wanted to vote for Gowah!"

 

[timschochet]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.

I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

Pat was just trying to screw with the Bushes, whom he hated.

 

[NCCommish]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.

I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

Pat was just trying to screw with the Bushes, whom he hated.

Pat hates everybody.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.

I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

And of course there's literally no way to fix this problem after the fact. Gore and his attorneys undoubtedly knew that.

 

[njherdfan]

I have comprised a list of 20 historical and political questions which I would like people, if they're interested, to answer. You're welcome to answer all 20, or whichever ones interest you. These are all "yes/no" questions, and they are all subjective; there are no right or wrong answers. You're free to answer them yes or no, but I would also love it if you would expand on the answers if you want to.

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed?

Unfortunately, yes.

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

I don't think it's really addressed by the Constitution

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States?

At the time, yes

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war?

Yes

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States?

Yes, but not at any reasonable cost

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War?

Of course

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000?

I'm not sure what this mean. I'd say he won it fairly, but I also think more people intended to vote for Gore than intended to vote for Bush, so I'll say I don't think the will of Florida's population was properly expressed, but I do think Bush had more ballots.

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001?

With the current commitment to military intelligence, yes. With military intelligence as it stood in 2001, probably not.

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision?

No

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision?

Yes

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy?

No, but I think their existence is a good thing.

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance?

Yes, although I'd add that they already pay more for the poor's health care.

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps?

This seems like a loaded question, but I guess I'd generally say yes. No American should starve or be in danger of starving. Of course the system is frequently abused, etc.

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment?

Not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if the SC tells us it is next year. Under an originalist theory, then it's not a Constitutional right, but Kennedy doesn't take an originalist view on the issue.

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment?

No. I'm not sure how effective they'd be, but they wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution?

No. And I'm a big pro-choice advocate, but I think Roe was a bad legal decision that essentially entrenched both sides of the debate. I think if the issue had been left to the states it would have garnered much wider acceptance.

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism?

No, but they I think the woes are largely due to the legacy of slavery and discrimination, even if the average American might not be racist.

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel?

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should unequivocally support everything Israel does

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?

Yes

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens?

Yes

 

[timschochet]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

 

[Foosball God]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

You need to know when to stop throwing good money after bad.

 

[otello]

5 yes

6 yes

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

The Iraqi government was never going to be more democratic. I said before the invasion that I was very skeptical of the idea that we could turn Iraq into Vermont, and the ensuing events showed that I was right. Unfortunately, the some parts of the world where a military strongman is the best outcome you're likely to get.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

 

[kentric]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

The Iraqis wanted us out. At that time the ground war was considered largely over and we couldn't rightly argue that we needed to remain there without totally alienating the people who we "liberated".

 

[jon_mx]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.

I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

The confusion was caused by the Democrats who made the ballots though. A recount could not have change those votes.

 

[NCCommish]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.

I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

The confusion was caused by the Democrats who made the ballots though. A recount could not have change those votes.

Well at the end of the day the "accidentally" incompetent purge of 57k voters had more to do with Gore losing than butterfly ballots.

 

[jon_mx]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

The confusion was caused by the Democrats who made the ballots though. A recount could not have change those votes.

Well at the end of the day the "accidentally" incompetent purge of 57k voters had more to do with Gore losing than butterfly ballots.

You misrepresent facts. Many counties ignored the purge lists and many worked to fix the problems. The question is, how many showed up at the polls to vote but were turned away? There were not that many.

 

[NCCommish]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

The confusion was caused by the Democrats who made the ballots though. A recount could not have change those votes.

Well at the end of the day the "accidentally" incompetent purge of 57k voters had more to do with Gore losing than butterfly ballots.

You misrepresent facts. Many counties ignored the purge lists and many worked to fix the problems. The question is, how many showed up at the polls to vote but were turned away? There were not that many.

Yes they did show up and yes they were prevented from voting. Was widely reported at the time that there were huge issues with people being kept from voting because of the purge. Numbers range from 1100 to over 20k. But let's just go with 1100. Most, if not all, would have voted Dem. That would have been more than enough to overcome the the Bush win by 500 or so votes.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

We were asked to by Mailiki. Not "the Iraqis."

 

[timschochet]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

my understanding of that concept, in this particular case , is about equal to the Iraqis themselves.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

We were asked to by Mailiki. Not "the Iraqis."

Actually it was planned in concert with the legitimately elected Iraqi government. Last I checked that means the Iraqi people.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

my understanding of that concept, in this particular case , is about equal to the Iraqis themselves.

Well let me explain. It means it's theirs. Not yours. Not the US governments. Theirs. They get to do what they want with it and you get no real say. If they tell you to get out, you get out. See not so hard.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

We were asked to by Mailiki. Not "the Iraqis."

Actually it was planned in concert with the legitimately elected Iraqi government. Last I checked that means the Iraqi people.

I don't know about that, Maliki represents one faction of another single faction. We left a lot of allies in Iraq not represented by Maliki who have hit the turf as a result.

ETA - and that's the problem with this thread, everything belongs in a different thread.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

my understanding of that concept, in this particular case , is about equal to the Iraqis themselves.

Well let me explain. It means it's theirs. Not yours. Not the US governments. Theirs. They get to do what they want with it and you get no real say. If they tell you to get out, you get out. See not so hard.

Except that none of us agree with that, including you. The Libyan government didn't consent to us bombing them. Pakistan never agreed to allow us to hit UBL. We all understand that there are situations in which is right for us to ignore "sovereignty" and do what needs to be done.

 

[timschochet]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

my understanding of that concept, in this particular case , is about equal to the Iraqis themselves.

Well let me explain. It means it's theirs. Not yours. Not the US governments. Theirs. They get to do what they want with it and you get no real say. If they tell you to get out, you get out. See not so hard.

Was that also your opinion about the Sudan when the genocide and slavery in Darfur was going on?

 

[Thunderlips]

I have comprised a list of 20 historical and political questions which I would like people, if they're interested, to answer. You're welcome to answer all 20, or whichever ones interest you. These are all "yes/no" questions, and they are all subjective; there are no right or wrong answers. You're free to answer them yes or no, but I would also love it if you would expand on the answers if you want to.

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? YES

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861? NO

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States? YES. It was as much a bulwark against opposition from the further Left as it was the Right.

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war? YES. On two counts. The invasion of Japan would have killed a number of our grandfathers and if the war was extended, Soviet assistance in the invasion might have led to a similar situation to that of Germany.

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States? YES.

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War? YES. He doesn't deserve as much credit as those who love him think he deserves and deserves more than those who hate him are willing to admit.

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000? Like all elections, there's fudging and cheating. I think that this time, the fudging and cheating fell within the margin of error.

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001? YES.

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision? NO. I think if we handled it how we handled Afghanistan; we could have avoided a huge mess. This is one of the more interesting situations where we could go back and look on this board to see if some predictions have come to fruititon.

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision? YES

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy? YES. It was the ipecac to a poison.

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance? NO. Not anymore than a reasonable country should expect.

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps? NO. Not anymore than a reasonable country should expect.

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment? YES

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment? NO

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution? N/A

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism? KIND OF. I THINK MANY A-A's ARE TRAPPED IN A DOWNWARD SPIRAL THAT THEY CANT GET OUT OF. I THINK THIS HAPPENS AT A YOUNG AGE TOO.

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel? I THINK WE NEED TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE IN REGARDS TO TERRORISM AS ISRAEL (AND OUR OTHER ALLIES), BUT I THINK WE NEED TO PULL ON ISRAEL'S CHOKE CHAIN A BIT.

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? YES

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens? YES

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I have comprised a list of 20 historical and political questions which I would like people, if they're interested, to answer. You're welcome to answer all 20, or whichever ones interest you. These are all "yes/no" questions, and they are all subjective; there are no right or wrong answers. You're free to answer them yes or no, but I would also love it if you would expand on the answers if you want to.

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed?

Yes, though it didn't necessarily have to be as bad as it was.

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

No

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States?

Mixed bag but on balance yes, assuming you count the second set of programs that includes Social Security.

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war?

Justifiable, yes, although horrible. I strongly recommend people watch White Light/Black rain, and pray these weapons are never used again.

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States?

Depends on how you define winning. Probably not in the conventional sense with it escalating to something larger and worse.

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War?

Yes, though not as much as the Republican narrative goes. Every President between FDR and Reagan deserves some credit, and it's important to remember that it was primarily a financial collapse that was largely inevitable.

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000?

Sure. I suspect that Gore would have won if a full state-wide recount had materialized but there wasn't some organized conspiracy to steal the election, and if Gore had been able to win his home state Florida wouldn't have mattered.

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001?

With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to see things that could have been done differently that may have stopped it, but at the time no I don't think so.

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision?

Absolutely not and even with the "evidence" being used at the time I thought it was a bad decision. It's a decision even worse because we cut taxes at the same time we had two major conflicts going on, so not only was it questionable on foreign policy grounds but it was disastrous for the budget as well.

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision?

Yes. If we were still there we probably wouldn't be seeing the same sort of insurgency that's going on right now, but the same forces would still be there biding their time and promoting other forms of unrest. This isn't a problem we can solve just by having our military there.

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy?

Probably not but it likely kept thing from getting much worse, and it was plenty bad as it was.

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance?

I think we should have a system where everyone can get healthcare and not be concerned about being financially ruined if they get sick or badly injured. I don't think it necessarily follows that the middle class and rich should have to pay more since we already spend more public money on healthcare than virtually every other country in the World who manage to do that. Barring more substantive changes to the system however, yes I would prefer the people who can afford to pay more than to have people dying or going bankrupt because of health issues.

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps?

As worded, no. Most of our safety net programs are pretty inefficient, particularly Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF - the program generally referred to as welfare). I think we need to be broadly more distributive with Income, however, and that need will only continue to grow in the future.

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment?

I think it's likely to be found so.

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment?

I don't think so, but wouldn't bet on the latter being decided that way if it hit the current court.

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution?

I'm a strong proponent of choice, but I think the decision itself is problematic. I'm glad the protection exists but as worded I'd have to answer this no.

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism?

As others have said, I don't think lingering racism is "most" of the problem today although it clearly still exists and certainly doesn't help. It's more the compounded effects of long-term, pervasive and institutionalized racism.

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel?

Yes, but I don't think that means we can't or shouldn't disagree with them from time to time, and try to influence their policy decisions when we do.

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?

I believe it is, yes.

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens?

Yes.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed?

Not like we can have a do over, but even if we could I don't see another way to get here.

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861?

No. But whether that was settled in 1861 or 1865

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States?

Of course. If nothing else it bought off the threat of an attempt at a communist revolution.

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war?

Yes, but I don't think they achieved any real WWII objective that wasn't going to happen anyway - no invasion necessary. Cold war objectives on the other hand,

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States?

Nope.

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War?

Sure. Reagan legitimized the "moral high ground" policies that were ridiculed under the previous administration that resulted in providing the much needed moral support for the growing dissident movements. However, the "offensive" military build up probably delayed the actual end.

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000?

Gore most likely received the most votes in Florida, but Gore would have lost each and every of the recounts he requested. (I think he only wins under one recount scenario - the "intent of the voter" for the entire state.) So with the results as close as they were and with the various screw ups I think it easy enough to see Gore losing most "fair" recounts anyway. However, neither supreme court did anyone any favors here. So that would seem fair to me,

Now if you asked about 2004 Ohio....

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001?

Sure, but I don't think the one intelligence briefing would have been enough. And I'm not sure that I would find the means to know enough, do enough to thwart it would be acceptable.

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision?

Candidate Bush provided a list of conditions that had to be met to justify placing our military in harms way. The invasion did not even satisfy those requirements. As for the stuff that we knew we would

However, except for needing to staying forever because of the power vacuum created I'm not so sure how this deployment was all that different from the Clinton era usage of the military force. Since that power vacuum had only handcuffed the two previous administration's options for the previous dozen years, how important could it have been?

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision?

It was the only available decision.

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy?

The economy would have recovered on its own and arguably would be stronger for it. That being said I assume you mean that were they necessary to avoid a great deal more economic pain. Of course.

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance?

I'm not sure. I'd argue that the working poor, lower middle class is paying more in taxes today to provide better access to health insurance to seniors and those with good paying jobs and employer provided health care. And as a result are driving costs out of reach for their own health care. This being offset somewhat by the upper middle class and wealthy providing the crappiest health care of them all - Medicaid to the poor. Especially those lazy good for nothing kids.

So is undoing this a Yes?

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps?

We shouldn't have need based welfare or food stamps. We should send all Americans a monthly check instead. So this would be a yes.

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment?

I wouldn't word it that way, but we are well beyond the point of seriously thinking otherwise.

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment?

No

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution?

As in finding that the constitution provides a "right to privacy"? If so yes. Beyond that it might get messy.

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism?

If you mean largely due to racism being exercised in 2014 then I'd say no. If you mean by the impact of racism exercised the past 400 years then absolutely.

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel?

It is time to make friends with Iran and wipe Israel off the map. Sorry couldn't resist. Israel is a huge pain in the for us, but ultimately this where our values survive and thrive in that region. So yes,

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?

There is no justification for this, but I assume I will always lose to those that are too afraid.

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens?

Of course. We should value those that take such initiative. Why would we want more people willing to queue up and wait in lines? (I mean other than the fact that it is probably easier to compete with the latter.)

 

[kentric]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

my understanding of that concept, in this particular case , is about equal to the Iraqis themselves.

Well let me explain. It means it's theirs. Not yours. Not the US governments. Theirs. They get to do what they want with it and you get no real say. If they tell you to get out, you get out. See not so hard.

Except that none of us agree with that, including you. The Libyan government didn't consent to us bombing them. Pakistan never agreed to allow us to hit UBL. We all understand that there are situations in which is right for us to ignore "sovereignty" and do what needs to be done.

How do you equate maintaining 65,000 troops in a friendly country with a. a lightning strike of a small force in a Pakistan and b. a non-ground attack on a "hostile" country. Telling the Afghani gov't that we would be denying their request and leave our troops in their country would just make the U.S. an occupying/aggressor force.

 

[mon]

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? Hard to answer this question the way it's worded. Of course we wouldn't be the same today if we hadn't done what we did to the native Americans. I don't think we should have done those things, though.

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861? No

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States? Yes

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war? No

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States? No

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War? He helped, yes

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000? No

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001? No

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision? No

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision? Yes

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy? It helped

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance? The wealthy should pay more than they do now. Flat tax across the board, with no loopholes.

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps? Same as above.

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment? Yes

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment? No

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution? Unsure

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism? Yes

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel? No

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? Yes

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens? Yes

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

my understanding of that concept, in this particular case , is about equal to the Iraqis themselves.

Well let me explain. It means it's theirs. Not yours. Not the US governments. Theirs. They get to do what they want with it and you get no real say. If they tell you to get out, you get out. See not so hard.

Except that none of us agree with that, including you. The Libyan government didn't consent to us bombing them. Pakistan never agreed to allow us to hit UBL. We all understand that there are situations in which is right for us to ignore "sovereignty" and do what needs to be done.

How do you equate maintaining 65,000 troops in a friendly country with a. a lightning strike of a small force in a Pakistan and b. a non-ground attack on a "hostile" country. Telling the Afghani gov't that we would be denying their request and leave our troops in their country would just make the U.S. an occupying/aggressor force.

I equate them because all three are clear, unambiguous violations of national sovereignty. If you're going to take NCC's position that sovereignty is the deciding factor, then you have no choice but to judge all three the same way. On the other hand, if you're going to say that sometimes it is okay and possibly even compulsory to violate another country's sovereignty (and I think 99.999% of people actually hold this view), then we have to have a discussion about whether maintaining a troop presence in Iraq was one of those times.

For example, it would be extremely easy to make the argument that the US invested a lot of blood and treasure in toppling Saddam and trying to get a new, stable, relatively-democratic government set up. Therefore, the Maliki government doesn't get to unilaterally dictate when we leave. We'll take their opinion under advisement, but we're the ones who gave you this chance, so we'll stay until the job is done to our satisfaction that you very much.

Like I said above, that's not a position that I personally would take. I think experience has demonstrated that Iraq is hopeless enough that the cost of staying outweigh the benefits, so I supported withdrawal. But Iraq's sovereignty is literally a non-factor in that decision.

 

[kentric]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

my understanding of that concept, in this particular case , is about equal to the Iraqis themselves.

Well let me explain. It means it's theirs. Not yours. Not the US governments. Theirs. They get to do what they want with it and you get no real say. If they tell you to get out, you get out. See not so hard.

Except that none of us agree with that, including you. The Libyan government didn't consent to us bombing them. Pakistan never agreed to allow us to hit UBL. We all understand that there are situations in which is right for us to ignore "sovereignty" and do what needs to be done.

How do you equate maintaining 65,000 troops in a friendly country with a. a lightning strike of a small force in a Pakistan and b. a non-ground attack on a "hostile" country. Telling the Afghani gov't that we would be denying their request and leave our troops in their country would just make the U.S. an occupying/aggressor force.

I equate them because all three are clear, unambiguous violations of national sovereignty. If you're going to take NCC's position that sovereignty is the deciding factor, then you have no choice but to judge all three the same way. On the other hand, if you're going to say that sometimes it is okay and possibly even compulsory to violate another country's sovereignty (and I think 99.999% of people actually hold this view), then we have to have a discussion about whether maintaining a troop presence in Iraq was one of those times.

For example, it would be extremely easy to make the argument that the US invested a lot of blood and treasure in toppling Saddam and trying to get a new, stable, relatively-democratic government set up. Therefore, the Maliki government doesn't get to unilaterally dictate when we leave. We'll take their opinion under advisement, but we're the ones who gave you this chance, so we'll stay until the job is done to our satisfaction that you very much.

Like I said above, that's not a position that I personally would take. I think experience has demonstrated that Iraq is hopeless enough that the cost of staying outweigh the benefits, so I supported withdrawal. But Iraq's sovereignty is literally a non-factor in that decision.

Iraq's sovereignty is a non-factor? Not sure how you can say that. The sovereignty issue isn't black and white. Our position and how we're regarded in the Middle East would be severely damaged if the Iraqi gov't told us we needed to leave the country within a reasonable period of time and we refused. A democratic (republic?) government which was duly elected and endorsed by the U.S. If the U.S. made a unilateral decision to keep 65,000 troops in the country there would be a huge outcry among not only Iraqis, but the Middle East as a whole (maybe excluding Israel). We would do ourselves irreparable harm if we did that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm fascinated with the answer to #10, that nearly everyone here seems to think Obama made the correct decision to withdraw troops from Iraq when he did, in 2009/10. I know that we were asked to do so by the Iraqis; even so, I disagree. I believe the main reason, (after invading in the first place) that we have this situaion with ISIS now is because of that decision. The central government in Bagdad was taking our money, and they were refusing to grant Sunnis basic human rights as we had been pushing for. Maliki was becoming almost a carbon copy of Diem in Vietnam, Marcos in the Phillipines, and other weak dictators we have imposed and supported in the past. We could have delayed our departure until the Iraqi govenment agreed to become more democratic. We didn't, and that's on Obama (and I am in general a great admirer of Obama's foreign policy.)

What part of sovereign nation don't you understand?

my understanding of that concept, in this particular case , is about equal to the Iraqis themselves.

Well let me explain. It means it's theirs. Not yours. Not the US governments. Theirs. They get to do what they want with it and you get no real say. If they tell you to get out, you get out. See not so hard.

Except that none of us agree with that, including you. The Libyan government didn't consent to us bombing them. Pakistan never agreed to allow us to hit UBL. We all understand that there are situations in which is right for us to ignore "sovereignty" and do what needs to be done.

How do you equate maintaining 65,000 troops in a friendly country with a. a lightning strike of a small force in a Pakistan and b. a non-ground attack on a "hostile" country. Telling the Afghani gov't that we would be denying their request and leave our troops in their country would just make the U.S. an occupying/aggressor force.

I equate them because all three are clear, unambiguous violations of national sovereignty. If you're going to take NCC's position that sovereignty is the deciding factor, then you have no choice but to judge all three the same way. On the other hand, if you're going to say that sometimes it is okay and possibly even compulsory to violate another country's sovereignty (and I think 99.999% of people actually hold this view), then we have to have a discussion about whether maintaining a troop presence in Iraq was one of those times.

For example, it would be extremely easy to make the argument that the US invested a lot of blood and treasure in toppling Saddam and trying to get a new, stable, relatively-democratic government set up. Therefore, the Maliki government doesn't get to unilaterally dictate when we leave. We'll take their opinion under advisement, but we're the ones who gave you this chance, so we'll stay until the job is done to our satisfaction that you very much.

Like I said above, that's not a position that I personally would take. I think experience has demonstrated that Iraq is hopeless enough that the cost of staying outweigh the benefits, so I supported withdrawal. But Iraq's sovereignty is literally a non-factor in that decision.

Iraq's sovereignty is a non-factor? Not sure how you can say that. The sovereignty issue isn't black and white. Our position and how we're regarded in the Middle East would be severely damaged if the Iraqi gov't told us we needed to leave the country within a reasonable period of time and we refused. A democratic (republic?) government which was duly elected and endorsed by the U.S. If the U.S. made a unilateral decision to keep 65,000 troops in the country there would be a huge outcry among not only Iraqis, but the Middle East as a whole (maybe excluding Israel). We would do ourselves irreparable harm if we did that.

I just did in the post you're responding to.

I agree wholeheartedly that the costs of staying outweighed the benefits. That has nothing to do with Iraq's sovereignty being sacred somehow. If you remove the "huge outcry" from the Iraqis and Middle East in general, maybe it would have been worthwhile to violate their sovereignty for a while.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

We haven't had a Cuban Missle Crisis debate in a long time. Maybe tim can fire that one up next.

 

[Keith R]

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? Yes

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861? No

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States? Yes

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war? No

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States? No

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War? Helping, to at least a minute degree, yes.

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000? No

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001? Yes

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision? No

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision? Yes

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy? Yes

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance? Yes

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps? Yes

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment? Yes

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment? No

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution? Yes

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism? No, but it is a significant factor.

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel? No

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? Yes

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens? Yes

 

[timschochet]

Thanks to everyone who have attempted to answer these questions. The responses are all very interesting.

 

[kentric]

Iraq's sovereignty is a non-factor? Not sure how you can say that. The sovereignty issue isn't black and white. Our position and how we're regarded in the Middle East would be severely damaged if the Iraqi gov't told us we needed to leave the country within a reasonable period of time and we refused. A democratic (republic?) government which was duly elected and endorsed by the U.S. If the U.S. made a unilateral decision to keep 65,000 troops in the country there would be a huge outcry among not only Iraqis, but the Middle East as a whole (maybe excluding Israel). We would do ourselves irreparable harm if we did that.

I just did in the post you're responding to.

I agree wholeheartedly that the costs of staying outweighed the benefits. That has nothing to do with Iraq's sovereignty being sacred somehow. If you remove the "huge outcry" from the Iraqis and Middle East in general, maybe it would have been worthwhile to violate their sovereignty for a while.

I understand you said it, I'm just surprised you think it. You can also say that the U.S. can send 10,000 troops into Mexico without the Mexican government's say so. To say that it is a non-factor is ridiculous. Of course its a factor. When you go against the sovereign will of a nation, its going to be a factor. The question is magnitude and circumstance. In the case of the U.S. attacking Libya, it wasn't considered a major issue as Libya was widely considered as a nation supporting terrorist activities. In addition, it wasn't a ground assault. In the case of Iraq, the U.S.'s refusal to leave the country could be considered as an act of war - 65,000 troops represent an armed occupation.

 

[Fennis]

We haven't had a Cuban Missle Crisis debate in a long time. Maybe tim can fire that one up next.

I gotta go with Russia was wrong on that one.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

We haven't had a Cuban Missle Crisis debate in a long time. Maybe tim can fire that one up next.

I gotta go with Russia was wrong on that one.

But they only started sending the missles because of our own missles in Turkey and in the face of the Bay of Pigs. So really, the whole enitre thing was the fault of the American Industrial Complex, **** Cheney and Barbara Streisand.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Iraq's sovereignty is a non-factor? Not sure how you can say that. The sovereignty issue isn't black and white. Our position and how we're regarded in the Middle East would be severely damaged if the Iraqi gov't told us we needed to leave the country within a reasonable period of time and we refused. A democratic (republic?) government which was duly elected and endorsed by the U.S. If the U.S. made a unilateral decision to keep 65,000 troops in the country there would be a huge outcry among not only Iraqis, but the Middle East as a whole (maybe excluding Israel). We would do ourselves irreparable harm if we did that.

I just did in the post you're responding to.

I agree wholeheartedly that the costs of staying outweighed the benefits. That has nothing to do with Iraq's sovereignty being sacred somehow. If you remove the "huge outcry" from the Iraqis and Middle East in general, maybe it would have been worthwhile to violate their sovereignty for a while.

I understand you said it, I'm just surprised you think it. You can also say that the U.S. can send 10,000 troops into Mexico without the Mexican government's say so. To say that it is a non-factor is ridiculous. Of course its a factor. When you go against the sovereign will of a nation, its going to be a factor. The question is magnitude and circumstance. In the case of the U.S. attacking Libya, it wasn't considered a major issue as Libya was widely considered as a nation supporting terrorist activities. In addition, it wasn't a ground assault. In the case of Iraq, the U.S.'s refusal to leave the country could be considered as an act of war - 65,000 troops represent an armed occupation.

Right. What you and I are both making is a cost-benefit argument. That's completely different from a sovereignty-is-an-inviolable-principle argument.

 

[kentric]

Iraq's sovereignty is a non-factor? Not sure how you can say that. The sovereignty issue isn't black and white. Our position and how we're regarded in the Middle East would be severely damaged if the Iraqi gov't told us we needed to leave the country within a reasonable period of time and we refused. A democratic (republic?) government which was duly elected and endorsed by the U.S. If the U.S. made a unilateral decision to keep 65,000 troops in the country there would be a huge outcry among not only Iraqis, but the Middle East as a whole (maybe excluding Israel). We would do ourselves irreparable harm if we did that.

I just did in the post you're responding to.

I agree wholeheartedly that the costs of staying outweighed the benefits. That has nothing to do with Iraq's sovereignty being sacred somehow. If you remove the "huge outcry" from the Iraqis and Middle East in general, maybe it would have been worthwhile to violate their sovereignty for a while.

I understand you said it, I'm just surprised you think it. You can also say that the U.S. can send 10,000 troops into Mexico without the Mexican government's say so. To say that it is a non-factor is ridiculous. Of course its a factor. When you go against the sovereign will of a nation, its going to be a factor. The question is magnitude and circumstance. In the case of the U.S. attacking Libya, it wasn't considered a major issue as Libya was widely considered as a nation supporting terrorist activities. In addition, it wasn't a ground assault. In the case of Iraq, the U.S.'s refusal to leave the country could be considered as an act of war - 65,000 troops represent an armed occupation.

Right. What you and I are both making is a cost-benefit argument. That's completely different from a sovereignty-is-an-inviolable-principle argument.

I'm not sure where NCC said it was inviolable, but he would best be able to answer that. I do agree that it comes to a cost-benefit analysis with me probably putting a bit more weight on sovereignty than you do.

 

[The Commish]

1. Yes
2. Not sure
3. On it's face, wasn't a fan, but it was probably "better" than alternatives.
4. Yes
5. No
6. Yes...along with others.
7. Yes
8. Don't know. We don't/won't have enough information about what the gov't knew to answer this one.
9. No...clear to me from the beginning.
10. Yes
11. Necessary? No. Helped ease the pain a small amount but not nearly the positive impact politicians claim.
12. No. Acquiring health insurance shouldn't be the focus. Acquiring healthcare should.
13. Not in it's current form, no.
14. No...no marriage is a "right".
15, 14th or 2nd? No in both cases.
16. I lean towards no, but am open to hearing arguments.
17. No
18. On the fence with this one as well given their recent behavior. Before this it was a yes.
19. Of course
20. I'd be fine with it...devil's in the details though.

 

[The Commish]

We haven't had a Cuban Missle Crisis debate in a long time. Maybe tim can fire that one up next.

Watched a PBS special on this last night...chilling how close we were to everything collapsing.

 

[SlimShady]

I have comprised a list of 20 historical and political questions which I would like people, if they're interested, to answer. You're welcome to answer all 20, or whichever ones interest you. These are all "yes/no" questions, and they are all subjective; there are no right or wrong answers. You're free to answer them yes or no, but I would also love it if you would expand on the answers if you want to.

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? yes

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861? no, but irrelevant

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States? no

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war? yes

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States? yes

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War? yes

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000? yes

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001? yes, multiple opportunities

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision? no

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision? not in the way it was done

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy? no

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance? no

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps? no

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment? no

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment? yes

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution? don't know, doesn't matter to me

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism? no, due to horrible policies of the Democrats they vote for repeatedly

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel? of course

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? absolutely

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens? no, they should be expelled

 

[Jayrod]

I have comprised a list of 20 historical and political questions which I would like people, if they're interested, to answer. You're welcome to answer all 20, or whichever ones interest you. These are all "yes/no" questions, and they are all subjective; there are no right or wrong answers. You're free to answer them yes or no, but I would also love it if you would expand on the answers if you want to.

1. For the United States to develop into the nation we are today, was it inevitable that native Americans had to be subjugated, their lands taken away, and their culture destroyed? NO

2. Was it legal and Constitutional for the southern states to secede from the United States in 1860 and 1861? NO

3. Was FDR's New Deal good for the United States? NO

4. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a justifiable act of war? YES

5. Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States? YES

6. Do you give President Reagan credit for helping to win the Cold War? YES

7. Did George W. Bush fairly win the Presidential election of 2000? YES

8. Could our government reasonably have prevented the events of September 11, 2001? YES

9. Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a good decision? NO

10. Was the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in 2009/10 a good decision? YES

11. Was TARP and the stimulus package necessary for saving our economy? NO

12. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have better access to health insurance? NO

13. Should the middle class and wealthy pay more in taxes so that poor people have access to welfare and food stamps? YES

14. Is gay marriage a federal right under the 14th Amendment? NO

15. Would universal background checks on gun purchases or universal gun registration violate the 2nd Amendment? NO

16. Was Roe vs. Wade good law, in terms of it's interpretation of the Constitution? NO

17. Are the employment and legal woes of so many African-Americans in this country, today, due mostly to lingering racism? NO

18. Should the United States continue it's close relationship with the State of Israel? YES

19. Is the mass collection of private emails and phone records, justified by collective warrants, a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? YES

20. Should illegal immigrants already living in this country eventually be given legal status and a means to become citizens? YES

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Nobody would know who Katherine Harris is if it wasn't for Gore's decision to pursue this.

Both sides can easily point to political game-playing by the other in this episode. That was 100% predictable in advance, which is why Gore should have had the prudence not to open that can of worms in the first place. Anybody who thinks that it is a good idea to drag the entire country through something that you know is going to turn into a circus has no business being president in the first place.

And I say that as somebody who was fine with Gore before that. Up until that point, he had always been a relatively conservative Democrat who schooled Ross Perot on the virtues of free trade, and he seemed like the grown-up in the room during the Clinton administration. I wouldn't have minded him winning straight-up on election day (and he should have been running as an incumbent), but after this episode I was extremely relieved that he never took office.

I loved Gore during that. So ironic that a guy who spent his entire career as a public politician would know more about free trade than a successful businessman from Texas.I had no problem with Gore demanding a recount. Your example of Nixon is not a good one IMO, because Nixon in 1960 had no state which was as close as Florida in 2000. If Illinois had been only a few hundred votes like Florida, Nixon would have likely fought it.

My problem is that Gore didn't demand a recount of the entire state; instead he chose to cherry pick counties which would serve his advantage. That was very cynical.

He picked 4 counties with heavy Democratic votes that seemed to be a problem. Even Pat Buchanan agreed that his vote totals were inflated by voter confusion.

The confusion was caused by the Democrats who made the ballots though. A recount could not have change those votes.

Well at the end of the day the "accidentally" incompetent purge of 57k voters had more to do with Gore losing than butterfly ballots.

You misrepresent facts. Many counties ignored the purge lists and many worked to fix the problems. The question is, how many showed up at the polls to vote but were turned away? There were not that many.