Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet? as edited by JessicaT (Talk | contribs) at 05:12, 4 January 2009. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting




They tell us every chance they get that they dislike Bush. Also, that they are against the war in Iraq after they were for authorizing US Troops in harms way. Does anybody understand their position?--jp 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No more than the Republicans or any other political party. Is it wrong to change your position based on new information? Czolgolz 10:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If your word is your bond, than yes, it is wrong to change your position. Especially, if it involves other peoples lives.--jp 20:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

So, as long as we're in Iraq, and US soldiers are dying there, we can't leave Iraq? Nice little monkey-trap we've ended up in.... --Gulik2 13:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Because Democracy is more important. Because converting a rogue state to an ally is more important. Because leaving will not solve the murder of innocent men, women and children. I bet you favored our non-action in Rwanda, no Americans lost their lives there.--jp 00:07, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, new issues could arise before November 2008, but I think you were talking about Iraq: the truth is the government acted on faulty intelligence, and Bush and Co. were more than happy to sweep any unfortunate inconsistencies under the carpet, now congress knows they've been lied to, that's why they've changed their position (of course the high casualty rate is an important factor as well)

I had no trouble finding what the democrats stand for, it's right here on the internet: their platforms include reforming and improving higher education, withdrawal from Iraq (they share this with some republicans), introducing universal health care, switching to different energy sources than oil (they share this with some republicans), and restoring America's image in the world.

Middle Man

Ah ha, Middle Man and Hoji- now congress knows they've been lied to? By whom? The public statements on Iraq were made well before Bush taking office. You have no trouble finding what democrats stands for is too grey an answer. Let's leave behind the Iraq statements and focus on pre-election '06. Democrats are for reaching across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion. They are against reckless spending of pork projects. They are for removing corrupt officials from power. I can go on and on. Restoring Americas image in the world, would that be pre-9/11? Because I got news for ya, we were still not liked much before then. Maybe we've added the dislike from Europeans since then but Democrats are for 'Image in the World' or is it just what Europeans think that matters? --jp 00:02, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

They know they'e been lied to? By whom?
Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell, for two:
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces — 
the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces 
control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of 
mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the 
area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Crooks and --Gulik2 03:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

So Gulik before the Bush administration, before the year 2000, many public records show Democrats chiming in about Saddam the risk, WMD and the threat posed to America. Rumsfeld and Powell behind that as well? Citing leftwing blogs will not earn you credit on your reply.--jp 23:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Populism, or at least the appearance thereof in some cases more than others. DanH 22:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to point out, jp, I think you equated "Clinton" with "liberal" a bit too much up there, where you said they authorized US troops to go in harms way. And if the conservative administration had not misled (perhaps outright lied) to the legislature, then this whole mess wouldn't have happened; Bush could have been remembered for all the good he did (Though I can't think of anything good that he did). --Hojimachongtalk 22:56, 1 May 2007 (EDT)