Vice Presidential Debate

[alexander]

So, all of the above adds to the fact that this is yet another election in which i do not see any right way to vote, it seems that both sides propose solutions for problems they do not understand, both sides try to further the involvement in the middle east, both sides endorse one way or another to raise what i have to pay for doing work, living in a house, owning a car, etc. Neither side understands exactly how the economy works, neither side seems to realize that 750 billion that they are trying to spend on the US economy, will firstly and foremostly go into the hands of the people that stole the money to begin with, and this will merely offset the problem, from being a problem today, to being a bigger problem in a couple of years when the banks have gone through the surplus and are back at square one. Reps are for letting off the regulations, and letting the economy run itself, and we see where that has gotten us. Democrats are for tighter regulations, that will possibly deny the much-needed credits to the lower income people that need them. Either side is for involving in yet another country, economically, as if we don't have enough things to worry about already.

 

Medical insurance, here is another issue that people touch on very briefly, problem is not how much medical insurance you are getting, problem is how much the doctors are asking for to perform, even the most simplest of tasks. You need not only to regulate the medical insurance market, regulate the rates, regulate the cost of medical equipment, create tax breaks for medical offices, and in turn regulate how much they charge for what they do. I understand that doctors take a long time to make, and school does cost a lot, but look at canada, everyone can go to a doctor and it they all pay for it out of their pay checks, but anyone and everyone has medical insurance, they don't have to think twice about whether or not you will be able to pay for their visit, or whether their medical will cover it, at least partly, and what they will have to do to pay the rest of it off...

 

Ugh, tired of politics and politicians who claim to understand people's problems, yet do things that only increase our fear of whether or not we'll be able to make it thought the next month, or maybe we should be picking up a second job after hours...

[alexander]

Palin definitely came out on top

Then you have missed everything i have been saying here, i think neither came out on top, the dude wants to continue doing what he's been doing in the senate, the chick wants to be out of the picture, NEITHER want to do what it will take, and it will take a hell of a lot of hard work, to fix the problems we are facing.

 

Here is my problem with the quote you have posted, btw, nuclear armed Iran would be a big problem, they, however are far away from obtaining, or making, and thus using, nuclear weapons, the currently unstable Pakistan HAS nuclear weapons, they are both big deals, but dealing with the more ready threat is what the focus at this time should be, Iran does need to be talked to, negotiated, and every other diplomatic attempt at resolving their issue, but Pakistan can and has fired their weapons. United states has a lot of nuclear weapons, and uses them as a "deterrent", deterrent my butt, everyone knows that neither US, nor RU nor France, China, ect, none of those countries will use nuclear weapons because all realize that the world is round. Pakistan that will be willing, and not caring to use their weapons, India that may have to retaliate, however will not stop at that notion, and hey, if it takes destroying the world to prove themselves to the world, then that is what they will do, unless they are made a part of the global politics, and currently helped to become economically, and socially stable... So, don't shift the view, just because Bush messed the Iran relations so much that US is now one of Iran's enemies (and they are not the only ones who were pissed off by the administration that would not entice in diplomacy with them, because they didn't care enough to)

 

I think the beginning of the debate set the mood. When Biden was asked if they would attempt diplomacy with everyone, including Castro brothers and Kim Jong-il, he said yes they would, and took that back 2 minutes later. Palin said a definitive no, because the guy she represents has always been a pro-war shoot first, ask questions later...

 

Both are only adding to the problem that the current administration has created....

[InfiniteNow]

Palin received 50% credit just for showing up, and 48% for being able to spell her own name correctly.

 

 

Expectations were so ridiculously low for her going in that she didn't even need to leave the ground to clear the bar.

[alexander]

Nuclear power and "clean" coal are not alternative fuels.

Yes, you have to remember, this is coming from a governor of an "energy-producing state" and she has had to mention that about a gazillion times. You have to remember, they get most of their budget from oil and gas, she had to work with those companies for a very long time, she has been brain-washed, and simply fails to do simple research on even what an alternative fuel is... Surprised Biden did not catch her on that one either, though he is not all that much better off in that sense, though he did mention solar and bio fuels, and i have to give him credit for that. Just like i give Palin credit for going into education, public school systems, ans special needs, and realizing that the problem with no child left behind is not as Biden said "Lack of Funding", the problem is with the concept that she herself saw fail...

[alexander]

Expectations were so ridiculously low for her going in that she didn't even need to leave the ground to clear the bar.

Amen, brother.

 

Another note. Did anyone else get that feeling that Palin is either a pretty religious person, or is homophobic? It's like if someone has to remind themselves that they have black friends when they are at a sports bar surrounded only by african-american guys, just so they feel like they are ok and by having black friends, have a sort of an excuse/right to be there...?

[Nitack]

I think that the reason he didn't correct her (or really attack her at all) was so that he wasn't seen to be attacking a woman nor seem condescending. I'm sure that he wanted to correct her on her many simple mistakes, but it would have been political folly to do so.

 

I think there was much more to him not going after her than simply not wanting to be seen as picking on a woman. Yes, he may have lost some points for going attack dog on her, but most people would realize that he was just doing what a VP candidate is supposed to do.

 

By keeping the kid gloves on, and not going after her Biden made a very strategically sound decision. If he went after her, she would have the chance to fight right back. That would have given her the opportunity to show that she is tough and can hang with the boys. By denying her that opportunity, and also by not attacking, he did nothing to jeopardize the questions that many people have, consciously and subconsciously, that she can't hang with the boys.

 

If anything it plays into the image of her that the McCain campaign has unintentionally fostered, that she is nothing more than a puppet and that she can't do anything for herself. They have shielded her from the media in a way that has never before been seen for a VP candidate. If anything, most campaigns want the VP to get attention because they are normally given very little. Their very clear dodging of attention and questions has only served to bust wide open any doubts that people had about her.

 

Palin received 50% credit just for showing up, and 48% for being able to spell her own name correctly.

 

Expectations were so ridiculously low for her going in that she didn't even need to leave the ground to clear the bar.

 

Expectations were so low for her going in that it would have been very hard for her to really screw up. As I stated earlier, this debate for her was about repairing her very tattered credibility. No one doubted Biden's credibility before the debate so he was actually able to accomplish the real goal of a VP candidate, which is to attack the other Presidential candidate.

[coldcreation]

Nuclear power and "clean" coal are not alternative fuels. :naughty:

 

Palin's refusal to answer the question addressed to her is the single biggest factor in my disgust for her performance. I was a bit discouraged that the debate moderator did not try harder to keep Palin on-topic, though it might have been seen as biased because Biden would have needed very little moderation for this in comparison.

 

Nuclear power and "clean" coal are considered renewable energy and alternative feuls, by many but not all. The problem is best exemplified by this Wiki article: Renewable energy, Controversy over nuclear power as a renewable energy source

 

In 1983' date=' physicist Bernard Cohen proposed that uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a renewable source of energy.[96'][97] He claims that fast breeder reactors, fueled by uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years.[96] Nuclear energy has also been referred to as "renewable" by the politicians George W. Bush,[98][99][100] Charlie Crist,[101] and David Sainsbury.

 

Inclusion under the "renewable energy" classification could render nuclear power projects eligible for development aid under various jurisdictions. However, it has not been established that nuclear energy is inexhaustible, and issues such as peak uranium and uranium depletion are ongoing debates. No legislative body has yet included nuclear energy under any legal definition of "renewable energy sources" for provision of development support (see: Renewable energy development). Similarly, statutory and scientific definitions of renewable energies usually exclude nuclear energy. Commonly sourced definitions of renewable energy sources often omit or explicitly exclude nuclear energy sources as examples. Nuclear fission is not regarded as renewable by the U.S. DOE on the website "What is Energy?"

 

There are also environmental concerns over nuclear power, including the dangerous environmental hazards of nuclear waste and concerns that development of new plants cannot happen quickly enough to reduce CO2 emissions, such that nuclear energy is neither efficient nor effective in cutting CO2 emissions

 

 

 

Sarah Palin did answer directly and very clearly (to all the questions and to this one in particular):

 

IFILL: Let me clear something up' date=' Senator McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Senator Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported.

 

[b']BIDEN:[/b] I have always supported it. That's a fact.

 

IFILL: Well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start with Governor Palin.

 

PALIN: Yes, Senator McCain does support this. The chant is "drill, baby, drill." And that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.

 

Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.

 

There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.

 

I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.

 

IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?

 

PALIN: I do. I do.

SOURCE

 

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

...So, don't shift the view, just because Bush messed the Iran relations so much that US is now one of Iran's enemies (and they are not the only ones who were pissed off by the administration that would not entice in diplomacy with them, because they didn't care enough to)

 

...Palin said a definitive no, because the guy she represents has always been a pro-war shoot first, ask questions later...

 

Both are only adding to the problem that the current administration has created....

 

You seem to have forgoten the problem with Iran began under Carter, in 1979, when 400 Khomeini followers broke-down the door of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound along with the Americans inside.

 

Palin said a definitive no to meeting with this and other dictators without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first, for the reasons she stated.

 

CC

[Spiked Blood]

I'd still recommend watching it. There are some humorous moments, like Biden basically (and accidentally) stating he is gay and Palin making bad jokes and such. IMO, she did make a fool of herself, but not nearly as bad as the Couric interview.

 

Ok, I took your advice. I only watched it once, but I'm a bit at a loss really, to this whole 'she made a good account of herself' tosh.

 

Firstly though, the thing with "Biden basically stating he is gay". I know the point in the debate you are referring to, unless there is evidence that he is, (or what there most likely will be, internazi rumours claiming Biden is a closet homo) I don't really see how one could suggest from what he said that he was admitting to being gay. I know he was married, and she died, and he has kids etc, which doesn't exclusively prove that he is not gay, but its pretty good evidence that he might not be. (Not that his sexuallity should matter anyway)

 

I don't know what information there is out there, if he was caught in the toilet with a young intern, or whatever, but if not, rumours like this really get on my nerves.

 

 

But, I want to talk about this Palin thing, unfortunately my laptop is being a right c u 'n tuesday, I just want to brush on one or two points.

 

First of all, giving a person a 'pass' based on them fairing better than their previous three 'fails' doesn't really cut it in my book.

 

Secondly, everybody did hear her say, basically, that she wasn't going to answer the questions asked, but read out talking points that she has been desperately trying to memorize.

 

Thirdly, if this idiot said the name John McCain one more time I would have started smashing screens, and possibly cut off my ears. If she's such a maverick why didn't she offer her own opinions instead of those of John McCains?

 

I'll be back, with a better analysis of the debate. And some problems I had with Biden.

 

Edit: Oh, and Palin is one of those irritating fools that says nuculear... (I'm positive under article 97- part 3, chapter 2 of the patriot act that this is an offense punishable by death. No?)

[freeztar]

Nuclear power and "clean" coal are considered renewable energy and alternative feuls, by many but not all.

 

Well, she didn't say "renewable energy" in that statement, so your point is moot. I still say that coal and nuclear, which we've been using for decades, are *not* alternative "fuels".

[freeztar]

Firstly though, the thing with "Biden basically stating he is gay". I know the point in the debate you are referring to, unless there is evidence that he is, (or what there most likely will be, internazi rumours claiming Biden is a closet homo) I don't really see how one could suggest from what he said that he was admitting to being gay. I know he was married, and she died, and he has kids etc, which doesn't exclusively prove that he is not gay, but its pretty good evidence that he might not be. (Not that his sexuallity should matter anyway)

 

I don't know what information there is out there, if he was caught in the toilet with a young intern, or whatever, but if not, rumours like this really get on my nerves.

 

It was a joke. :naughty:

[questor]

When we say ''alternative fuels'', we mean alternative to what? If you're talking petroleum products, then all other fuels are alternative by definition.

[REASON]

You seem to have forgoten the problem with Iran began under Carter, in 1979, when 400 Khomeini followers broke-down the door of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound along with the Americans inside.

 

I'm affraid you're going to have to go back a lot further than that - back to the days when we supported the Shah of Iran after WWII. The problems with Iran developed during this time of our involvement in the affairs of the country which was a factor in the uprising and eventual revolution against the monarchy in 1979.

 

 

Palin said a definitive no to meeting with this and other dictators without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first, for the reasons she stated.

 

CC

 

In this case, preconditions means doing what we want them to do because it has been made clear that we will not negotiate with them unless they meet our demands. I do not believe that their can ever be diplomacy where one side expects to make all the rules prior to negotiations.

[alexander]

You seem to have forgoten the problem with Iran began under Carter, in 1979, when 400 Khomeini followers broke-down the door of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound along with the Americans inside.

please, this is like saying when we have a misunderstanding with Germany "You seem to have forgotten that the problems with Germany began in 1914..." or better yet, remembering the 1066 Norman invasion of England... please... but if you must go into history then lets, i personally love history, amongst other things :naughty:

 

No i did not forget about the incident, though i was only about -7 years in the making at the moment. If you really want to trace it, then you should think back to what Carter administration believed. Carter spoke to Shaha on countless occasions, pressuring him to relax the laws allowing more freedom of speech, and even more-so more freedom for political dissidents. Now you have to remember that it was the US that aided the Iran's Coup in 1953, so at this point US had a lot of say in Iran's politics, but by that locking anger in people that seem to not forget, so while government was running around happy in circles celebrating the new 1978, and Carter was making his speech about a ever-so-stable Iran under Shaha, but with his toast, he angered the people of the country, eventually in about a year, triggering a revolution, and the hostage situation you are referring to. US had no right taking the country over in 53, this was Iran's people's retalliation against that Coup, and yes they did take 52 hostages and held them for 444 days, i think reasoning was quite clearly put by Iran's prime minister Mosaddeq

"You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.”

 

As the result of the conflict, Iran's major funds were cut off, infact to this day, Iran's frozen funds acount for something like $10 billion, bill got resigned again in 2006, extending the freeze till 2011.

 

So let's follow this again, US takes over control, starts rapid modernization of the country, rapidly contributing to economy, improving technology, supplying millitary, weapons, and other needs, and then bam, cutting them off in the middle of making giant strides for progress...

 

What was left for a now slowly crumbling country that was pissed off at the US to do? Well, fund their own terrorist organization, and that is how Hazbollah was started. And the beauty of that was that US continued funding any anti communist groups, and how did they get money? why, selling weapons to Iran through black channels ofcourse, and then, basically pumping money into the Soviet-Afghan war...

 

1988, US shoots down a civilian plane killing some 280 passengers... while eventually they show some remorse and pay for the lives, plane and legal fees to the gov-t or Iran, they never made an apology to the people of Iran... yet another step that further separated the countries.

 

Clinton administration brought talks back to the table, diplomacy was game once again, and some stability in the crumpling relations was achieved. Problem was that once again, popular opinion and state policy were starting to veer apart. Though for a long time, Iran has perhaps the most US friendly relations... in 2003 a poll suggested that up to 75% of people were in favor of resuming US/Iran talks.

 

Now, that was early 03, Bush, however has already stopped talking to Iran at this point, he made it clear in his 2002 speech and put Iran on the same plate as Iraq, and North Korea, at the moment. Since 2003 US started to fly UAVs over Iran, to gain intelligence on their nuclear program, not only that, as early at 2000 it seems that Clinton had a secret mission to try to set back Iran's nuclear program by feeding them faulty prints, not knowing that soviet nuclear scientists heading the development would quickly find and eliminate the flaws and redesign key components that were missing, in order for the program to actually get a pretty good jump on. Also at that moment, Russia was still working with Iran, helping their progress, selling them weapons, tanks, airplanes, whatever, as they were doing the same thing that US was doing in Afghanistan, and in turn funding Hazbollah, which is still funded by the Iran's gov-t.

 

Second term only worsened the relations, US no longer issued visas to the Iranian diplomats, methinks its time to unfreeze the 28 year long diplomatic freeze, US has started CIA, DIA and Special Forces operations in the country, they have a naval blockade in place, serious talks are in order, and not of the kind that were done with the Taliban gov-t before going in Afghanistan in 2001, the kind that will show and be respected by both sides... All Iran wants is some respect and equality, not turned a back...

 

My thoughts on Iran, per your inquiry, CC.

[coldcreation]

please, this is like saying when we have a misunderstanding with Germany "You seem to have forgotten that the problems with Germany began in 1914..." or better yet, remembering the 1066 Norman invasion of England... please... but if you must go into history then lets, i personally love history, amongst other things B)...

 

 

 

The 'problem' referred to above is one of dialogue (or lack of dialogue, lack of diplomatic relations) between Iran and the U.S.

 

Certainly, the overall problems began long before 1979, probably dating back to the Persian empire.

 

Thanks for the history lesson though, Alexander. Nice.

 

The point remains, direct unconditional dialogue between heads of state of both countries cannot begin without some kind of condition attached, again for the reasons stated by Palin during the VP debate. There seems to be less of a problem with lower level meetings, of the kind that have already begun.

 

All Iran wants is some respect and equality, not turned a back...

 

If Iran seeks respect and equality it seems to me that the monologue by their president, of the kind laced with undiluted anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism recently promulgated at the U.N. September 2008, needs to be greatly modified. In the words of Rice, his verbal attacks on Israel were "unacceptable."

 

 

 

CC

[alexander]

The point remains, direct unconditional dialogue between heads of state of both countries cannot begin without some kind of condition attached

oh i agree, no, no dialoguw between heads of state, i was merely referring to diplomacy in general should be used, believe me, i understand, conditions there are, point i was trying to make is that Iran, at this current moment is less of a physical threat then Pakistan... thats all, they are however a threat, they do make demands that can not be met, and should be further worked with.

 

Btw, here are approximate demands and thus conditions that diplomacy is not working quite well (this is from wiki):

 

what concerns US:

* State sponsorship of international terrorism

* Pursuit of weapons of mass destruction

* Threats to neighbors in the Persian Gulf,

* Repeated statements by the Iran's highest government officials that they wish "Death to America" and to "wipe Israel off the map".

* Opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process

* Violations of human rights

 

Requests by Iran that can not be met, well some more then others:

* That the United States accept the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution,

* Not interfere in Iran's internal affairs,

* Deal with the Iranian regime on the basis of "respect and equality."

* Lifting U.S. economic sanctions,

* Release of frozen Iranian assets in the United States

* End to U.S. military presence in the neighboring countries of Iraq and Afghanistan

* Removal of the U.S. Navy from the Persian Gulf

* An end to preceived one-sided support for Israel

* A formal apology for intervention in Iran, including the CIA-backed overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1950s.

 

and ofcourse Iran's demands for reparations for (some of which US believes they have already paid, and they did, somewhat):

* U.S. companies' assistance in developing Iraq's chemical weapons facilities during the Iran-Iraq war

* U.S. Support for anti-Iranian organizations (i.e. the MKO);

* USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 with many civilian fatalities;

* Economic damage caused by U.S. sanctions and political pressure;

* U.S. UAV overflights over Iran violating Iranian airspace since 2003.

 

These are most of the major set backs in the diplomatic relations today...

 

Back to topic though, I guess my biggest problem with Palin is her seeming inadequance for the office. Look at how she answered the question on what the duties of a VP are. Biden has a clear understanding of what it is a VP does, infact he clearly stated that it is crearly defined in the constitution. Palin probably doesn't even know what is defined in the constitution, and got away with "i will be helping special needs children". While touching, and i do respect her for it, i mean i think there should be a bigger effort put forth by the gov-t to deal with such issues, but she clearly has no clue what a VP is supposed to do, so since she was never in the party's plans, i think in a McCain/Palin office, the only person who will do everything, would be the President. Problem is, where in Obama/Biden camp, either can really hold the fort, and God forbid (though i don't personally believe) anything happens to the President, the VP can clearly take over the office, in a McCain/Plain camp, she will have no clue what to do... That is most concerning, i have points that McCain makes that i like, that i would want to slap Obama for, for some issues that works in reverse ofcourse, but if something happens, and history shows that it very well can happen, I would only want someone who is worthy to take over the office, to be second in command... While i think Obama is not the best suited for the Office, i think even more so, Palin is not suited for second in command, ideally I'd like a McCain/Biden office, only McCain would have to be third party (neither Republican nor Democrat, or a good mix of both), or maybe even a Bidden/Obama office (not that i think that Bidden is the best guy for the job, and i am not a fan of him, as i wanted to slap him as much as i wanted to slap Palin in the VP debate there, however, he does know how to get things DONE, and that is one of the biggest pluses you can have for a high office like that...).

[jackson33]

alexander; Well laid out argument...but a couple points from my perspective..

 

The VP, serves at the "pleasure of the President" and duties given under the general restrictions authorized by the Constitution. If the President wishes nearly any objective sough by any VP pick can be pursued. I think there are plenty of programs already available for disadvantaged children, which Palin could influence, but her expertise in Energy would be most useful IMO...

 

No President in the past 75-100 years has had total control over the Executive Branch, most basically figureheads for those that actually do the work, negotiation and formation of policy and in accordance to the importance of that work. Thousands of decisions are made daily, by the IRS field workers to Department Heads with in the administration effecting virtually every person in the country, if not world and on a daily basis.

 

Said another way; President's and I believe correctly reflect the personality of the society they represent and at the times elected. Todays America could be found in Obama or Palin, not IMO in either Biden or McCain. Though it appears, Obama followers are in control their are as many in the Palin camp, but she is not running for the number one spot.

 

As for diplomacy; Virtually any agreement made by the President is subject to Congressional approval, certainly anything near a treaty which must be ratified. Obama can say what ever he wants to to get elected, but getting congressional action, even with a Democratic Congress, may not be easy. Frankly my worry is, Congress would control Obama and to a degree never imagined by the founders of this country.

 

One little other thing; The person elected needs the availability of people who can and will serve in his/her administration. Forgetting guilt by association, McCain currently has the respect of most those persons or by comparisons much more qualified than anything Obama could attract. McCain, also is nearing the end of a political career, not likely concerned with the next election, any legacy or promotion of personal agenda's for purpose. Obama is showing all the signs of an eight year term and influencing national policy well beyond that.