CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I don't think John Stossel himself (reporter for ABC) is fit for politics, but I tend to agree with his views the most. He's mostly Libertarian but not extreme (Like Ron Paul or Bob Barr).
The guy comes up with reasonable ideas for certain issues and defends the indefensible (those who deserve it, of course).
So someone with the same mind set of John Stossel should be president.
I'll go back to my original pick for president and that would be Hillary Rodham Clinton. I would love to see such a bright, educated and intelligent woman in the White House as president.
I certainly can support your idea but being an ex president would be very problematical, at the very least. Besides, I don't know if it would be possible. I had always thought just having him around to bounce things off of would have served her very well.
There is the problem! You want a woman to be president, regardless of polical stance. To show that you are no longer a sexist nation. Well I consider it sexist that you would consider a woman over a man, if the man is more qualified. This dispute is not directen at Kuklapolitan directly, but at anybody who would say that they would vote for somebody just because they have never had that demographic in office.
I would like to see a true Progressive in a perfect world, that will not happen anytime soon though, so I'll settle for the guy we elected right now. While I think he compromises with the right far far far too much, and get's nothing for it but stonewalling and name calling, part of democracy is no one ever gets exactly what they want.
1. I didn't say he was progressive, I said idealy I would want someone more progressive.
2. He appointed Gates (a republican nominee) at Secretary of Defense the second most Important Cabinet position,
3. He's keeping Fitzgerald at U.S. Attorney, a Bush Nominee
4. There's another Republican on his cabinet from Ill.
Find 1 President who has appointed as many people from the opposite Party Pyg.
So go ahead keep laughing, I mean, why actually look at what he's really doing when it's so much more fun for you guys to pretend he's "the most liberal human in the history of mankind!"
really, wtf,
you're attitude is exactly why so many people are telling him to just forget the right.
No matter what he does you guys will say he's "the most liberal ever" so why bother?
btw, last president appointed 0 from the opposite party.
2. It's more like fourth behind Treasury, State, and Attorney General.
3. And he also illegally fired Inspector General Walpin.
4. As regards to the cabinet positions, the other two do not really mean all that much. Secretary of Transportation is pretty much a nonpartisan position and Ray LaHood himself was more of a moderate himself when he was in office. Judd Gregg was probably more of political move seeing as his departure would leave a Senate seat open that he would have been better in it rather than in the Cabinet.
That last part is a lie, Bush had Norman Mineta who is a Democrat. But seeing how you did research on everything else I'm sure you already knew that.
While he is way more moderate than people give him credit for he definitely has issues that need to be pointed out
I actually didn't do any research, I was busy but didn't want to leave the sarcastic statement standing without a reply.
So thanks for the corrections,
a couple things though:
2. Some would argue the order of importance of Cabinet positions, I've always though it was State, Defense, then Treasurey and Attorney General. But I can see why some would consider other positions more important.
Either way though, I think anyone would agree that Secretary of Defense is a very high postion for a person of one party to nominate a person of another party for.
3. There's certainly more than one side to that issue, and most of what I can find is very partisan one way or another, but this seems to be a fairly non-partisan account of events from the Washingtom Post, link
4. Granted, only one position is high-level, still, that's much more than most Presidents, and is certainly not something a super liberal would do, which is my point. I'm not saying he's not liberal, just not what the right is portraying him as.
I didn't mean to lie, like I said, I didn't have time to look it up. Norman Mineta was Secretary of Transportation under Bush, which is a completely non-partisan position, and I simply had never heard of him. And if one is going to say that Obama's appointment of Judd Gregg was political (which it probably was) the same could be said for the appointment of Norman Mineta, as a seat was vacated by his appointment in much the same way.
Either way though, my entire point is that it's ridiculous for the right to go around pretending he's some kind of ultra liberal, refuse to compromise on anything, say no to everything, and sit back and allow the fringe of the party to whip themselves into a paranoid frenzy with all of the socialist and birther talk.
And I agree there are issues that need to be pointed out, probably not the same issues you have,
but when one side has fallen off the deep-end, and insiststs on mislabeling the entire situation,
Even though I'm a Liberal who avoids their pussy beliefs (give money to the poor, compassion for the enemy and Political Correctness).
And yeah, it's still funny. Because Obama is exactly that. He's a Rainbow, Liberal Bitch. Except that he's against Gay Marriage (although, that's bad). Wow, nothing good about Obama so far... LoL.
blah, sure, if you're independant, then so am I. I disagree with liberals about as often as you disagree with Conservatives.
But no, he's not a Rainbow liberal. And wait... is that the economy getting better? lol, okay, we're about 9 mo in. We'll see how much he's done right in about 3 years.
I disagree with Conservatives on the same scale (Traditionalism, Conservative Political Correctness, and Family Values/Christian influence).
Once again, here's a break down on my beliefs:
For Euthanasia
For Abortion (I actually encourage it as much as possible)
For the Death Penalty (only on extreme circumstances)
For gun rights (including Assault Rifles)
For the legalization of most narcotics
For prostitution
For gambling
For Big Government spending on Science, Education and Military/Security (and if you break that shit down even more, you'll see even more liberal views)
Against Political Correctness in all forms
Against Unnecessary spending (some liberal, some conservative)
For certain bailouts (banks), but against unnecessary bailouts (such as GM)
For the teaching of Evolution as the MOST LIKELY theory in ALL public schools
For the ROTC having the right to be in any college that the campus allows, as well as High Schools. For Military recruiters being on campus as well without the CITY harassing them.
For Gay marriage, adoption, etc.
Against a Federal Speed Limit.
For stronger border enforcement and crack down on CRIMINAL illegal aliens.
Against cap and trade programs.
Against any kind of Sin Tax.
Against making plastic illegal.
For a government program designed for getting America on an alternative energy (like the Manhattan Project, except totally different).
For harsh punishment on child molesters (less than 14) but am not for sexual predator registration when it's:
17 "molests" a person 14-17
Someone has consensual sex with someone 14-17 even though they're above 18, unless they're a 30 with someone less than 16.
Obviously not that Conservative... but it doesn't help when someone like me disagrees with Obama, I guess.
now try to focus on the specifics of what you do or don't like, instead of instantly jumping on the "he's a crazy lefty" bandwagon. Because as the record thus far shows, while there is plenty for anyone to disagree with, the idea that he is some kind of socialist is ridiculous.
I may have mentioned how his economic policies match the economic policies of a Fascist, but i never actually CALLED him a Fascist... because that would include totalitarianism, which he's not for.
And I never called him a crazy lefty, either... and you're the last person who should be accusing others of jumping on a bandwagon, mister "Faux News".
He's just certainly not a moderate. He is a Liberal guy and, unfortunately, not where it counts.
And I only sound sane again because I had to break down my beliefs into a million little pieces because when I support the war and the water boarding of terrorists, it helps just to call me a Conservative. It pains others to see someone who's pretty Liberal NOT be a pussy.
Torture doesn't work, not a single piece of evidence says it has ever worked, every expert agrees there are better ways of getting information.
So why is being against something that doesn't work and makes the world hate us and breaks our own laws, being a pussy?
And I watched Glenn Beck for 5 minutes last night... and he said something like "and I know your against government" putting something or other in the water that causes impotence (referring to Obama being an Orwellian dictator) to a guest... I'll call them Fox instead of Faux when they take the word news out of their name.
i woild choose mckaine because hes cool and he deducated his life for his country in the vietnam war he was captured an dtortured and survived that means hes a strong person
Who's kidding? That was no big deal. I've been around rich people they all have some hangup. I know of one that is active in the search for UFO's. Though out history the rich have always been a little off. Howard Hughes was afraid of germs. Einstein would run down the street half dressed with violin in hand to accompany someone play Mozart. The list goes and on.
Thinking that we're going to become cannibals is much different from dressing in a way that scares people.
The former shows your thinking pattern as inaccurate and paranoid while the latter shows your thinking patter as unconcerned of the possible judgments of those surrounding you.
My thinking is just fine. I'm just as accurate as the facts are. Your right, I am unconcerned about what judgement others have on me. Why do you care? Do you seek appoval from others? I set trends, I don't follow them.
He quit in the middle of the election just to join the Good-Ole-Boys-Network, and bow to McCain “the back room chosen one”.
That is exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party. (Compassionate) Politicians bent on buying votes through socialist programs while bankrupting our country.
I hope we get honest candidates with backbone, who have never been a politician or Lawyer, who refuse corrupt corporate/lobbyist money, who's only mission is to focus on cleaning house, cutting waste, and balancing the budget.
He is a pretty boy with lots of money, but we should expect more, we must choose better.
Glenn Beck, Stephen Colbert, or Arnold Schwarzenegger :)
Seriously though, I would pick myself :). 400k a year, pension for life, secret service for life, plus a lot of other perks. I'll just appoint a million czars like Obama and just sit back and relax.
Having a czar just means that the bad guys have only one guy to bribe to get that particular organization to look the other way. Why do you think the white house doesn't want you calling them czars? ;)
I just thought they wanted to not get embarrassed again by using Russian terms. :) If they can't even spell 'reset' right in Russian after five spell checks, what makes you think they will spell czar right? I mean, when you think of the word czar, your first intention is to spell it as zar, right? Then you go to spell check and realize you got it wrong yet again. :)
I think the Russian terms right on the money. I mean, I know that the administration doesn't want to be associated with communists but their policies are enough for people to make the connections ;)
This whole nation is like a bunch of heroin addicts. They jump from candidate to candidate always looking for a savior in a politician. What about you turn of the teevee and think for a second, and a minute and an hour... Politicians never changed a thing, and never will. All meaningful changes throughout history have come from people who have had it. You have had it a long time ago, but they keep telling you they have the solutions, and you keep voting them in one after another.