Let’s look at the Pro’s and Con’s of the Democratic Primary candidates from the debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire last night.
Hillary Clinton
Things I liked: Mentioning Congressman Kucinich was probably the best thing she said the entire night (well, second at least). Other then that it was the same old rhetoric. She did, however, take a firm stance against torture when asked if it was a necessary policy to stop terrorists. The most important thing to take out of the debate for Clinton was her response to her husband’s opinion. Moderator Tim Russert read a quotation relating to foreign policy which Hillary disagreed with. After hearing Hillary’s disagreement, Russert mentioned that the statement was made by Bill Clinton in which Hillary responded in saying “Well he isn’t the one standing up here right now.” She could not have answered that question any better.
Things I didn’t like: She seems to have this arrogance whenever she is criticized. The same way President Bush would scowl whenever his policies were questioned in debates, Hillary mockingly laughs. The American people do not need another overly arrogant president. As far as her policy goes: she refused to say the troops will be out of Iraq in the foreseeable future, thinks the Democratic party is pushing “hard” to change Bush’s Iraq policy (which is total rubbish), refuses to answer certain questions, and has made a laundry list of misjudgments regarding policy in her past and refuses to take responsibility (I am referring to the 93-94 Healthcare push, the Iraq War vote, and war funds voting). I guarantee that if elected Clinton will not end the war in her first term. That’s five more years of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed. On a side note, she voted yes to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. This is just opening the door for a war with Iran.
Things I didn’t like: She seems to have this arrogance whenever she is criticized. The same way President Bush would scowl whenever his policies were questioned in debates, Hillary mockingly laughs. The American people do not need another overly arrogant president. As far as her policy goes: she refused to say the troops will be out of Iraq in the foreseeable future, thinks the Democratic party is pushing “hard” to change Bush’s Iraq policy (which is total rubbish), refuses to answer certain questions, and has made a laundry list of misjudgments regarding policy in her past and refuses to take responsibility (I am referring to the 93-94 Healthcare push, the Iraq War vote, and war funds voting). I guarantee that if elected Clinton will not end the war in her first term. That’s five more years of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed. On a side note, she voted yes to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. This is just opening the door for a war with Iran.
Barack Obama
Things I liked: Did a nice job responding to the criticism that he lacks that judgment through experience to lead a nation.
Things I didn’t like: Obama is my number two candidate, but last night was awful for him. Every political analysist agrees the only way Obama will win the primary is if he engages in a debate with Clinton and challenges her stances. Another missed opportunity last night for the Obama camp. He showed no enthusiasm in answering any questions and not only seemed very whimsical in explaining his position but also seemed tired and boring. When asked about nuclear power he responded saying that nothing should be taken off the board. It’s the 21st century and there is still no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, why is this even still on the board in the first place! Obama also failed (like most of the other candidates) to actually give a viable plan for Iraq. Oh ya, and…rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Why can none of the top tire candidates ever be honest with the American people? P.S. – he joined Clinton in voting yes to Lieberman’s Senate Bill regarding Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Not a very peaceful move if you ask me.
John Edwards
Things I liked: Edwards really impressed me last night. He was the only candidate that actually attempted to start a debate with Hillary. He appeared very presidential and constantly elaborated on the differences between his own policies and the policies of the other candidates. One thing of importance which he mentioned was his plan for healthcare. Edwards criticized the other candidates for making decisions regarding Healthcare in Washington with lobbyists while the American people are kept out of the loop. Whether he actually would get the American populace involved in deciding how to solve the country’s healthcare crisis remains to be seen, but it is a great way to think about solving our problems.
Things I didn’t like: He sounded very hostile toward Iran last night. Clearly we need a president that will not be bullied by Iran, but threatening sanctions seems the wrong way to go about it. Making threats will only increase tension between the United States and foreign countries. He also seemed to display somewhat of a short fuse last night when Tim Russert began questioning his $400 haircuts - responding in explaining how hard he worked to earn that money to get the haircut. It just seems disingenuous for someone to run on a platform of understanding the American people and bringing politics back to them while he spends money like a celebrity. Do not misunderstand me, it is his earned money and he could spend it as he likes, but that does not mean he can not be openly criticized for it.
Bill Richardson
Things I liked: Separated himself from the other top three candidates by promising to bring the troops home unlike Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. He also hit the nail on the head when he criticized Clinton for saying the Congress has done everything it can to change course in Iraq. A few times last night he played the ambassador card, which I find acceptable because he does have the experience in foreign relations that some of the other candidates lack. Unfortunately, this card does not work against Biden or Clinton.
Things I didn’t like: Did not rule out supporting an Israeli strike against Iran as a matter of past United States policy. Wouldn’t his job as president be to alter policy? He also supports increasing the bureaucracy to solve the immigration dilemma. Using economic growth to solve the immigration problem will not work and he needs to find a better way to address the problem. Richardson is not a bad candidate but he doesn’t seem to have a well enough developed platform to really make a push for the presidency.
Christopher Dodd
Things I liked: He was one of the candidates that made the pledge to get the troops out of Iraq by 2013. He also supported a temporary suspension of imports from China until the products are deemed safe. Those seem to be the only two issues where he separated himself from the other candidates last night.
Things I didn’t like: Like almost all the other candidates Dodd does not give any actual plan to solve the crumbling infrastructure of Iraq. I am also very skeptical about his Social Security plan. It is hard to criticize him since none of the candidates really have a realistic solution to the Social Security crisis, but using $97,000 for the cut-off mark in Social Security seems unfair to the poor class. Like Richardson, Dodd does not have enough political “umph” to really gain anywhere. I also liked that he voted against Lieberman’s bill earlier in the week.
Joe Biden
Things I liked: Biden was one of the only candidates to support a carbon tax to try to wean Americans off their dependency on energy which is detrimental to the planet’s environment. I also really like Biden’s foreign policy experience opposed to both Obama and Clinton. It seemed like he was very relaxed last night and handled his questions very well. Also; along with Dodd he voted against Lieberman’s bill in the Senate.
Things I didn’t like: Continually votes to fund the Iraq War and explained last night that he could not promise to bring the troops home in his presidency. Biden also opposed security cities and seems to be clueless on the immigration issue (meaning he doesn’t seem to have a plan). Biden is a very smart man, but I can not get over his inability to vote against the war. It seems like he is doing what is politically right for him, not necessarily what is right for the country. It was good to see him bring forth a proposal for Iraq to be voted on, but I do not agree with it. Segregating Iraq is just asking for more inter-country violence.
Mike Gravel
Things I liked: Call him a nutjob if you like, but it seems like he is only candidate that takes the death of American soldiers personally. It’s ashame that his passion regarding bringing the end to the Iraq War is not echoed among the other candidates. He really took on Clinton last night, criticizing her war plan and also her (and Obama’s) yes vote regarding the American declaration of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Gravel also mentioned he was “ashamed to be living in an America” that is building a fence to keep people out. None of the other candidates mentioned the proposal. His comment regarding the credit card company deserving his bankruptcy claim was also pretty bold – even if political irresponsible.
Things I didn’t like: Lets face it; Gravel is not running a real campaign. His campaign video’s look like Louis Bunuel films; he already missed a debate for not turning in proper paperwork; and has no real platform other then the war. Though he has good intentions, he presents himself as a loose cannon during the debates and is running a sloppy campaign. Even so, I’m incredibly happy he is running and I fully support him in his mission. His only goal is to put pressure on congress to bring an end to the war. Like him or not, you have to respect him for what he is doing.
Dennis Kucinich:
Thing I liked: I’m going to keep this short because I am preparing a full post explaining why I am supporting Kucinich for President. In a nutshell: Unlike all the other candidates he has presented a real plan to bring an end to the Iraq War within HR1234; promises to have the troops home within three months of his presidency; opposes Joe Biden’s bill to segregate Iraq into three regions (Russ Feingold was the only Democratic Senator to vote against it); supports sanctuary cities until the immigration issue is solved; refuses to privatize Social Security; supports lowering the drinking age to 18, and the voting age to 16 (will further explain in future post); fully opposes the use of nuclear power; and was the only candidate to give an example of a time he sacrificed his political career for the good of the people. He also added his typical humor into the debate which some of the other candidates severely lacked.Things I didn’t like: Was not one of Dennis’ better debates. Didn’t do a great job articulating his reason for not selling the Cleveland electricity system – this was an opportunity to really show how much he cares about the people he represents over his self interest but it didn’t seem like he capitalized. He also could have done a better job contrasting his plans with the (lack of) plans of the other candidates. For Dennis to become the Ron Paul of the Democratic Primary he really needs to play off his candidness as opposed to fellow Democrats secrecy.
-tg
8 comments:
Hmm...I watched the whole debate last night and I agree with a ton of stuff you said but I also disagree with a lot. So let's go through this candidate-by-candidate:
Hillary Clinton: I absolutely agree she had the perfect response when Tim Russert mentioned that it was Bill Clinton who had come up with the proposal for the use of torture in the event of an imminent terrorist attack--"Well, he isn’t the one standing up here right now." But I believe that her views on this issue are either irresponsible or dishonest (this goes for all the other Democratic candidates as well). If she really wouldn't use torture to obtain information to save thousands of innocent American lives, then she is not qualified to be the President of the United States. If she would use torture in that situation but is not telling the truth for political and diplomatic purposes, then she is lying. It seems to me that Bill Clinton, having actually been president, has a better understanding of national security than our current crop of candidates. I gained a lot of respect for him last night when I heard that he was the one who came up with this reasonable proposal.
I have also felt for some time that she is very arrogant, partly for refusing to admit that she made a mistake in voting for the war in Iraq. Her mocking laugh only gives more credence to this claim. I do feel the Democratic Party leadership is pushing as hard as they can to get President Bush to change course in Iraq. They don't have enough votes to override the president's veto, so the only option they have is to cut off funding (which means that they would need a majority to vote against Iraq appropriations bills). They don't have the votes for that either. The last Iraq war funding bill passed 80-14.
By the way, the critical issue is not that she voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. The key point is that she voted to authorize the president to use all means, including "military instruments", to combat Iranian influence in Iraq. As you said, this could open the door to some sort of military conflict with Iran.
Barack Obama: I can't disagree more with your analysis of Obama's performance. I do concur Obama didn't seem as enthusiastic as he normally is, but he was suffering from a head cold. Let's look more closely at your analysis of Obama.
First of all, there is a glaring factual error in your post. Obama did NOT vote yes on Lieberman's Senate bill (he didn't vote because he was away campaigning).
Second, Obama's position on nuclear power is exactly the right one. Nuclear power not only will eliminate our dependency on Middle East oil and help us in the war on terror, but it will also help the fight against global warming because nuclear power produces zero carbon emissions. If regulated properly, nuclear power can be perfectly safe. In U.S. history, nuclear energy has never been shown to cause a single death. Contrary to what you claim, there is a safe way to dispose of the waste. You seal it and you bury it. For example, France produced 78% of their energy from nuclear power plants, and they have no problem safely disposing of their nuclear waste.
Third, Obama presented as comprehensive and realistic a proposal for ending the war in Iraq as any candidate. As he said, we can only withdraw troops from Iraq safely and responsibly at the rate of 1-2 brigades a month. And we will need to keep a minimal amount of troops in Iraq to protect U.S. civilians and our embassy, as well as engage in counterterrorism activities against al Qaeda. This is just common sense. Ending the war doesn't mean bringing every single troop home. We still have 1.500 troops in Kosovo and have maintained a significant presence there since 1999. Considering not a single U.S. soldier has ever died in the Kosovo mission, would you say we are still at war there just because of the presence of a residual force?
Alright, this is going on way too long, I'll just include a couple more brief comments.
Joe Biden doesn't advocate a carbon tax, but Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel did say they support a carbon tax during the debate.
I don't understand how you can possibly oppose Biden's plan to partition Iraq. The three sects there don't want to live together in a country whose borders were artificially drawn by European imperial powers after World War I. Separating them can reduce the violence the same way it did in Bosnia. Biden's plan is absolutely correct, and it can actually get bipartisan support (it passed the Senate 75-23).
This post was certainly a mouthful, but I appreciate your post and am looking forward to another healthy debate.
Well...your statement "If she (Clinton) really wouldn't use torture to obtain information to save thousands of innocent American lives, then she is not qualified to be the President of the United States" is something I cannot agree with it. The question was in reference to using torture as a means of policy. First of all, torture has not been proven to work! Secondly, it goes against the meaning behind the Constitution the country is founded on. Not all instances of torture are immoral, but about 99% are, so that is what the US policy should be from the President. I ask you, what if abolishing the Constitution would save thousands of American lives? The President is sworn to protect the country, but at the necessarily at the expense of the people living in the country. Are American lives the most important thing to "protect the country," or are the principles of the country worth more to protect? I believe the latter over the former.
Regarding Obama: "Obama didn't seem as enthusiastic as he normally is, but he was suffering from a head cold." C'mon, he's running for President of the United States here! That’s a poor excuse for his lackluster performance. You are correct...I made a huge factual error and I will correct it in the original post (I was basing my post on my notes which tend to get cluttered).
You say Obama's proposal is a realistic one for Iraq...I fully agree, HOWEVER, why does he not elaborate during the debate! He missed a golden opportunity to draw a distinction between him and Clinton regarding the plan for Iraq. You and I know his plan is much better then Hillary's, but you and I pay attention to politics. The general population does not investigate things the way you and I do; to some voters all they have to help them decide are the debates. The only candidate to really put any meat and bones behind their plan for the War in Iraq (during the debates only) has been Kucinich in the form of HR1234.
As for nuclear waste - at what effect will this "sealing and burying" of waste have on the environment in the long run? The Earth does not have an infinite amount of land. Wind and Sun power are much more environmentally friendly and if there were a consensus on using them for the future maybe progress would start to be made.
As for Biden's plan: President Lincoln once said "A house divided can not stand." Why not just make it three totally different countries? That’s the way things are going right now. I commend Biden for the effort, but do not believe segregation is the answer.
I’m interested to read your responses to my questions. I'm also surprised not hear anything from you about Kucinich :)
-tg
Fist, let me just clarify. I do honestly believe that in the "ticking time bomb" situation, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards would all undoubtedly use torture to save thousands of American lives, and they would be clearly justified in my mind (I just wish they would be honest about it).
You're absolutely right when you say that as a matter of policy, torture has not been proven to work. That's one of the main reasons (other than torture generally being barbaric) why we don't allow regular law enforcement to use torture. However, in certain circumstances, when you are sure that the terrorist has certain information that you need right away, torture would almost certainly work. While it would be rational for the terrorist to lie about the imminent attack, torture breaks down the terrorist's psychological state to the point where they believe they have to tell the truth to make the pain stop.
Torture is illegal and it should be, because as you said, in 99% of cases it is immoral as well as ineffective. However, I think the "ticking time bomb" scenario is a situation where following the law would result in an enormous injustice (protecting the rights of a terrorist at the expense of thousands of American lives). In this case, I think the president has a moral obligation to break the law for the greater good. For someone like you who has a coherent philosophy of utilitarianism and understands the potential "ticking time bomb" scenario better than most due to massive amounts of 24, I would think this would be a no-brainer.
I hope I didn't sound like I was making excuses for Obama's performance. I think he generally did well, and I really liked his comment to Hillary on health care, "Part of the reason it was lonely, Hillary, was because you closed the door to a lot of potential allies in that process." I would have liked to see him jump in a little bit more, but it is always difficult in a field of 8 candidates.
Again, he didn't seem as enthusiastic and passionate as he normally is, which I think was due to the head cold. But I think he was effective when you look at the substance. I thought he explained his Iraq plan very well at the beginning of the debate, which involves withdrawing 1-2 brigades per month while leaving a small residual force to protect U.S. bases and civilians and engage in counter-terrorism activities. I liked that he didn't make a promise to withdraw all troops by January 2013, which I feel would be irresponsible. Who knows what the situation will be like over 5 years from now? Maybe we'll need a peacekeeping force to protect the Iraqis against ethnic cleansing or genocide. It's not wise to tie your hands before you even get into office.
Also, I have been talking with some people here at Georgetown, and everybody agrees that Obama is not extremely effective when talking in 30-second sound bites, which to some degree hurts him in the debates. He is infinitely better, as we both know, when you see him speak in person. By the way, I saw him speak in D.C. two weeks ago and he was phenomenal.
To be honest, I don't think Obama's plan for Iraq is all that different than Hillary's. But I think Obama would exercise far better judgment than Hillary with regards to our broader foreign policy, and that belief is based on a wide variety of things, such as Obama's decision to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning.
In an ideal world, we would turn to wind and solar power to produce all our energy, because they have no negative environmental effects.
The problem is, we just don't have time.
Global warming is happening NOW, and we have to stop it NOW. Wind and solar power cannot produce the massive amounts of energy that we need to replace the energy we get from burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, etc.). Nuclear power, which does not produce any carbon emissions whatsoever, may be our only real option. Nuclear waste can be buried easily and safely in depository sites such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where the environmental damage is extremely minimal.
The reason why we can't divide Iraq into 3 countries is very simple. Iraqi oil, which is central to their economy, is not evenly distributed among the three proposed regions (Kurd, Sunni, and Shi'ite). As a matter of fact, the proposed Sunni region has almost no oil, and they would certainly not accept a three state solution. If we divided Iraq into three separate countries, war would immediately break out over the control of oil. Biden is absolutely right when he says there needs to be a national federation to oversee the proportionate distribution of oil revenues to the three separate regions.
Biden's plan is not segregation either. People would still be free to choose where they live, and some would certainly decide not to move. For example, in 1947, when British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan, many Muslims remained in India, while many Hindus remained in Pakistan.
Finally, on to Kucinich. You said you were going to make a separate post on why you support Kucinich for president, so I thought we would leave the Kucinich debate for there. But we had a Democratic debate here at Georgetown where students represented each of the 7 candidates (no one wanted to represent Mike Gravel), and the guy representing Kucinich clearly won the debate (he was the most effective debater). So we had a Democratic straw poll afterwards, and Kucinich finished 3rd, ahead of Edwards! Obama won with 36 votes, Hillary had 20, Kucinich had 15, and Edwards had 14. Unfortunately for you, most Georgetown Democrats regard Kucinich's candidacy as a joke and a punchline. I suspect to some degree the same is true nationwide, so you've got your work cut out for you.
Even in the "ticking time bomb" scenario I still question whether torture should be permitted. For example...what if the person being tortured really does not know information? And even if they do, as you admitted, torture has not been proven to work. There is a huge difference between answering realistic hypotheticals and those that are not realistic. A Lebanese insurgency group invading Israel is a hypothetical, but it is realistic. An alien attacking the United States is also a hypothetical, but it is not realistic (even if it is possible in a one in a quadrillion shot). There are no reasons candidates, like Clinton, should not be answering the first hypothetical but there clearly is a justification in not answering the second. The "ticking time bomb" scenario seems to me to be in a category with the second hypothetical. Surely, if it is 100% (not 99.9%) BUT 100% accurate that a bomb is ticking somewhere that will cost thousands of American lives, and it is 100% accurate that one terrorists knows the information, and it is 100% accurate that torture will get information - then the only moral action would be to use torture. However, this scenario is not realistic! Therefore, it is pointless to talk about that hypothetical in regards to whether or not to use torture. If there is any doubt (99.9999% opposed to 100%) that someone may not have that information, then torture is immoral and detrimental to the United States reputation internationally (thus making the US more prone to hatred and attacks).
You mentioned that there were places to dump nuclear waste safely. This may be safe for us humans; but I ask again, what happens when we run out of room to dump? What effect will this have on Mother Earth? You know as well as I that congress is twiddling their thumbs concerning the global warming crisis. If there was a strong and unified push for solar and wind energy then it could come to fruition just as quickly as nuclear power could.
In reference to Biden's plan for Iraq: you really believe that partitioning the country will prevent genocide? The Sunni's have such a disproportional majority in Iraq, that there is no way a Shi'ite or Kurdish region will exist without having some sort of major conflict (especially since the Sunni's were oppressed under Saddam's Baathist Regime.) I was being facetious in regards to splitting up Iraq into three countries. The point I was trying to make is that both scenarios have major logistical flaws.
On Kucinich: You're right; we'll save that debate until I make my post. Glad to hear there are smart people down in GT supporting him. Our main goal right now is to get his name on the ballot in NJ, and then the real uphill battle begins.
-tg
If the terrorist really does know the information, then torture would almost certainly work. Of course it hasn't been proven, but it's only common sense. I'll repeat what I said earlier: "While it would be rational for the terrorist to lie about the imminent attack, torture breaks down the terrorist's psychological state to the point where they believe they have to tell the truth to make the pain stop."
I don't know how you can possibly compare an alien attacking the United States with a terrorist having information about an imminent attack in terms of plausibility. Come on, you know you're being ridiculous here. We are living in an age of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Terrorists have killed thousands of Americans on our soil and hundreds more around the globe in attacks such as the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. There are loose, relatively unguarded stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction all over the world, particularly nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. The "ticking time bomb" scenario is VERY realistic, and it may very well be the most important decision our next president has to make.
I also can't believe that you say if we were only 99.9999% sure that a terrorist has information about an imminent terrorist attack, torturing him is immoral. If there is ANY reasonable chance (I'm not going to use percentages because they are arbitrary and useless) that torturing a terrorist would save thousands of American lives, I think you have a moral obligation to do it. It seems very ironic to me that you are a utilitarian and a huge 24 fan, when both utilitarian ideology and the ideology of 24 clearly would favor the use of torture in the "ticking time bomb" scenario to serve the greater good.
And the use of torture would not be detrimental to the U.S. reputation internationally, because no one would ever find about it.
Tom, the earth is quite big. We're not going to run out of room to dispose nuclear waste. Remember, France gets 78% of their energy from nuclear power, and they have had no problem disposing their nuclear waste. Also, solar and wind energy are completely incapable of producing the amount of energy we need to replace the energy we get from burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power is the only realistic option.
With regards to Iraq, first of all, the Sunnis don't have a disproportionate majority. They only make up 20% of the population. It is the Shi'ites who make up the majority (about 60%) of Iraq's population.
Partitioning Iraq is definitely the best option for avoiding genocide. The different ethnic groups can't kill each other when they are separated. The partition of Bosnia in the 1990s, accompanied by the presence of peacekeeping troops, did stop the ethnic cleansing there, so this type of plan has proved to be successful in the past.
Oh, and you misunderstood what I said about Kucinich. There are no smart people at Georgetown supporting Kucinich--everybody regards his candidacy as a joke. The only reason he did well in the straw poll was because the student representing him in the debate was such a good debater.
"If the terrorist really does know the information, then torture would almost certainly work." No. There is no scientific proof of this and it is certainly not "common sense." If it was common sense then the human race would not be having this debate for over 3000 years. Maybe my analogy and percentages were a bit out there and arbitrary, but I was only trying to make a point. I do not believe torture is effective. It may work in 24 but I do not think it works it real life. Americans are protected not only by the Constitution but also (if you believe in God) have certain rights granted by a higher authority. Torture goes against both. There are two types of utilitarianism "act" and "rule." Under Rule Utilitarianism, torture would remain immoral. My philosophy "Contemporary Utilitarianism" agrees with the latter. This isn't really the place to fully explain my philosophy though.
Wind and Solar energy are not only realistic options they are safer. According to Arthouros Zervos, President of the European Wind Energy Association, 16% of Europe's energy could be generated by wind by 2020. Add on developments in solar power and who knows what can be achieved? We need to admit that eventually the world will run out of space, if not in out lifetime maybe our great-great-grandchildren’s etc. With the possibility of terrorism why risk having nuclear material transferred anywhere in the country when there are safer options for both the human race and Mother Earth?
Thanks for correcting me in regards to the Sunni/Shi'ite distinction. You would think after five years I would eventually get this right. It is hard to compare this to Bosnia. The situation in Iraq is like nothing what we have ever seen before. The country needs to be united to be able to function. Using de facto segregation to keep Iraq together hardly seems like it will work in the long run, especially given the history of the inter-tribal conflicts.
And finally...I can not believe you can call a viable candidate’s campaign “a joke.” This is a primary. The purpose is to have a wide array of candidates and chose one for the party to get behind. This is nothing like supporting a third party candidate running in a general election. The purpose of the Primary is to give party voters numerous options. Your attitude towards Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, Biden, Richardson, Tancrado, Hunter, and Paul's campaigns represent what is wrong with democracy in this country (and the other people who think anyone but the top three candidates are all "joke" candidates).
-tg
How is it possibly not “common sense? If you were being caused unimaginable amounts of pain, you would not be able to think clearly. The only thought that would come into your mind would be to make the pain stop immediately. If that means telling the truth about a terrorist plot, you would eventually do it. When you tried to refute this point by claiming that if this were true, the human race would not have had this debate for over 3000 years, I think you were confused between torture as a matter of policy and torture as an exception. People have long been debating torture because it is very barbaric in general, and extraordinarily cruel when used on innocent people. That debate has nothing to do with the effectiveness of torture in a highly constricted situation such as the “ticking time bomb” scenario.
Torture may go against the rights of Americans (even though it would be used on terrorists, who are not likely American citizens) and some sort of God-given rights (which I believe has no place in a political debate). But wouldn’t you agree that the successful execution of a terrorist plot would certainly violate the rights of the thousands of innocent citizens who perish as a result?
And I’m sorry, but strict rule utilitarianism is just plain stupid. There’s no other word to describe it. Under strict rule utilitarianism, a German who hid a Jew in the attic during the Holocaust would have to tell the truth about the Jew’s existence if questioned by a Nazi officer. No one with any semblance of rationality would argue that the German should tell the truth in this situation and follow the “rule” of honesty. All rules have exceptions. There is a “rule” against cruel behavior like torture, but I believe the “ticking time bomb” scenario would qualify as an exception to that rule. Whether “rule” utilitarianism with exceptions is actually “act” utilitarianism is a whole another philosophical debate that, quite frankly, I don’t have any desire to get into.
You keep making my point about wind and solar energy. Maybe sometime in the future they will become viable alternatives, but we don’t have time for that now. Global warming is getting worse every single day, and we will need something that can produce massive amounts of energy immediately, no questions asked. The answer is nuclear energy. No offense, but the argument against nuclear energy that the world will eventually run out of space is probably one of the most ludicrous I have ever heard in any political debate. That’s like saying we should outlaw smoking because the world will eventually run out of clean air. You should keep in mind that a whopping 96% of spent nuclear fuel is REUSABLE. And if you want to look way, way long-term, any student who has ever taken a course of physics would know that nuclear materials’ radioactivity decreases over time.
I’ll leave the Iraq debate to the other post.
When did I call Dodd, Biden, or Richardson “joke” candidates? I think it is a little extreme of you to say my attitude towards lower-tier candidates is what’s wrong with our democracy, especially when I have nothing but the highest respect for Joe Biden and his experience and views on foreign policy. I regard Kucinich’s candidacy as a joke because he demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of the national security challenges America faces. I guess we’ll save that for your Kucinich post.
Anyways, the real joke is you thinking Kucinich is a “viable candidate” :)
Post a Comment