Red Blaster
Member
Nerevar said:
Yeah, I dunno about that one. I just copy and pasted it and added the dashes.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why can't Bill Clinton still be president?
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I dunno about that one. I just copy and pasted it and added the dashes.
ToxicAdam said:
You act as if political corruption is exclusive to Clinton (it isn't), and seem perfectly content ignoring the corruption of the current administration. At least most Democrats will admit that Clinton had faults.
Oh, and your very first bullet point?
"The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance"?
It reflects on the pettiness of the GOP moreso than anything else. If we threw everyone who lied about an affair in jail, the GOP would have no room to lock up people who smoke marijuana.
Christoff Yurievich
Member
I was wondering the other day if Clinton thinks about this. How hard must it weigh on his mind that he could have prevented those terrorist attacks? Granted, the attacks probably would have happened eventually anyway.AssMan said:When the Sudanese government got tired of protecting bin Laden, they offered to give him to Clinton, but Clinton refused. Maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton's cronie, Sandy Berger, decided to block 4 plans to capture Bin Laden, but other than that he did a great job for country.
teh_pwn said:
Improper decisions != political corruption.
We have a long history of getting into conflicts where we don't belong. Sometimes it works out for us, and other times it doesn't.
Just because your MINORITY viewpoint feels we shouldn't have 1) started the war 2) continue the war ... doesn't mean it is corruption. It's poor planning and poor execution. That is much different than taking bribes from Chinese delegates or having your Secretary of State (Ron Brown) indicted on criminal charges. In fact, there is such a gulf of disparity between the two .. I can't even elaborate more on it.
If you came back and said .. "Look at Reagan, he had a corrupt administration and is still considered a great President." That would be a valid arguement.
ConfusingJazz
Member
ToxicAdam said:
Clinton never really gave out as many uncontested contracts to a corporation that was at one point controlled by someone high up in his administration. Does anybody know exactly how much money Haliburton has been given?
And no, I don't think anything Clinton did was anywhere near inexcusable as the Iraq war, which none of the original justifications for it were proven true, and the last part of the invasion was not even planned out properly. Invading a poor country isn't the hard part, but the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz didn't really agree with that point. You know, that whole "I can't imagine the reconstruction process taking more resources" thing.
There are a couple things I don't like Clinton for, most notably the relaxation of pollution controls on SUVs, but he was a far better president and his adminstration planned things out more thourghly then the current one.
And no, I don't give a shit that the president got blown by a 21 year old in the oval office, she was a secretary, not a Russian spy. Thats something for him and his wife to talk about, not a Congressional investigation to look into gossip between Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky.
AssMan said:When the Sudanese government got tired of protecting bin Laden, they offered to give him to Clinton, but Clinton refused. Maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton's cronie, Sandy Berger, decided to block 4 plans to capture Bin Laden, but other than that he did a great job for country.
Oh for God's sake, not this old chestnut again.
It's not that simple.
Bin Laden was never offered directly to the United States, head on platter.
In 1996, the Sudanese government contacted the United States to inform them that if they'd like, they could arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody. Despite what Sean Hannity will tell you, the Clinton White House tried to make this deal happen, but Saudi Arabia wanted nothing to do with him. This was compounded by the fact that even if he was offered directly to the U.S., at the time, the government's case against him was very weak. Any criminal indictments wouldn't have lasted more than a second. (Hey, remember when we didn't just lock people up, throw away the key, and pretend they don't exist?) In 1996, bin Laden's direct connection to dead Americans was very hard to prove, if true at all. Hands were tied, and the silver lining Berger and his friends painted was that "at least he'll be out of the Sudan."
Naive? Yes. But I'm tired of hearing the catcalls of "It's Clinton's fault" when Bush literally had it spelled out in front of him in the summer of 2001 and decided to continue playing cowboy on his ranch.
Right wingers want to peg this on Clinton, and it's fucking disgusting. It's not like there's a fortune telling machine in the Truman bowling alley.
Instigator
Banned
Bill Clinton is a great orator with charisma and a skilled politician, but it seems some people are putting him on a pedestal for the wrong reasons. He was slightly less hawkish than your Republican average and enacted the very same social program reductions the Republicans were pushing for. His base only supported him half-heartily on the latter because he was in their camp. To me, this is not a stellar record. It's not Carter bad, but it certainly isn't anywhere close to Roosevelt or the short-lived, but still lengendary Kennedy administration.
Just like the 1992 presidential election has been summarized so well: Bill Clinton was the lesser of two (or three, if you count quitter Perot) evils. In 1996, Dole wasn't really a bad man, he was just a stiff old geezer talking like a robot, it's baffling they nominated him against Clinton. For some reason, Democrats thought it was a good idea to send two robots of their own against W Bush in 2000 and 2004. It's really amazing the US political scene is filled with mediocrity.
Just like the 1992 presidential election has been summarized so well: Bill Clinton was the lesser of two (or three, if you count quitter Perot) evils. In 1996, Dole wasn't really a bad man, he was just a stiff old geezer talking like a robot, it's baffling they nominated him against Clinton. For some reason, Democrats thought it was a good idea to send two robots of their own against W Bush in 2000 and 2004. It's really amazing the US political scene is filled with mediocrity.
ConfusingJazz
Member
ToxicAdam said:
I agree with national health care, the problem with that was timing. The dems in Congress had just taken a big risk by voting to raise taxes with elections coming up, decided to show Clinton who was boss, shot it down, and then got trounced in the mid terms. By the way, those taxes were recommended by Alan Greenspan to enlarge the economy, and widely seen as on of the biggest reasons the government was eventually able to balance the budget.
ToxicAdam said:
I said I like the guy, but to get military men to accept gays is one hell of a tall order. He isn't a miracle worker.
ToxicAdam said:
A couple things led to this that I think the Dems are still trying to figure out 11 years later.
1. The Republican machine. Hell, that thing is fined tuned to get money, appease the rich, and get the working class afraid of the "immoral" Democrats through fund raisers, media relations, religion, and think tanks.
2. The tax increase and the failure of the National Health Careplan caused just enough infighting between democrats and split the party which allowed the new Republicans to take control led by Newt to the famous 94 midterms.
Ever since 94, I think the Democratic party has really lost focus and could not do anything but act definsively to Republican attacks.
The thing with Clinton was that he is just so damn good at the political game, that even though the Repubs controlled congress by a large margin, the executive still pretty much controlled the government, as proven in the 95 government shutdown, which Clinton was able to prove enough of his point to the people that the 96 election was a cakewalk, and then balance the budget, something that was seen as impossible after Reagan/Bush.
Diablos said:
You cut my quote short. I also said:
That's very damning to surround yourself with corruption. It's a reflection on the man himself.
I just made a list of common Clinton complaints. I didn't copy and paste everything (Like Whitewater or stealing White House baubles) I would consider minor things.
I just get tired of revisionism. The only arguement I get for saying Clinton ran a corrupt regime is that 1) The Economy was great whats a few indiscretions? or 2) BUSH IS TEH WORSE!!111 HE KILLS BABIES!!11 It doesn't really address what a horrible administration it was. Not much was really positive during hat time except for a booming economy and relative peace (Clinton was a bit hawkish but would back down once public opinion would change) .
I didn't cut your quote short. I'm interested in the source of all the other things you mentioned. I'm lead to believe that you're exaggerating right-wing babble instead of stating the real facts. I think everyone here deserves an explanation, if you're going to say something so absurd, back it up!
Mr. Blonde
Member
ToxicAdam said:
Don't forget:
Number of administration officials convicted of a crime: 32
14 for Iran-Contra, 2 for illegal lobbying, and 16 in a Housing and Urban Development Scandal.
Oh wait, that was the Reagan administration..
Political arguments on the internet are hilarious.
All it is (most of the time) is people spinning things their way based on things they read. As long as it helps their side.
The funniest thing is hearing people talk when they don't even know -anything- about it. For example, this past election, it was the incredibly cool thing for young people to hate Bush. I'm not saying a lot didn't, because a lot did, and rightfully so, but a lot of people just went with whatever anti-Bush stuff they saw on last year's MTV Music Awards or whatever their favorite band decided to hate (because we should all vote like Sum 41).
Democrats suck. Republicans suck. Both parties are corrupt and there's not one that is better than the other.
Personally, I just vote for who I think sucks the least (i.e. I voted Bush over Kerry this time), which granted, is a horrible way to vote, but I don't see any better way if I don't like either of them much.
And yes, before people start calling me dumb for voting for Bush, I do like Clinton a hell of a lot more and I would have voted him over Bush.
All it is (most of the time) is people spinning things their way based on things they read. As long as it helps their side.
The funniest thing is hearing people talk when they don't even know -anything- about it. For example, this past election, it was the incredibly cool thing for young people to hate Bush. I'm not saying a lot didn't, because a lot did, and rightfully so, but a lot of people just went with whatever anti-Bush stuff they saw on last year's MTV Music Awards or whatever their favorite band decided to hate (because we should all vote like Sum 41).
Democrats suck. Republicans suck. Both parties are corrupt and there's not one that is better than the other.
Personally, I just vote for who I think sucks the least (i.e. I voted Bush over Kerry this time), which granted, is a horrible way to vote, but I don't see any better way if I don't like either of them much.
And yes, before people start calling me dumb for voting for Bush, I do like Clinton a hell of a lot more and I would have voted him over Bush.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
so basically this whole thread is people saying clinton was awesome because he was president during the stock market boom and because he is not as bad as bush
congratulations
congratulations
sure he was flawed, but not as much as bush. i remember clinton sitting in a german talkshow and trying his best to speak in german (and he performed quite well!). very sympathetic. from what i've seen and read of him (still haven't read his biography) he seems to care for what's going on outside the US. bill and i should have a beer sometime
ConfusingJazz
Member
Cubsfan23 said:
Your ability to conjure up American history on the Internet pales in comparison to the glorious ConfusingJazz, bow down.
Oh, and the cubs are in third
Yes, I would agree with it being classified as a bad decision more so than corruption. I liked Clinton's decision making more overall.
I don't know what you're trying to get at by calling my viewpoints a minority. Various polls showed that something like ~20% of people still thought (as of last election) that Saddam Hussein was directly linked with the 911 attacks. Would anyone want to associate themselves with such uneducated opinions?
And while there may be sheep on the right, there's definitely sheep on the left.
I'm not saying in general one viewpoint (left vs right) is better than another. I'm just saying I wouldn't want to associate with either because too many are sheep.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Bill Clinton was first class scum but a great President. Only the far right seem to be the only people that denied how fucking awesome he was. One of the best Presidents ever in my opinion.
What is the name of this movie?
WAG THE DOG! WAG THE DOG!
1994? Try 1980. Carter damaged Democrats in a way few people could do.
Clinton won in 1992 because Ross Perot took a lot of votes away from people who voted for Bush (many polls proved this) as he won 19% of the popular vote away from mainly conservative states. Having James Carville as your top advisor didn't hurt either.
What is the name of this movie?
WAG THE DOG! WAG THE DOG!
1994? Try 1980. Carter damaged Democrats in a way few people could do.
Clinton won in 1992 because Ross Perot took a lot of votes away from people who voted for Bush (many polls proved this) as he won 19% of the popular vote away from mainly conservative states. Having James Carville as your top advisor didn't hurt either.
Mr. Blonde
Member
Ron Brown wasn't Secretary of State.
How about Reagan's people by the way? His National Security Advisor and his Secretary of the Interior were convicted of felonies.
How about Reagan's people by the way? His National Security Advisor and his Secretary of the Interior were convicted of felonies.
Red Blaster
Member
The Experiment said:
This is incorrect. Clinton won mostly in part of a split between the christian right and the rest of America. At the 92 Republican Convention, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and to the huge detriment of Bush Sr., Dan Quayle spoke on and on about how America was divided and how the country needs to be cleaned and a whole bunch of other garbage. This pretty much antagonized all the swing voters, and thus firmly pushed them over to Clinton. It also didn't help that Bush Sr. was only fiscally conservative.
Most of the people in this thread have no clue.
The Clintons are vile, opportunist carpetbaggers. If they wouldn't keep killing off thier associates that stand a chance to bring them down, they would both be in prison on some charge or another by now.
Bush really isn't much better, but whatever.
If you really want to shake things up, vote Libertarian or Green - or if you're in Texas, VOTE KINKY.
The Clintons are vile, opportunist carpetbaggers. If they wouldn't keep killing off thier associates that stand a chance to bring them down, they would both be in prison on some charge or another by now.
Bush really isn't much better, but whatever.
If you really want to shake things up, vote Libertarian or Green - or if you're in Texas, VOTE KINKY.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Sholmes said:
Yeah but if you check the popular votes, Bush Sr. and Clinton were nearly neck and neck. I don't think many people even thought Clinton would win in 1992. Perot was the only thing preventing another Reagan/Mondale election (Reagan received 525 electoral votes vs. Mondale's 13). Well in my opinion.
Marc Rich anyone?
Yes the Clintons are complete shiteaters. Well, I'm not sure Chelsea is but she was raised by Bill and Hillary so I'm sure she is fucked up in some way.
The_Sorrow
Banned
This thread reminds me how bitter liberals have gotten in the past few years. :lol
SatelliteOfLove
Member
I like the deployment of substantiated facts on Dubya's sucking marched out as responce to substantiated Clinton shortfalls; as if they're a panacea that makes them go away. So quaint. :lol
*looks at HILLARAH political machine lurching into gear*
*looks at Howard "EEEYYYYYYYYYYYYARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHH" Dean still in the DNC chair*
Great Truth.
Incognito said:
*looks at HILLARAH political machine lurching into gear*
*looks at Howard "EEEYYYYYYYYYYYYARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHH" Dean still in the DNC chair*
Great Truth.
The_Sorrow
Banned
Hillary will not be President in 08. There is no way the American public is gonna vote her in. She comes across as a bitch, to be quite frank.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Its like saying all murders are acceptable because Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews.
Clinton was a good President but his terms in office were rife with corruption and scandal, whether Democrats want to admit to it or not.
Add in the fact that most women hate her too. I hear all about this female alliance but seriously, its not going to happen. She'll tank in the primaries but its up to major funders like Soros to determine if she is selected.
- Status