PDA

View Full Version : Elections Who could give a rats ass that Obama & Palin aren't experienced and McCain is a POW


Logical
09-08-2008, 03:39 PM
I mean seriously this is all such bullshit. I really want to know what McCain is running on that is different than Bush.

Palin and Biden should just be campaigning until the debates (then we can decide who is more qualified.

Same with Obama and McCain


I hope we can have a discussion based on that.

Here I will help get it started, below is the link to Obama'a issues page. (under the pulldown for issues there are at least 20+ hyperlinks to specific plans and policy statements.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Donger
09-08-2008, 03:43 PM
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

OMG! He really is a Socialist!

Guru
09-08-2008, 03:45 PM
change

Logical
09-08-2008, 03:47 PM
changeDid you try any of the 20+ links for his plans/policies?

Guru
09-08-2008, 03:49 PM
Did you try any of the 20+ links for his plans/policies?
You have NO sense of humor at all do you?

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 03:53 PM
change

Experience

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 03:53 PM
OMG! He really is a Socialist!

POW

Guru
09-08-2008, 03:53 PM
Experience
both are laughable

RJ
09-08-2008, 03:55 PM
Actually, I really have been wondering what McCain is planning on doing that is diferent than Bush. Seriously, I always hear from the right that the "four more years of Bush" argument is BS, but I have no idea why. Since Jim brought it up......what would be the differences between McCain and Bush?

Logical
09-08-2008, 03:56 PM
You have NO sense of humor at all do you?
I do, but it would be nice if we could have a serious discussion debate on the issues and how the candidates will handle them.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 03:57 PM
Actually, I really have been wondering what McCain is planning on doing that is diferent than Bush. Seriously, I always hear from the right that the "four more years of Bush" argument is BS, but I have no idea why. Since Jim brought it up......what would be the differences between McCain and Bush?

There's those crickets again. Hello...hello...is this thing on?

Guru
09-08-2008, 03:58 PM
I do, but it would be nice if we could have a serious discussion debate on the issues and how the candidates will handle them.
I've given up caring until the debates,

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:00 PM
I've given up caring until the debates,

No you havent or you wouldnt be here. You have stated before you wont vote for either. Curious, do you still hold that position? You mentioned you might waste your vote and go with Bob Barr?

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:02 PM
Liberals are getting pissy... they are losing....

Asking how McSame will be different from Bush is getting pissy? You got nothing, huh.

Logical
09-08-2008, 04:02 PM
Liberals are getting pissy... they are losing....Do you have the cajones to actually debate the issues or are you a Drudge, Fox pussy?

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:03 PM
Actually, I really have been wondering what McCain is planning on doing that is diferent than Bush. Seriously, I always hear from the right that the "four more years of Bush" argument is BS, but I have no idea why. Since Jim brought it up......what would be the differences between McCain and Bush?

Here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/17/america/17policy.php

Is Bush more like Bush than Barack Hussein is? Sure. They are both Republicans.

Guru
09-08-2008, 04:03 PM
No you havent or you wouldnt be here. You have stated before you wont vote for either. Curious, do you still hold that position? You mentioned you might waste your vote and go with Bob Barr?
My vote is to vote against Obama. If that means I have to vote for McCain, then so be it. I would rather Barr but if I vote for Barr then I just gave a vote to Obama. Plus, I already know Barr won't get more than 3% of the vote so that would literally be a wasted vote and counterproductive to boot.

And really, I don't care anymore because this place has become such a crappy place to post. But yeah, I keep coming back for more.

Go ahead, flame me.

HolmeZz
09-08-2008, 04:04 PM
Actually, I really have been wondering what McCain is planning on doing that is diferent than Bush. Seriously, I always hear from the right that the "four more years of Bush" argument is BS, but I have no idea why. Since Jim brought it up......what would be the differences between McCain and Bush?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_2nNSMZKv_A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_2nNSMZKv_A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Garcia Bronco
09-08-2008, 04:07 PM
I mean seriously this is all such bullshit. I really want to know what McCain is running on that is different than Bush.



http://www.barackobama.com/issues/


For one, energy diversity with short term and long term solutions..

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:11 PM
My vote is to vote against Obama. If that means I have to vote for McCain, then so be it. I would rather Barr but if I vote for Barr then I just gave a vote to Obama. Plus, I already know Barr won't get more than 3% of the vote so that would literally be a wasted vote and counterproductive to boot.

And really, I don't care anymore because this place has become such a crappy place to post. But yeah, I keep coming back for more.

Go ahead, flame me.

I wont flame you. I like your posts and believe you to be one of the good guys. I dont agree with your political stance at the moment but I have been where you are now. I am voting against Bush and therefor McCain.
I started out, just voting against Bush but the more I open my eyes, the better I feel about supporting Obama.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:12 PM
For one, energy diversity with short term and long term solutions..

DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, is a slogan, not a strategy.

Chief Henry
09-08-2008, 04:13 PM
change


Bull shit - Its hope

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:15 PM
DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, is a slogan, not a strategy.

That is a slogan. Opening the OCS to drilling is indeed a part of the strategy.

Chief Henry
09-08-2008, 04:15 PM
DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, is a slogan, not a strategy.

In all likely hood, what do you think would happen if Tuesday morning the US Congress said they were going to allow more drilling in ANWR and off shores ?

Do you think oil futures would go up or go down ?

RJ
09-08-2008, 04:16 PM
Liberals are getting pissy... they are losing....



I'm not getting pissy. I just think it's a good question. The more McCain gains momentum the more I wonder about it. You guys say that "Bush III" is a bad argument but I have no clue why.

What will be different about a McCain administration than a Bush administration?

Guru
09-08-2008, 04:17 PM
I wont flame you. I like your posts and believe you to be one of the good guys. I dont agree with your political stance at the moment but I have been where you are now. I am voting against Bush and therefor McCain.
I started out, just voting against Bush but the more I open my eyes, the better I feel about supporting Obama.
That has to be the most respectful disagreement post I have ever received. Thanks. :)

I think I need to pay more attention to your posts and less to the people that just trash everyone for their differing opinions.

I don't really view McCain as Bush 3 though. I understand he voted with Bush 90% of the time but I also believe that the house will vote with Obama 95% of the time just because he their party rather than because it is what is best for America.

One thing I am sick of hearing is how bad America is from Obama. We are a great nation and he needs to start focusing on that when he answers questions in public. His response to that child a few weeks back and his speech in Berlin really ticked me off because of that crap.

Time for me to hit the sack before work tonight. I'll be back.

RJ
09-08-2008, 04:18 PM
That is a slogan. Opening the OCS to drilling is indeed a part of the strategy.


How is that different than Bush?

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:18 PM
That is a slogan. Opening the OCS to drilling is indeed a part of the strategy.

Indeed, which is why BOTH McSame and Obama have changed their positions on that issue. Bush has also.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:19 PM
How is that different than Bush?

I didn't say it was.

I posted a link above that will give you some idea as to the differences.

RJ
09-08-2008, 04:23 PM
My vote is to vote against Obama. If that means I have to vote for McCain, then so be it. I would rather Barr but if I vote for Barr then I just gave a vote to Obama. Plus, I already know Barr won't get more than 3% of the vote so that would literally be a wasted vote and counterproductive to boot.

And really, I don't care anymore because this place has become such a crappy place to post. But yeah, I keep coming back for more.

Go ahead, flame me.


Guru, I wouldn't flame you. First, you're a good guy. Second, while you lean to the right you're not the NeoCon type and you're not closed minded. You seem to be a guy who is more interested in what is best for the nation rather than what is best for his party. I appreciate your opinions and I think they're much more reflective of McCain supporters than the posts from the more extreme right members of this board.

RJ
09-08-2008, 04:24 PM
I didn't say it was.

I posted a link above that will give you some idea as to the differences.



I didn't see it. Thank you.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:25 PM
Indeed, which is why BOTH McSame and Obama have changed their positions on that issue. Bush has also.

Bush? I think he's always supported drilling everywhere, but he only recently lifted the EO ban.

There's another difference: Bush supports drilling ANWR. McCain doesn't, right?

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:28 PM
I didn't say it was.

I posted a link above that will give you some idea as to the differences.

OK, I read it. It pretty much confirms the 9:1 ratio. Thanks.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:30 PM
Bush? I think he's always supported drilling everywhere, but he only recently lifted the EO ban.

There's another difference: Bush supports drilling ANWR. McCain doesn't, right?

Riiiight.

jAZ
09-08-2008, 04:30 PM
change

maverick

jAZ
09-08-2008, 04:31 PM
both are laughable

reform

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:33 PM
OK, I read it. It pretty much confirms the 9:1 ratio. Thanks.

Well, I'm sure that if you looked at Carter and Barack Hussein, they'd be very similar, too. Barack Hussein would probably be somewhat more left, but still very similar.

jAZ
09-08-2008, 04:35 PM
Bull shit - Its hope

Bull shit - Its country first

jAZ
09-08-2008, 04:37 PM
That is a slogan.
So is "change" except when McCain uses it.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:38 PM
Well, I'm sure that if you looked at Carter and Barack Hussein, they'd be very similar, too. Barack Hussein would probably be somewhat more left, but still very similar.

The question was, how is McCain different from Bush? Your answer is, he isnt. Refreshingly honest.

James Earl = Barack Hussein? You will have to do a better job on that one.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:40 PM
The question was, how is McCain different from Bush? Your answer is, he isnt.

No, that is not my answer.

jAZ
09-08-2008, 04:40 PM
don't forget courage.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:41 PM
So is "change" except when McCain uses it.

I don't think that it's a slogan for Barack Hussein. I do believe that he wants change. Massive change.

Logical
09-08-2008, 04:42 PM
Here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/17/america/17policy.php

Is Bush more like Bush than Barack Hussein is? Sure. They are both Republicans.

That is worth posting so I will

WASHINGTON (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/17/america/17policy.php#): The Democrats like to say that electing Senator John McCain would usher in the third term of George W. Bush, and they do not mean it as a compliment. The Republicans counter that calling the senator "McBush" is political spin and that McCain is his own man.
A look at McCain's 25-year record in the House and Senate, his 2008 campaign positions and his major speeches over the last three months indicates that on big-ticket issues — the economy, support for continuing the Iraq war, health care — his stances are indeed similar to Bush's brand of conservatism.



Not a good start


McCain's positions are nearly identical to the president's on abortion and the types of judges he says he would appoint to the courts.

Oops there we go again.



On the environment, American diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, McCain has strikingly different views from Bush, and while he shares the president's goals in Iraq, he was at times an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.


OKAY McCain gets some points here for being somewhat different.



The disparities between the two are murkier on other issues. On immigration, McCain started out with Bush — at odds with the Republican mainstream — by favoring a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, then backed off and emphasized the border-security-first approach favored by a majority of his party.

Damn was fore it before he was against it, at best a wash.



When it comes to dealing with terrorism suspects, McCain has supported imposing tighter rules than favored by the administration on the use of harsh interrogation techniques, but has consistently been with the president on limiting the legal rights of Guantαnamo detainees. In one indicator that his view of executive power is moving closer to that of Bush, his campaign has recently signaled that he believes it was constitutional for the president to authorize wiretaps without warrants to monitor Americans' international phone calls and e-mail.


Ouch that one is not helping and he had a good start.



McCain has reversed himself on some issues — most notably, embracing the Bush tax cuts now after deriding them initially as fiscally risky and excessively skewed to the wealthy — and continues to adjust his positions on others. On Monday, he said he continued to oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, leaving him at odds with the White House and most of his party, but said he favored giving states more flexibility to decide whether to explore for oil off their coasts.


OK another wash mostly is following Bush but he stands on his own occasionally.





"In the last 10 years, he's been an independent voice for what he thinks is in his country's best interest," said Mark Salter, one of McCain's closest advisers. "Sometimes it's brought him into conflict with members of his party and with the president. The Democrats know that." Yet while it would be hard to categorize him as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick.


Oops voting with the President 90% = fail



In a CBS News poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of registered voters said they believed he would continue Bush's policies, and 21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Bush. Twenty-eight percent said he would be less conservative than Bush.
Presidencies are about more than policies, of course, and McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House should he be elected in November.


This one would be nice if it contained his policy statements. Sorry I will give it a wash until I hear the actual policies.


Although he once held very different views, McCain's biggest similarity to Bush now is on the economy. Not only does the senator now support making permanent the large Bush tax cuts he once opposed — the $1.35 trillion tax reduction of 2001 and the $320 billion tax cut of 2003 — but he has proposed four major new tax cuts of his own. Democrats say that those four proposed cuts — a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent, immediate tax breaks for corporate investment, a repeal of the alternative minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000 from $3,500 — are more regressive than Bush's tax cuts because they favor the rich more disproportionately than the president's reductions did. McCain's advisers said his plan would help stimulate job creation by reducing taxes on small businesses, especially those that pay taxes at the personal income tax rate, and would be part of a fiscal plan that would also emphasize reining in the growth of government spending far more than Bush did.
On health care, McCain has a market-oriented model similar to the one that Bush proposed to little effect in 2007. Like Bush, McCain would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals, and would offer a tax benefit for families to do so

Bad, bad, bad, this is deep into just like Bush territory.
"In general, they're much more similar than different," said Drew Altman, the president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group. "In terms of their goals, they're more focused on making the market more efficient than in expanding coverage." McCain's proposal, however, is more progressive in that it offers a refundable credit of $5,000 to families to buy their own insurance, whether or not they pay taxes — in effect, cash. Although experts have questioned whether the $5,000 tax credit would cover the cost of private insurance, they generally say that Bush's plan, which offered a $15,000 tax deduction for families buying their own insurance, was more valuable to higher-income people.


Not good like Bush and if you want to talk about the lack of affordability of the Obama plan, how can you support this one.


On the Iraq war, McCain has been one of the president's biggest defenders of its stated rationale: saving the world from Saddam Hussein. Yet he was also an early advocate of increasing troop levels at a time when Bush was resistant, and was withering, from 2004 on, about Donald Rumsfeld, then defense secretary, and what McCain called Rumsfeld's "whack a mole" strategy of moving American troops from one violence-plagued part of Iraq to another.


Sorry whack-a-mole is just like Bush only more extreme.



Like Bush, McCain has steadfastly refused to set dates for withdrawals of troops and envisions a long-term American presence in the country. But last month, in the general election battleground state of Ohio, McCain did a semantic dance and said he expected that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.


Pretty much identical hard to give any ground here.


On abortion, McCain has long been opposed, and is in fact more explicit than the president in his opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Although Bush has spoken about changing American "hearts and minds" to build a "culture of life," McCain has said directly, in South Carolina in 2007, that Roe v. Wade "should be overturned."


No difference, unless you consider more extreme better, some will.


On judges, McCain has strongly embraced the judicial philosophy of Bush and vowed to appoint conservative judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito Jr.


Oops, I am not getting much separation.


On gay rights, McCain voted against a proposed constitutional amendment backed by Bush banning same-sex marriage, saying that it should be up to the states. Then in 2006, he made it clear how he thought his home state, Arizona, should decide: McCain appeared in a television commercial in support of a state amendment, which ultimately failed, to ban same-sex marriages.
Perhaps McCain's biggest departure from the president is on climate change.



I am going to give him full credit on this one, definitely unlike Bush.



McCain has called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, unlike Bush, who says such limits would be bad for the economy. McCain also supports a "cap and trade" system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide by either reducing emissions on their own or by buying credits from more efficient producers.


Again I am going to give him full credit on this one, definitely unlike Bush.

McCain, who has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate — he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy — has nonetheless tried to highlight what he considers his stark environmental divide with Bush.


OK Tommykat decoder ring here, wash until I understand it.


"There is a longstanding, significant, deep, strong difference on this issue between myself and the administration," McCain said last month.
On diplomacy, McCain has regularly distanced himself from the go-it-alone unilateralism of the Bush administration. "We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to," McCain said in a major foreign policy address in Los Angeles in late March. "We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new compact."
In the same vein,



Again I am going to give him full credit on this one, definitely unlike Bush.


McCain has significantly broken with Bush on nuclear security policy. Unlike the president, he supports a legally binding accord between the United States and Russia on limiting nuclear weapons, the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, a strengthening of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, increased financing for the International Atomic Energy Agency and nuclear talks with China.


Again I am going to give him full credit on this one, definitely unlike Bush.


On Iran and North Korea, the two nations whose nuclear programs will present the next president with a tough set of options, McCain has allied himself with the Bush administration. He would refuse to engage in unconditional diplomacy with Iran and would continue to maintain contact with North Korea, primarily through multilateral talks. He has insisted, however, that the United States be able to verify effectively any agreement in which North Korea promises to abandon its nuclear weapons.


I admit this sounds more like Obama than Bush good for John.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:44 PM
No, that is not my answer.

No credit for James Earl? I thought you would like that reference?

RJ
09-08-2008, 04:45 PM
Here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/17/america/17policy.php

Is Bush more like Bush than Barack Hussein is? Sure. They are both Republicans.



Thanks for the link. There are a few differences mentioned, most notably McCain's views on global warming. Overall though, that article mostly indicates that "Bush III" wouldn't be too far from the truth.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:47 PM
No credit for James Earl? I thought you would like that reference?

I don't know who you are referring to.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:48 PM
Thanks for the link. There are a few differences mentioned, most notably McCain's views on global warming. Overall though, that article mostly indicates that "Bush III" wouldn't be too far from the truth.

As I stated, it confirms the 9:1 ratio. Not much support for the argument.

CRONUS, I think you have your answer.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:48 PM
Thanks for the link. There are a few differences mentioned, most notably McCain's views on global warming. Overall though, that article mostly indicates that "Bush III" wouldn't be too far from the truth.

You're welcome. As I've said, sure, compared to Barack Hussein, McCain's going to have much more in common with Bush. I don't understand why anyone would assume different.

If socialism's your goal, vote for Barrack Hussein.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:49 PM
I don't know who you are referring to.

James Earl Carter, of course. You mean you dont refer to all Presidents by their first and middle names?

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:51 PM
You're welcome. As I've said, sure, compared to Barack Hussein, McCain's going to have much more in common with Bush. I don't understand why anyone would assume different.

If socialism's your goal, vote for Barrack Hussein.

Maybe because McCains campaign is "reform, change" "Maverick". Thats the whole point here, more of the same.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:52 PM
James Earl Carter, of course. You mean you dont refer to all Presidents by their first and middle names?

No, just select POTUS candidates.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:53 PM
Maybe because McCains campaign is "reform, change" "Maverick". Thats the whole point here, more of the same.

As has been pointed out, McCain has distinct differences with Bush. If that equals "same" to you, so be it.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:55 PM
No, just select POTUS candidates.

What will it be once he is no longer a candidate?

Say it with me, Donger, ...President Obama.

Donger
09-08-2008, 04:56 PM
What will it be once he is no longer a candidate?

Say it with me, Donger, ...President Obama.

Well, let's see what happens.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 04:59 PM
As has been pointed out, McCain has distinct differences with Bush. If that equals "same" to you, so be it.

The only response was the link you posted, which clearly stated there wasnt much difference at all.
I wouldnt expect you to be the one arguing this as you still love Bush and therefor like McSame. That is fine but really isnt what CRONUS was asking.
You get credit for at least trying, as no others have come forward.

Donger
09-08-2008, 05:02 PM
The only response was the link you posted, which clearly stated there wasnt much difference at all.
I wouldnt expect you to be the one arguing this as you still love Bush and therefor like McSame. That is fine but really isnt what CRONUS was asking.
You get credit for at least trying, as no others have come forward.

I don't love Bush. I never have, especially after invading Iraq and spending money like a drunken sailor.

That article points out some distinct differences between the two men, which is what Logical asked for. Considering that they are of the same party, most reasonable people wouldn't expect them to be vastly different.

RJ
09-08-2008, 05:10 PM
You're welcome. As I've said, sure, compared to Barack Hussein, McCain's going to have much more in common with Bush. I don't understand why anyone would assume different.

If socialism's your goal, vote for Barrack Hussein.


I wouldn't assume different, that's the point. To me, voting for McCain really would be a vote for Bush III and that's not something I'm willing to do.

As to socialism, while Obama is a little further left than I would want in a perfect world, I sure don't think he's a socialist, nor do I think we'll be a socialist nation any time soon.

chiefforlife
09-08-2008, 05:11 PM
I don't love Bush. I never have, especially after invading Iraq and spending money like a drunken sailor.

That article points out some distinct differences between the two men, which is what Logical asked for. Considering that they are of the same party, most reasonable people wouldn't expect them to be vastly different.

You are correct, I wouldnt expect them to. Its just that McCain is presenting himself as "different" and he isnt. The Bush III position is a valid one, which is what the thread is about.
The distinct differences you mention basically confirm that he is 90% Bush and 10% change.

BucEyedPea
09-08-2008, 05:11 PM
Liberals are getting pissy... they are losing....

Which ones? The ones in the Democrat party or the one's in the Republican party?

penchief
09-08-2008, 07:19 PM
Liberals are getting pissy... they are losing....

And republicans never answer questions or address the issues. Just exactly how is McCain's economic policy going to differ from Bush's? His stances are Bush's stances so why do republicans even try to deny it?

Oh, I forgot that republicans believe McCain when says to believe his words and to ignore his policy positions that contradict his words. I forgot that republicans revere rhetoric and ingore the facts.

Guru
09-08-2008, 07:44 PM
Guru, I wouldn't flame you. First, you're a good guy. Second, while you lean to the right you're not the NeoCon type and you're not closed minded. You seem to be a guy who is more interested in what is best for the nation rather than what is best for his party. I appreciate your opinions and I think they're much more reflective of McCain supporters than the posts from the more extreme right members of this board.
That is one reason why this board tends to suffer. To many extremists on both sides of the issues and not enough input from the people that will actually decide the election.

RJ
09-08-2008, 07:44 PM
Based on the lack of response to this thread, I can only assume that the McCain supporters would agree that a McCain administration would be essentially the same as the Bush administration. Which isn't a criticism, just something I've been curious about.

One important difference, though.....this time Dick Cheney will be a MILF. Is that good or bad? :D

RJ
09-08-2008, 07:47 PM
That is one reason why this board tends to suffer. To many extremists on both sides of the issues and not enough input from the people that will actually decide the election.


I agree. I think there are plenty of voters who might lean a little right or left but aren't dead set on every issue based on party affiliation. But the candidates always play to the extreme rather than guys like us who are closer to the middle.

Guru
09-08-2008, 07:58 PM
I agree. I think there are plenty of voters who might lean a little right or left but aren't dead set on every issue based on party affiliation. But the candidates always play to the extreme rather than guys like us who are closer to the middle.
This was the one election that I thought the democratic candidate would get a landslide victory. The fact that is not the case would have to be of extreme concern to democrats regarding the candidate himself. The performance of congress has done little to gain more trust from the middle as well. JMO

J Diddy
09-08-2008, 07:59 PM
This was the one election that I thought the democratic candidate would get a landslide victory. The fact that is not the case would have to be of extreme concern to democrats regarding the candidate himself. The performance of congress has done little to gain more trust from the middle as well. JMO

yeah well your a fathead

Guru
09-08-2008, 08:15 PM
yeah well your a fathead
:) Well, maybe I am. heh

RJ
09-08-2008, 08:22 PM
This was the one election that I thought the democratic candidate would get a landslide victory. The fact that is not the case would have to be of extreme concern to democrats regarding the candidate himself. The performance of congress has done little to gain more trust from the middle as well. JMO



I always thought it would be a close contest, based on nothing more than the last two. We are a very polarized nation. I think the performance of congress has as much to do with that polarization as it does anything else. They're all too busy fighting with each other to get anything done. Not letting the other side win has become more important than results.

If I weren't so worried about the world my children and grandchildren will live in I'd stop paying attention altogether. Honestly, politics mostly just pisses me off.

Logical
09-08-2008, 09:41 PM
Based on the lack of response to this thread, I can only assume that the McCain supporters would agree that a McCain administration would be essentially the same as the Bush administration. Which isn't a criticism, just something I've been curious about.

One important difference, though.....this time Dick Cheney will be a MILF. Is that good or bad? :DLMAO

Direckshun
09-08-2008, 09:58 PM
I care about inexperience. I think inexperience is a legitimate issue. Both candidates have a burden of proof that they're ready to take office.

Obama has allayed my most serious fears with his performance on the campaign trail. He has proven to have a serious grasp for the issues and nuance (this was my biggest concern). He has proven his rhetoric can motivate a nation (which, we forget, a President needs). His campaign has been absolutely prepared for every twist and turn for two years. He has also demonstrated a forward-looking ambition in technology and in foreign policy.

Palin hasn't proven a thing yet, except that she can read a speech really well. She hasn't endured a single question fired from a reporter (and will that even be enough when she will), and her experience is just, seriously, nada on the most pressing issues we face except energy. Now, energy's a big issue, but she hadn't even said a word on any other major issue you can name until McCain selected her. I think she needs to make herself available on a far more regular basis for me to come to trust her.

The POW thing is interesting, but not important to the Office in any substantial way. McCain's campaign has played it up as important, and they pretty much have to. That doesn't excuse it, though.

Jenson71
09-08-2008, 10:32 PM
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Thomas Friedman made an analogy that the "DRILL NOW!" chants would be like chanting "IBM TYPEWRITERS!" on the brink of the IT explosion.

RJ
09-08-2008, 10:34 PM
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Thomas Friedman made an analogy that the "DRILL NOW!" chants would be like chanting "IBM TYPEWRITERS!" on the brink of the IT explosion.


That's funny. I'm not sure it's completely correct, but it's definitely funny.

Logical
09-08-2008, 10:49 PM
I care about inexperience. I think inexperience is a legitimate issue. Both candidates have a burden of proof that they're ready to take office.

Obama has allayed my most serious fears with his performance on the campaign trail. He has proven to have a serious grasp for the issues and nuance (this was my biggest concern). He has proven his rhetoric can motivate a nation (which, we forget, a President needs). His campaign has been absolutely prepared for every twist and turn for two years. He has also demonstrated a forward-looking ambition in technology and in foreign policy.

Palin hasn't proven a thing yet, except that she can read a speech really well. She hasn't endured a single question fired from a reporter (and will that even be enough when she will), and her experience is just, seriously, nada on the most pressing issues we face except energy. Now, energy's a big issue, but she hadn't even said a word on any other major issue you can name until McCain selected her. I think she needs to make herself available on a far more regular basis for me to come to trust her.

The POW thing is interesting, but not important to the Office in any substantial way. McCain's campaign has played it up as important, and they pretty much have to. That doesn't excuse it, though. A lot of great leaders had no or little experience when taking office. Example Lincoln, Kennedy anyway I just don't put a lot of stock in experience.

Jenson71
09-08-2008, 10:57 PM
A lot of great leaders had no or little experience when taking office. Example Lincoln, Kennedy anyway I just don't put a lot of stock in experience.

It's true though that the role of the executive branch has expanded much since Kennedy and certainly immensely since Lincoln.

Logical
09-08-2008, 11:21 PM
It's true though that the role of the executive branch has expanded much since Kennedy and certainly immensely since Lincoln.IMO a true reformer would reverse that trend. That would be a real leader.

Jenson71
09-09-2008, 12:00 AM
IMO a true reformer would reverse that trend. That would be a real leader.

I tend to agree with you here.

Guru
09-09-2008, 01:09 AM
...

If I weren't so worried about the world my children and grandchildren will live in I'd stop paying attention altogether. Honestly, politics mostly just pisses me off.

QFT