The Real Picard Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 Does anyone else think the US is screwed if Obama or Hillary become president?
Dav Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 no i think things will be better. From the coverage I get over here I would prefer Obama over Clinton. The Democratic candidates seem to have a better position on things like foreign policy and healthcare and so that's why if I was an American my vote would go that way.
The Real Picard Posted April 23, 2008 Author Report Posted April 23, 2008 Wow, so you believe everything you see on TV and the media?! LOL
Dav Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 No.I read articles from both sides, decide what I do and do not believe then make a decision based upon the combined information from that process. TBH much of my opinion is based here on what the individual candidates stand for and what they have said and done over the course of their campaigns.
NBVegita Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 As a whole I doubt many people know what McCain's real stance is on most things. I'm undecided as a whole, but I just think that his policies are a little known fact. Things like he was one of the only republicans to vote against Bush on many issues seems to slip peoples minds. Specifically for one thing, he's voted against most of Bush's tax cuts. I do have to say that I do side with him on many views such as welfare reform, health care, capitol punishment/crimes, torture and immigration. I still need to do further research on his foriegn policies, economic plans and gun rights. I view McCain as a strong moderate candidate.
»doc flabby Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 I feel the worst candidate for the world would be Hilary Clinton. Anyone but her will be a good thing.
FMBI Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) Click to read why you should not support McCain, even if you don't like Obama. Spoiler! --Click here to view--The problem with being a "moderate" is that the center has been moved so far towards the right. If you look at a "centrist" european candidate, you'll see that they're quite a bit different from ours. I am very skeptical on what the democrat's performance will be, but they'll at least accomplish one or two things. I would support McCain if he kept logical stances on issues, but he's changed positions on some things to pander to the far right. Here are some examples of things that make him a bad candidate IMO : John McCain Will Help Americans Hurting From High Gasoline And Food Costs. Americans need relief right now from high gas prices. John McCain will act immediately to reduce the pain of high gas prices. * John McCain Believes We Should Ins!@#$%^&*ute A Summer Gas Tax Holiday. Hard-working American families are suffering from higher gasoline prices. John McCain calls on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. * John McCain Will Stop Filling The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) To Reduce Demand. International demand for oil is bolstered by federal purchases for the SPR. There is no reason to fill it when oil is so expensive, the overall SPR is of adequate size, and when it places further upward pressure on prices. * John McCain Will End Policies That Contribute To Higher Transportation And Food Costs. Ethanol subsidies, tariff barriers and sugar quotas drive up food prices and hurt Americans. However, we cannot take the wrong direction and cut off trade for American goods. Ok, so we have a gas-tax holiday, which means that the oil companies will get a chance to sneak in a 5-10 cent boost and no one will notice. Stop filling the SPR? The SPR is less than a billion barrels, and the US consumes close to 30 million barrels a day. If we were to go to war with an OPEC member and they tried to cut off oil, the SPR is either just enough or actually short of actual requirements to maintain the war machine and keep supplies flowing at home. And think about this - if we had filled up the SPR 10 years ago, when oil was 1/6 of the price it is now, we'd be in a much better situation globally. He'll end subsidies, tariffs, and quotas? Sounds good and all, but globalisation has consistently hurt the american economy by replacing the broad, low-education, middle class jobs with lower class and higher class ones (far more of the former) - I'm no fan of protectionism, but at a time when the US is already dependent on 5 or 6 countries to keep our economy afloat, it's not the right time to open up our borders and rack up a few more trillion in debt. John McCain Will Keep Tax Rates Low. Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. They create the ultimate job security – a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will maintain the current income and investment tax rates and fight the Democrats' plans for a crippling tax increase in 2011. Left to their devices, Democrats will impose a massive $100 billion tax hike, almost $700 per taxpayer every year. John McCain has also long sought permanent and immediate reform of the estate tax, and supports raising the exemption from taxation on estates up to $10 million while cutting the tax rate to 15 percent. John McCain Will Make It Harder To Raise Taxes. John McCain believes it should require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes. John McCain Will Reward Saving, Investment And Risk-Taking. Low taxes on dividends and capital gains promote saving, channel investment dollars to innovative, high-value uses and not wasteful financial planning. John McCain will keep the current rates on dividends and capital gains and fight anti-growth efforts by Democrats. John McCain Will Improve Business Investment Incentives. John McCain proposes to permit corporations to immediately deduct the cost of equipment investment, providing a valuable pro-growth investment incentive. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies. He'll keep tax rates low? Last I heard, we have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars per year just to take off the cutting edge of the social security / medicare disaster several decades from now. I don't want to see the middle class taxed even more, but we don't necessarily have to do that - end capital gains tax loopholes, inheritance tax loopholes, and raise max brackets and you'll take care of a lot of that. Not all of it, but a lot. Oh, but wait.. he also wants to cut the estate tax to 15 percent? Sounds good to me. He'll make it harder to raise taxes? Right now the democrats in congress have admittedly earned a boot-out, so that means that when republicans (maybe?) get in next time, it'll be virtually impossible to raise taxes. He'll reward saving (good), investment (bad), and risk taking (horrible). We desperately need to hike our savings rates, and we also need to promote internal investment, but with the US having a far lower rate of return than other countries (except for US companies that work in other countries, of course), very few people will opt for the home front - especially in the economic meltdown precipitated by Supply Side Economics Round 2 under Bush. Corporations know what they're getting into when they try to run a company - it has long been an accepted fact that he who starts a business is he who pays for the operating costs. Removing the tax on this, in the first place, will cut tax revenue, and in the second place, reward corporations who go on purchasing sprees to avoid taxes - very likely to lead to major overinvestment and wasteful expansion - and why would corporations create jobs if they could get tax breaks for purchasing robots instead? John McCain Will Reduce The Federal Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent From 35 Percent. John McCain believes the taxes we impose on American companies should be no higher than the average rate our major trading partners impose on theirs. We currently have the second-highest combined corporate-tax rate in the industrialized world, and it is driving many businesses and the jobs they create overseas. He doesn't mention that most businesses already dodge taxes and end up paying ~20% rates. If he's going under the logic that they'll stop trying to avoid taxes if he drops them, he's sadly mistaken - after all, Reagan cried about 70%, and he kept dropping them until they were down to 27%. Additionally, the 35% rate = higher than major trading partners claim is somewhat misleading. Many smaller companies (the ones that he wants to promote.. right?) already pay far below 35% - and the most successful european economies actually pay close to, or (in the case of Germany, the world's largest exporter) more than our rates. John McCain Will Propose An Alternative New And Simpler Tax System – And Give America A Real Choice. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to stay under the current system could still do so, but everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction. Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes – what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS. Look, Johnny, I'm all for a simpler tax system, but "two tax rates and generous standard deductions"? Sounds like the flat tax to me - the same system that !@#$%^&* Armey advocated because it "was fair for everyone", even those who made enough to achieve vastly higher rates of wealth ac!@#$%^&*ulation. John McCain Will Stop Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending, And Waste. He will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. As President, he will seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption. Unlike Senators Clinton and Obama who have sought a nearly combined $3 billion in earmarks, John McCain has a clear record of not asking for earmarks. Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, compe!@#$%^&*ive markets. OK, maybe you didn't support earmarks. But there are two issues here. Number one, earmarks will never disappear in America because every !@#$%^&*ing congress(wo)man supports them. That isn't to say there aren't a few who minimize them - but often, people who don't support them are shunned and their opponents are given plenty of cash in election bids. For the average person to refuse them is political suicide. And number two - John McCain might not support earmarks, but he also "100% supports" something which was slipped into a bill and which has gathered nearly universal resentment - Real ID, a program which will do very little to help, which will extend the "slippery slope" base for privacy removal, and which will have massive costs. John McCain Has The Leadership And Courage To Make The Right Spending Choices. Reduced spending means making choices. John McCain will not leave office without balancing the federal budget. He will not do it with smoke and mirrors. When he leaves office, he wants to leave a budget that stays balanced after he is gone, and can weather the occasional downturn and unexpected contingency. John McCain will provide the courageous leadership necessary to control spending, including: * Eliminate Broken Government Programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform. * Reform Our Civil Service System To Promote Accountability And Good Performance In Our Federal Workforce. * Eliminating Earmarks, Wasteful Subsidies And Pork-Barrel Spending. * Reform Procurement Programs And Cut Wasteful Spending In Defense And Non-Defense Programs. So he'll cut government services (ha ha, ha ha.. even if he does, it'll be an epic Bush-scale cut - Wow, I'm spending one hundred billion on Iraq, but I'll cut your 20 billion in domestic spending! I'm a financial genius!), he'll reform civil service (my father works in civil service.. there's no way to reform it without firing 8/10 employees), he'll eliminate earmarks (See above), he'll reform procurement programs (that's impossible unless we fire all the useless colonels and generals we're currently employing and go back to an under-officered setup - in other words, you get done what needs to get done, because you don't have time to waste.. Right now you have thousands of people who would lose their jobs unless they kept passing R&D and procurement back and forth, which both slows down procurement and drives spending through the roof).. I don't see any of this happening, no matter who's elected. John McCain Believes That We Should Not Subsidize The Prescription Drugs Of America’s Most Affluent Individuals. He will propose reforms to reduce the large subsidies in the Medicare drug program. One thing that I very much agree with him on, however, the democrats (yes, the democrats) will stop this from happening. For all their populist rhetoric, they tend to support the elites as well. And besides, the republicans would have a fit if their wealthy donors suddenly found themselves paying a fair share for drugs. And, anyway.. In a free market (which is !@#$%^&*, but it's the republican bible), wouldn't we go the way of poor countries that break international law and make generics to control diseases and AIDS? In theory, we could have medication just as cheap as Uganda or Brazil. John McCain Will Lower Barriers To Trade. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers lie outside our borders and we need to be at the table when the rules for access to those markets are written. To do so, the U.S. should engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and build effective enforcement of global trading rules. These steps would also strengthen the U.S. dollar and help to control the rising cost of living that hurts our families. 95% of the world's customers are outside our borders, but we have a far higher amount of the world market than would be suggested by that figure, both through our affluence and through our links to the chief exporting countries. Not very many of that 95% would be helped by increased trade and economic colonialism, and the poor and middle class in the US will certainly suffer. And who really believes we can raise the dollar through globalisation? That only works if you've actually got something to back it up with, and the US is the largest debtor in history, with no signs of reversing the trend. Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops. The answer is not to enter into unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country. Why have they done that? Simple. The US has put pressure on Syria for 60 years, often on Israel's behalf (we won't go into whether that's correct or not), and Iran for 30 years, even though it's arguable that had we reacted differently, we could have restored relations and put ourselves in a much better global position. Today both of them see a major chance to get back at us by using the classic tactic of supporting proxy warriors - if we and the Soviets had so much fun using the trick, back in the days when war was a bit cheaper, then why shouldn't two small and unpopular countries take advantage of this perfect chance to wear down what was the world's most powerful military, with little cost to themselves? Win the Homefront If efforts in Iraq do not retain the support of the American people, the war will be lost as soundly as if our forces were defeated in battle. A renewed effort at home starts with explaining precisely what is at stake in this war to ensure that Americans fully understand the high cost of a military defeat. The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located. Success is essential to creating peace in the region, and failure would expose the United States to national security threats for generations. Defeat in the war would lead to much more violence in Iraq, greatly embolden Iran, undermine U.S. allies such as Israel, likely lead to wider conflict, result in a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the Middle East, and gravely damage U.S. credibility throughout the world. The American people also deserve to know that the path ahead will be long and difficult. They have heard many times that the violence in Iraq will subside soon - when a transitional government is in place, when Saddam is captured, when elections are held, when a cons!@#$%^&*ution is in place. John McCain believes it is far better to describe the situation just as it is - difficult right now, but not without hope. The stakes for America could not be higher. To quote John McCain - "I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. I hardly know where to begin." The war is already lost because we are neither using tried and true strategies that were used for thousands of years, or fully adapted to the super-high-tech-macho-volunteer strategies that have emerged in recent years. Additionally, many of the troops on the ground are cynical and depressed about the war, and we have managed to consistently employ inept bids for supremacy without taking a look at the long term issues. To actually win the war, we would need to do precisely what Johnny's saying we shouldn't - engage with the "terrorist states" which have been undermining our attempt to take over. Also, this isn't "the region that produced the terrorists who attacked America" - that was Saudi Arabia, which has historically been wary and somewhat hostile with Iraq. I'll give him the energy supplies part. Also, as so many people have pointed out - if we "fail" in Iraq by withdrawing, and it becomes an anarchic state chock-full of terrorists, well, who's fault was it? I'm not saying we should just give up on this, I'm personally in favor of a limited troop presence - but I do not support the idea that we have to remain so that Iraq can be a permanent military base for us in the middle east. John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Cons!@#$%^&*utional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat. This is not a new position for John McCain. He has long held it. It is reflected in his consistent opposition to the agenda of liberal judicial activists who have usurped the role of state legislatures in such matters as dealing with abortion and the definition of marriage. It is reflected in his longstanding opposition to liberal opinions that have adopted a stance of active hostility toward religion, rather than neutrality. It is reflected in his firm support for the personal rights secured in the Second Amendment. True enough in some cases, but considering that he's running for president as a republican, this is nothing more than pandering to the paranoid religious right - the same people who say "we need to win this country back for God", the same people that oppose abortion, homosexual rights (even civil union), and quite a few freedoms that we take for granted nowadays. There are a lot of centrist religious people, but they're steadily being drowned out by the sort of people that he's appealing to. The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic compe!@#$%^&*ors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values - and to keep the peace - America must have the best manned, best equipped, and best supported military in the world. We require a larger and more capable military to protect our country's never-ending vital interests - there are certain allies we need to keep, and certain places we need to protect, but each one should be carefully analyzed and weighed on its merits. Additionally, I love the part about "Africa and Southeast Asia" - that guarantees that we'll be turning the already-suspicious Africom into yet another huge and wasteful branch of the military, while, a few thousand miles away, we're extending our commitments to a region that has grown in friendliness towards China and India in recent years. Finally, all this !@#$%^&*umes that we keep a 100% ready military, which is one of the biggest faults any country can possess. The USSR had a powerful ready military, but its real strength lay in the reserves, which were (if I recall) roughly twice the size of the normal military. The US has rejected the conventional wisdom that you don't need everything in tiptop shape, and you don't need to go chasing after every potential terrorist in the world, and statements like these basically say that we're going to go even more along that path. And note the clause about "best manned" - Russia, China, and India all have militaries that rival ours in size (though they're a lot cheaper), and thus we would have to majorly expand our hyper-expensive military just to keep pace. Sounds like a good way to hit the economic breaking point to me. As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight. Further confirmation. As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly. He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek. John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and teach the doctrine of hatred and despair. As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong - an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world. The sad thing is, that Bush also brags about our freedom, even though he has put in the PATRIOT act, Real ID, and tried to force through TIA - along with a "raft" of other, unnoticed, changes. I don't put much faith in McCain, as he's pretty much already made up his mind - this is going to be a presidency which focuses on military strength (cough, cough, dying hegemon) and preserves human rights to roughly the extent that the Byzantines did - sure, you were protected from the Turks and the barbarians, but you also lived in a totalitarian state. Effective Missile Defense John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic compe!@#$%^&*ors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary. John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the "balance of terror" to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland. God!@#$%^&*, Iran is an outlaw state? We always say that Israel can't make peace with Hamas because it "does not recognize Israel's right to exist", just think what would happen if we carried that principle over. Also, aside from China and Russia (which don't have to start a war with the US, because they have the potential to economically outlast us, even with all the problems and disasters they've gone through), there's no reason to bring back star wars yet again. Against actual terrorists, as has been noted endlessly, it's useless - all they have to do is smuggle in a dirty bomb or launch a short-range, low-yield nuclear missile from a boat. This is nothing but hype. Increasing the Size of the American Military The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security. For too long, we have asked too much of too few - with the result that many service personnel are on their second, third and even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no higher defense priority than the proper compensation, training, and equipping of our troops. Our existing force is overstretched by the combination of military operations in the broader Middle East and the need to maintain our security commitments in Europe and Asia. Recruitment and retention suffer from extended overseas deployments that keep service personnel away from their homes and families for long periods of time. John McCain believes that the answer to these challenges is not to roll back our overseas commitments. The size and composition of our armed forces must be matched to our nation's defense requirements. As requirements expand in the global war on terrorism so must our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard be reconfigured to meet these new challenges. John McCain thinks it is especially important to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to defend against the threats we face today. John McCain knows that the most difficult and solemn decision a president must make is sending young Americans into harm's way. Having experienced firsthand the brutality of war, as president, John McCain would never make the decision to use force lightly, only when the cause is just, and our nation's values and interests absolutely demand it. First of all, I already commented on this above. But note that he "does not want to roll back our overseas commitments", even though it can easily be demonstrated that most of them, especially ones dealing with Russia, are not necessary any more. As I said, some are vital, but a lot can be let go - that would give us the double benefit of reducing costs by shutting down bases and reducing the army, and not expanding the military. Think about it - increased cost and useless commitments, or reduced size, shedding useless commitments, and giving our "loyal american men and women in the armed forces" a reason to be proud of the organization they work in, instead of being ashamed. I also, along with most everyone I've talked to, find it laughable that he says he won't send them into harm's way lightly. We're already grinding the armed forces to a pulp in Iraq, but apparently some more deaths, injuries, and mental illnesses are worth it, just to maintain control of the world's last huge oil reserves? I salute you, men and women.. I just hope you don't suffer from the effects of DU. !@#$%^&*ault Weapons John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "!@#$%^&*ault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics. Importation of High Capacity Magazines John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations. He's forgetting that assault weapons, while they are used only in a minority of cases, are far more likely to be deadly? Again, pandering to the paranoid right. Banning Ammunition John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing." As someone who grew up in a very active hunting community, I can tell you that nobody gives a !@#$%^&*. They don't use AP bullets because they won't kill the deer. Anyone who tries to use AP in hunting is re!@#$%^&*ed. Stiffer Penalties for Criminals who use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime. That's taking a page straight from the NRA's book. Rather than propose meaningful social solutions and encouragement for "law abiding citizens", you just go with a strategy to punish anyone who makes a mistake, doesn't know better, or is just plain innocent (which, while it doesn't occur as often as organizations like the ACLU would have you believe, is surprisingly frequent.. just look at all the people on death row who it later turned out were innocent). There are some other policies of his as well, but I thought these were the most convenient ones to poke holes in. Edited April 23, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion
Aceflyer Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 I'm going with the democrats. I'm with CRe> and Dav.
»Ducky Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 I don't think anything will be screwed this time around no matter who gets in.Now, if Bush gets in, we'll be screwed. Oh wait.
Sass Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 After realizing that more people in PA voted for Hillary, (the uneducated, the old, and rednecks), I realize that overall, there are a majority of seniors who still vote more than young and educated people. Combined, those people wont elect a black man because they are still very racist, and they wont elect a woman because they still follow old ways. Unfortunately, this means McCain wins by default - not by skill or talent. We're basically doomed.
Aileron Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 That has to be the longest single post in the history of this forum, and keep in mind there's been some pretty long posts. I'm tempted to delete it, because it is technically off-topic (the topic is about Obama, not McCain), and it is a large eyesore. I totally think the US is screwed if Obama wins. Maybe its because I'm a small town Pennsylvanian. First off, for him to mock the people he's trying to get votes out of is incredibly stupid. Worse than that is the nature of the criticism that he made. He criticized Pennsylvanians for clinging to guns and religion. The direct quote and the video is pretty devastating in and of itself. At very best it paints Obama as being elitist and extremely arrogant. However, I could go farther with it too. All Pennsylvanians are US Citizens.Guns are protected by the Second Amendment.Religion is protected by the First Amendment.The First and Second Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights. He criticized a group of Americans for clinging to creator-endowed rights mentioned explicitly in the Bill of Rights. The resulting implication, that he thinks the Bill of Rights is something that needs to be weened off of the American populace, indicates to me that he is just another smooth talking arrogant lawyer who thinks he's so smart that he deserves the right to dictate what the rest of us do with our lives. Furthermore he thinks that if he's president, America would somehow not need the Bill of Rights. Look, I knew he was a flaming liberal nut before, but now I think he is Lenin reincarnated. If Obama is elected president, Iraq will pale in comparison to the suffering he is going to inflict on the American people at home.
FMBI Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) Uh, that was sort of on-topic, because Vegita said that he might support McCain, and I felt compelled to say that Obama, while he wouldn't be that great, is pretty much the only choice. <_< I can turn that into spoilers if you want, but IIRC that's !@#$%^&*y and annoying. Anyway, to summarize : Obama will not be perfect, in fact, he'll probably bring on even more disasters, but he will be better than McCain because he won't be more of Bush (regardless of what "the real McCain" thinks, as I pointed out, he is definitely bowing to the far right nowadays), and he won't carry the vindictiveness, viciousness, and evil of Hillary. Edited April 23, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion
Aceflyer Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 Obama will not be perfect, in fact, he'll probably bring on even more disasters, but he will be better than McCain because he won't be more of Bush (regardless of what "the real McCain" thinks, as I pointed out, he is definitely pandering to the far right nowadays), and he won't carry the vindictiveness, viciousness, and evil of Hillary. Why is Obama that much better, in your opinion, than (Hillary) Clinton? Most of their policy positions seem quite similar, even nearly identical in many cases. The main question is who is more 'likable' and whether Beltway 'experience' matters or not.
ThunderJam Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 Obama will not be perfect, in fact, he'll probably bring on even more disasters, but he will be better than McCain because he won't be more of Bush (regardless of what "the real McCain" thinks, as I pointed out, he is definitely bowing to the far right nowadays), and he won't carry the vindictiveness, viciousness, and evil of Hillary.As, i think ail, was saying, some people don't seem to realize how friggin far left obama is. His smooth talking about good oration seems to smooth that over so people don't really notice it though :/ About Mccains stance... yes he has voted way more liberally then bush, opposing a lot of stuff bush proposed. As to bowing to the far right now, doesnt that make sense simply to ensure he has their support? If you were going to trust one thing about him, would it be who he seems to be tryign to please at the moment, or his track record? People keep saying he is bush 2.0, but hes not nearly as conservative as bush.
SeVeR Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 If i believed everything i hear in the press i would think Obama is an inexperienced, jew-hating, muslim who sympathises with terrorists, and who is only where he is because he is black. But no, TRP, i don't believe all the rubbish i hear in the press. Hillary Clinton is a fear-mongering, corrupt, zionist who is only where she is because she was married to Bill Clinton. She represents a continuity of the status quo, and will have an inneffectual term in office because she is so incredibly well connected (politically) that you can bet none of her policies are her own. Oh yea, and i didn't get this fed to me by the press. McCain, well i don't care. He is likely to continue the war of terror (pun intended), and a hostile foreign policy. Over the past few weeks i have read about Clinton's cheap-shots at Obama, and each time i would read the reply from Obama and think "this is the kind of non-hostile response that i would expect from an intelligent and honest man who understands the ridiculous tactics used by Clinton". He has my support just for not being a petty fool looking for cheap shots.
»Ducky Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 (edited) "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." How is that statement wrong, at all, EVER.That statement is exactly what it says. Every politician comes through here saying it will get better. Everyone has a 'plan', an 'idea' that doesn't pan out.It never does, It never will. The people get pissed and the people being relatively stupid can't/won't do anything about it on a large scale so they cling to topics of guns and terrorism as an excuse for the people they wanted in office. They cling to it because they don't want to blame themselves for thier own mess. Everything about the statement is completely true. I don't support Obama, and yes it probably was elitist. But so what? Elitist things can't be true?----------------- As for the "Obama getting the educated vote in pa" I really don't know where this is all spewing from.It's a 10 point or less difference. This isn't nearly on the level of Clinton wiping the floor with Obama with older people or Obama wiping the floor in the black vote.It's an apples to oranges comparison because one excels in an older population and the other in a younger. It's common sense to say that older americans aren't as well educated as younger americans. That's for everywhere where this psuedo stat has popped up. Edited April 24, 2008 by Ducky
Aceflyer Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 If i believed everything i hear in the press i would think Obama is an inexperienced, jew-hating, muslim who sympathises with terrorists, and who is only where he is because he is black. But no, TRP, i don't believe all the rubbish i hear in the press. When has the press ever said Obama was a Muslim who sympathized with terrorists? That was a groundless rumor, nothing more. And I don't think I recall the press ever claiming that Obama was "jew-hating" or that he was "only where he is because he is black." Maybe these opinions were aired in some Internet forums or something, but they definitely haven't been in the respectable press as far as I know. By and large the press has been far more favorable toward Obama than toward Clinton in its coverage. She represents a continuity of the status quo, No. Last time I checked her views were quite different than President Bush's. and will have an inneffectual term in office because she is so incredibly well connected (politically) that you can bet none of her policies are her own. You're quite naive if you think that Obama independently came up with all of his proposals and policies in their entirety. He has plenty of political connections and plenty of policy advisers. Over the past few weeks i have read about Clinton's cheap-shots at Obama, and each time i would read the reply from Obama and think "this is the kind of non-hostile response that i would expect from an intelligent and honest man who understands the ridiculous tactics used by Clinton". He has my support just for not being a petty fool looking for cheap shots. And "you're likable enough Hillary" isn't a cheapshot? I'll grant that the Clinton campaign has probably taken more cheapshots at the Obama campaign than vice-versa, but trying to portray Obama as an impeccable saint isn't going to fly.
NBVegita Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 Fin can you post a source for all of your information. Also you presented a terribly bias, although I have come to expect that, interpretation of everything. You almost singularly presented a very one-sided pessimistic view on all of the policies. Which is well in your right to do, but taking such a strong sided stance in a subject that is largely interpretable, does not give much credibility to your argument.
AstroProdigy Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 (edited) I agree with Fin about McCain. He has fallen victim to what all Republican candidates nowadays fall victim to. They are forced to pander to the large conservative base for fear of a defection and it destroys their credibility. For one Iran actually supports the same horse in Iraq that we do, but since they also help all sides somewhat because it strengthens their hand (a tried and true policy) there's an excuse to paint them as a negative influence in Iraq. Only Obama has actually discussed talking to Iran and Syria especially since they're taking a big economic hit supporting all the Iraqi refugees flooding into their countries. Both Hillary and McCain lost their credibility by being unable to do anything other than threaten Iran. I think McCain of 2004 was a very appealing guy. Even I would have considered voting for him, but McCain now has been destroyed by a party that destroys honesty. Edited April 24, 2008 by AstroProdigy
NBVegita Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 a party that destroys honesty. The democrats have done no better. The Clintons, who have been the largest democratic(party) figures in the past 30 years are renowned for their dishonesty. Hillary has been caught in more lies just in her campaign than most politicians I can remember. Even Billy, leaving office with over a 60% approval rating, also left office with over 65% of Americans believing he was dishonest and not trustworthy. Neither side is any better than the other. Ultimately I still fail to see where you are saying he is conforming to the conservatives. Most, and I say most not all, of his policies haven't changed for at least a decade. Again you have a senator who has a PROVEN record of not abiding by "party politics" and combating against the very same people you're saying he's conforming to. Yes he has policies he's conservative on. Yes he has policies he's liberal on. Which I again say make him a moderate. And as for threatening Iran, well I could go on for an entire other topic for why that could be a good idea and why it is warranted, but for now I'll say that I actually agree with Clinton in her statement that if Iran attacks Isreal, we attack Iran.
SeVeR Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 When has the press ever said Obama was a Muslim who sympathized with terrorists? That was a groundless rumor, nothing more. And I don't think I recall the press ever claiming that Obama was "jew-hating" or that he was "only where he is because he is black." Maybe these opinions were aired in some Internet forums or something, but they definitely haven't been in the respectable press as far as I know. I obviously just read more news than you do. No. Last time I checked her views were quite different than President Bush's. Heheh, well they have to be different in some respects, otherwise there'd be a revolt. On the important points the Clintons and the Bush's are no different. You're quite naive if you think that Obama independently came up with all of his proposals and policies in their entirety. He has plenty of political connections and plenty of policy advisers. There's a difference. Very few people on Earth can claim to come up with an independent thought. What matters is whether or not someone told Clinton to have certain policies, or whether she listened to a few people and genuinely thought the policy to be a good idea. So many politicians have a hand in Hillary being where she is, that i doubt she has much decision making allowance. And "you're likable enough Hillary" isn't a cheapshot? I'll grant that the Clinton campaign has probably taken more cheapshots at the Obama campaign than vice-versa, but trying to portray Obama as an impeccable saint isn't going to fly. I just read about this, and i have to ask you: How is this a cheap-shot? I would probably have the same reaction, and give the same impression. It's an opinion.
Recommended Posts