Barrack or John

[The Real Picard]

So who would YOU Vote for if you could and had to Vote right now... Edited August 26, 2008 by The Real Picard

[FMBI]

Was the double-R intended to be a slur or something? If so, I'm not following..

 

In any case, who you're planning to vote for depends on your perspective.

 

I don't think there's a single person out there who seriously believes John McCain has real policies at this point (The "Realistic Change" label has sort of worn off now that he's lying nonstop and nearly all of his policies have proven to be farcical.)

 

For that reason, no matter how much you dislike Obama as a "liberal,"* in his current Bill Clinton-esque, centrist, incarnation, he's a respectable and moderate politician - unlike McCain, who blows more hot air than a Pittsburgh steel mill.

 

However, if you're really, really pissed off at the country, then voting McCain and letting his stupidity do its work (by potentially getting us into, at my count, any one of 6+ wars, by further damaging the economy, and by sounding the death knell for ever paying off the deficit**) becomes a rather attractive option in terms of saying "I told you so." Additionally, as many have pointed out, no matter who the next president is, they're screwed - the question is who the guilt will lie with. The republican, who has nearly identical policies to the same ones that are !@#$%^&*ing us right now, or the democrat, who would try to change things, get stonewalled, and then run out of time? In the long run, an Obama win could make us worse off by setting the stage for a future, and potentially even more deadly republican presidency in 2012 which, by that time, would seriously be willing to consider nuclear war with Russia or other currently unimaginable possibilities.

 

So, I guess what I'm trying to say, is.. If you give a !@#$%^&* about the country, vote Obama and then stick with him when the Bush chickens come home to roost. If you're just too mad to care anymore, then go McCain and get the shock therapy over with before it's too late.

 

 

*Which some on both left and right argue he never was, despite the massively skewed "liberal rankings" studies - those things are laughably flawed, so much so that self-proclaimed socialists end up in the middle of the pack.

 

**Which, while a notion highly popular among libertarians (who demand lower taxes as soon as revenues level off with higher tax rates, thus preventing a surplus from ac!@#$%^&*ulating) would mean that Bush's 40% dollar depreciation would look like a walk in the park by the time McCain's presidency was over.

[SeVeR]

If Obama wins and gets stone-walled, it may open the eyes of a few decent people, possibly resulting in the change that Obama and anyone with half-a-brain for what goes on in Washington wants. It might not be in his Presidency, but in the long run his efforts may help to show the cracks in the system.

 

McCain's negative political ads are merely a sign of what the Republican party has come to stand for. They don't campaign on policies, they use the stupidity of the populace to gain votes. They criticise Obama for stupid reasons like:

 

1. He says change too much.

2. We are sick of seeing him all the time.

3. He's a celebrity figure and not a politician.

4. He's only here because he's black.

5. He might not be patriotic enough.

 

These are not political arguments. They mean jack-!@#$%^&*!

 

The Republican party typically gains the support of Christians and hard-core Patriots, and that's simply because these groups of people are idiots. I don't want to elaborate on that, it would side-track the topic too much.

Edited August 25, 2008 by SeVeR

[CRe]

I wouldn't want a president who doesn't know how many houses he has.

vpmFd25tRqohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo

[PoLiX]

Biden is someone who always caught my attention, and solidified me behind Obama. Previously I was just in the middle like most americans. Didn't want McCain, but knowing there are more cousin-!@#$%^&*ing rednecks & diehard nutcase christians than the rest of us, so a black man who supported choice would never win. So really, I fall behind Obama, knowing if anything happened to him, or the fact the person he is consulting, is someone I would trust as president.

[Aceflyer]

Was the double-R intended to be a slur or something? If so, I'm not following..

 

It was probably just an accidental misspelling..

 

However, if you're really, really pissed off at the country, then voting McCain and letting his stupidity do its work (by potentially getting us into, at my count, any one of 6+ wars, by further damaging the economy, and by sounding the death knell for ever paying off the deficit**) becomes a rather attractive option in terms of saying "I told you so." Additionally, as many have pointed out, no matter who the next president is, they're screwed - the question is who the guilt will lie with. The republican, who has nearly identical policies to the same ones that are !@#$%^&*ing us right now, or the democrat, who would try to change things, get stonewalled, and then run out of time? In the long run, an Obama win could make us worse off by setting the stage for a future, and potentially even more deadly republican presidency in 2012 which, by that time, would seriously be willing to consider nuclear war with Russia or other currently unimaginable possibilities.

 

I agree that if Obama is elected, but then proves to be unable to deliver on his promises to the satisfaction of the voting population, it might very well set the stage for a Republican President to be elected in 2012 (something which might very well prove to be disastrous if it happened). I think that given all the fervor Obama has stirred up, particularly among younger voters, there is going to be a fair amount of disappointment (if Obama gets elected) when he fails to achieve, or takes longer than expected to achieve, some of his promises. As you point out, correctly IMHO, if McCain were elected, it would be a lot easier for many people to say "I told you so" when any issues arise (whether said issues are really McCain's fault or not).

 

Still, I think it would be premature at this point to assume that Obama would disappoint people to the extent that a Republican President would be elected in 2012. It would hence also be premature to assume that it would be better 'for the long run' if McCain were elected this year.

 

We can't see the future, so IMHO it would be best to vote for the person who would be the better leader for the US over the next four years (said person being Obama, from my POV). Voting for the worse leader (namely McCain, from my POV) this year due to concerns about the 2012 election would seem to be unwarranted.

[»D1st0rt]

Everyone write in Ron Paul ok, problem solved.

[Bak]

They criticise Obama for stupid reasons like:

 

1.

....

6.

 

7. He didn't pick Hillary for VP.

[Hoch]

There are a lot of similarities between this presidential race and the

one in 2000. For one thing, there is a party in power that although is

unpopular and therefore you would not expect to be a serious con-

tender, nonetheless enjoys a great deal of support. Secondly, there

is a candidate that is plagued with the 'guilt by !@#$%^&*ociation' label.

 

In 2000 Al Gore filled these categories. Whilst the Democrats were

not so unpopular as to be unelectable, surp!@#$%^&*ing their peak of pop-

ularity during the Johnson years, there was nonetheless a sense for

a need for change. As Vice-President, Al Gore was inextricably linked

with the Clinton Administration. During the 2000 campaign, he went

to great lengths to distance himself from Bill Clinton.

 

2008 is really no different. By all accounts the Democrats should be

storming the White House with little or no resistance. Yet, present in-

dicators show otherwise. Although McCain is not part of the Bush Ad-

ministration, occupying no cabinet position nor forming part of the Bush

team, because he is a Republican and has voted with the President on

such divisive issues as the war in Iraq he is grouped together with the

President. But this is where the similarities end.

 

Those that believe John McCain will be another George W. Bush either

do not know the man or are so narrow-minded in their thinking that

they just see Republican and form the guilty-by-!@#$%^&*ociation idea. How

easily we forget, conveniently by most media outlets, that for years

McCain has been the bane of the Bush Administration and a sore spot

for diehard conservatives within the Republican Party. The same also

applies to those that erroneously believe that Christian-right will be fur-

ther solidified in a John McCain presidency. In fact, this has been McCain's

greatest problem because this segment of the party finds it difficult to

align itself with John McCain, though ultimately they will.

 

The 'maverick of the floor' as he has lovingly been called, has proven

himself to be a unifier and not just a divider. A !@#$%^&*le, it so happens, that

his opponent cannot claim. McCain has co-sponsored more cross party

bills than most other Senators. This too has caused McCain problems

within the Republican Party. In a way, John McCain is a gamble for the

Republican Party because he sits outside of its core though extolling its

values.

 

But there is also something far more fundamental in play: 2006. In 2006

the Democrats took back control of Congress. Yet, what have they accom-

plished so far? Not much, and that is pretty generous wording. For all the

hope and hype heaped on the Democratic Party and Barack Obama the

sea of change as turned out to be a sea of offal. And for those that think

Congress cannot change the political landscape with an intransigent White

House, the Republican Congress of 1995 managed to out manoeuvre Bill

Clinton. So it can be done.

 

Whomever wins will face great challenges. The victor may end up like

another Jimmy Carter or George H. Bush: constrained by a faltering or

slowing economy and encased in geopolitical issues with no foreseeable

end. Fate may be smiling on the losers of the primaries. One can only

hope that there will be no hanging chads this time around.

 

-Hoch

[The Real Picard]

Was the double-R intended to be a slur or something? If so, I'm not following..

 

What double "R" - you been drinking or something???

[Samapico]

The topic !@#$%^&*le still has a double R

[FMBI]

Hoch, interesting post.

 

IMO, you're forgetting that McCain has changed in this race, and he's unlikely to change back when it's over. The same man that used to back bipartisan programs and became famous for his serious distrust of the religious right (no small feat in the Mega-Church southwest) is now "Bush with environmentally friendly policies!", except that he's actually putting more effort than Bush into attracting the fundies, since they don't trust him like they trusted the good ole Texan in '00.

 

Also, the "guilty by !@#$%^&*ocation" theory is far more believable nowadays, because the House, Senate, and high-ranking Judiciary have essentially closed ranks and vowed to go with the party line no matter what. I can't tell you how many times I've turned on C-SPAN and seen "200 Democrats Y, 190 Republicans N, 45 NV" or similar. Now, I personally tend to dislike "Jump-Out Numbers" like McCain's 95% voting record, but in this case, I think there's something to it. He's not really promising any substantive changes from Bush's policies - in fact, in Bush's final year, he looks more Bushy than Bush himself. We don't need an Andropov here, we need a Gorbachev (though preferably one that doesn't cause the country to implode) - and I don't see how someone who likes Real ID, likes the Iraq war, threatens Russia, talks nonstop about his questionable military record, plans more tax cuts for the top 1% but virtually no one else, wants to essentially break the UN and replace it with a morphed NATO/SEATO/VPR* "league of democracies," and has stated he dislikes the draft even though his military plans require it to reinstated can seriously be considered any different from the same militaristic, "managed democracy" leader we've got in office right now. Bush started the policies, and, as far as I can see, McCain's planning to finish them. Is it really suggestive of a "narrow focus" to look at a candidate honestly, instead of conveniently ignoring his behavior over the past several years?

 

 

*VPR meaning, of course, Various Puppet Regimes - in other words, any country that follows America's lead often enough to be declared democratic, regardless of how many death squads, warlords, or corrupt officials there are running around.

[Hoch]

Finland, I do not accept most of what you wrote for the simple

reason that McCain needs to secure votes from the segments

of the Republican Party that voted for George Bush. Moreover,

it is not uncommon for a candidate of the same party running

for president to make gestures that he will continue the policies

of the previous administration only to do a 180 once in office.

Bush Sr did just that in his bid for the White House in 1988 when

he abandoned many of President Reagan's policies. This is noth-

ing more than election year politics and should only be viewed

as such.

 

(Even Obama, much to the consternation of his supporters, has

shifted towards the centre and thus abandoned some of his core

liberal policies.)

 

I stand by what I wrote above; and thank you.

 

-Hoch

[NBVegita]

As someone on the fence I do have to say I agree with Hoch's !@#$%^&*essment.

 

It's funny, I find certain people who constantly complain against "Republican" propaganda, yet seem to reiterate "Democratic" propaganda.

 

I've tried to find founding for some of Fin's statements above and can't seem to find any.

 

If you look at McCain, his policies are vastly different from the Bush administration and actually Barack and McCain agree on a chunk of issues. I don't see how anyone can honestly take McCain voting record and policies and try to call him a Bush clone. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Not saying that I support either at the moment, but my mind is open to either. They both have their faults, they both have things I agree and disagree with it, but they're both also good candidates.

[SeVeR]

As someone on the fence

Seriously? I would have had you pegged for a McCain supporter from the moment he announced his candidacy.

[AstroProdigy]

McCain is no Bush. His voting record shows he's 5% different hooray!

[Dav]

If I was American, and being the dirty socialist hippy that I am, I would vote for barrack.

[FMBI]

K, generally when I'm replying to specifics I just stick it in the message, but your evil way of posting will make that harder to do. -readies return key of death-

 

 

Finland, I do not accept most of what you wrote for the simple

reason that McCain needs to secure votes from the segments

of the Republican Party that voted for George Bush.

 

I already said that, however, we apparently see the same problem

completely differently. In my view, the fact that he is whining and sucking

up to special interest groups and the religious right is grounds for distrust,

while you seem to look on it as just another day at the office. He'll definitely

have to fulfill at least some of the promises he's making, and those

promises - such as attacking contraception, abortion, social security, and the

progressive tax - would result in disasters of epic proportions if carried out.

 

Moreover,

it is not uncommon for a candidate of the same party running

for president to make gestures that he will continue the policies

of the previous administration only to do a 180 once in office.

Bush Sr did just that in his bid for the White House in 1988 when

he abandoned many of President Reagan's policies. This is noth-

ing more than election year politics and should only be viewed

as such.

 

Not at all. While there are many similarities between 88 and 08

(Maverick became !@#$%^&*imilated into party over time, began calling

for more of the same), there is reason to believe that, while Bush Sr

always had a clear, if narrow-minded, view of the world, McCain would

act very differently. Unlike Bush, who opposed voodoo economics and

stuck with it, McCain has gone from being anti-voodoo economics to one

of the loudest supporters of such in Washington. Same with aggressive

foreign policy, social liberties, and dealing with the shortcomings of our

economy - he's already done his 180, and if he ever tries to swing back

(which I do not believe he even wants to do), he will find insurmountable

obstacles in his path.

 

(Even Obama, much to the consternation of his supporters, has

shifted towards the centre and thus abandoned some of his core

liberal policies.)

 

The situations are, in my opinion, different - Obama had to get rid of

nonstop pressure from the media over his being an "ultraliberal" and

"communist," meaning that if he hadn't shifted to the center, he'd be

dead meat right now. McCain, facing the same kind of pressure from an

admittedly large sector of his party, rejected moderation and instead

swung to the opposite extreme to appease them. Whereas Obama (or his

advisers - we'll never know) showed a good measure of political slickness,

McCain simply said "To !@#$%^&* with it" and effectively gave up.

 

I stand by what I wrote above; and thank you.

 

-Hoch

 

 

@ Veg - I do have founding for my statements, but I'm not surprised you couldn't find it. As I recall, a few months back I made a post quoting McCain's positions from his web site, and you accused me of making it all up.

[NBVegita]

Fin, I posted that after reading through just about every page on his website. That is why I was confused. The only things I saw were him wanting to cut taxes for corporate America (which he claims to make it more affordable for companies to stay in America) and his policies towards Iran. Other than that I couldn't find anything else.

 

And sever, you always mistakenly slosh me in with the crazy conservative republicans.

 

As I've stated, there are policies on both sides that I simply don't agree with, so for me I need to weight out which policies I agree with more as a whole (and on important issues).

 

I personally believe with so much time before the election people should still be open minded about the candidates. The second you resign yourself to voting for one or the other, you automatically view both sides objectively. If I had to absolutely vote today, I would vote for Obama.

 

Oh and Astro here's an interesting site: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_i...voted_with.html

 

So it's good to know that if Obama becomes president, he will almost certainly vote unilaterally with the democrats.

 

And Fin accuses McCain of trying to appease his party lol

 

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

 

That will also show you just what he did actually vote on and what he hasn't.

 

btw fin how bored were you to dig up that quote from almost 4 years ago in your sig? lol

[Lera]

I'd still much rather vote for:

 

Barack Obama

John McCain

Mickey Mouse

[Hoch]

At the end of the day John McCain is a Republican. Therefore,

you would expect that he has consistently voted along party

lines. However, and again, McCain has not always done this.

(something very alien in the UK though increasingly becoming

more common). He has clashed with the Bush Administration

over tax cuts, judicial appointments, the conduct of the war in

Iraq, the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo and campaign

finance reform. The list goes on.

 

I do not fault the Democrats for trying to draw a link between

McCain and President Bush. !@#$%^&*, I expect it and would do the

same if I worked for the DNC! Not to mention the fact that they

pinched several ideas on how to do it from the Republican Party

during the 2000 presidential election.

 

From the earliest days of his campaign, McCain was branded

as being too far removed from President Bush's policies and

the core of the Republican Party. Obviously many people dis-

agree with those policies, but, and I hate to break it to you left-

wingers, not everyone does.

 

Some of the policies you listed Finland do not form party of the

values of the Republican Party. Therefore, despite McCain being

a maverick within the party he is less likely to betray those core

values. If those issues really matter to you, then I would not ex-

pect you to vote for McCain. Though you should not rule him out

entirely.

 

You should also consider this. McCain enjoys more popularity

within his own party than Obama. This is a shocking state of af-

fairs considering that Obama is more of a Democrat than McCain

is a Republican, as it were. This has not gone unnoticed by the

Obama camp, hence the show of unity during the convention.

 

Let me try to put all of this in perspective.

 

Running for president involves two things: securing your party's

nomination and convincing the American public that you are

the one that they should vote for.

 

The former is done through the primaries where you smooze the

party faithful. If you are a Republican you go right, if you are a

Democrat you go left. This election has been no different.

 

We are now at the stage where the candidates start to drift to-

wards the centre in order to get the non-aligned voters, i.e. in-

dependents, and moderate members of both parties. Surprisingly,

Obama started the process very early on. To me this suggests

two things. One, he realised that Americans are not the socialists

liberals that our European counterparts would like us to be. This

is directly out of Bill Clinton's playbook. Secondly, as McCain had

the nomination wrapped up fairly early he quickly realised that

McCain's maverick persona would appeal to independents and mod-

erate Democrats. The last liberal elected to the office of President

of the United States was Jimmy Carter, and lord knows we cannot

have (afford) a repeat of that. (Although Clinton was a strong lib-

eral, he had a Republican Congress watching over him.)

 

Once elected into office it is amazing just how fast those primary

promises melt away. More attention should be given towards what

is said and done afterwards.

 

For these reasons and the ones above, I disagree with you Finland.

This election is on the same trajectory as every election since 1992

(in 1988 Dukakis could not shift himself fast enough to the centre,

and got burned for it). Though I think this is all slightly off-topic

 

-Hoch

[AstroProdigy]

Well considering Democrats in general vote with Bush a lot of the time I think we can safely say that the only representation America has is far right and center right. I'd choose center right over far right any day although we're still basically screwed any way. Britain has the same problem except instead of their far right in power their center right has a monopoly on power. It's why two party representation is naturally doomed to screw you over. The only way I'd not vote for Obama, though, would be if I voted for Nader anyway. I choose center right American imperialism over bat!@#$%^&* psycopath evil empire any day.

 

As for Hoch's "McCain is a maverick" crap that was a short period of time between McCain's rejection in 2000 and his renewed search for the white house later on. He's done a full 180 on all those issues you've stated. McCain has gone right and then right again. It's amazing how little his "maverick" bull!@#$%^&* matters considering he has proven himself to be a reliable far right neo con bat!@#$%^&* crazy hawk on foreign policy, will be unable to reverse the drumbeat of rhetoric on economic issues that he's used without committing political suicide, and no social or cons!@#$%^&*utional "moderation" matters if you are going to push through extreme right supreme court justices. I'm sure you'd work for the Democrats if they paid you enough money. I bet you'd have no problems giving the low blows on Republicans then since you have some experience there. McCain has a gold mine of personal attacks that can be leveled against him if Democrats fought like Republicans and the media would end its !@#$%^&* love affair with McCain. Here's a hint he abandoned his crippled wife and kids for a rich younger woman. Now go do the dirty work.

Edited August 29, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Hoch]

I'm constantly amazed how the Left ignores the fact that the

conservative-right absolutely detests McCain. Of course, this

makes sense politically. But anyone with a modi!@#$%^&* of intelli-

gence will realise this

 

And Britain has a three-party system, not two.

 

-Hoch

[Aceflyer]

I'm constantly amazed how the Left ignores the fact that the

conservative-right absolutely detests McCain. Of course, this

makes sense politically. But anyone with a modi!@#$%^&* of intelli-

gence will realise this <_<

 

Whilst it is true that a not insignificant portion of the conservative right dislikes Senator John McCain, it is also true that the same people who dislike McCain will still devotedly race to the polls and vote for the McCain-Palin ticket when faced with the possibility of an Obama presidency. And it is also true that McCain's positions are, overall, much more similar to President George W. Bush's positions than Obama's positions are.

 

Notably, these are the main points which make me disinclined to support the McCain-Palin ticket:

• McCain's strong, unwavering support for the Iraq war. It should be clear by this point that the war was a colossal error. However, McCain refuses to acknowledge this, just like President George W. Bush has refused to acknowledge this.
  
• McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his VP candidate. (See "Palin" thread for details on this.)
  
• McCain's opposition to contraception itself, as well as the promotion of contraception. He favors President George W. Bush's abstinence-focused policies. Also, read this link for a fun laugh.
  
• McCain's opposition to Roe. Seriously, I, at least, am so tired of seeing Republicans' unceasing efforts to overturn Roe.
  

[Samapico]

Also, read this link for a fun laugh.

I lol'd