Obama or McCain?

[cycocelica]

So who will you be voting for in this election. See what the MR community believes should happen with this country?

[PlaceofDis]

well, its a long ways away and a lot can change between now and then, and they're only the 'presumptive nominees' as of right now. so like i said... who knows. and i though there was going to be more than two names on the ballot this year? nader for one and liebermann was it?, for the libertarians?

[dukebound85]

obama scares me. so mccain

but my pref is ron paul......too bad wont happen

[cycocelica]

well, its a long ways away and a lot can change between now and then, and they're only the 'presumptive nominees' as of right now. so like i said... who knows. and i though there was going to be more than two names on the ballot this year? nader for one and liebermann was it?, for the libertarians?

Well I believe there would be a huge out cry if neither of them were chosen.

I actually totally meant to add other and not voting and totally forgot. I will see if I can edit it. If not maybe a mod can fix it?

Edit: Nope can't change it. If a mod sees this, could you add 'Other' and 'Not Voting'? Thanks

[Peace]

Love the poll idea but why is Obama in italics and McCain is normal font ? Is that the way vBulletin works?

[PlaceofDis]

Love the poll idea but why is Obama in italics and McCain is normal font ? Is that the way vBulletin works?

the person you've voted for shows up in italics once you have voted.

[yg17]

obama scares me. so mccain

but my pref is ron paul......too bad wont happen
Uh, how does he scare you? McCain scares me....4 more years of the same failed Bush policies that have brought this country down the toilet

Love the poll idea but why is Obama in italics and McCain is normal font ? Is that the way vBulletin works?
They're both in normal font until you vote, then it will italicize which one you voted for.

[Peace]

They're both in normal font until you vote, then it will italicize which one you voted for.

Shows who I voted for eh ?:p

[Rivix]

I'm from Canada, so I really have no say, but I would vote for Obama. I don't like Republicans... I lean more towards the left.

[Watabou]

obama scares me. so mccain

but my pref is ron paul......too bad wont happen

It's the other way around for me. When McCain said we will be in Iraq for 100 years if we need to, I was just shocked at his statement.

Both of them have their flaws though. Obama does not have enough experience but he is an excellent speaker and going by his previous voting records, he seems to be the perfect candidate for change in Washington. McCain on the the other hand flip-flops a lot and he is "too" experienced, if you know what I mean(he is old). One time he opposes a issue and the other time, he supports it.

I'm not voting age yet but I'm rooting for Obama!

[Peace]

There is one inherent flaw to this poll. There are a lot of users from other countries who will vote.

Interesting nonetheless.

[yg17]

Obama does not have enough experience

The experience thing is crap. He actually has more years in elected office under his belt than Clinton did. Plus, I have a feeling that being president is one of those jobs that no amount of experience in the senate can prepare you for.

[zioxide]

Both of them have their flaws though. Obama does not have enough experience but he is an excellent speaker and going by his previous voting records, he seems to be the perfect candidate for change in Washington. McCain on the the other hand flip-flops a lot and he is "too" experienced, if you know what I mean(he is old). One time he opposes a issue and the other time, he supports it.

lol, the experience argument.

If McCain has so much experience, then why does he still confuse the Sunni and Shia? And if he has so much experience, then why did he vote for 95% of Bush's policies and wants to continue them for 4 more years?

Personally, I'd like someone who's new, has fresh ideas, and isn't part of the good old boys lobbyist run Washington. Oh, and someone who opposes this complete mess of a war that we're in.

Experience means jack ****. Nobody in this country (except for a former president) has the experience to do it. There is no other job that is even remotely like it.

[ucfgrad93]

McCain.

[Chundles]

The only thing "experience" means is that you're old.

I'd much rather have a younger person running the country than an older person - to an extent of course...

[LethalWolfe]

The only thing "experience" means is that you're old.

I'd much rather have a younger person running the country than an older person - to an extent of course...

I'd much rather have a competent person running the country regardless of age.


Lethal

[Chundles]

I'd much rather have a competent person running the country regardless of age.


Lethal

Well, they're both pretty high up in the party - I gather their both competent.

Doesn't really matter to me I guess, Bush will be gone and all I have to worry about is the smug little twerp running my country with a penchant for strutting around with movie stars and working himself into an early grave on small inconsequential things.

[SMM]

I'd much rather have a competent person running the country regardless of age.


Lethal

Well, that also is a vote for Obama. It would be a real stretch to even say McCain and competent in the same sentence. I will rate honesty first, and that completely eliminates McCain.

[LethalWolfe]

Well, they're both pretty high up in the party - I gather their both competent.

Especially given the most recent US President I don't think getting the party's nomination is necessarily a sign of competency in regards to running a country.



Lethal

[Chundles]

Especially given the most recent US President I don't think getting the party's nomination is necessarily a sign of competency in regards to running a country.



Lethal

Yeah - what happened there?

[Bobdude161]

McCain, because we all know what will happen if Obama becomes president. That is, there will be a 7 mile wide comet that that will be on a collision course with earth and millions of people will die, thus fulfilling the prophesy of "Deep Impact". :eek:

[wallaby]

The experience thing is crap. He actually has more years in elected office under his belt than Clinton did. Plus, I have a feeling that being president is one of those jobs that no amount of experience in the senate can prepare you for.
I'd go as far as to say that the longer you spend in the Senate, the more likely it is you've been corrupted already. ;)

Obama has been a surprisingly fresh candidate during the primaries. It's yet to be seen whether his actions will match his rhetoric. I'm rooting for the Obama that he portrays himself to be, an agent of change and a just leader in a corrupted America, but I can't shake the idea that the wool's been pulled over my eyes.

No matter how much you may like them, DON'T DON'T DON'T trust your politicians. They'll only learn to act honestly if they feel the constant scrutiny. :D

As for who I'm voting for, maybe Obama, but I've grown accustomed to the view that voting is pretty much worthless. The masses decide the outcome of the election, and it depends on where the advertising and the media spin them to.

[Rodimus Prime]

personally I think both canidates suck. Obama just seem to muck talk for me and I do not agree with some of his policies.

So sadly it is McCain for me and I think he is pretty crappy.

Really of the 3 froth runner (Hillary, Obama and McCain) I though they all sucked so it really did not matter the result of the Demicrated nomination. If i had to choose form those 3 sadly it would be Hillary. I though she was best of the 3 but like I said I think we have really crappy candidates this year.

[cycocelica]

There is one inherent flaw to this poll. There are a lot of users from other countries who will vote.

Interesting nonetheless.

I think it could be good. Since America plays a big role in this world and affects a lot of people outside of America, I think more people outside of America will care who wins this November.

[Peace]

As for who I'm voting for, maybe Obama, but I've grown accustomed to the view that voting is pretty much worthless. The masses decide the outcome of the election, and it depends on where the advertising and the media spin them to.

If everyone had the same view there would be no "masses" to decide.

[Chundles]

I think it could be good. Since America plays a big role in this world and affects a lot of people outside of America, I think more people outside of America will care who wins this November.

We just want someone there who can string a sentence together - makes it much easier to figure out what's going on.

[yg17]

Well, that also is a vote for Obama. It would be a real stretch to even say McCain and competent in the same sentence. I will rate honesty first, and that completely eliminates McCain.

McCain is not competent. There, that was easy :p

I'd go as far as to say that the longer you spend in the Senate, the more likely it is you've been corrupted already. ;)

Obama has been a surprisingly fresh candidate during the primaries. It's yet to be seen whether his actions will match his rhetoric. I'm rooting for the Obama that he portrays himself to be, an agent of change and a just leader in a corrupted America, but I can't shake the idea that the wool's been pulled over my eyes.

No matter how much you may like them, DON'T DON'T DON'T trust your politicians. They'll only learn to act honestly if they feel the constant scrutiny. :D

As for who I'm voting for, maybe Obama, but I've grown accustomed to the view that voting is pretty much worthless. The masses decide the outcome of the election, and it depends on where the advertising and the media spin them to.
Please don't think your vote is worthless. One single vote isn't going to change the outcome of any elections, but it's the entire group of people who have the "my vote is worthless" mentality who stay home on election day that changes the outcome of elections.

Also, I believe, and I know many will probably agree, that someone who doesn't vote has no right to bitch and complain about how their government's being run. Either do something to change it or **** is what I say.

[Chundles]

McCain is not competent. There, that was easy :p


Please don't think your vote is worthless. One single vote isn't going to change the outcome of any elections, but it's the entire group of people who have the "my vote is worthless" mentality who stay home on election day that changes the outcome of elections.

Also, I believe, and I know many will probably agree, that someone who doesn't vote has no right to bitch and complain about how their government's being run. Either do something to change it or **** is what I say.

I like compulsory voting - it means we can all validly complain.

[Watabou]

The experience thing is crap. He actually has more years in elected office under his belt than Clinton did. Plus, I have a feeling that being president is one of those jobs that no amount of experience in the senate can prepare you for.

Very true and I agree completely but I meant that voters will most likely see that as a flaw...well at least Mccain's supporters anyways.

Anyways, doesn't Obama feel like a next generation of Lincoln/MLK/FDR to anyone? I know he does to me :D

[yg17]

I like compulsory voting - it means we can all validly complain.
The problem with compulsory voting is you'll have the people who are just apathetic to politics and don't care voting for someone without having heard the positions of them or their opponents. IMO, the only way compulsory voting would work is to have an "I don't give a ****" option on the ballot (OK, you can call it something else, but that gets the point across :D) for those people. That way, they can meet any requirements without actually affecting the election.

But if they're going to just come out to vote "I don't give a ****" why bother making them come out at all? I'd rather have voters who know about all the candidates running and have made an educated, informed choice and know why they're voting for who they are (so that should immediately disqualify the 50 million who voted for Dubya :D)

[SMM]

There is no friggin' way America can come away from another four year years of republican rule. This not the same Goldwater conservative party, which used to have honesty, integrity, and believe in the Constitution, and American principals. It is Rove, Fiest, Cheney, Armitage, Libby and the rest of the unprincipled, immoral, law breaking neocons that have been destroying this Country for the past 8 years. Virtually, every federal agency in this Country is under investigation for the full spectrum of crimes and abuses. Our economy is in the *******, with no end in site. McCain wants to increase tax relief, but will balance the budget by cutting out earmarks. That cannot even qualify as unrealistic, it is ludicrous. Many federal funded programs are funded by earmarks, such as our ongoing support for Israel. I have read several reports about this, and there is really only about $18B of potential earmark savings possible. That is several times less than the revenues, which will be lost. So, he wants to also cut back on SS, medicare, medicade, education and other government services. In short, he will continue to increase the national debt. Do you realize that the entire Iraq war has been paid for by increasing debt? This will continue to devalue the dollar, and keep increasing the debt service we are paying for. Is this the America you want to live in? Would you re-elect Bush? If the answer is no, then for god-sake, do not elect McCain.

McCain has sold his soul for one chance to sit in the big chair. he has accumulated so many IOU debts, he will not be able to fart without permission. This not the man I once respected. I read 10-20 websites a day, and have done so since the beginning of 2007. He has become just another neocon.

Finally, this argument that Obama does not have enough experience is a republican red-herring. The main job of the President is to provide leadership. And, Barack has shown that trait his entire life. It is the people he brings to his administration, which provide the actual expertise. JFK attracted the 'best and brightest' (there is a bestselling book with the same name, which focuses on it) to his administration. he relied on their expertise, but he was the one who inspired them and that is what Obama will do.

[wallaby]

Please don't think your vote is worthless. One single vote isn't going to change the outcome of any elections, but it's the entire group of people who have the "my vote is worthless" mentality who stay home on election day that changes the outcome of elections.

Also, I believe, and I know many will probably agree, that someone who doesn't vote has no right to bitch and complain about how their government's being run. Either do something to change it or **** is what I say.

Not everyone who stays at home on election day is convinced their vote is worthless, a large portion of the population are simply apathetic. What was the percentage turnout last election? Only 60%? That's nearly half of Americans not giving a damn. The whole "we can decide an election" mentality is only a sedative mindset given by those in power to those without, lest they stir Joe-six-pack into action. And considering the lethargy most Americans have expressed over the past eight years of Bush's policies, I'm not sure if the average joe would even be bothered if his/her 2nd amendment right were taken away.

Ach, sorry for ranting. Poke me with a stick when it becomes possible for third-party candidates to win an election (spoiler: it's not). :rolleyes:

[Chundles]

Not everyone who stays at home on election day is convinced their vote is worthless, a large portion of the population are simply apathetic What was the percentage turnout last election? Only 60%? That's nearly half of Americans not giving a damn. The whole "we can decide an election" mentality is only a sedative mindset given by those in power to those without, lest they stir Joe-six-pack into action. And considering the lethargy most Americans have expressed over the past eight years of Bush's policies, I'm not sure if the average joe would even be bothered if his/her 2nd amendment right were taken away.

Ach, sorry for ranting. Poke me with a stick when it becomes possible for third-party candidates to win an election (spoiler: it's not). :rolleyes:

That's right - let's look at it this way. If the turnout is 60% of the eligible voting population then to win you need 51% of that. So that's 30.06% of the voting population.

I know that's very simplified but it shows that the president doesn't have a mandate to govern.

[solvs]

Yeah - what happened there?
Not so great alternatives.

I'll be voting for not McCain. As a former supporter of his, that makes me kinda sad, but he's not the same person he was in '00. At least not the person I thought. Of course, this is not the same country it was back then either.

Does anyone here actively support McCain, as in not just against Obama, and if so why?

JOHN MCCAIN’S RHETORIC VS. JOHN MCCAIN’S RECORD (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/04/mccains-more-of-the-same/#more-29816)
McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html)
Is McCain "Sick at Heart" Over His Own Iraq Mistakes? (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001084.htm)
GOP Insiders Worry About McCain's Chances (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/08/gop-insiders-worry-about_n_105946.html)

Considering the GOP's popularity right now (or lack thereof) and that speech the other night, McCain's really going to have to step it up if it wants to win, but then again, I've been disappointed before and expect to be again.

Meanwhile:

McCain Adviser Holtz-Eakin Ludicrously Asserts Obama Would Be A Third Bush Term (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/06/dhe-obama-bush-term/)

Which is just desperate.

[és:]

I can't understand how any forward thinking American would want to vote for McCain. You just need to take one look at what he's said, how he's acted and his policies to know that he's got a screw loose, he's far too old and the world will be put in the hands of a (and I quote him) "war criminal".

Do the right thing.

[Blue Velvet]

John McCain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c)

He's got an uphill battle in front of him, that's for sure.

Edit: Just in case that wasn't clear, I would like to see a Barack Obama administration. The guy is a community organiser; well versed in a more inclusive type of politics.

[WinterMute]

Well I believe there would be a huge out cry if neither of them were chosen.

I actually totally meant to add other and not voting and totally forgot. I will see if I can edit it. If not maybe a mod can fix it?

Edit: Nope can't change it. If a mod sees this, could you add 'Other' and 'Not Voting'? Thanks

Sorted that for you.

I'm astonished that the American people generally think it makes much of a difference.

"if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" I think John Lennon said that, and its a pretty pass when a drug addled hippy makes more sense than an administration.

I don't think middle America will elect a black president, and I predict some pretty nasty tactics behind the scenes to ensure that will never happen.

Good luck to you all, we have Gordon Brown, how bad can it be?;) :D

[Peterkro]

"if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" I think John Lennon said that, and its a pretty pass when a drug addled hippy makes more sense than an administration.


Emma Goldman said that a good few decades before Lennon and it probably predates her.

[Much Ado]

Good luck to you all, we have Gordon Brown, how bad can it be?;) :D

Worse, we could have David Cameron.

[WinterMute]

Emma Goldman said that a good few decades before Lennon and it probably predates her.

A universal truth then?

Democracy is truly the opiate of the masses, unfortunately it's the only game in town right now...

Whilst I hate to be cynical (:eek: ) global conglomerates run the West. End of.

Worse, we could have David Cameron.

We already have Boris Johnson running London, this slippery slope has no end it seems.

[Peterkro]

It's one of those old Anarchist slogans that's probably genuinely penned by anon.:)

PS I like the slightly more direct "don't vote it only encourages the bastards"

[és:]

I'm astonished that the American people generally think it makes much of a difference.

"if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" I think John Lennon said that, and its a pretty pass when a drug addled hippy makes more sense than an administration.

Whilst I do agree with that in principle, I think that this vote is between two people that will make a difference to the current situation in America and the world.

One will make the world a safer place and give America back some of the dignity it's lost over the last (nearing) 8 years. The other will further reduce the level of dignity for America and it's citizens, make the world a much less safe place for our children and grandchildren to grow up in.

I agree, from an anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist point of view, that voting for somebody to rule over you isn't really making a difference as you're still ruled over, but sometime it can make quite a difference.

I don't think middle America will elect a black president, and I predict some pretty nasty tactics behind the scenes to ensure that will never happen.

I frightfully agree.

[.Andy]

The problem with compulsory voting is you'll have the people who are just apathetic to politics and don't care voting for someone without having heard the positions of them or their opponents. IMO, the only way compulsory voting would work is to have an "I don't give a ****" option on the ballot (OK, you can call it something else, but that gets the point across :D) for those people. That way, they can meet any requirements without actually affecting the election.
We have compulsory voting in australia but that by no means means that you actually have to cast a vote. If you are indeed apathetic you get your attendance recorded and just fold up your ballot paper and stick it in the bin without marking it. Alternatively you can pick up a voting form in the weeks before the election (from post offices etc) and just send it in by free post - again you don't have to mark it at all. It's a completely simple system.

But if they're going to just come out to vote "I don't give a ****" why bother making them come out at all? I'd rather have voters who know about all the candidates running and have made an educated, informed choice and know why they're voting for who they are (so that should immediately disqualify the 50 million who voted for Dubya :D)
I've worked on the polling stations here in Australia the last few years (pays well :)) and I have been really surprised by the level of savvy the public has when voting. Where I've worked it has been extremely rare to have anyone enter the booths and not take it seriously. The general attitude is that if i'm going to come out I may as well make my vote count. In fact it has given me much enthusiasm into the election process in australia. Even bunches of 18 year olds are really keen to make sure their vote doesn't go to the party whom they don't like. As such for the last federal election we got around 95% voter participation, less than 1% donkey votes, and about 5% invalid votes. So the vast majority of the population takes it seriously and marks the ballot papers effectively.

[atszyman]

McCain, because we all know what will happen if Obama becomes president. That is, there will be a 7 mile wide comet that that will be on a collision course with earth and millions of people will die, thus fulfilling the prophesy of "Deep Impact". :eek:

I thought that would only happen when we elected Morgan Freeman? At least the Penguins would be well represented...

That's right - let's look at it this way. If the turnout is 60% of the eligible voting population then to win you need 51% of that. So that's 30.06% of the voting population.

I know that's very simplified but it shows that the president doesn't have a mandate to govern.

Actually it's only 50% + 1 vote... but then you throw in the whole electoral college mess and things get even wackier... I've done the math many many times. Worst case popular vote with 60% voter turnout is the least populous 38 states + NJ (number 11 in the population list) will give 271 electoral (maybe 272) votes and elect the president. This encompasses 44.06% of the people assuming an voter distribution that roughly coincides with the populations 22.03% + 39 votes would win if everyone voted. With a 60% voter turnoug that drops to 13.218%+39 votes.

Of course if you really wanted to get doomsday, if only 1 person voted in the biggest 11 states and they all voted for the same person, 11 votes could win the election.

I'm probably going to vote for Obama. I know they'll try everything they can to stop it but if people actually watch the debates and listen to the candidates I don't think McCain stands much of a chance.

Everyone who talks about lack of experience had better damn well voted for Gore in 2000 if they were eligible otherwise the experience argument is complete BS and you need to come up with something better. I've already heard rumors about Lincoln Chafee in his cabinet and a President who can nominate members of the other party to cabinet positions goes a long way towards real bipartisanship and shows that he's not simply looking for loyalty and yes-men in leadership roles. He can speak and inspire, and actually see situations as shades of grey rather than everything being black and white, us vs them positions. That will do wonders with our foreign policy and global relations.

At least this time we won't end up with another Bush or Clinton in the White house.

McCain has a tough road ahead of him. The religious right doesn't seem to keen on him, and won't warm up to him if he has to court moderates so he has a very fine line to walk at this point. Running against Clinton would have allowed him to court moderates more since a lot of the GOP base would be motivated just to keep the Clintons out of the office. He does not have that benefit and his "maverick" reputation is not going to hold up if he has to keep pandering to the right. My sincere hope is that he is only pandering and has been for the last 6 years or so and will go back to the McCain many of us supported in 2000. The only other explanation is that he's gone senile, but hey, it worked for Reagan...:D

[Bobdude161]

I thought that would only happen when we elected Morgan Freeman? At least the Penguins would be well represented...

Could be right, but I could see Obama making that inspirational speech to all those American survivors in front of the demolished U.S. Capitol Building.

[yg17]

I've worked on the polling stations here in Australia the last few years (pays well :)) and I have been really surprised by the level of savvy the public has when voting. Where I've worked it has been extremely rare to have anyone enter the booths and not take it seriously. The general attitude is that if i'm going to come out I may as well make my vote count. In fact it has given me much enthusiasm into the election process in australia. Even bunches of 18 year olds are really keen to make sure their vote doesn't go to the party whom they don't like. As such for the last federal election we got around 95% voter participation, less than 1% donkey votes, and about 5% invalid votes. So the vast majority of the population takes it seriously and marks the ballot papers effectively.

This is America. Making uninformed decisions at the voting booth is the American way. How do you think we ended up with the moron we have for president?

[obeygiant]

I think Obama will make McCain look like a tired old guy in this election. I was really disappointed by McCain's "lime green" speech the other night. If thats the shape of his campaign to come, there is no way he'll win. Obama FTW.

[themadchemist]

Both of them have their flaws though. Obama does not have enough experience but he is an excellent speaker and going by his previous voting records, he seems to be the perfect candidate for change in Washington.

Despite supporting Obama (his name shows up for me in italics and all), I am not as convinced by this line of reasoning. I don't think his voting record shows him to be "the perfect candidate for change in Washington." His voting record shows that he is willing to compromise and make deals, which can be a good thing, but could very well lead us down a road of middling moderation that is ineffectual and impotent. He's a pleaser--he's likable and likes to be liked.

That, along with having entered the Senate in a time when Democrats were showing absolutely no back bone, might explain why he went for the deal on the Patriot Act and voted in favor of building a stupid fence along our Southern border.

To the extent that this reflects a measure of bipartisanship, perhaps he will bring change to Washington; whether the more important matter of bringing change to the American people will succeed, I don't know.

His strength, as you said, is in his ability to speak; it is also in the tone of that speech. He has spoken insightfully about some of the overarching issues facing the country (his speech on race will, I think, be remembered as one of the great speeches of his generation) and has been willing to grapple with the complexities of large problems.

I really do think that he can be an effective uniter, and I believe that that will serve him well on pushing through policy. Some of that policy will benefit from cooperation and compromise, but unfortunately, much of it will be deflated in the process, and I fear that many of the "accomplishments" of his term will be Pyrrhic victories, passed bills with their guts ripped out.

But of course, he's way better than that old warmonger John McCain.

[benmrii]

Been a supporter of Obama for over a year now. Very excited, both for his campaign and for the sake of the US. :D

[Don't panic]

Despite supporting Obama (his name shows up for me in italics and all), I am not as convinced by this line of reasoning. I don't think his voting record shows him to be "the perfect candidate for change in Washington." His voting record shows that he is willing to compromise and make deals, which can be a good thing, but could very well lead us down a road of middling moderation that is ineffectual and impotent. He's a pleaser--he's likable and likes to be liked.

That, along with having entered the Senate in a time when Democrats were showing absolutely no back bone, might explain why he went for the deal on the Patriot Act and voted in favor of building a stupid fence along our Southern border.

To the extent that this reflects a measure of bipartisanship, perhaps he will bring change to Washington; whether the more important matter of bringing change to the American people will succeed, I don't know.

His strength, as you said, is in his ability to speak; it is also in the tone of that speech. He has spoken insightfully about some of the overarching issues facing the country (his speech on race will, I think, be remembered as one of the great speeches of his generation) and has been willing to grapple with the complexities of large problems.

I really do think that he can be an effective uniter, and I believe that that will serve him well on pushing through policy. Some of that policy will benefit from cooperation and compromise, but unfortunately, much of it will be deflated in the process, and I fear that many of the "accomplishments" of his term will be Pyrrhic victories, passed bills with their guts ripped out.

But of course, he's way better than that old warmonger John McCain.
you have to consider, though, that it's very likely that both Senate and House will likely be fairly strongly democrat this come around (58-42, 238-197 according to recent polls), so that should allow him to kick start his policies and get thing going

[savanahrose]

I still go with neither. Obama IMHO does not have experience, nor according to my recollection, does he vote when he is suppose to. He has Chrisma and that is about it.
McCain would be bad for the country. I would hate to see us in Iraq for XXX amount of years. I don't like the way he flipflops all over the place.

I still will vote for Ron Paul if he is on the ballot if he isn't I may not even vote for a pres.

[themadchemist]

you have to consider, though, that it's very likely that both Senate and House will likely be fairly strongly democrat this come around (58-42, 238-197 according to recent polls), so that should allow him to kick start his policies and get thing going

That's a good point. And I hope that stronger majorities in the House and Senate will embolden him as President. I do think he is amenable to his liberal innards, even if he isn't showing them now.

Much of this probably stems from my strong dedication to a single payer health insurance scheme, which Democratic presidential candidates (including Obama) have been scared to endorse. I hope that instead of going for what he himself admits is a compromise of a healthcare plan, he takes advantage of his majorities in the House and Senate to jump on HR 676.

It will be possible to push the country back left on healthcare and other issues, but I wonder if, in fears over electability in 2012, any of it will actually happen. But I'm betting on Obama.

[Don't panic]

I still go with neither. Obama IMHO does not have experience, nor according to my recollection, does he vote when he is suppose to. He has Chrisma and that is about it.
McCain would be bad for the country. I would hate to see us in Iraq for XXX amount of years. I don't like the way he flipflops all over the place.

I still will vote for Ron Paul if he is on the ballot if he isn't I may not even vote for a pres.

:D he is the anointed one!

[yojitani]

Who you should vote for! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ8pgySec4)

[PlaceofDis]

I think Obama will make McCain look like a tired old guy in this election. I was really disappointed by McCain's "lime green" speech the other night. If thats the shape of his campaign to come, there is no way he'll win. Obama FTW.

almost surprised, but not quite by your choice, you haven't been around here much though.

I still go with neither. Obama IMHO does not have experience, nor according to my recollection, does he vote when he is suppose to. He has Chrisma and that is about it.
McCain would be bad for the country. I would hate to see us in Iraq for XXX amount of years. I don't like the way he flipflops all over the place.

I still will vote for Ron Paul if he is on the ballot if he isn't I may not even vote for a pres.

how exactly is he lacking in experience? neither have been president before so yeah, they're both lacking. he has a lot of experience in the IL state senate, and a good amount of work in the senate. i don't see how that equals inexperience.

[leekohler]

how exactly is he lacking in experience? neither have been president before so yeah, they're both lacking. he has a lot of experience in the IL state senate, and a good amount of work in the senate. i don't see how that equals inexperience.

He's not- he's got more time in government than Hillary does, but people still play this card. Be that as it may- I think the less time spent in government, the better! Insane McCain isn't who anybody should want running the country right now. And Ron Paul is just plain terrifying.

[obeygiant]

almost surprised, but not quite by your choice, you haven't been around here much though.


Huh? You shouldn't be too surprised. I've endorsed Obama a couple times.

[PlaceofDis]

Huh? You shouldn't be too surprised. I've endorsed Obama a couple times.

i either missed it, or thought that you were still undecided at that point, sorry. :o

[Klaxons2012]

I voted for Obama in the primary, but my decision hinges on who he'll select as his vice president. The powers that be/elite/whatever clearly want Hillary Clinton on the ticket and I don't support the ideologies of the people she surrounds herself with. If he selects Hillary as her running mate, I'll be going Green and hopefully supporting Cynthia McKinney who has been a champion for those disenfranchised by Diebold's voting machines.

So if I had to choose today, I'd vote other because I can't in good conscious support Obama when McKinney's policies are more in line with my politics. I think everyone here should explore their options and see what other parties are available because many people here seem to be settling for one or the other and not really a candidate they feel would support their best interests.

[Klaxons2012]

He's not- he's got more time in government than Hillary does, but people still play this card. Be that as it may- I think the less time spent in government, the better! Insane McCain isn't who anybody should want running the country right now. And Ron Paul is just plain terrifying.

Great reponse. People who use the experience talking point don't understand the corrupting influence of Washington DC. Experience is a bad thing, not a good thing. The longer you've been around, the more you're set in your ways, not willing to adapt with the times and listen to the people you're representing. I publicly defend Obama from these attacks because they're nonsensical talking points that get repeated ad nauseum for low information voters to repeat.

Ron Paul is too fundamental for my taste. First he overturns Roe V. Wade...then he overturns Brown v. Board of Education...I'm kidding, but I don't like Ron Paul.

[ert3]

Its hard to chose.

cocky young democrat who's mouth may be writing checks his presidency cant cash.

Old White republican who will maintain Bush's policies and, at best, oust a congress which seems built to deffy the president and serve no other usefull purpose.

Might just move and let this be Ya'lls problem

[Klaxons2012]

Its hard to chose.

cocky young democrat who's mouth may be writing checks his presidency cant cash.

Old White republican who will maintain Bush's policies and, at best, oust a congress which seems built to deffy the president and serve no other usefull purpose.

Might just move and let this be Ya'lls problem

I hear St Maarten is nice this time of year.

[zioxide]

I voted for Obama in the primary, but my decision hinges on who he'll select as his vice president. The powers that be/elite/whatever clearly want Hillary Clinton on the ticket and I don't support the ideologies of the people she surrounds herself with. If he selects Hillary as her running mate, I'll be going Green and hopefully supporting Cynthia McKinney who has been a champion for those disenfranchised by Diebold's voting machines.

So if I had to choose today, I'd vote other because I can't in good conscious support Obama when McKinney's policies are more in line with my politics. I think everyone here should explore their options and see what other parties are available because many people here seem to be settling for one or the other and not really a candidate they feel would support their best interests.

You could just vote for McCain, because voting independent is pretty much the same thing.

[Teh Don Ditty]

I point you to my 'tar and sig.

:D

[Thomas Veil]

I think the ballot was confusing. I accidentally ended up voting for Pat Buchanan.

(Seriously...Obama.)

[Teh Don Ditty]

I think the ballot was confusing. I accidentally ended up voting for Pat Buchanan.

(Seriously...Obama.)

Somebody watched Recount recently.

Good movie.

[blackfox]

I will be voting for Obama.

Why?

He has really managed to capture the attention of the American public to a degree I haven't seen for a long time. He seems natural, smart, eloquent and realistic - which seem like decent traits for a President. Whether or not he is what people make him out to be - it is rare to see a candidate embody what so many people are yearning for.

He may not have a lot of experience, but neither have a number of Presidents - and he seems the type to surround himself with knowledgeable staff to assist any shortcomings - as opposed to yes-men. I think his Cabinet will be well-respected.

I am also impressed with the international reaction to Obama - many countries seem to be impressed with him, and that bodes well to the task of repairing some of the burnt-bridges of the last decade.

Still, whoever wins come November is going to have a hell of a time - it is a tough time to be President.

[Sun Baked]

I think Obama will make McCain look like a tired old guy in this election. I was really disappointed by McCain's "lime green" speech the other night. If thats the shape of his campaign to come, there is no way he'll win. Obama FTW.

It is unfortunate he is looking a bit tired and confused.

One of AZ other old long time Senators died.

But Jake Flake was a tad more active than Johnny so I don't expect McCain to die from complications from a dangerous physical activity either, like falling off a horse.

[themadchemist]

If he selects Hillary as her running mate, I'll be going Green and hopefully supporting Cynthia McKinney who has been a champion for those disenfranchised by Diebold's voting machines.


So you'll go from your vote not counting one way to it not counting another? ;)

[Cleverboy]

This thread disturbs me, in that it seemingly made NO attempt to address any of the other candidates currently running for president. "Other". No, that's hardly fair. I know who I'm voting for, but I'd like to constantly see people present our choices whenever possible or this is ONLY a popularity contest and nothing more. Of course, many already believe that.

"Other" should be "Write-in candidate", and all the other official nominees (presumptive or otherwise) should be listed.

~ CB

[Much Ado]

This thread disturbs me, in that it seemingly made NO attempt to address any of the other candidates currently running for president. "Other". No, that's hardly fair. I know who I'm voting for, but I'd like to constantly see people present our choices whenever possible or this is ONLY a popularity contest and nothing more. Of course, many already believe that.

"Other" should be "Write-in candidate", and all the other official nominees (presumptive or otherwise) should be listed.

~ CB

Why? The system has it that it's only ever between two candidates, GOP and Democrat. Surely to think anyone else could win is wishful thinking?

[it5five]

Much of this probably stems from my strong dedication to a single payer health insurance scheme, which Democratic presidential candidates (including Obama) have been scared to endorse.

I really wish Kucinich had a chance. Maybe his ideas were too good/"progressive" for this country though. Some people on the right consider Obama to be a "socialist", so I'd hate to see what they consider Kucinich to be.

[Don't panic]

This thread disturbs me, in that it seemingly made NO attempt to address any of the other candidates currently running for president. "Other". No, that's hardly fair. I know who I'm voting for, but I'd like to constantly see people present our choices whenever possible or this is ONLY a popularity contest and nothing more. Of course, many already believe that.

"Other" should be "Write-in candidate", and all the other official nominees (presumptive or otherwise) should be listed.


whether we like it or not, the only two relevant choice at this point are Obama and McCain, so "other" is perfectly reasonable, as right now there are no additional candidates that are likely to make a significant impact.

and how would it be less of a popularity contest if Amondson or Moore were on it?

[Stridder44]

I hate them all, but I'll go with Obama. McCain? No thanks, I don't want another 4 years of mini-Bush.

[PlaceofDis]

This thread disturbs me, in that it seemingly made NO attempt to address any of the other candidates currently running for president. "Other". No, that's hardly fair. I know who I'm voting for, but I'd like to constantly see people present our choices whenever possible or this is ONLY a popularity contest and nothing more. Of course, many already believe that.

"Other" should be "Write-in candidate", and all the other official nominees (presumptive or otherwise) should be listed.

~ CB

well yeah. i mentioned that in my first post. but the other nominees aren't doing enough imo either. if the 'Green party' really wanted to have more chances it needs to work at elections in more than just the presidental. like getting more people affiliated with it into the senate and congress and in local governments. this is why we are remaining a two party system. it can't only change from the top down. or from the bottom up. it has to work on both to be effective. same with the libertarian party.

[Cleverboy]

whether we like it or not, the only two relevant choice at this point are Obama and McCain, so "other" is perfectly reasonable, as right now there are no additional candidates that are likely to make a significant impact.

and how would it be less of a popularity contest if Amondson or Moore were on it? :: Shrug :: All choices are relevant. There are only MORE and LESS relevant choices. If you're only gauging who you think will win... then YES, there are only TWO relevant choices (why even include "not voting" and "other" in that case?) If, instead... you're gauging who people will vote for... then I think you make a mistake in narrowing the choices to only two.

So, in case anyone wants to know...

Major Candidates:
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php

Bob Barr
Party: Libertarian
Status: Announced

John Sidney McCain
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Republican
Status: Announced

Barack H. Obama
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced

Ronald Ernest 'Ron' Paul
Current Office: U.S. House
Party: Republican
Status: Announced

Charles O. 'Chuck' Baldwin
Party: Constitution
Status: Announced

Ralph Nader
Party: Independent, Green Party, Peace and Freedom
Status: Announced

All Candidates:
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha

~ CB

[Don't panic]

:: Shrug :: All choices are relevant. There are only MORE and LESS relevant choices. If you're only gauging who you think will win... then YES, there are only TWO relevant choices (why even include "not voting" and "other" in that case?) If, instead... you're gauging who people will vote for... then I think you make a mistake in narrowing the choices to only two.

So, in case anyone wants to know...

Major Candidates:
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php

Bob Barr
Party: Libertarian
Status: Announced

John Sidney McCain
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Republican
Status: Announced

Barack H. Obama
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced

Ronald Ernest 'Ron' Paul
Current Office: U.S. House
Party: Republican
Status: Announced

Charles O. 'Chuck' Baldwin
Party: Constitution
Status: Announced

Ralph Nader
Party: Independent, Green Party, Peace and Freedom
Status: Announced

All Candidates:
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=alpha

~ CB

interesting that you go all semantics about 'relevance' and then you proceed straight on at selecting only SOME of the candidates...

talk about internal inconsistency...

[buffalo]

Considering the GOP's popularity right now (or lack thereof) and that speech the other night, McCain's really going to have to step it up if it wants to win, but then again, I've been disappointed before and expect to be again.

I agree. I do find it interesting though that McCain is running even with Obama in current polls given President Bush's low approval popularity rating, and the attempts to make everything the Bush / McCain policy.

... The masses decide the outcome of the election, and it depends on where the advertising and the media spin them to.

Obama probably will be our president; that's where the media spins us.

Despite supporting Obama (his name shows up for me in italics and all), I am not as convinced by this line of reasoning. I don't think his voting record shows him to be "the perfect candidate for change in Washington." His voting record shows that he is willing to compromise and make deals, which can be a good thing, but could very well lead us down a road of middling moderation that is ineffectual and impotent. He's a pleaser--he's likable and likes to be liked.

Obama's voting record shows that he voted with the Democratic party 96% of the time during the current congress US Senate (link (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/)). To me, this does not seem like compromise or bipartisanship

[Dont Hurt Me]

Any non republican will do just fine, after 8 years of this Moron Bush and most of that with a blind republican congress any non republican will do fine for any position. That party should be booted from Washington and the Democrats are almost as bad. Independent and proud.

[Cleverboy]

interesting that you go all semantics about 'relevance' and then you proceed straight on at selecting only SOME of the candidates... talk about internal inconsistency... Perfectly consistant. YOU were lobbying for absolutism. I implied that things are more relative than you credit them for. In my argument "MORE" relevant and "LESS" relevant exist. Of the two of us, you're the only one that argued for "relevant" and "not relevant".

Again, if the question is ONLY "which one of two" great. Obama or McCain. But if the question is "Who will you vote for" and then proceeds to ignore other parties that have in the past (and possibly the future) effected a "spoiler" role... then I think its entirely useful to refer to as many of these as their numbers suggest are "most" relevant to the general election. Currently, I think Paul, Barr, and Nadar are entirely fair game for a poll.

~ CB

[Desertrat]

Why I won't vote for Obama:

First, his ideas about taxing you and me. From a Doug Casey newsletter comes,

"For instance, bringing back the estate tax (or “death tax” as the panel uniformly termed it) is, when calculated as an income tax equivalent, equal to a 5% to 10% in additional annual income taxes.

And the prospect of an increasing capital gains tax will, of course, reduce the incentive of investors to invest and, moreover, cause investors to sell appreciated assets in advance of such a change, adding more pressure on the stock market.

That last point is an important one because humans, like rats, are very quick to adapt to new threats (and opportunities).

As the writing appears on the wall that capital gains are going up, they can be expected to take all manner of measures – legal and otherwise – to mute the negatives and enhance the positives. Of course, when it comes to taxation, we are talking all negatives, so they will act sooner rather than later to reposition themselves as much out of harm’s way as possible.

High capital gains taxes? Sell stocks now. Buy fewer later.

Reinstate estate taxes? Establish trusts, or give children assets now... or even move assets out of the country, maybe followed by their physical selves. Rest assured they'll do whatever it is they perceive to be in their own best interest.

And why not? After all, the family of the business owner who doesn't take action and who then inconveniently dies after the return of the estate tax, will once again be forced to sell assets, or even the business, in order to pay the penurious tax. "

That all means reduced government income and less business activity at a time of an ever-worsening recession. Thanks but no thanks.

Obama and friends are all hopped up over a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies. We've been there and done that. It's a shame that once again it's apropos for, "Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." That is, the last time we did the windfall profits thing, the oil companies did less investment in development/production. The supply decreased. The cost of gasoline went up.

Last--and my own particular ox--is his stance on dumb gun control nonsense, which I won't waste time belaboring.

As usual, there is nobody to vote FOR who has a chance of winning. Once again it's a case of nose-holding while voting against an idiot. I'd just as soon pump out my septic tank.

'Rat

[leekohler]

Why I won't vote for Obama:

First, his ideas about taxing you and me. From a Doug Casey newsletter comes,

"For instance, bringing back the estate tax (or “death tax” as the panel uniformly termed it) is, when calculated as an income tax equivalent, equal to a 5% to 10% in additional annual income taxes.

And the prospect of an increasing capital gains tax will, of course, reduce the incentive of investors to invest and, moreover, cause investors to sell appreciated assets in advance of such a change, adding more pressure on the stock market.

That last point is an important one because humans, like rats, are very quick to adapt to new threats (and opportunities).

As the writing appears on the wall that capital gains are going up, they can be expected to take all manner of measures – legal and otherwise – to mute the negatives and enhance the positives. Of course, when it comes to taxation, we are talking all negatives, so they will act sooner rather than later to reposition themselves as much out of harm’s way as possible.

High capital gains taxes? Sell stocks now. Buy fewer later.

Reinstate estate taxes? Establish trusts, or give children assets now... or even move assets out of the country, maybe followed by their physical selves. Rest assured they'll do whatever it is they perceive to be in their own best interest.

And why not? After all, the family of the business owner who doesn't take action and who then inconveniently dies after the return of the estate tax, will once again be forced to sell assets, or even the business, in order to pay the penurious tax. "

That all means reduced government income and less business activity at a time of an ever-worsening recession. Thanks but no thanks.

Obama and friends are all hopped up over a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies. We've been there and done that. It's a shame that once again it's apropos for, "Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." That is, the last time we did the windfall profits thing, the oil companies did less investment in development/production. The supply decreased. The cost of gasoline went up.

Last--and my own particular ox--is his stance on dumb gun control nonsense, which I won't waste time belaboring.

As usual, there is nobody to vote FOR who has a chance of winning. Once again it's a case of nose-holding while voting against an idiot. I'd just as soon pump out my septic tank.

'Rat

Excuse me 'rat, but I'd love for you to illustrate how Bush's financial policies have helped us "reg'lar" folks. Trust me- I'm not better off now than I was 7 years ago. The states simply raise taxes when the fed doesn't contribute as much. We're going to pay, one way or another.

[Cleverboy]

Why I won't vote for Obama:
In your opinion, just so that I don't question the integrity of your criticism, what president in the last 30 years (or more), has done a good job and why?

Bush instituted tax cuts that many didn't agree with. Considering that we were doing well during the Clinton years, only to spend all the hard-earned effort at realizing a budget surplus... I'm resistant to leaping in a snarling that all taxes are bad if its money well-spent. Don't forget that Obama is also the one that instituted that transparency bill in affect over at USASpending.gov (http://www.usaspending.gov/) and actively eliminating earmarks.

Meanwhile, McCain refuses to discuss how he'll pay for almost everything he talks about. I mean, criticize policies... sure... but don't pretend that the guy playing all his cards close to his chest is your best friend. I'd rather not see gross amounts of my tax dollars go to no-bid contracts in the disingenuous name of privatization again.
We're going to pay, one way or another. Exactly. I prefer paying on the front end, so I don't get screwed on the back end. It's refreshingly honest, although... much like the "gas tax holiday" McCain proposed, its a little harder to sell to those who don't value the overwhelming opinion of economists.

~ CB

[Don't panic]

Perfectly consistant. YOU were lobbying for absolutism. I implied that things are more relative than you credit them for. In my argument "MORE" relevant and "LESS" relevant exist. Of the two of us, you're the only one that argued for "relevant" and "not relevant".

Again, if the question is ONLY "which one of two" great. Obama or McCain. But if the question is "Who will you vote for" and then proceeds to ignore other parties that have in the past (and possibly the future) effected a "spoiler" role... then I think its entirely useful to refer to as many of these as their numbers suggest are "most" relevant to the general election. Currently, I think Paul, Barr, and Nadar are entirely fair game for a poll.

~ CB

but than why do you not consider the other candidates fair game for a poll? why did you proceed to ignore other parties?
just because your favourite is now included? or are you implying that they are not relevant enough?

your arbitrariety in deciding which are relevant and which are not is exactly equivalent to that of the original poster, regardless on how much you are trying to spin it. that is what makes your position inconsistent.

You argued that:
All choices are relevant. There are only MORE and LESS relevant choices. If you're only gauging who you think will win... then YES, there are only TWO relevant choices (why even include "not voting" and "other" in that case?) If, instead... you're gauging who people will vote for... then I think you make a mistake in narrowing the choices to only two and then narrowed the choice to five.

[Thomas Veil]

Somebody watched Recount recently.Not at all. Although I have been watching a lot of election coverage lately, and Buchanan's face has been all over the place, so that's probably why he came to mind.

[Cleverboy]

You argued that:
and then narrowed the choice to five. I see the problem. I'm just going to go ahead and agree that this is partly semantics, but mostly I don't see things in as absolute terms as you do. As such... you're going to keep re-framing the argument on your own terms. I'd written out an explanation, but I can't see how you'll understand what I'm saying unless you choose to. I don't think that's going to happen past my earlier explanations so... here we are.

~ CB

[Don't panic]

I see the problem. I'm just going to go ahead and agree that this is partly semantics, but mostly I don't see things in as absolute terms as you do. As such... you're going to keep re-framing the argument on your own terms. I'd written out an explanation, but I can't see how you'll understand what I'm saying unless you choose to. I don't think that's going to happen past my earlier explanations so... here we are.

~ CB

i don't see things in absolute terms at all, that's what you said.

i just think that the framing of the question by the original poster (not by me) it's perfectly legit, as it spells the name of the two main candidates (the most relevant ones by any meaningful metric and the only two that -at this point- have any chance to win) and then bundles every other minor candidate in 'other'. fairly standard procedure in polls of any kind.

your extension of the 'main' field to 5 (or 6 if you want to include Paul, which probably at this point shouldn't be) would also be legit, but not more than his/her choice of 2, as it is also biased by a value judgment.
It is actually more arbitrary, because there is no clear rationale for including these particular 5 and not some of the other candidates.
And it still is inconsistent with your original statement that this poll is "disturbing" because it "seemingly made NO attempt to address any of the other candidates currently running for president" .... "and all the other official nominees (presumptive or otherwise) should be listed".

[Cleverboy]

i just think that the framing of the question by the original poster (not by me) it's perfectly legit, as it spells the name of the two main candidates (the most relevant ones by any meaningful metric and the only two that -at this point- have any chance to win) and then bundles every other minor candidate in 'other'. fairly standard procedure in polls of any kind. Ok. I'm just voicing disagreement. A similar opinion led to the request from the original poster that a MOD ADD "Other" and "Not Voting". I'm just extending that particular discussion. If the poll were left as "Obama or McCain" with two options, I'd have had nothing to add regarding our semantic gripes. You disagree. That's fine. It's all good.

~ CB

[Don't panic]

:D yup, i suppose we have derailed the thread enough :D

[cycocelica]

:: Shrug :: All choices are relevant.

~ CB

If I legitimately thought any other candidate had a chance, I would have listed them. They don't so I didn't list them. Doesn't mean I don't think they should be included but I was more interested in a legitimate outcome.

Just wanted to clear that up. Don't think I am blind to others :D

[Desertrat]

leekohler, first off, what do Bush's economic policies have to do one's opinion of Obama's proposed policies? And, I really doubt I've ever said anything positive about any of his economic policy actions, beyond my comments that lowering tax rates generates more money for the federal government--which is a fact.

However, in the FWIW department, somebody track the unemployment rate minimum during the Clinton era and compare with the 5% rate during most of Bush. I'm not interested in Bush's doings to the extent that I'll bother to look. I will note for the benefit of both men, for decades in the U.S. an unemployment rate of 6% was considered "full employment". (That's for you history buffs.)

McCain? Overall, he's sided with the Democrats more than with his party. That's not necessarily all bad, but it's not inherently good. And, he really lost me on the McCain/Feingold so-called campaign finance reform law which gave tremendous clout to gigantic private billfolds--like billionaire Soros. SCOTUS decision or no, I still think that curtailing your right to blow the whistle on a crooked candidate via a newspaper/radio/TV ad within 60 days of a general election is a violation of the First Amendment. For once the ACLU and I were in total accord. And, last for now, he's way wishy-washy on BS gun-control notions. Anti-gun moreso than anti-crime.

The only candidate that has a clue about economic matters is Ron Paul, and he doesn't have a prayer.

'Rat

[zioxide]

McCain? Overall, he's sided with the Democrats more than with his party.

what?

Didn't McCain vote for Bush's policies on 95% of the issues this past year?

[.Andy]

The only candidate that has a clue about economic matters is Ron Paul
I heard he can draw the laffer curve from memory. Can anyone confirm this?

[leekohler]

leekohler, first off, what do Bush's economic policies have to do one's opinion of Obama's proposed policies? And, I really doubt I've ever said anything positive about any of his economic policy actions, beyond my comments that lowering tax rates generates more money for the federal government--which is a fact.

However, in the FWIW department, somebody track the unemployment rate minimum during the Clinton era and compare with the 5% rate during most of Bush. I'm not interested in Bush's doings to the extent that I'll bother to look. I will note for the benefit of both men, for decades in the U.S. an unemployment rate of 6% was considered "full employment". (That's for you history buffs.)



The unemployment rate doesn't have much to say about what people are actually making. People are struggling, 'rat. While many of us are employed, we're not seeing raises, even while our companies tell us they're doing well and profits are up. People are in debt up to their ears. This has been ongoing for most of this administration. Lowering taxes the most for people who make the most isn't doing a damn thing to keep jobs from going overseas either. It's only making the rich richer, while the rest of us sit here wondering what the hell we're supposed to do.

Meanwhile, the military is getting screwed because Bush can't see his way to sign a benefits bill, properly equip them and give them other means of support they need for a war he decided to wage. But I bet you if you work for Halliburton with all those fat no-bid contracts, you're bringing home the bacon.

I'll be glad to see a different approach to funding our government, given that every time we let these damn Republicans into the White House, they spend us into oblivion. At least with Clinton we had a budget surplus, and with no tax cuts. I'll bet you anything we get that back under Obama. At the very least, we'll have a bit more accountability and transparency. We couldn't do worse than what we have right now. We have bills, and we gotta pay them and use the money we have a lot wiser.

[Cleverboy]

If I legitimately thought any other candidate had a chance, I would have listed them. They don't so I didn't list them. Doesn't mean I don't think they should be included but I was more interested in a legitimate outcome.

Just wanted to clear that up. Don't think I am blind to others :D I get it. I think I'm just selfish. :D If you were to ask me how a poll like this would end up on this forum... I bet you I'd come really close. I just tried it. Here was my guess, compared to the actual result (guess/actual):

69% / 70% - Obama
26% / 20% - McCain
3% / 6% - Other
1% / 4% - Not Voting

I like information and I feel acutely aware that a poll that more closely resembled the general election ballot, would probably be a more interesting poll to look at in getting a "feel" for things. The question all too often shapes the form of the response.

I'm clear, I just like lots of details. Recently I posted the story about Barr being a potential republican Nadar. To-date, I have very little reason to believe anyone on this forum would actually vote for him if the election was today. Considering this forum already has a pronounced bias in favor of Obama, an Obama vs. McCain poll doesn't quite seem as useful a question.

I'm amused that my latest poll has two people that believe God is an nth dimensional complex manifold. Fun, fun. :)

~ CB

[hexonxonx]

Not happy with either one. I have always been a Democrat but I think I would vote Republican if it meant keeping Obama out, otherwise, I won't be voting.

With Obama in office, I strongly feel that we are in for MOTS (more of the same) and I voted for Bush the last two times.

[mithrilfox]

I didn't vote because I wanted a "neither" option, without saying I am not going to vote.

That's one of the biggest problems is that we simply don't have much choice... us Americans. Not that any country has all that much choice during election times, but for Americans, it's especially limited... to two (if we're honest).

It's a difficult time though, because any president may just be having to decide the least awful course of action throughout his presidency. We're experiencing some of the worst times politically, because anti-Bush individuals have pushed the boundaries until they disappeared, and now we are free to bash endlessly and however we choose, using even the most horrible and awful images and words that we can come up with. I guess we think that that sort of behavior is going to make it better.

But that's the struggle now... trying to maintain some inkling of balance in a country dominated by polarizations. Everything has to be 100% for or against, and everything has to have only two sides... no room for third options, no room for partial support for part of an idea. No room to support the "other" side because if you even say that one platform stance they have is good, you'll get nailed to a tree for even suggesting it.

Whoever is ultimately voted in, he will be MY president whether I chose to vote for him or not. That I will willingly accept and acknowledge. I won't undermine his authority, I won't claim that he "stole" it or that he doesn't deserve it. Whether he deserves it or not is not for me to decide... not me alone. Whoever becomes president, whether I like or not, whether I can stand the guy or not, he is my country's president, I am a citizen of that country, and I will do my best in my words to maintain as much respect for him as possible. And if he makes any move to do something which I think is good for our country, I'll support that.

And if he does something I really feel is bad for the country, I'll voice my opinion, as long as I think it's worth the voicing. I won't call him names, talk about his intelligence, make fun of his accent, or make fun of where he is from. I won't try to dig up every bad thing he's ever done, and if one comes to my attention, as long as it doesn't directly impact the issue at hand, I'll just let it go and let him move on. If I feel he is supporting a position because of a negative influence, I will feel free to bring that up, but only if I feel there is a lot of very substantial evidence. And even then, maintain what I believe to be the utmost respect for his position, as well as he himself.

Sure, there can be some good that comes from the "loonies" who viciously attack and smear and hate, but much more good would come from their absence, as long as we don't forget to keep our representatives accountability to their actions.

[hulugu]

Not so great alternatives.

I'll be voting for not McCain. As a former supporter of his, that makes me kinda sad, but he's not the same person he was in '00. At least not the person I thought. Of course, this is not the same country it was back then either.

Does anyone here actively support McCain, as in not just against Obama, and if so why?...

I've liked Obama throughout the Democratic Primary, but I have to agree with you about McCain. In 2000, I thought he was a great candidate and would have had a tough time deciding between him and Gore. But, the GOP brought out the long knives and made sure to wound him well enough that he lost to Shrub.
Then, in 2004 McCain returned, somewhat tempered, but still occasionally interesting and still a "maverick." But, now I seem him cuddling up to Bush— literally hugging the man whose employees slung every bit of mud their fevered minds could invent—and the religious right, including that jerk Hagee, while simultaneously employing every lobbyist he can, and I realize that McCain is an empty husk, driven only by his ambition.

The sad thing is, I still see those occasions of brilliance such as his interview on the Daily Show. But, he's made a Faustian deal with the GOP, he should endure the consequences.

[yg17]

With Obama in office, I strongly feel that we are in for MOTS (more of the same) and I voted for Bush the last two times.

McCain is more of the same. He voted the same as Bush 95% of the time. If that's not MOTS, then I don't know what is

[Macaddicttt]

The only candidate that has a clue about economic matters is Ron Paul, and he doesn't have a prayer.

Despite the Obama-bashing, I think Ron Paul is the most naive candidate, especially concerning economic matters, basing his policies on theoretical classical liberal ideas, which have been pretty much rejected by all since Keynes.

Obama FTW!

[atszyman]

As the writing appears on the wall that capital gains are going up, they can be expected to take all manner of measures – legal and otherwise – to mute the negatives and enhance the positives. Of course, when it comes to taxation, we are talking all negatives, so they will act sooner rather than later to reposition themselves as much out of harm’s way as possible.

High capital gains taxes? Sell stocks now. Buy fewer later.

************ as long as stocks are producing income-taxes that exceed other investments make they will be invested in. Until you tax them high enough that other investment avenues would yield better results you won't see a massive drop in investment. If the stock market usually has an annual return of around 8%, even with a 45% tax rate it's a better investment than a 4% CD or money market account.

Reinstate estate taxes? Establish trusts, or give children assets now... or even move assets out of the country, maybe followed by their physical selves. Rest assured they'll do whatever it is they perceive to be in their own best interest.

And why not? After all, the family of the business owner who doesn't take action and who then inconveniently dies after the return of the estate tax, will once again be forced to sell assets, or even the business, in order to pay the penurious tax. "

I thought the estate tax had protections in place to avoid selling the "family farm" so to speak. And doesn't it only kick in at the point of $2 million or more in assets? I could see raising that lower limit since a million isn't what it used to be. Don't trot out the "double taxation" argument either. Money is taxed when it changes hands. Sales tax on the product, taxes on employees wages which then go to sales taxes on other products.

If my parents give me money beyond the gift amounts in any year, I have to pay taxes on it, why should I be exempt from those if I inherit the same money?

leekohler, first off, what do Bush's economic policies have to do one's opinion of Obama's proposed policies? And, I really doubt I've ever said anything positive about any of his economic policy actions, beyond my comments that lowering tax rates generates more money for the federal government--which is a fact.

If it's such a fact that government revenue goes up with every tax increase why isn't our tax rate at 0% while the government rolls in the money?

There is a happy medium to be maintained and cutting taxes at the expense of increasing the national debt is not a good thing. We started at a little over $5.5 trillion in debt as of 2000, now we're fast closing in on $10 trillion (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/). Sure we get lower taxes now, but our kids or grandkids will be paying the price for our selfishness. It's not like the higer taxes under Clinton kept the economy from growing.

However, in the FWIW department, somebody track the unemployment rate minimum during the Clinton era and compare with the 5% rate during most of Bush. I'm not interested in Bush's doings to the extent that I'll bother to look. I will note for the benefit of both men, for decades in the U.S. an unemployment rate of 6% was considered "full employment". (That's for you history buffs.)

Since you asked.

link (http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp)

Clinton inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate and it went down every year of his presidency to a low of 4.0% in 2000. Bush saw the unemployment go up until 2003 and as of 2007 had it down to 4.6%. Of course recent news stories talk of the U.S. unemployment rate jumping to 5.5% in May (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-unemployment-rate-soars-55/story.aspx?guid=%7BA96DCDDC-68AC-48D7-82AC-753E8583600E%7D&dist=msr_7).

the biggest increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment in 33 years

[mithrilfox]

Clinton inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate and it went down every year of his presidency to a low of 4.0% in 2000. Bush saw the unemployment go up until 2003 and as of 2007 had it down to 4.6%.

I just want to mention that we have to be VERY careful about these raw statistics. Statistics (facts) don't speak for themselves, and facts can "lie." In fact, there's a really good book called "How to Lie with Statistics." It's a good read for anyone.

Basically, economies are very complex structures. Changes to an economy can take decades to come to full fruition, or it can happen relatively quickly. No matter the speed, certain elements always lag behind. For example, inflation rises much faster than companies increase salaries. While working during college, I found that my raises didn't even keep up with the reported rate of inflation at the time! What a joke, huh? Losing money making more money.

Policies put into effect two decades ago can come to full fruition during a current president's term, and you can be sure he'll stand be silently and take the credit. My roommate in college insisted that the economic situation during Clinton was due to policies put into effect by Reagan. I didn't really debate him much, just heard him out and thought it interesting.

Statistics, interpreted properly, can reveal a part of the current situation, but they say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the cause of that situation. When the economy is down... we blame the president. When it's good... the president takes credit. How come we as a general population don't look at one of the most influential elements in the economic equation: the Federal Reserve? Sure, it makes the news occasionally, but hardly anyone ever blamed or credited Alan Greenspan for the work he did. Instead, we always blame the president... he's an easy target, too, cause he's just so visible.

But that's human nature. Things go bad, find someone to blame. Who do you blame? Depends on who you are. If you're the big man, you blame someone below you. If you're just a little guy, you find the big man and blame him.

[atszyman]

...

I never said that any of those figures were the result of the president sitting in the office at the time of their calculations. I merely answered the question posed.

I do find it amusing that some on this board (some who are no longer here) will quickly cite Carter as the worst president in recent history due to his economic woes, but then are quick to blame our current economic issues on Clinton since we're seeing his policies. The same people would also be quick to credit Bush if the economy were doing better.

I've long taken the position that the economy will generally take care of itself and is more at the mercy of the FED chief than the President. But an ever increasing national debt weakens the dollar, makes foreign investment more tempting, and makes consumers more wary. I'd like to see us start paying it down again and while I don't like higher taxes, I don't think any president will find enough stuff to cut to make up our current shortfalls, and it's even less likely if the president is proposing more tax cuts and no foreseeable end to our wars.

[janitorC7]

I miss the republican party. Back when left was right and the right was left
(by political standards this is still true, why does the world have this confused?)

But, seriously, my vote would be for a libertarian, sadly, there is no shot of that happening, and we will be stuck with either a liberal who will tax us to death, or obama, who will also tax us to death. Under the new presidency, I fear that we will enter a recession.

What we need most of all:
A candidate that will not get bullied by environmentalists (dont get me wrong, I love the environment, but we need to set priorities). China is sideways drilling into oil off of our coast, and I think as the US, we are screwing ourselves, when we allow China to steal out natural resources, then buy it from them.

JC7

[themadchemist]

I really wish Kucinich had a chance. Maybe his ideas were too good/"progressive" for this country though. Some people on the right consider Obama to be a "socialist", so I'd hate to see what they consider Kucinich to be.

I know, it's ridiculous...But here's what gets me. Republicans are always going to call Democrats "socialists" for supporting large social programs, whether they are good ones or bad ones. So if we're going to get called "socialists" one way or another, we might as well go ahead and endorse programs that would actually work.

[themadchemist]

Obama's voting record shows that he voted with the Democratic party 96% of the time during the current congress US Senate (link (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/)). To me, this does not seem like compromise or bipartisanship

This is a poor reflection of ideological compromise...Remember that by the time these bills are actually voted on, there's a lot of dealing that goes on. There are compromises, modifications, etc., such that the party agrees to support bills that don't entirely reflect its wishes. So while a very simplistic analysis of the voting record in that manner might not lead one to believe that Obama does a fair bit of compromising, a more detailed look at the narrative of the legislative process would show that he does.


And, I really doubt I've ever said anything positive about any of his economic policy actions, beyond my comments that lowering tax rates generates more money for the federal government--which is a fact.


It's not a fact. It's a highly debatable assertion at best. We can line up a field of numerous economists who will argue that supply side economics does not necessarily work. You can tell that the above is a vast overgeneralization by the fact that were the phenomenon to be universally true (which I would dispute anyway), there would still be a a point of maximum efficiency, an equilibrium, to which one would aspire. At the extremes, the policy would fail. Both 0% and 100% taxation would yield no returns, suggesting that the best point for taxes is somewhere in between. Therefore, lowering taxes cannot generate more money for the federal government axiomatically.

As for your assertion about the estate tax...The estate tax was created in order to prevent the concentration of wealth and the creation of a noble class in the United States. This was seen as essential to the protection of civil society. Is it not sufficient to protect the first several million dollars of accumulated wealth from taxation? Beyond that, the taxation of this wealth allows the extraction of benefit for all of society and the prevention of the proliferation of Paris Hiltons, both of which have serious positive externalities attached. It would be hard to argue that several million dollars + 50% of the rest of one's wealth would not be sufficient to keep food on the table for the kids.

whoops...sorry for the double post

[Klaxons2012]

You could just vote for McCain, because voting independent is pretty much the same thing.

And that's the caveman mentality that will keep this country in it's two party purgatory. Instead of having ideals or beliefs, we submit to the lesser of two evils just to keep the other psycho class from ruling. I choose not to live my life that way and support the expansion of an independent party.

[Klaxons2012]

So you'll go from your vote not counting one way to it not counting another? ;)

I religiously use paper balloting so my vote (hopefully) will get counted. :)

[lofight]

If I would live in America and I would be old enough, Obama would win my vote.

[paddy]

If I would live in America and I would be old enough, Obama would win my vote.

I think most people in Europe are thinking along those lines.

[zioxide]

But, seriously, my vote would be for a libertarian, sadly, there is no shot of that happening, and we will be stuck with either a liberal who will tax us to death, or obama, who will also tax us to death. Under the new presidency, I fear that we will enter a recession.

Umm, we've been in a recession for a couple of years now.

Here's the difference:

McCain is going to lower taxes while continuing to increase spending, therefore increasing the national debt. A ton of this money is going to go to wasting money in Iraq.

Obama is going to raise some taxes to at least stop increasing the debt, plus he's going to end the occupation of Iraq which is a complete waste of our money.

I don't understand why Americans are so against taxes. Guess what: a country costs money to run. If raising taxes a little bit can help increase the value of the dollar (because we won't have to borrow from China, and we won't have inflation increasing so much) and improve the economy, then ****ing do it. Our tax rates are already way lower than many European countries.

[Teh Don Ditty]

^Expanding on that (a little bit)... Our European brothers and sisters also have higher taxes because they have some form of Universal Healthcare. I would gladly pay more in taxes to have that.

McCain's policies are just going to send us further down the rabbit hole.

[lofight]

I think most people in Europe are thinking along those lines.

Only hoping for you guys, that the most Americans do too.

[iJohnHenry]

Same here, but if he starts bowing to Mecca 5 times a day after Inauguration, we are all in very deep ****.

[zioxide]

Same here, but if he starts bowing to Mecca 5 times a day after Inauguration, we are all in very deep ****.

Yeah, because all Muslims are terrorists... :rolleyes:

[Watabou]

Same here, but if he starts bowing to Mecca 5 times a day after Inauguration, we are all in very deep ****.

That is actually some ****ed up thing to say.

[taylorwilsdon]

That is actually some ****ed up thing to say.

Yes it is. Its attitudes like that that create questions like "Did you know Obama is a muslim terrorist confederate soldier?"

(a) No, he isn't Islamic (for christs sake, people were just attacking him about his PASTOR (slight pun intended)) and (b) Not that it matters to begin with.

[iJohnHenry]

So, the concept of "deep cover" means nothing to you people?? :p

And if you fail to recognise sarcasm at this level of discourse, we are all just spinning our wheels.

[Watabou]

And if you fail to recognise sarcasm at this level of discourse, we are all just spinning our wheels.

IMO, Sarcasm doesn't really work on the internet all that much. :(

[iJohnHenry]

Well then, if all threads in PRPI are to be dead serious, then I am definitely in the wrong location.

I don't take myself that seriously, so I find it hard to take some of the miscues of society as anything but laughable.

[themadchemist]

I don't understand why Americans are so against taxes. Guess what: a country costs money to run. If raising taxes a little bit can help increase the value of the dollar (because we won't have to borrow from China, and we won't have inflation increasing so much) and improve the economy, then ****ing do it. Our tax rates are already way lower than many European countries.

Aaaaamen.

[walangij]

Umm, we've been in a recession for a couple of years now.

Here's the difference:

McCain is going to lower taxes while continuing to increase spending, therefore increasing the national debt. A ton of this money is going to go to wasting money in Iraq.

Obama is going to raise some taxes to at least stop increasing the debt, plus he's going to end the occupation of Iraq which is a complete waste of our money.

I don't understand why Americans are so against taxes. Guess what: a country costs money to run. If raising taxes a little bit can help increase the value of the dollar (because we won't have to borrow from China, and we won't have inflation increasing so much) and improve the economy, then ****ing do it. Our tax rates are already way lower than many European countries.

And what is wrong with lowering taxes + increasing spending? I'd rather have the government spend more than me having to spend more. JUST KIDDING. I don't see how higher taxes (in certain areas) will be bad. Some say Obama's budget is going to be bad for America and = debt, McCain's Budget will be way worse and amount to what? a war and more debt instead of improving infrastructure and social programs? I wouldn't want to have kids b/c they'll be paying that debt McCain incurs until they die.

[hulugu]

Same here, but if he starts bowing to Mecca 5 times a day after Inauguration, we are all in very deep ****.

Yeah, and if he starts talking about the Second Coming of Christ, it's time to hide the Football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Football). ;)

...And if you fail to recognise sarcasm at this level of discourse, we are all just spinning our wheels.

Using sarcasm on the internet is a dark art, the bleached skulls of many who have tried and failed litter the road between sounding foolish and actually making the joke work. ;)

[Peace]

Obama's not going to raise any taxes. That's a misnomer I wish would go away . He's going to try to repeal all the tax breaks the Republican led Senate and House gave to the upper 5% of the wealthiest people and companies over the past 7 years. That plus trying to end this war would put a lot of cash back into the coffers of the government. This will start the economy back up.
Simple yet so hard to understand. Very sad.

[themadchemist]

Yeah, and if he starts talking about the Second Coming of Christ, it's time to hide the Football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Football).

No, no, that was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee).

[hulugu]

No, no, that was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee).

Yep, Left Behind acolytes scare me far more than your average Muslim. Maybe, I'm weird, but people who hope for the apocalypse are really dangerous, whatever their specific creed.

[walangij]

Yep, Left Behind acolytes scare me far more than your average Muslim. Maybe, I'm weird, but people who hope for the apocalypse are really dangerous, whatever their specific creed.

www.youvebeenleftbehind.com

And a little loopy.

[leekohler]

So, the concept of "deep cover" means nothing to you people?? :p

And if you fail to recognise sarcasm at this level of discourse, we are all just spinning our wheels.

Use your emoticons if you're being sarcastic. It's hard to hear tone and inflection on the net. ;)

[Desertrat]

atszyman, I doubt anybody believes that folks would shun the stock market. The fear is a reduction to any degree in investment. Again, it happened before when capital gains taxes were raised. A reduction in investments means less economic activity which means layoffs. (While on the subject, FWIW, short Fleetwood Enterprises RVs (FLE), as a probability for a profit. Do it now and beat the tax increase.)

The protections mentioned for inheritance taxes would end with a repeal of the present wording. The cap would revert to $600,000, and Pelosi has spoken (a couple of years ago) of going back to a $200,000 cap. IIRC, Kennedy suported it.

themadchemist: The dollar amount of income after a tax rate decrease did go up. That's readily available from many sources. In another thread (I believe it was last year) I gave proof. Don't be silly about a zero percent rate. All that was demonstrated by the reduction was that the rates had previously been high enough to be inhibitory on business transactions. It's the old fine-line, proper-balance thing between "enough" and "too much".

Peace, Obama's proposal to raise capital gains taxes will have an impact on all those who invest in the stock market. Some 51% of all U.S. households have some involvement. For many, it's direct, whether direct purchase or 401k or Keogh type. For many, their company retirement plans are invested in the stock market; mutual funds buy and sell and hope to profit. A higher tax on profits means a lower standard of living during the retirement years.

Further, and to repeat, Obama's ideas about a windfall profits tax would bring about the same result as during the Carter era: Higher prices for transportation fuel and petro-chemical products. You cannot increase the cost of doing business without reducing availability of product and/or increasing the price to the consumer. And if he's supporting this Carbon Cap law, that's estimated at another buck a gallon; not immediately, of course, but within a year or two.

'Rat

[atszyman]

atszyman, I doubt anybody believes that folks would shun the stock market. The fear is a reduction to any degree in investment. Again, it happened before when capital gains taxes were raised. A reduction in investments means less economic activity which means layoffs. (While on the subject, FWIW, short Fleetwood Enterprises RVs (FLE), as a probability for a profit. Do it now and beat the tax increase.)

I understand the desire to encourage investment, but why are capital gains taxed any differently than other income? I make money at my job, my money makes money for me, it's all income, why shouldn't it all be taxed at the same rate? If a company cannot make enough profit to justify buying their stock then they may need to re-evaluate their products and costs, or maybe just stay private. As long as the market beats other investment vehicles it will be used, and let's face it, with the paltry amount paid by "safe investments" the market will still be an attractive investment vehicle. It's not like the higher taxes of the 90s slowed the market much.

themadchemist: The dollar amount of income after a tax rate decrease did go up. That's readily available from many sources. In another thread (I believe it was last year) I gave proof. Don't be silly about a zero percent rate. All that was demonstrated by the reduction was that the rates had previously been high enough to be inhibitory on business transactions. It's the old fine-line, proper-balance thing between "enough" and "too much".

And right now we're not paying enough. We're borrowing money to afford normal government expenditures and the wars. It's situations like this that will lead to bankruptcy. What happens when the dollar falls too low and no one will lend us any more money, and they start calling in their debts?

Sure the dollar amount after decreases can go up, but unless the amount collected goes up by more than the economy grew you lost money. If you can prove that the tax cuts directly led to enough growth to make up the revenue lost please provide links. Otherwise the natural growth of business at the old higher tax rate would have resulted in a dollar amount increase that exceeded the amount collected after the tax cut.

link1 (http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/838419.aspx)
link2 (http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm)

Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.

Peace, Obama's proposal to raise capital gains taxes will have an impact on all those who invest in the stock market. Some 51% of all U.S. households have some involvement. For many, it's direct, whether direct purchase or 401k or Keogh type. For many, their company retirement plans are invested in the stock market; mutual funds buy and sell and hope to profit. A higher tax on profits means a lower standard of living during the retirement years.

And bankrupting the government to the point where Social Security is virtually non-existent will also reduce the standard of living during the retirement years. Given the savings rate of people in this country I'd bet that the loss of Social Security will hurt them more than the tax increase.

Further, and to repeat, Obama's ideas about a windfall profits tax would bring about the same result as during the Carter era: Higher prices for transportation fuel and petro-chemical products. You cannot increase the cost of doing business without reducing availability of product and/or increasing the price to the consumer. And if he's supporting this Carbon Cap law, that's estimated at another buck a gallon; not immediately, of course, but within a year or two.

I'm not sure where I stand on the windfall profits. The investigation I'd like to see is where does the money go when the price I pay at the pump goes up minutes after the price of oil increases, yet when the price of oil drops it takes weeks, if not months, to see the drop at the pump. From everything I've read it takes about 6 months from the time a barrel is bought until it's useable as fuel so somewhere in that path someone is making money by selling cheaper fuel for more as soon as the price jumps and for a time after it falls.

[mithrilfox]

No, no, that was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee).

Huckabee was awesome. Best speaker I've seen run for president ever. Suppose I'm not that old, but I've seen a lot of previous presidential elections even before my birth, and I still think Huckabee was the best speaker of them all.

I absolutely knew he wouldn't make it, but I relished the thought that he just might. Anyway, a great man lost his opportunity to be president. Too bad. That happens a lot though.

[themadchemist]

Huckabee was awesome. Best speaker I've seen run for president ever. Suppose I'm not that old, but I've seen a lot of previous presidential elections even before my birth, and I still think Huckabee was the best speaker of them all.

I absolutely knew he wouldn't make it, but I relished the thought that he just might. Anyway, a great man lost his opportunity to be president. Too bad. That happens a lot though.

He's funny. He might be the funniest credible presidential candidate in my lifetime. But best speaker? You've got to be kidding me. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, FDR,...And that's only looking at the folks who won (or will win). Plenty of great speakers amongst the defeated, as well.

[KingYaba]

Put a gun to my head and I will chose McCain over Obama. I want to say I will vote for Bob Barr but all his flip-flopping in recent years has made me uneasy. I chose "other" in this poll because I will definitely not vote for [R] and [D].

[mactastic]

Put a gun to my head and I will chose McCain over Obama. I want to say I will vote for Bob Barr but all his flip-flopping in recent years has made me uneasy. I chose "other" in this poll because I will definitely not vote for [R] and [D].
Bob Barr's flip-flopping makes you uneasy, but you'll vote for McCain??? I have to ask, is the weed really that good in Texas?

Seriously, McCain "I was against torture before I was for it"? McCain "I was for campaign finance reform before I was against it"? McCain "I was against lobbyists before they bought and ran my campaign"?

I'd do some digging into McCain's flip-flopping before I made any such statement...

[KingYaba]

Bob Barr's flip-flopping makes you uneasy, but you'll vote for McCain???

Like I said. You will have to put a gun to my head. :)

[leekohler]

Huckabee was awesome. Best speaker I've seen run for president ever. Suppose I'm not that old, but I've seen a lot of previous presidential elections even before my birth, and I still think Huckabee was the best speaker of them all.

I absolutely knew he wouldn't make it, but I relished the thought that he just might. Anyway, a great man lost his opportunity to be president. Too bad. That happens a lot though.

A man who wanted to remake the Constitution into biblical law isn't the kind of person I'd call great. The word "dictatorial" certainly comes to mind though.

[Anuba]

I think it could be good. Since America plays a big role in this world and affects a lot of people outside of America, I think more people outside of America will care who wins this November.
Well, in the polls I've seen here in Sweden and other European countries it's usually 80-90% Obama, 10-20% McCain. But it's not some global Obamania-thing, it's been like that for decades... The only ones on the planet who want a republican US president are republican Americans, some Israelis and perhaps some Arab oil sheiks.

[solvs]

Obama as seen by a conservative:

Mr. Right? (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=46a816dc-f843-41ec-9fe4-fbeac17bcfca&p=3)

Some info on McCain:

McCain continues to shift with the wind (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15733.html)
McCain Extends His Outreach, but Evangelicals Are Still Wary (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/us/politics/09mccain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
New Gang of 14 won’t back McCain (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/new-gang-of-14-wont-back-mccain-2008-06-11.html)
What should McCain do about Cheney? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11000.html)

Some info about the wife he abandoned:

The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html)

And here's a good commentary about that statement McCain recently made about it not mattering when the troops come home (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25126582/) (in context, it's not what you'd think).

Again, voting against McCain, which is sad, because I really was a supporter in '00.

[flyinmac]

Do I really have to choose between these two?

I was hoping for some good choices this time around. Sadly, it's another year of which one's worse....

I would like to get the chance to vote for someone who is truly great, and not just the one I dislike the least.

[Anuba]

Do I really have to choose between these two?

I was hoping for some good choices this time around. Sadly, it's another year of which one's worse....

I would like to get the chance to vote for someone who is truly great, and not just the one I dislike the least.

PETA guy: "But why on earth wouldn't you want to vote?"

Stan Marsh: "I think voting is great, I just didn't care this time because it was between a giant douche and a turd sandwich."

PETA guy: "But Stan, don't you know? It's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics."

[flyinmac]

PETA guy: "But why on earth wouldn't you want to vote?"

Stan Marsh: "I think voting is great, I just didn't care this time because it was between a giant douche and a turd sandwich."

PETA guy: "But Stan, don't you know? It's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics."

Exactly :cool:

[solvs]

McCain Stacks Fox News 'Town Hall' With Supporters (http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-stacks-fox-news-town-hall-with.html)
McCain to boost and cut Pentagon spending at the same time (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/13/mccain-to-boost-and-cut-pentagon-spending-at-the-same-time/)
McCain Bamboozles Seniors On Social Security (http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/06/mccain_bamboozl.php)
(more on that )
John McCain Offers a Third Term of Bush (http://mccainsource.com/mccain_fact_check?id=0015)

And another headscratcher:

McCain: (Supreme Court decision against) Guantanamo One Of the Worst Ever (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-decisio_n_107057.html)

After saying this:
It obviously concerns me . . . but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored closing of Guantanamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that.
I don't know who's more confused about McCain's positions, me or him. :confused:

Meanwhile, despite those saying the world would look unkindly to an Obama Pres (as if that's a fear for them, look at how the world sees Bush) the reverse is actually true:

A closer look at whether ‘the world’ will ‘accept’ Obama (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15859.html#more-15859)

[solvs]

DNC wants McCain investigated (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_mccain;_ylt=AsmEjdYUmuIxyk7svRH2TEReW7oF)
Democratic Party officials plan to file a new lawsuit to compel federal regulators to investigate whether Sen. John McCain violated election laws by withdrawing from public financing.

The Democratic National Committee announced Tuesday it will sue next week in U.S. District Court. It will ask the court to order the Federal Election Commission to examine, within 30 days, the legality of McCain's decision to reject $5.8 million in taxpayer funds.

By turning down the money, the presumed Republican nominee was able avoid strict spending limits between now and the GOP's national convention in September.

At issue is a $4 million line of credit the McCain campaign obtained late last year. While the loan was not secured by the promise of public funds, his agreement with the bank required McCain to reapply for public funds if he lost early primary contests and to use that money as collateral.

The DNC filed a complaint with the FEC in February, arguing that the bank arrangement violated federal regulations. But the six-member FEC has been unable to act because it doesn't have a quorum. Four nominees are awaiting Senate confirmation.

In throwing out an earlier DNC lawsuit, a federal judge pointed out that federal rules give the FEC up to 120 days to act on a complaint. That deadline expires next Tuesday.
Would be nice for someone to hold him accountable, and it's nice to see the Dems finally grow a pair for once on something.

Speaking of:

Obama rebukes McCain camp on terrorism criticism (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/17/1584532-obama-bin-laden-still-free-because-of-gop-tactics)

They need to keep fighting back like this.

Meanwhile, the right is busy fighting back against something that never actually happened:

McCain Campaign Falsely Accuses DNC Of "Attacks" On Cindy McCain (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/mccain_campaign_falsely_accuse.php)

[themadchemist]

McCain Stacks Fox News 'Town Hall' With Supporters (http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-stacks-fox-news-town-hall-with.html)

It's a Fox News town hall--who else would show up? Does that even count as stacking?

[flyinmac]

It's a Fox News town hall--who else would show up? Does that even count as stacking?

:D

But, it sounds so much more like a conspiracy when you leave out the details :p

[atszyman]

It's a Fox News town hall--who else would show up? Does that even count as stacking?

Fox stacked it by inviting only supporters that's the definition of stacking if they had opened it up for the public to get tickets and it still ended up like that then it wouldn't be stacking. Once you do it by invitation, you are controlling access and if you're only inviting supporters than it is indeed stacking.

Now the idea that it was advertised as being a diverse group of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents is at best a complete miscommunication between Fox and the McCain Camapaign, at worst it was an outright lie.

[mactastic]

So the two Muslim women would simply have been turned away at the door of the McCain event?

And that's somehow makes Obama the more intolerant one? :confused:

[atszyman]

So the two Muslim women would simply have been turned away at the door of the McCain event?

And that's somehow makes Obama the more intolerant one? :confused:

They're not so callous as to turn them away at the door...

They just weren't invited in the first place.

[flyinmac]

I think sometimes people just read too much into things. They construe it to mean what they want.

Now, think about Obama's campaign. Awful lot of black people involved. In all the publicity stuff I've seen, he's been surrounded by black people. He had Oprah on stage with him. She was a major force in his campaign.

Now, if I wanted, I could construe that to mean that he's only interested in being around black people.

I'm sure that's not the case. But, the fact that you can call the absence of something to mean that it is specifically undesired would seem to imply such if applied equally to all situations.

Sometimes people get invitations to events. If McCain didn't invite any red heads could we say he's anti-Irish? (not that all redheads are Irish or that all Irish have red hair - just using a common association).

If all the people invited by either party are well dressed and have soft hands, could we infer that neither candidate is interested in the people who work hard for a living? Perhaps they have no interest at all in the agriculture industry.

If someone that is invited happens to tap his feet while going to the bathroom, should we assume that the candidate is a gay supporter?

If the candidate invites a room full of people, and by coincidence, none of them is gay, then should be assume that the candidate specifically dislikes all gay people?

For that matter, if the candidate invites thousands of people, and they are all over 5 feet tall, should we then assume that they are specifically avoiding those who are... Shall we say "shorter"?

What if we learn that a woman there isn't a woman? Then what does that say of the candidate?

Really people, sometimes the absence of specific people doesn't mean that they were deliberately excluded. Just that they were not invited. I wasn't invited either. But, I wasn't invited by either party.

And, to be quite honest, I'm sure I am of little concern to either of them...

[mactastic]

Really people, sometimes the absence of specific people doesn't mean that they were deliberately excluded. Just that they were not invited. I wasn't invited either. But, I wasn't invited by either party.
Ah, but the issue, at least with McCain, is that his campaign billed the event as representing all voters, when in reality the people were screened beforehand.

If he'd said he was going to be preaching only to the choir, it wouldn't be an issue. Well, it would be, but it would be a different issue; and one that McCain presumably doesn't want to have to deal with.

[themadchemist]

Fox stacked it by inviting only supporters that's the definition of stacking if they had opened it up for the public to get tickets and it still ended up like that then it wouldn't be stacking. Once you do it by invitation, you are controlling access and if you're only inviting supporters than it is indeed stacking.

Now the idea that it was advertised as being a diverse group of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents is at best a complete miscommunication between Fox and the McCain Camapaign, at worst it was an outright lie.

I'm just saying, coming from Fox News it's so transparent that any other circumstance would have been surprising.

[blackfox]

I support a constitutional amendment allowing Co-Presidents - so we can have both McCain and Obama. We'll Just split the difference in their policy positions.

Perhaps Hillary could be a third co-President (for Stevento). Either way, everyone's happy. Or is it unhappy?

[NT1440]

I support a constitutional amendment allowing Co-Presidents - so we can have both McCain and Obama. We'll Just split the difference in their policy positions.

Perhaps Hillary could be a third co-President (for Stevento). Either way, everyone's happy. Or is it unhappy?

i beleive the "too many chefs in the kitchen" saying fits nicely here

[MacGeek7]

We just want someone there who can string a sentence together - makes it much easier to figure out what's going on.

You mean like Tim Russert used to do... :(

[LizKat]

Keeping my eye on the Supreme Court, I had long since known i would vote for the Democrat in 2008. I like Obama, so far. But I'd vote for him even if I didn't like him. It's not actually necessary to like the person you want to help elect as President. Me, I only have to respect the guy's efforts to delineate the issues on which he's running and appreciate the positions he's taking. I don't even have to agree with all of them. I could probably not agree with all of anyone's political stances. But I'm past any ability to vote in 2008 for another four years of Republican administration. I'm going to work hard for Obama and I'm going to let eight years of this Bush administration do the heavy lifting for me.

[solvs]

Obama Making Christian Push (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062002477.html)
Bloomberg defends Obama before Jewish audience (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_BLOOMBERG_JEWISH_VOTERS?SITE=ILEDW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-20-16-55-21)
Race To The White House: Obama’s Bipartisan Appeal (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/19/race-to-the-white-house-obamas-bipartisan-appeal/)

Found these somewhat interesting. Especially considering that McCain isn't exactly making much headway with the religious. This looks bad for McCain as well:

Barack’s Bounce (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465)
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.
But everyone knows you can't trust a poll.

Meanwhile:

Manufacturing Difference Between McCain and Bush (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3461)
NYT exaggerates areas where GOP leaders "mostly disagree"
Because McCain, who voted with Bush and the GOP 90~something% of the time is a middle of the road maverick, while Obama, who's only around the 40th most liberal Senator is a far leftist.

And:

Master List of McCain Flip-Flop and Gaffes (http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)

[solvs]

McCain Campaign Website Highlights His Judgment On Iraq… Only Since August 2003 (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/16/since-august-2003/)

Well, if you can't be on the popular side of the argument, lie by omission. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile:

Obama Leads McCain by 15 Points as Voters Reject Republicans (http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agCTbSDJ83rc&refer=home)

Another article on his lead, though still pointing out that it's more the disillusionment with the GOP right now.

And in a WTF moment:

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) Says Obama Is 'Nixonian to the Core' (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/24/cole-says-obama-is-nixonian-to-the-core/)

:confused:

[Chundles]

This is America. Making uninformed decisions at the voting booth is the American way. How do you think we ended up with the moron we have for president?

Twice.

[flyinmac]

This is America. Making uninformed decisions at the voting booth is the American way. How do you think we ended up with the moron we have for president?

Well, sadly, it usually comes down to making a choice between bad and absolutely terrible.

I wouldn't say that people make uninformed choices. Usually, they just pick the one that seems less terrible.

I haven't seen a presidential candidate that I actually wanted in well, lets see, ummmm, that's a tough one. I can't remember a presidential candidate that I wanted.

So, I'm left with which one I think will mess it up the least.

Sadly, that's how I'll be voting this year as well. Which bad option do I chose. The one who will mess it up or the one who will mess it up. Sadly, I think I'll have to pick the one I think will mess it up the least. But, that could be a toss up.

With candidates like these, it makes me wish we could vote none of the above and force a new election series with new options.

[bobertoq]

Love the poll idea but why is Obama in italics and McCain is normal font ? Is that the way vBulletin works?Maybe because you voted for Obama?

Anyways, McCain.

[flyinmac]

This is America. Making uninformed decisions at the voting booth is the American way. How do you think we ended up with the moron we have for president?

Twice.

Could it be that because both times, we had little real choice?

We could either pick the moron, or pick the wuss.

Sorry, I'll take a moron over a wuss any day.

I don't like him. I don't agree with him. But, put a wuss in charge, and we'll be bowing down and bending over for anyone who cares to cross our border.

The problem, is that some people are short sighted. Sure, it's nice to get out of the fight. But, if you just run and hide, they'll come after you.

Resolve the situation first, and then perhaps you can get out without simply turning yourself into an easy target.

I would agree that we should never have gone into the war. And, I would agree that I would prefer for us to leave. But, I would not support just saying O.K. we're done, and fly out.

That's the method many of the democrats have proposed. So many say they'll just pull out. Well, you can't just pull out. If you do, the war won't end, it will just make them more powerful and shift us into a more defensive position.

Many of the people who have run on the Democratic ticket here locally for Federal representative offices and other state positions, have been those who lost family in the war. And, I can respect their feelings.

But, when they run because they lost someone, and their stated goal is a fast pull-out, then I can't vote for them. You cannot run with the idea of just walking in and shutting it down. That's an emotional move. Not a working solution.

Ideally, we would never have gone there. But, since our leaders put us there, we have to find a way that we can get out without simply making things worse.

I won't vote for anyone who proposes just jumping on the plane and leaving. I will vote for someone who proposes a seriously viable means of resolving the situation and then leaving.

And, don't just tell me you're going to do it. Prove to me that you will. Get a serious game plan. Don't just shove words at us. We've got enough people in office who don't know how to do anything but make empty promises to get elected.

Anyway, how did we get a moron twice? Well, the options both times were either him, or a wuss.

Sure, the first time we could have picked Gore. But, come on, does anyone seriously think he would have done anything but sit around the office counting the days till the next election? The country would have been running on cruise control with everyone else taking care of business, and him just signing papers.

He just wasn't a strong leader. And, after the election, he cemented that appearance by handling his loss the same way my toddler would have.

The second time around, well, we could choose between the moron and the another pretty boy do nothing. Ran with soft ideas, and just saying popular things. I'm pretty sure that had Gore or Kerry won, we'd be wandering around with our pants around our ankles for easy access.

I don't like Bush. I don't like what he's done. But, sadly, it was him or nothing.

Give us real candidates. Give us strong candidates.

Don't just give us candidates who can win a popularity contest. Give us candidates with a strong back bone who will stand up when times are hard and make the decisions no one wants to make.

Sure, popularity is nice. But, popular people bend to follow the crowd. Strong people will do the unpopular thing.

You can't give in to everyone who cries foul. You have to stand up. Be strong. Do what you have to do.

Give me a leader who will do that, and still put the country's needs first, and you'll have my vote.

We don't need someone who can just win a popularity contest. We need a strong leader.

I'm not a McCain supporter. I'm not in support of anyone in this race right now. But, can anyone honestly tell me that the democratic candidates were anything more than opportunities to make history? To set a new precedent?

Think about it. If either of the democratic candidates were your normal white men, would anyone have been impressed with what they had to say? Would anyone have been impressed with what they believed they could really do?

I see the choices being made more about lets make history. Close your eyes and ignore what everyone looks like. Then, think about whether their ideas and proposals really sound as good.

I don't care about their gender or race. I don't care about making history. I do care about putting the strongest leader in office. And, if I look at the selection with my eyes closed and only listen to what they offer, then I really don't see anyone viable.

I would have preferred a democrat who was strong in will, strong in ideas, strong in motivation, and had a strong and powerful position. Instead, I feel we were presented with Democrats who could get votes by getting people to latch on to the idea of making a history changing vote.

Instead, I am more concerned about whether they can do what we need done when they get into office. And, sadly, I think we've been let down there again.

We have a choice between bad and worse again. I just haven't figured out exactly which one I think is worse yet.

One I know got where he is because of his strengths. The other, I'm not sure he got there for a reason other than a chance to make history and his ability to be liked by the crowd.

I don't like either of them for choices. But, I think there is a lot of room to make the wrong choice this time around. And, I fear that if we choose based on popularity and appearances, that we'll be paying for it for a long time to come.

I really wish we had opportunity to vote for some of the really strong individuals with powerful convictions who shaped our nation in it's infancy. I wish we could vote for someone that we knew would get in there and shake the tree and turn things around.

Someone who would go in, and uproot the established system, and replace it with one that would work for the people.

You do realize that the government that we have in place now is a distinctly different government than the one we had when this country was founded. And, those who shaped our current government and brought it into being were technically committing treason and risking their freedom (and likely their life) to do what they felt was right for our country.

Where are the candidates who believe that strongly in anything?

Where's the candidate who is willing to risk their freedom, their life, their very being for what they believe in.

Democrat, Republican, Independent, Man, woman, black, white, whatever. Give me that candidate, and they'll have my vote.

Until we have a candidate with convictions that strong, we're simply playing like school kids. Doing nothing more than picking a team captain based on popularity their popularity and appearances.

Oh, and for the record, I am undeclared. I will vote for either party if they give me a candidate I believe in.

So, where is my candidate? And, why don't we demand better?

Perhaps if we held an election, and no one (absolutely no one) voted. We could see some change.

But, otherwise, if we're going to use the system we have, and we're going to vote, then it's time to jump up and demand something of people who run the race. It's time to stop picking candidates based on who might be most popular with a given segment.

Instead, give us an unknown. Give us someone fresh. Give us someone who runs with conviction. Who does what has to be done. Who will put everything on the line to do what they believe is right.

While definitely not a Bush supporter. I can at least give him credit for one thing. He did what he did without worrying about whether it was the choice that would gain him the most friends. It does show that he has some balls.

I don't like what he's done. But, I can at least respect that character trait.

Anyway, since we are picking a new leader (with no incumbent), the very least our parties could do is provide us with powerful people with powerful convictions to choose between.

Sadly, I don't see it with these guys. I say start over, and pick some new players.

[MacNut]

The problem is that the party doesn't want to pick the best people rather the people that are most electable.

[flyinmac]

The problem is that the party doesn't want to pick the best people rather the people that are most electable.

Exactly. It's like voting for the jock to be class president even though he doesn't have any idea where the school is. But, he promised to fire all the teachers, so there he is (assuming someone will show him where the building is).

Of course, once in, all he does is throw keg parties are slap the cheer leaders on the rear.

But, hey, he was electable.

[solvs]

Anyways, McCain.
Don't suppose you could tell us why?

Meanwhile:

McCain: World War III Would Justify Draft (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/mccain-world-war-iii-woul_n_109121.html)
MCCAIN MISSES MOST VOTES OF CANDIDATES? (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/939359.aspx)
John McCain doesn't work weekends (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11355.html)
McCain Flashback: "Watergate Will Be A Very Minor Item" (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2618)
McCain faces delicate balance of being GOP nominee, political maverick (http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-mccain0622.artjun22,0,3408142.story)
Are You a Blog Troll? Collect Your Points at JohnMcCain.com (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8798_are_you_a_blog.html)
‘Even Adolf Eichmann got a trial’ (McCain flip flops on habeas corpus) (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/26/even-adolf-eichmann-got-a-trial/)
McCain’s confusion has nothing to do with his age (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15836.html)
McCain meets (in private) with Log Cabin Republicans (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5902)

Again, Obama isn't perfect (just look at his recent panders about FISA and the death penalty), but this is the new McCain.

[Beric]

It appears the Macrumors community is about 3.5 times more liberal than the Amrican public. Actually kind of low.

I know I'm one of the few conservative Mac users. I'm also one of the few conservatives who only listens to classical music.

[hulugu]

It appears the Macrumors community is about 3.5 times more liberal than the Amrican public. Actually kind of low.

I know I'm one of the few conservative Mac users. I'm also one of the few conservatives who only listens to classical music.

How did you get to this particular metric?

Also, considering the vast explosion of musical genres since the early-20th century, I would think someone who listens "only" to classical music as somewhat myopic.

[ErikCLDR]

I am going to vote for McCain. I don't love him but I think he's a better choice than Obama.

I have a few problems with the Democratic platform.
1) How they use the media and themselves to make people feel like they are suffering. They also tend to use the fear tactic if you as me.
2) Universal Healthcare- horrible horrible horrible. Doesn't work, doctors and health professionals don't want it, it's innefficient, and there are doctors that will stop practicing if it is instituted.
3) Everybody goes to college- sounds good but our country needs people that don't go to college. If everyone went to college, a college degree would be exactly the same as a high school degree
4) Taxes- I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth, you work hard to achieve your success

[idyll]

I am going to vote for McCain. I don't love him but I think he's a better choice than Obama.

I have a few problems with the Democratic platform.
1) How they use the media and themselves to make people feel like they are suffering. They also tend to use the fear tactic if you as me.
2) Universal Healthcare- horrible horrible horrible. Doesn't work, doctors and health professionals don't want it, it's innefficient, and there are doctors that will stop practicing if it is instituted.
3) Everybody goes to college- sounds good but our country needs people that don't go to college. If everyone went to college, a college degree would be exactly the same as a high school degree
4) Taxes- I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth, you work hard to achieve your success


I agree with you on those points wholeheartedly but disagree strongly about the one's not mentioned... ie the Iraq war.

[solvs]

It appears the Macrumors community is about 3.5 times more liberal than the Amrican public.
Yes, because if you don't like McCain (anymore, as I keep saying I used to support him in 2000) and have a problem with some of the things he now supports, that automatically makes you a liberal. By that metric, actually a large percentage of the population is liberal. While McCain has about 40%, Bush has less than 30%, the GOP as a whole even lower. Over 80% think the nation is headed in the wrong direction, especially with the economy and the wars. Are all of them liberal, or just unhappy with the way the country has been handled? The GOP has done a really bad job of things lately, and for some reason, even though the so called liberal media doesn't realize it anymore, McCain wants to continue down the same path. So we want something else. Can you really blame us?

And I know what you're going to say. The Dem run Congress has an even lower approval rating. But that would be ignoring the fact that that is Congress as a whole. Breaking it down to just Dems, people trust them more on most issues. Actually they trust the GOP less, I should say, especially since they're disappointed the Dems haven't done more. Myself included in that.

If Obama was doing this stuff, and we criticized him (as most of us did with the FISA thing) would we then be conservative?

1) How they use the media and themselves to make people feel like they are suffering. They also tend to use the fear tactic if you as me.
Because the GOP never does that with things like terrorism and even gays?

2) Universal Healthcare- horrible horrible horrible. Doesn't work, doctors and health professionals don't want it, it's innefficient, and there are doctors that will stop practicing if it is instituted.
Actually most medical professional do, or at least a better system, as the current one is screwing them. But no one is actually calling for a fully nationalized healthcare system. Edwards was, but even he has allowances and credits for private insurance and healthcare. And no one is threatening to stop practicing if we do get an improved system, at least for those with no insurance now, which is what is being proposed. Actually, hospitals and already overcrowded ERs are closing now due to lack of funding.

3) Everybody goes to college- sounds good but our country needs people that don't go to college. If everyone went to college, a college degree would be exactly the same as a high school degree
No one is pushing that either, it's just talk about how we need a system where people can go to college if they want to.

4) Taxes- I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth, you work hard to achieve your success
Everyone has to pay taxes. Someone has to pay for things like the war, which is right now being run on credit. If you're ok with a bigger deficit do those making 6 figures or more can get bigger tax cuts, McCain is your man. Wealth redistribution is just a buzz term from those who don't want to pay more taxes, no matter what the cost. One could even call it a scare tactic.

Meanwhile, while I still have an issue with some of what Obama has been doing lately (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/obama-undercuts-his-brand_n_109758.html), what he calls a move to center but most are just calling pandering since he actually already was pretty close to the middle (40th most liberal Senator, not 1st) McCain is still flip flopping and doing some other weird things, not that anyone seems to be noticing:

Like being superstitious (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/19/067r-021900-idx.html). So much so, that he won't let the 13th floor (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/06/step_on_a_crack_.php) be called that when he stays at his hotel. More here (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/). You'd think this would have been covered ore in the MSM, and I'm wondering if it was another candidate, it would have been. More here:

What does McCain mean by ‘we’? (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16022.html) (taking credit for a GI bill he opposed)
Mrs. McCain, San Diego County Would Like a Word (http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/) (not paying taxes on his own property)
Can you hear me now? (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailmccain28-2008jun28,0,1179827.story) (talking to dead air for 18 minutes)
And the many (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/28/shorter-bonnie-erbe/), many (http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=593495) flip flops.
He also keeps some strange company (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/judging-crazy-by-dday-two-of-three.html), again something Obama is criticized for, but not McCain for some reason.

If you like the status quo (and possibly worse), by all means vote McCain, but me, despite my problems with him I think I'll take my chances on the new kid.

[Rodimus Prime]

Don't suppose you could tell us why?

Meanwhile:

McCain: World War III Would Justify Draft (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/mccain-world-war-iii-woul_n_109121.html)
MCCAIN MISSES MOST VOTES OF CANDIDATES? (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/939359.aspx)
John McCain doesn't work weekends (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11355.html)
McCain Flashback: "Watergate Will Be A Very Minor Item" (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2618)
McCain faces delicate balance of being GOP nominee, political maverick (http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-mccain0622.artjun22,0,3408142.story)
Are You a Blog Troll? Collect Your Points at JohnMcCain.com (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8798_are_you_a_blog.html)
‘Even Adolf Eichmann got a trial’ (McCain flip flops on habeas corpus) (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/26/even-adolf-eichmann-got-a-trial/)
McCain’s confusion has nothing to do with his age (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15836.html)
McCain meets (in private) with Log Cabin Republicans (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5902)

Again, Obama isn't perfect (just look at his recent panders about FISA and the death penalty), but this is the new McCain.

see those things about WWIII always worry me with the draft. Obama would use the draft there as well if there was a WWIII.

It makes me want to go get the paper would for my dyslexia re done just so I can fill with the ADA and try to make sure I an not eligible for the draft.

Yes I have said it I would do my best to get out of being drafted. I do not want to go fight and die. I do not want to live the life of a soldier.

Besides drafted soldiers are your worse soldiers. They do not want to be there and not really wanting to die.

[Andrew Henry]

I don't have time to explain my choice right now, but I will be voting for McCain without a doubt.

[solvs]

see those things about WWIII always worry me with the draft. Obama would use the draft there as well if there was a WWIII.

He might, but unless absolutely needed he'd be hated for it. And rightly so. Even then perhaps. The scary part was that McCain has already said WWIII was starting, last year some time (can't find the link off hand, but I can post references to it if anyone needs them). And if indeed he plans on continuing the wars, especially on to Iran (which is a whole nother ball of wax) who else is going to fight it?

[takao]

see those things about WWIII always worry me with the draft. Obama would use the draft there as well if there was a WWIII.

It makes me want to go get the paper would for my dyslexia re done just so I can fill with the ADA and try to make sure I an not eligible for the draft.


dyslexia sure doesn't save you from a draft .. i can tell you that coming from a country with a conscription service and manpower problems because of low birth rate

i made my service with people who had dyslexia / barley understood german and they were perfectly fine

and drafted soldiers being worse is a matter on what you find important.. you sure get a lot more smart people with a draft than without it
edit: if the draft is organized "fair" which it isn't since an aweful lot of professions are not to get drafted by a country unless as a last resort (that lesson was learned during the first world war) since they are way too important for a society and their economy for a possible "rebuilding scenario" after the war ... like engineers of all sorts ... that's why i was moved to reserve status (which means i get called to arms only if everything else fails) right after my service opposed to being normally moved there with 45 years

[PlaceofDis]

Lieberman Says Terrorist Attack Likely (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/lieberman-says-terrorist-attack-likely/).

guess they're going to play the fear card as much as possible. :eek::rolleyes:

[atszyman]

Lieberman Says Terrorist Attack Likely (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/lieberman-says-terrorist-attack-likely/).

guess they're going to play the fear card as much as possible. :eek::rolleyes:

Won't that attack be Bush's fault for not preventing it? I mean how many times did we hear that 9/11 was the fault of the Clinton administration for not getting Bin Laden before 2001?

[és:]

Lieberman Says Terrorist Attack Likely (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/lieberman-says-terrorist-attack-likely/).

guess they're going to play the fear card as much as possible. :eek::rolleyes:


That's disgusting. I can't explain just how important it is for Obama (who is quite far away from me, politically) to win this election.

[zioxide]

Lieberman Says Terrorist Attack Likely (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/lieberman-says-terrorist-attack-likely/).

guess they're going to play the fear card as much as possible. :eek::rolleyes:

Lieberman is a terrorist for that statement.

[NT1440]

Lieberman is a terrorist for that statement.

almost all politicians are terrorists

[cycocelica]

I am going to vote for McCain. I don't love him but I think he's a better choice than Obama.

I have a few problems with the Democratic platform.
1) How they use the media and themselves to make people feel like they are suffering. They also tend to use the fear tactic if you as me.
2) Universal Healthcare- horrible horrible horrible. Doesn't work, doctors and health professionals don't want it, it's innefficient, and there are doctors that will stop practicing if it is instituted.
3) Everybody goes to college- sounds good but our country needs people that don't go to college. If everyone went to college, a college degree would be exactly the same as a high school degree
4) Taxes- I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth, you work hard to achieve your success

What happened to your rant about not treating others equally?

[Cleverboy]

3) Everybody goes to college- sounds good but our country needs people that don't go to college. If everyone went to college, a college degree would be exactly the same as a high school degree
I have to disagree. In the global economy, you may be "ok" with just watching as all the blue-collar jobs begin to fade and fizzle but I'm not. Right now America is at a crossroads. Either we innovate and improve our educational system or we take the express train to nowhere'sville. Our lasting competitiveness will be measured by the quality of our education. If our high schools weren't enough, undergraduate education should be a viable and affordable option, especially if you serve in the military. It is DANGEROUS thinking to honestly believe that America will continue to remain a world power as the amount of students taking our knowledge and bringing it back to their own countries begins to increase.
4) Taxes- I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth, you work hard to achieve your successPersonally I love Ayn Rand, but I don't look at it as the redistribution of wealth. On its face, that is a dumb concept. I do however believe in the fact that we have a bested stake in each other.

If it was simply about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, I'd agree... but if there is reason, transparency, accountability, and colllective goal setting involved, it makes all the difference. All too often we get the false argument that people should be able to simply keep what they've earned, even when what they've earned is inextricably interconnected to all the benefits already inherent in society. Just take the housing crisis and the value of the dollar and you quickly see that no man is an island.

If you were Grizzly Adams forging your log cabin in the great outdoors, you'd have a more rational point. Once you step foot into society, you have to deal with how society is interconnected, it changes. Should poor people simply be given money? NO. If they need help so they can help themselves... a buffer from unexpected tragedy... services that prevent society at large from turning to crap? Let's make that happen in a smart, reasonable and responsible way. We have a stake in each other, and I don't think acknowledging and operating from that understanding is anything short of true wisdom.

~ CB

[solvs]

In the past he hasn't mentioned it much, and even seemed to be against gay marriage, but he finally speaks out in support of gay rights, and not just in the brief passing way he had:

Barack Obama Opposes Prop 8, the anti-marriage amendment (http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6307)

His support from the military (http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-military-voices) and evangelicals (http://christianpost.com/article/20080702/obama-prying-loose-evangelicals-from-republicans.htm) is increasing as well, though McCain is ahead in both, it's by much smaller numbers than Bush.

Not everyone is happy though (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/333805/spy_protest_group_tops_obama_website):

Rewarding good behavior (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/1/05546/22532/562/544544)
So many of you are upset that I pulled back my credit card last night, making a last minute decision to hold back on a $2,300 contribution to Obama. Let me explain further:

First of all, obviously Obama is a great candidate who is running a great 50-state race. That much cannot be denied. But he's had a rough couple of weeks.

First, he reversed course and capitulated on FISA, not just turning back on the Constitution, but on the whole concept of "leadership". Personally, I like to see presidents who 1) lead, and 2) uphold their promises to protect the Constitution.

Then, he took his not-so-veiled swipe at MoveOn in his "patriotism" speech.

Finally, he reinforced right-wing and media talking points that Wes Clark had somehow impugned McCain's military service when, in reality, Clark had done no such thing.
Can't help but agree with that.

But it might still be enough against the not so Straight Talk Express (more like the Double Talk Express (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/01/countdown-all-aboard-the-double-talk-express/)), as McCain claims (again) he never said something about not knowing much about the economy (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/mccain-dodge-economics/) (even though he did), Americans worry McCain would be too similar to Bush (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108490/Americans-Worry-McCain-Would-Too-Similar-Bush.aspx), and even Limbaugh barely wants to carry his water (http://thepage.time.com/2008/07/01/mccain-the-team-you-hate-less/).

And in a strange twist on reality, Bush gives praise to McCain to a GI Bill both he and McCain opposed (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/30/bush-praises-mccain-for-expansion-of-the-gi-bill-that-he-had-no-part-in-say-what/). :confused:

Now that takes a pair of brass ones.

[pachyderm]

Obama landlside here but I think this forum is more liberal and decidedly more English than the turnout at our polls in November. ;)

[pimentoLoaf]

Obama for me! :cool:

[flyinmac]

Um... Still none of the above...

With the line up we have now, I think I'd rather put Bill back in there. Sadly, with what we already know about him, I'd still have more faith in his abilities than the jokes we have running now.

Sure, I don't consider him ideal either. But, the guys running now can't even provide a compelling reason to choose them. Neither one of them.

What would happen if we have no incumbent to remain in office, and the entire country decided not to vote a single ballot?

I could only guess that we might finally have a chance to then go and pick new candidates.

Let's demand better.

I'm tired of choosing between idiot or loser... Bad or worse... or, dumb, dumber or dumberer (in the case of a 3 party election - Democrat, Republican, Independent).

[pachyderm]

amen.

and ralph nader is gong to join the mix right? sheesh.

[Cleverboy]

Let's demand better.

I'm tired of choosing between idiot or loser... Bad or worse... or, dumb, dumber or dumberer (in the case of a 3 party election - Democrat, Republican, Independent).I'm sorry but your answer strikes me like a person wanting a better, more democratic process, spits on the efforts of others to get there... And offers no sweat equity or even nueron equity to get there themselves. You just sit there complacently complaining about lack of choices, all the while doing absolutely nothing to support the nascent efforts of the kind of politics you'd like to see. No specific criticism or direction for improvement in sight... Just a vague sense of disaffection.

I don't know... Maybe an idle complaint is the first step to making more critical analysis, or maybe its indicative of a deeper involvement in the process simply too complicated to summarize regularly. Its just that few things bum me out more than the lack of realism. The conservative advocate of abstinence only education... Or the liberal that values privacy so far above security as to be disconnected from the realities of rampant terrorism and the hidden cost of relative freedom.

I value idealism... but I'm also a big fan of affecting the course of history, regardless of how imperfect the path, or how wanting the circumstances. You have to do the best with what you've got and not simply criticize to excuse inaction.

Even a specific gripe would at least serve to pose a germ of the possibility of solving it.

~ CB

[deannnnn]

I don't want to get into my specific opinions about the issues... (don't want to start any fights :D)... but I'll be voting for Obama in November, and I'm glad to see that a good percentage of MR users (or at least the ones who are qualified to post in the Politics forum) feel the same way!

[aLoC]

If you were Grizzly Adams forging your log cabin in the great outdoors, you'd have a more rational point. Once you step foot into society, you have to deal with how society is interconnected, it changes.

We get paid in society for our value add. Just because you didn't start from 0 doesn't mean the bit you added isn't all yours.

[buffalo]

Although he was not my first choice, I have accepted the fact that John McCain is the nominee and I do support him. Barack Obama did catch my interest ten months ago, but now that I have read up on him, I realize he and I do not agree on several positions.

Unfortunately, my 18th birthday falls three weeks after the election, so I will not have the opportunity to vote this year.

[gibbz]

Coming from a registered Republican (more moderate really, should be an independent), I will be voting for Barack Obama.

[deannnnn]

Although he was not my first choice, I have accepted the fact that John McCain is the nominee and I do support him. Barack Obama did catch my interest ten months ago, but now that I have read up on him, I realize he and I do not agree on several positions.

Unfortunately, my 18th birthday falls three weeks after the election, so I will not have the opportunity to vote this year.

Aww man, that's annoying. =(
Mine is in August so I make the cutoff by like a month & a half.

[Str8edgepunker]

I used to really like McCain way back in 2000. A lot of the things he used to say made sense but nowadays it just seems that he wants to continue our occupation of Iraq with no real definitive end. I mean I do see lots of progress and that's good, but nowadays he's just seems to be in league with the president and his ideas. Obama's seems to be no better, especially with his reversal of FISA and the whole church thing really rubbed me the wrong way. I just don't know. I'll just wait until the debates and then decide.

[themadchemist]

Unfortunately, my 18th birthday falls three weeks after the election, so I will not have the opportunity to vote this year.

I know how you feel! I turned 18 in 2004, but my birthday was a week after the election. So this will be my first vote in a presidential election. Exciting, I know, though it would be more exciting were I to have the chance to vote for Al Gore. Oh, well, Obama will do.

[Cleverboy]

We get paid in society for our value add. Just because you didn't start from 0 doesn't mean the bit you added isn't all yours. Actually that's exactly what it means. It's called paying taxes according to the laws and ordinances dictated by a democratic society. "All yours" is wilderness, sweat equity and Grizzly Adams. Anyone says different and they're deluding themselves. You earn from the stock market, and you owe money back to the system. You earn money by selling a widget that makes another widget more useful, and you owe money back to the system. You buy land that is only valuable because there are paved roads and municipal infrastructure to support that community... and you own money back into the system.

When it comes to "all yours", again... the answer is NO, its NOT. The only honest debate is "how much", relative to where you live and a democratic process that determines "fairness" in the application of what you owe. Truth, black and white. Sorry.

~ CB

[themadchemist]

Actually that's exactly what it means. It's called paying taxes according to the laws and ordinances dictated by a democratic society. "All yours" is wilderness, sweat equity and Grizzly Adams. Anyone says different and they're deluding themselves. You earn from the stock market, and you owe money back to the system. You earn money by selling a widget that makes another widget more useful, and you owe money back to the system. You buy land that is only valuable because there are paved roads and municipal infrastructure to support that community... and you own money back into the system.

When it comes to "all yours", again... the answer is NO, its NOT. The only honest debate is "how much", relative to where you live and a democratic process that determines "fairness" in the application of what you owe. Truth, black and white. Sorry.

~ CB

Absolutely. You wouldn't walk into the Apple Store and ask for a free computer. Why would you think you could go to the government and ask for roads, schools, military, police, fire departments, etc., all to be free? Someone's got to pay for it, and it's a whole lot easier to make us all pay for it than to try to create some sort of per-use scheme.

And unlike that computer from the Apple Store, having millions of people using these services from the government ends up having positive externalities that benefit the individual. So when someone complains that he shouldn't have to pay for, say, public schools, because he didn't go to one or doesn't have kids or isn't of school age, then I say: Your country and your life are better because millions of people are going to our public schools; therefore, you're paying for that incremental benefit to your life.

It's shared investment as much as shared sacrifice, and we all reap the dividends.

[ErikCLDR]

They're both poor choices.

But Obama will make me poor.

[PlaceofDis]

They're both poor choices.

But Obama will make me poor.

you make over $250,000 a year? nice job for a kid in high school/college.

[mikeyPotg]

Just gonna throw in my 2 cents and not look back.
Obama for me. People talk about his lack of experience but I'm not even looking at that. All people in high office have tons of intelligent, experienced people around them. No one makes the decisions alone - look at the Terminator in Cali.
What I like most about him is his ability to motivate people. Right now, I think that's what we need. I trust the people he surrounds himself with to help with the big decisions.
Oh, and for him to say NO to the "gas tax relief" plan that Hilary & McCain planned for this summer... amidst all of the gas complaining that's going on, was a BALLSY move and one I fully supported.

[aLoC]

They're both poor choices.

But Obama will make me poor.

Ah... but he will give your money to such worthy causes... such as whinging whining political pressure groups. :)

[Cleverboy]

you make over $250,000 a year? nice job for a kid in high school/college.No, it's easy to understand how Eric has come to believe the lies he's being fed. They sound so convincing when spoken matter-of-factly by people only interested in promoting an agenda versus genuine understanding of an issue.

I suggest everyone read these:
MCCAIN CAMP HITS OBAMA ON TAXES
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1184635.aspx
The McCain campaign’s small-business myth
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16120.html
The Hill, Bloomberg uncritically reported McCain's false
suggestion that Obama would increase taxes
on 21.6 million small businesses
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806170011
They're Lying
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/theyre-lying_b_111291.html
Top McCain Adviser Blatantly Lies About Obama’s
Tax Proposals: ‘He’s Not Proposed One Single Tax Cut’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/10/fiorina-obama-tax-cut/

Obama vs McCain - What Will They Do To Your Tax Bill?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=498481

Taxes usually go up to pay for WARS. We didn't do that for this one, so... we ended up borrowing upwards of 600 billion to 1 trillion dollars or so to finance it. McCain talks in a high minded fashion about taxes and free market principles, while his policies form a rather bleak picture for an out of control deficit, while creating more immediate cost impact than Obama's.
Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113
Williams said the Tax Policy Center analysis should be viewed as a work in progress. Researchers plan to update it as they get more information about the plans from the campaigns and if the candidates introduce new tax policies between now and Election Day.How the candidates' tax plans would affect economic growth is an open question. "It depends on how the deficits are closed," Burman said. Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they're paid for by raising taxes in the future, "the economy is worse off than if you didn't cut at all," Burman said.

~ CB

[Iscariot]

$4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

Ben Grimm's sweet Aunt Petunia! That's a spicy meatball.

[Frozonecold]

obama scares me. so mccain

but my pref is ron paul......too bad wont happenI second this, we are in need of a president, who can make some real reforms.

[yg17]

They're both poor choices.

But Obama will make me poor.


No, what's going to make you poor is the fact that you drive a gas guzzling Land Rover and McCain wants to continue the failed policies of the Bush administration which has given us gas that's at 4 bucks a gallon and rising :rolleyes:

[it5five]

They're both poor choices.

But Obama will make me poor.

Wow. At 17 years old you're already pulling in $250,000 or more a year? Impressive.

[aLoC]

No, what's going to make you poor is the fact that you drive a gas guzzling Land Rover and McCain wants to continue the failed policies of the Bush administration which has given us gas that's at 4 bucks a gallon and rising :rolleyes:

Everybody repeat after me:
"failed policies of the Bush administration"
"failed policies of the Bush administration"
"failed policies of the Bush administration"

One of us, one of us, we accept her, we accept her
One of us, one of us, we accept her, we accept her

[flyinmac]

Sure, blame it all on Bush. Of course, he hasn't helped matters any.

But, remember, it was everyone's favorite Democrat who kept ANWR closed. Clinton is the one who vetoed it. Otherwise, we'd have more domestic oil flowing now.

So, you can't put it all on the Republicans. The last Democrat we had in office is the one who set the stage for this high oil pricing and continued dependence on foreign oil. And, I don't expect that Obama is really going to decrease our dependence at all.

Sure, he preaches change. But, he hasn't substantiated that it will be good change. Or, that he'll really change anything.

Remember, there is a history of telling us what we want to hear to get into office. And, then doing none of it once in there.

Sure, McCain may not tell us what we want to hear. But, at least he's clear on his stand. We may not agree. But, we know he's telling us what he believes to be right and what he plans to do. He's definitely not taking the popular idealist stand.

How do we know that Obama isn't just playing like the school jock running for class president? Promise the world, and then ride the waves and go with the flow while delivering nothing?

[Dimwhit]

I'm not thrilled with either one. I was initially glad the Dems didn't nominate Hillary (the last thing this country needs is another Clinton--too divisive a name--it would be like the republicans nominating Jeb Bush). However, the more I learn about Obama, the more he scares the ever-loving hell out of me.

[aLoC]

An email from Scotland to their brethren in the States...a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:

'We, in Scotland, cannot figure out why people are even botherin' to hold an election in the United States.

On one side, ye have a pants-wearing lawyer, married to a lawyer who cannot keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer who goes to the wrong church who is married to yet another lawyer who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run.

Now...On the other side, you have a nice, old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate Mc terminology married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.

What in Lord's name are ye lads thinkin' over there in the colonies??

;) ;) ;)

[Cleverboy]

who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run Meh. Humor aside, it's sad that Mrs. Obama has become the new Al Gore "I invented the Internet". They're even cutting the sound bite, so that sounds more and more out of context. --Which is f-ed up considering what she was actually expressing (the degree of pride she has that hope was making a comeback in American politics). At least with Gore, it was something positive, if laughable. Even Laura Bush has given her a pass, but no... fun, fun. Here's to more terrorist fist-jabs.

:( :( :(

~ CB

[solvs]

Sure, McCain may not tell us what we want to hear. But, at least he's clear on his stand.
Which stand would that be? He flip flops more than Kerry did. Even though most of the MSM (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16081.html) doesn't bother covering it (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16089.html):

Master List of McCain Flip-Flop and Gaffes (http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)
McCain Sets a New Record: 10 Flip-Flops in Two Weeks (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/)
Steve Benen: 61 McCain Flip-Flops (http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2008/07/steve-benen-61.html)
The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops. (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html)
Why McCain Flip-Flops More Than Obama (http://www.care2.com/politics/37024)

I'm not exactly thrilled with some of what Obama has done lately, but since I was fairly familiar with his positions before this, I wasn't as surprised by some of them as a lot of you were. As the GOP is now using against him (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_TO_THE_CENTER?SITE=ILROR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT). But at least I know what I have a problem with. I'm still amazed when I hear things like the above. Obama isn't going to make you poor. And even if it was true that he would raise your taxes, and it probably isn't, look at what we're currently dealing with. Is that all you care about? Taxes? Really? Or that you heard his wife hates America? :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, while McCain says he'll balance the budget (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html). Even though his 'Deficit Reduction' Plan would cost trillions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/07/fact-check-mccains-iraq-w_n_111215.html). Oops. Here's more on McCain:

McCain calls the Social Security system a ‘total disgrace’ (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/09/mccain-calls-the-social-security-system-a-total-disgrace/)
ADAPT Storms John McCain's Office: Deaf Woman Taken to Ground by Police (http://www.disaboom.com/Blogs/disabled_politico/archive/2008/04/29/adapt-storms-john-mccain-s-office.aspx)
Wife pokes McCain in the back (http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/598054.html) (for joking about killing Iranians, again)
McCain Gets Testy With Vet Over GI Bill (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/08/mccain-gets-testy-with-vet-over-gi-bill/)

And an op-ed that may be eye opening to some of you:

Rove’s Third Term (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Though even conservatives (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602322.html?hpid=topnews) aren't so happy with him (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/05/analysis-mccains-tough-road-ahead/).

[flyinmac]

Which stand would that be? He flip flops more than Kerry did. Even though most of the MSM (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16081.html) doesn't bother covering it (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16089.html):

Master List of McCain Flip-Flop and Gaffes (http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)
McCain Sets a New Record: 10 Flip-Flops in Two Weeks (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/)
Steve Benen: 61 McCain Flip-Flops (http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2008/07/steve-benen-61.html)
The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops. (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html)
Why McCain Flip-Flops More Than Obama (http://www.care2.com/politics/37024)

I'm not exactly thrilled with some of what Obama has done lately, but since I was fairly familiar with his positions before this, I wasn't as surprised by some of them as a lot of you were. As the GOP is now using against him (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_TO_THE_CENTER?SITE=ILROR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT). But at least I know what I have a problem with. I'm still amazed when I hear things like the above. Obama isn't going to make you poor. And even if it was true that he would raise your taxes, and it probably isn't, look at what we're currently dealing with. Is that all you care about? Taxes? Really? Or that you heard his wife hates America? :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, while McCain says he'll balance the budget (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html). Even though his 'Deficit Reduction' Plan would cost trillions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/07/fact-check-mccains-iraq-w_n_111215.html). Oops. Here's more on McCain:

McCain calls the Social Security system a ‘total disgrace’ (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/09/mccain-calls-the-social-security-system-a-total-disgrace/)
ADAPT Storms John McCain's Office: Deaf Woman Taken to Ground by Police (http://www.disaboom.com/Blogs/disabled_politico/archive/2008/04/29/adapt-storms-john-mccain-s-office.aspx)
Wife pokes McCain in the back (http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/598054.html) (for joking about killing Iranians, again)
McCain Gets Testy With Vet Over GI Bill (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/08/mccain-gets-testy-with-vet-over-gi-bill/)

And an op-ed that may be eye opening to some of you:

Rove’s Third Term (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Though even conservatives (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602322.html?hpid=topnews) aren't so happy with him (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/05/analysis-mccains-tough-road-ahead/).

Too wrapped up with web stories. I don't care what various opinion sites and news sites have to say about their interpretation of who said what. And, I don't care to have them interpret it for me.

What I do care about, is a candidate who directly says something that actually means something. And, who can convince me that they will actually serve this country and do something meaningful.

Obama has yet to convince me that he's doing anything other than playing to the crowd. I'm not convinced that he has the follow through.

I don't like McCain either. But, I can't find any strengths in Obama. I don't think he'll do anything more than say what it takes to get him elected.

So far, his strongest and most compelling argument is "Vote for me. I'm not him..."

And, that just doesn't do it for me.

[Antares]

I would prefer Ron Paul but I picked McCain.

Obama is the Democrat version of Bush. Obama is too much of a liar, manipulator and hypocrite to deserve the job of president. You can't trust Obama.

Do you want someone who sweet talks about change? Then..Vote for Obama. Do you want someone who will actually be able to achieve that change? Then...Vote for McCain. It's that simple.

Though, Ron Paul would stand for the most change that this country really needs. And Edwards and Hillary would have been better than Obama.

[solvs]

Too wrapped up with web stories.
That's what we do here. We provide links. Some of it is opinion, but it's backed up the way what I'm saying is. You made it seem like McCain has been clear on his positions, I proved to you that this is not the case. He has changed positions, many positions, and continues to do so. You can knock Obama for doing it (even when he actually doesn't if you really look at his record, not the hype), but you can't ignore when McCain does it.

Obama is the Democrat version of Bush.
And you base that on...?

McCain is the GOP version of Bush. He voted with him 100% of the time last year, and around 90% of the time in the preceding. You want change, if you actually look at what McCain is now supporting, you won't get it from him. I'm not defending Obama, I've clearly been critical of some of the things he does, but unlike some who look only at the perception, the idea, at least I know what I don't like about him and why. And am not surprised when he does things like some of the recent things he's done. I also don't believe the hype about McCain, as some of you still seem to. If you really look at what he now supports and pushes, he's no longer the maverick he once portrayed himself to be. Something I fell for at the time BTW.

[NT1440]

I would prefer Ron Paul but I picked McCain.

Obama is the Democrat version of Bush. Obama is too much of a liar, manipulator and hypocrite to deserve the job of president. You can't trust Obama.

Do you want someone who sweet talks about change? Then..Vote for Obama. Do you want someone who will actually be able to achieve that change? Then...Vote for McCain. It's that simple.

Though, Ron Paul would stand for the most change that this country really needs. And Edwards and Hillary would have been better than Obama.

thanks for the mountains of support, surely none of your post is pure speculation? oh wait, nice avatar:rolleyes:

all im saying is BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT or you sound rediculously stupid here.

[buffalo]

Which stand would that be? He flip flops more than Kerry did. Even though most of the MSM (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16081.html) doesn't bother covering it (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16089.html):

Master List of McCain Flip-Flop and Gaffes (http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)
McCain Sets a New Record: 10 Flip-Flops in Two Weeks (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/)
Steve Benen: 61 McCain Flip-Flops (http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2008/07/steve-benen-61.html)
The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops. (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html)
Why McCain Flip-Flops More Than Obama (http://www.care2.com/politics/37024)

I'm not exactly thrilled with some of what Obama has done lately, but since I was fairly familiar with his positions before this, I wasn't as surprised by some of them as a lot of you were. As the GOP is now using against him (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_TO_THE_CENTER?SITE=ILROR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT). But at least I know what I have a problem with. I'm still amazed when I hear things like the above. Obama isn't going to make you poor. And even if it was true that he would raise your taxes, and it probably isn't, look at what we're currently dealing with. Is that all you care about? Taxes? Really? Or that you heard his wife hates America? :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, while McCain says he'll balance the budget (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html). Even though his 'Deficit Reduction' Plan would cost trillions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/07/fact-check-mccains-iraq-w_n_111215.html). Oops. Here's more on McCain:

McCain calls the Social Security system a ‘total disgrace’ (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/09/mccain-calls-the-social-security-system-a-total-disgrace/)
ADAPT Storms John McCain's Office: Deaf Woman Taken to Ground by Police (http://www.disaboom.com/Blogs/disabled_politico/archive/2008/04/29/adapt-storms-john-mccain-s-office.aspx)
Wife pokes McCain in the back (http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/598054.html) (for joking about killing Iranians, again)
McCain Gets Testy With Vet Over GI Bill (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/08/mccain-gets-testy-with-vet-over-gi-bill/)

And an op-ed that may be eye opening to some of you:

Rove’s Third Term (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Though even conservatives (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602322.html?hpid=topnews) aren't so happy with him (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/05/analysis-mccains-tough-road-ahead/).

With all due respect, do you really expect people to take a look at 17 links in one post? It is a little overwhelming.

[.Andy]

With all due respect, do you really expect people to take a look at 17 links in one post? It is a little overwhelming.
Far better than the alternative of blind assertion. There's nothing negative about taking the time and effort to find links and articles that rebut/back/illustrate your position.

[solvs]

With all due respect, do you really expect people to take a look at 17 links in one post? It is a little overwhelming.
I don't expect anything. If someone wants to make an assertion, they should back it up. I did. If you don't want to read them, as the above posters didn't, you can't really argue with them honestly. Especially if you don't provide your own. Even a quick glance at some of the points would have been enough to show, at the very least, McCain is not who some of you seem to think he is.

I'm well aware of Obama's failings, and have posted as much.

all im saying is BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT or you sound rediculously stupid here.
I appreciate the backup with the first part, but no matter who the person and what the situation, we don't do that second part I bolded here.

[Dimwhit]

I appreciate the backup with the first part, but no matter who the person and what the situation, we don't do that second part I bolded here.

Correct. At least not without spelling ridiculous correctly...

[NT1440]

Sorry guys, but I was posting from my iPod touch earlier (i installed kb which disables autocorrect). It really does rile me when people come in here and just throw around more falsehoods with no support because its purely just speculation.

And Solvs, your one of my favorite members here, your posts always provide guidance and clear up misconceptions. I appreciate it :p. :apple:

[solvs]

And Solvs, your one of my favorite members here, your posts always provide guidance and clear up misconceptions. I appreciate it :p. :apple:
Thank you.

Spiderman says everybody gets one. ;)

[Cleverboy]

Thank you.
Spiderman says everybody gets one. ;) :: snort :: I still can't get that scene out of my head. ;)

~ CB

[solvs]

Here's a quicker rundown for those who don't want to spend as much time as I did:

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/the-week-that-should-have_b_111983.html)

Covers most of it, still noticing most of the MSM is MIA though.

[és:]

Here's a quicker rundown for those who don't want to spend as much time as I did:

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/the-week-that-should-have_b_111983.html)

Covers most of it, still noticing most of the MSM is MIA though.

The Huffington Post seems a decent publication. Thanks for the last couple of posts, Solvs.

[solvs]

The Huffington Post seems a decent publication. Thanks for the last couple of posts, Solvs.

I try to stay away from opinion pieces posted there, mainly just try to focus on the AP and linked material, but lately I've been finding a lot of info there I don't see anywhere else for some reason.

It provided a nice rundown there complete with links so I didn't have to.


But hey, at least he likes dogs (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/a_dog_of_a_poll_story.php). :rolleyes:

[solvs]

I can't help thinking of the media storm when Obama called people bitter, despite the fact that a lot of people actually agreed that they were bitter (literally, someone on the news was trying to find someone in a small town area in PA to say they were upset about his comment but couldn't find one), but wondering if Graham's statement (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2721) about this being a mental recession will get the same treatment. I guess you could argue he was calling the lawmakers whiners, but that's not any better when frankly, there's a lot to whine about. Doesn't make it any less of a gaff. At least McCain came out against it, even though at first they all stood by the statement, but this isn't like the Wright thing, Graham actually writes a lot of McCain's economic policy.

But then ousted former HP CEO Carly Fiorina tries to say McCain is the one who supports woman's health, even though he voted against what she was talking about (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2722). Guessing she was trying to go after the Clinton supporters, but I don't think it worked. McCain stumbles (http://womensissues.about.com/b/2008/07/10/unable-to-express-any-straight-talk-mccain-stumbles-over-viagra-birth-control-question.htm) when asked about it. As he did when asked about condoms and STDs (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2728). Just as Guliani claims Obama is capturing anti-American feelings (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2723). :confused: Yeah. Not a good week for McCain.

Here's something he didn't stumble over, his original comments about the Iraq war prior to the invasion that he's now trying to distance himself from:

McCain's chilling defense of preemptive war against Iraq (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/mccains-chillin.html)

[flyinmac]

That's what we do here. We provide links. Some of it is opinion, but it's backed up the way what I'm saying is. You made it seem like McCain has been clear on his positions, I proved to you that this is not the case. He has changed positions, many positions, and continues to do so. You can knock Obama for doing it (even when he actually doesn't if you really look at his record, not the hype), but you can't ignore when McCain does it.


And you base that on...?

McCain is the GOP version of Bush. He voted with him 100% of the time last year, and around 90% of the time in the preceding. You want change, if you actually look at what McCain is now supporting, you won't get it from him. I'm not defending Obama, I've clearly been critical of some of the things he does, but unlike some who look only at the perception, the idea, at least I know what I don't like about him and why. And am not surprised when he does things like some of the recent things he's done. I also don't believe the hype about McCain, as some of you still seem to. If you really look at what he now supports and pushes, he's no longer the maverick he once portrayed himself to be. Something I fell for at the time BTW.

Never said he hadn't changed positions. And, I don't recall knocking Obama for the same.

People's opinions and outlooks on things do change with time. We all know that.

What I said, is that McCain has been clear on what he stands for. That is to say, even though it may not be the popular thing to say, he will tell us what he believes needs done. Sure, the Democrats use that to try and hang him. But, they are often just taking the popular road to get into office, and as history shows, often the promises are forgotten once they take their seat.

My point, was that Obama has done nothing to convince me that he has a plan. Further, that he has a good plan. Even further, that if he had one, that he'd have any idea how to pull it off.

He's running on a slogan of change. But, change is only good if it is the right change.

Changing just to change doesn't take us in the right direction. Change can be bad. It can make things worse. Promising me that you'll change things doesn't mean anything. Tell me exactly what you're going to change, show me how you're going to get there, and convince me that you can really do it.

Again, so far Obama's strongest argument right now is "Vote for me because I'm not him". And, yes, that still doesn't cut it.

I don't like either of the options out there. But, I believe that McCain can actually take office and do something. Doesn't mean I like him. But, I don't believe Obama can lead this country and actually deliver anything. He just doesn't demonstrate that kind of power and resolve.

And, he's yet to convincingly convey to me exactly what he's going to do, and how.

I'm not him, is not enough reason to put someone in office.

I've got a governor in office right now who came in right after a dictating governor who actually pulled all public services, cut police, cut health care, cut senior benefits, cut funding for every public service in the state. And, diverted all public funds into his benefit.

Our current governor ran against him with promises of change. She won. She's still quite popular. She's our first female governor (like Obama would be a first). And, everybody loves her. But, to date, she's done nothing but occupy a chair.

She hasn't done anything terrible. She just hasn't delivered anything. As a matter of fact, the one thing that the last governor nearly had completed, has been dismantled and her new plan (which was supposedly to our favor) has not delivered at all. So, now we sit here with nothing. But, we have a pretty face in office. And, she gets lots of press coverage.

We made a historic move in our state. Our first female governor. But, all that means nothing if she can't deliver on any of the state's needs.

I see a future with Obama as the same thing. He can handle it if nothing happens. He can ride the waves. And, he may not do anything bad. But, I don't see him delivering anything either.

We can make history putting the first black man in office. But, if that's all we get out of it, it's not worth it.

All we got for our promise of change was a pretty face in office. No delivery.

With Obama, I'm convinced all we'll do is make history. And, if anything serious happens, we're screwed. But, assuming that isn't the case, I still don't see him delivering anything. Just making history and changing the writing in a few papers.

When he can convince me otherwise (not some blogger, not some interpreter, not someone trying to make a name for themselves by publishing stories of their take on it, but himself. When he himself can convince me that he can deliver, then I'll consider him.

I don't like McCain either. But, at least I believe he can do it. I believe he can make the hard choices. And, I believe he can make things happen. I'm just not sure I agree with what he will do.

[buffalo]

Here's a quicker rundown for those who don't want to spend as much time as I did:

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/the-week-that-should-have_b_111983.html)

Covers most of it, still noticing most of the MSM is MIA though.

I will admit it is easy to find weaknesses in the opposing candidate and hard to find flaws in a preferred candidate. That said, I am about to voice a few opinions without any articles to back it up. Reading the above posts, it seems as though doing so could be very dangerous and open myself to attacks, but please bear with me.

John McCain may have gotten a pass, but the same can be said for Barack Obama. The week that should have ended Obama's presidential hopes was back in March with the Rev. Wright issue. Say what you will about a misrepresentation of Wright's career into a few sound bites, but I find it hard to believe that McCain (or any other politician for that matter) would be a viable candidate for any public office if he attended a church with a pastor that had said equally divisive things.

On the article...
1. I am not by any means an expert regarding social security, but I have heard/read enough to know that the current system is not working and will be bankrupt in a few decades if nothing is fixed. The point where the video cuts off is how McCain would fix the system.

2. Not much to say about this except... This week (or maybe last, not sure about the date) Barack Obama said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZprtPat1Vk) he was embarrassed by Americans. He also berates Americans for not learning Spanish. I find the assertion that immigrants will learn English funny. I have come into contact with plenty of Latinos that do not speak English.

5. John McCain does not advocate keeping a strong presence in Iraq just for the sake of having troops there. Surely if things are going well, as the are, and continue to go well, it will make sense to remove troops. Withdrawing troops "doesn't sound that different than Obama's plan?" It's hard to know exactly what Obama's Iraq plan is now that he will listen to commanders on the ground. I hate to link to an RNC ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcIeoSHTyCI), but the video clips are quite telling.

8. I would certainly think it would take a lot of skill and expertise to manage a 3 trillion dollar budget and economy. I think it is crazy to assert that Obama is an expert on the economy because McCain has said he is not an expert.

10. Obama has demonstrated that he does not know the number of states (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) in our country. Which is the more basic factoid of information? Everybody makes mistakes.


Thanks for reading. I do try to avoid posting in the PRSI forum, so do not expect much of a defense. The bottom part of this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5715340&postcount=49) accurately explain the reluctance to post.

[atszyman]

John McCain may have gotten a pass, but the same can be said for Barack Obama. The week that should have ended Obama's presidential hopes was back in March with the Rev. Wright issue. Say what you will about a misrepresentation of Wright's career into a few sound bites, but I find it hard to believe that McCain (or any other politician for that matter) would be a viable candidate for any public office if he attended a church with a pastor that had said equally divisive things.

McCain already had to reject Hagee (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=487829) who's endorsement he sought.

Everyone wants to make a big deal out of Obama's 20 year relationship with his pastor who made all of the comments I've seen played over and over in the media post 9/11. Which means he already had a 13 year relationship with him. How many of us have long family friends or relatives who have said some divisive and probably racist comments? Do we completely abandon them? Does the fact that they said something despicable force us to share that opinion?

Where McCain sought out the endorsement of someone who has a longer history than the past 7 years of saying despicable things. Which is worse? getting the endorsement and subsequently chastising a long time family friend? or seeking the endorsement of someone who has a long history of saying divisive and hateful things and then dropping them when the pressure hits?

[hulugu]

Two good articles worth everyone's time.

From Slate.com comes this "Constitutional Drift: Obama veers to the right, but does he need to take the Constitution with him?" (http://www.slate.com/id/2195008/).

From the Washington Post is a column by George Will entitled "Contempt of Courts: McCain's Posturing On Guantanamo" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602041.html).

[hulugu]

McCain already had to reject Hagee (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=487829) who's endorsement he sought.

Everyone wants to make a big deal out of Obama's 20 year relationship with his pastor who made all of the comments I've seen played over and over in the media post 9/11. Which means he already had a 13 year relationship with him. How many of us have long family friends or relatives who have said some divisive and probably racist comments? Do we completely abandon them? Does the fact that they said something despicable force us to share that opinion?

Where McCain sought out the endorsement of someone who has a longer history than the past 7 years of saying despicable things. Which is worse? getting the endorsement and subsequently chastising a long time family friend? or seeking the endorsement of someone who has a long history of saying divisive and hateful things and then dropping them when the pressure hits?

It is interesting how the stories were told so differently isn't it? McCain sought out the blessing of a racist, homophobic, anti-semite nut-case. Obama went to church headed by a veteran who spoke vehemently about the United States.

[buffalo]

...How many of us have long family friends or relatives who have said some divisive and probably racist comments? Do we completely abandon them? Does the fact that they said something despicable force us to share that opinion?

You can not choose your family nor who you are related to. You can choose who you associate yourself with. Of course, assuming Rev. Wright's divisive comments began only after 9/11 (hard for me to believe that is the case), I find it interesting that Obama did choose to abandon his friend and mentor of 13-20 years for pure political convenience.

It is interesting how the stories were told so differently isn't it? McCain sought out the blessing of a racist, homophobic, anti-semite nut-case. Obama went to church headed by a veteran who spoke vehemently about the United States.

Yes, it can be taken both ways. McCain received an endorsement from a racist, homophobic, anti-semite nut-case. Obama made the decision to attend a church and listen to a guy that is anti-white and could also be considered anti-Semitic based on the Hamas writings found in the church's newsletter. And personally, I'd say it takes a nut-case to believe that the US government created the HIV virus to kill black people, or that the government gave black people drugs then created 3-strike laws to put them in prison, but maybe I just don't see things clearly.

Anyways, I don't mean to stoke the flames of this topic. Let the topic rest until it becomes an issue again in the fall.

[hulugu]

You can not choose your family nor who you are related to. You can choose who you associate yourself with. Of course, assuming Rev. Wright's divisive comments began only after 9/11 (hard for me to believe that is the case), I find it interesting that Obama did choose to abandon his friend and mentor of 13-20 years for pure political convenience.



Yes, it can be taken both ways. McCain received an endorsement from a racist, homophobic, anti-semite nut-case. Obama made the decision to attend a church and listen to a guy that is anti-white and could also be considered anti-Semitic based on the Hamas writings found in the church's newsletter. And personally, I'd say it takes a nut-case to believe that the US government created the HIV virus to kill black people, or that the government gave black people drugs then created 3-strike laws to put them in prison, but maybe I just don't see things clearly.

Anyways, I don't mean to stoke the flames of this topic. Let the topic rest until it becomes an issue again in the fall.

Exactly. The story was told one way (I was flipping it for illustration, I think they're both nuts) and that's what bothers me. There was a great deal of gnashing of teeth against Wright, but Hagee mostly survived intact. Both candidates should be slapped on the palms politically, but Obama took the brunt of it. I almost wonder if it's because while Hagee is an obvious nut-case, some of Wright's comments might have cut a little close to the bone.


However, let's be clear, McCain sought out the endorsement. He asked for it.

It's an interesting topic because it shows just how issues can be driven depending on the availability of information and particular political points-of-view.

[atszyman]

You can not choose your family nor who you are related to. You can choose who you associate yourself with. Of course, assuming Rev. Wright's divisive comments began only after 9/11 (hard for me to believe that is the case), I find it interesting that Obama did choose to abandon his friend and mentor of 13-20 years for pure political convenience.

The two sermons most quoted in the media are from September 16, 2001 and April 13, 2003 (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy)). I'm sure he had some fiery sermons other than those in his long career but in the 20 years that Obama has gone to that church and Wright's even longer career he's given hundreds if not thousands of sermons and they can only find 2 that are controversial?

And Obama initially tried to stick by Wright but after Wright wouldn't stay shut up, and accused Obama of being a "politician" with a not so nice implication, Obama had to sever his ties to Wright.

Yes, it can be taken both ways. McCain received an endorsement from a racist, homophobic, anti-semite nut-case. Obama made the decision to attend a church and listen to a guy that is anti-white and could also be considered anti-Semitic based on the Hamas writings found in the church's newsletter. And personally, I'd say it takes a nut-case to believe that the US government created the HIV virus to kill black people, or that the government gave black people drugs then created 3-strike laws to put them in prison, but maybe I just don't see things clearly.

Did Obama see or hear every sermon given by Wright? Since the media seems to be focused on the two sermons isn't it entirely possible that while he might have said some divisive things in a few of his sermons, that Obama managed to miss those? Or that since we don't hear much out of the earlier sermons that maybe Wright's rhetoric picked up after 9/11 and just maybe his sermons were not as they are portrayed in the media?

It mostly chaps me that while Obama has gotten flack for an association with a divisive figure, McCain got a mostly free pass with Hagee and Parsley (the latter I think is still involved in his campaign).

[iPaul]

McCain

I stand with a Hillary supporter who once said "I would slit my wrists and die before voting for Obama"

[hulugu]

...I stand with a Hillary supporter who once said "I would slit my wrists and die before voting for Obama"

Well there's some rational thinking.

[flyinmac]

Well there's some rational thinking.

Actually, it kind of makes sense... Sacrificing yourself for your country :D

If you must vote Obama, then might as well stop yourself for the good of the country...

And, no, I'm not a Republican. But, I do not support Obama either.

[yg17]

McCain

I stand with a Hillary supporter who once said "I would slit my wrists and die before voting for Obama"

And please explain to us what made you come to such a well thought out conclusion :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

Actually, it kind of makes sense... Sacrificing yourself for your country :D

If you must vote Obama, then might as well stop yourself for the good of the country...

And, no, I'm not a Republican. But, I do not support Obama either.

If only all those Bush supporters had fallen on their swords like good citizens. ;)

I should be nicer, it's just seemed like such an unhinged post.

[yojitani]

McCain

I stand with a Hillary supporter who once said "I would slit my wrists and die before voting for Obama"

Well, in more direct terms: WHY?? What significant differences are there between Hillary and Obama that would spur you to vote McCain? I don't like Obama, much less so as time goes on as well, but I simply don't understand your line of thinking unless it has something to do with race.

[flyinmac]

Well, in more direct terms: WHY?? What significant differences are there between Hillary and Obama that would spur you to vote McCain? I don't like Obama, much less so as time goes on as well, but I simply don't understand your line of thinking unless it has something to do with race.

Perhaps that Hillary and McCain seem like they might actually be able to run the country. Obama doesn't give me any confidence at all.

I don't like any of them. But, I'll pick the one that I think can actually do the job. Or, at least looks like they could do it without huddling in a corner in the fetal position.

[yojitani]

Perhaps that Hillary and McCain seem like they might actually be able to run the country. Obama doesn't give me any confidence at all.

I don't like any of them. But, I'll pick the one that I think can actually do the job. Or, at least looks like they could do it without huddling in a corner in the fetal position.

Would you be able to provide some examples of something Obama's said or done that gives you a solid basis for your feelings? I don't mean this as a challenge; frankly, I probably won't vote this year so it's not like I'm trying to score points for Obama or anything. I'm not really worried about who can or can't 'run the country' - I've yet to see a competent leader of anything aside from team sports - but I'm tired of really only being given the choice of conservative a or b since I'm only conservative about my breakfast cereal. For a moment there, I thought Obama might be conservative a-star, but nope, by the sounds of today's news, he's even lost his sense of humor. Still, I'm interested in what seem to me massive about faces by supporters of different candidates...

[flyinmac]

Would you be able to provide some examples of something Obama's said or done that gives you a solid basis for your feelings? I don't mean this as a challenge; frankly, I probably won't vote this year so it's not like I'm trying to score points for Obama or anything. I'm not really worried about who can or can't 'run the country' - I've yet to see a competent leader of anything aside from team sports - but I'm tired of really only being given the choice of conservative a or b since I'm only conservative about my breakfast cereal. For a moment there, I thought Obama might be conservative a-star, but nope, by the sounds of today's news, he's even lost his sense of humor. Still, I'm interested in what seem to me massive about faces by supporters of different candidates...

It's not so much what he's said or done that makes me feel he can't do it. It's a personal feeling from what I've seen of him and how he's handled himself.

Like anyone else you meet, you either evaluate them as being strong, or being weak. Often, such a judgement is made before you've even shaken their hands. Often, it's just the way they hold themselves, the way they hold their eyes, the way they move. Things like that.

But, with Obama, I don't see a strong man. I see a man who can take orders and react to the demands made. If someone doesn't like something, then he will change it... But, not before enough people complain.

I see him reacting to criticisms, and then trying to change himself and his associations after the criticisms.

I've watched him, and all I see is weakness.

I watched him the other night giving a speech. And, seriously thought I was watching Maury Povich on one of his shows. The way he was talking and interacting with the crowd looked more like a Maury Povich show than a serious candidate running for office.

He was telling us why we shouldn't vote for McCain. And, every one of his arguments was not about what McCain has done, but what some of his supporters believe.

Well, you know what, if that is enough reason not to vote for someone, then I'm sure I can find enough Obama supporters that have way out there ideas also.

So, my question to him after watching all his reasons for not voting for McCain would be:

So, Obama, I found a handful of nut jobs out there who also support you. They have some crazy ideas. And, since they support you, I'm not voting for you either.

By his argument, if a nut job supports your candidacy for office (as in if a nut job likes you), then you are not qualified to run this country.

Now, I'm sure I can find multiple dozens of nut jobs that support both candidates. So, I guess neither one is qualified.

Simply put, with Obama, all I see is talk. And, I don't see a strong man who can really deliver. I see someone who will occupy a chair, and will be a good boy and do what he's told.

Sorry, all I see is a push over.

I don't like McCain either. But, I don't see him bowing down doing anything just because someone said he should. I see a man who will weigh the choices and make his own call. Perhaps not the call we like. But, he will make it, and he will evaluate the decision himself. And, he'll back it up and stand behind his actions.

I see strength when McCain speaks. I don't like him. But, he carries himself well. And, I trust that he truly believes what he's saying. And, I trust that he'll personally back it up. I may not agree with him. I may not like him. But, I know he won't bend over and bow down either.

[hulugu]

Interesting.

This is my almost common response on McCain but...

I see a man who has made a Faustian deal, a man who has backtracked, reversed course, who has understood the lesson given to him in 2000 by the long-knives of the Rovian political machine.

I don't see a strong man, I see a man who has given up his soul for his ambition. I don't trust him, and I find that incredibly disappointing considering just how much respect I once had for him.

That said, I'm increasingly uneasy with Obama's move towards the "center" and he's made some missteps, but I don't think Obama has rewritten himself in the same way that McCain has. More importantly, I still think Obama will be a president capable of understanding the complexities and nuances of an issue and will be more able to "thread the needle."

[superman193]

I'm from Canada, so I really have no say, but I would vote for Obama. I don't like Republicans... I lean more towards the left.

You do know rebuplicians tend to have more how to put it... 'trust' for lack of a better word. In Canada, Democrats on the other hand are very concerned for the safety of there country.... Not that I like McCain. I want Obama because McCain to me looks like a creepy old child toucher.

Please no offense taken to McCain supports, please dont quote me if you have an issue with what I said pm me.

[Dmac77]

I'll go for McCain, although my personal preference is Mitt Romney, but that won't happen this year. I have a bad feeling about Obama, NO I don't think that he's a muslim, but I do think that he'll turn the US into a socialist state.

Don

[yg17]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A345 Safari/525.20)

I'll go for McCain, although my personal preference is Mitt Romney, but that won't happen this year. I have a bad feeling about Obama, NO I don't think that he's a muslim, but I do think that he'll turn the US into a socialist state.

Don

Uh....not going to happen. Besides, the president can't just say "OK, now we're a socialist state" so even if he wanted to, which he doesn't, he couldn't.

[Dmac77]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A345 Safari/525.20)



Uh....not going to happen. Besides, the president can't just say "OK, now we're a socialist state" so even if he wanted to, which he doesn't, he couldn't.

I consider his health care plan to be socialist, and with the current congress he would have absolutely no problem killing of our current political system. And I'll be the first to say that Republicans most likely will lose more seats in congress this year.

Don

[hulugu]

I consider his health care plan to be socialist, and with the current congress he would have absolutely no problem killing of our current political system. And I'll be the first to say that Republicans most likely will lose more seats in congress this year.

Don

First, you're mixing up the difference between political and economic systems. A democratic country can remain so even if the economic policies are inherently socialist. Secondly, even if a Democratic congress with a Democratic president tried to railroad the strongest kinds of 'socialist' ideals through, they'd still have to deal with a Republican minority in both houses that will remain strong enough to filibuster and compromise even the most 'socialist' legislation.
Of course, calling Universal Health Care socialist is its own kind of shibboleth.

[és:]

I consider his health care plan to be socialist

Well it isn't. It should be, but it isn't.

[Dmac77]

First, you're mixing up the difference between political and economic systems. A democratic country can remain so even if the economic policies are inherently socialist. Secondly, even if a Democratic congress with a Democratic president tried to railroad the strongest kinds of 'socialist' ideals through, they'd still have to deal with a Republican minority in both houses that will remain strong enough to filibuster and compromise even the most 'socialist' legislation.
Of course, calling Universal Health Care socialist is its own kind of shibboleth.

OK thank you for correcting me there, it's very rare that someone gets me to admit a mistake on by behalf. But I will say that the government shouldn't be paying for people's health insurance, or for anything. I agree that health insurance is way to expensive, and the government should do something about that, but they shouldn't institute government health insurance, look at Canada. I have a friend that had to wait two years to get to see a cardiologist, and I really don't want that kind of heath care here in the US.

Don

Don