Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Sep 10, 2008.
Speaks for itself. Discuss.
McCain is sinking pretty low.
It speaks for itself, but not in the way you think. It says a lot about the McCain camp.
I remember Mitt Romney attacking over this as well. I wonder what Obama's response is going to be.
From the Christian Broadcasting Network, no less:
When Pat Robertson's own site is calling your ad against a Democrat misleading, you have a problem.
Thanks for the information. Very useful. Maybe Obama should run an ad saying McCain is obsessed with sex.
I can't believe I actually liked and would have voted for McCain at one time.
There are many people that still don't know the facts. Still believe he's a good guy and will vote for him. It's up to everyone to make them see that he isn't, not by rhetoric or propaganda, but by using his own words against him.
He's definitely not the McCain of 2000. Which gives me only 3 options.
1) He's lying his ass off and pandering to anyone in the GOP to get to the WH.
2) He sold his principles for one last shot at the WH.
3) He's gone senile.
The first one is bothersome, but would really set my mind at ease over this election, but he'd never admit it and we won't know for sure until it's too late to change if options 2 or 3 are what's going on.
If it's option 2 I'm worried he'll have some sort of breakdown after the election if he doesn't win.
If it's #3 I'm really worried if he wins since if he's on the decline and he slides to far it puts Palin in the Oval Office.
I guess there's a 4th option that he's always been this way and was lying/pandering in 2000 as well, but it seems if that were the case he would have stooped to Rovian tactics when Bush was using them to get the nomination.
This article is just another GOP spin on something almost everyone would agree with but once spun makes a great anti-candidate sound bite/headline.
My kids both know that baby's come from vaginas. They're 2 and 3. It's pretty funny to get people to ask them where babies come from. They also know that dogs come from dog vaginas, cats from cat vaginas, but birds and reptiles and amphibians and eskimos from eggs.
But I'm not voting for Barack, either.
They also know that dogs come from dog vaginas, cats from cat vaginas, but birds and reptiles and amphibians and eskimos from eggs.
(Yay! Yet another 80s movie reference for me!)
Then your vote is pretty worthless, in my opinion. When will people wise up to the fact that this is a two horse race and not voting for one of those two only screws up the better candidates chances.
Vote for McCain or Obama. Please let it be the person that isn't hell bent on war and death, though. Please let it be the one that doesn't hate gay marriage. Please let it be the one that isn't going to die and leave the world with some bonkers woman that doesn't know what a VP does, despite being one.
I wouldn't say that it's worthless to vote third party or not at all.
Because of our screwy electoral system, if you don't live in a swing state, when you don't agree with the 2 major candidates a third party vote can actually be a good thing. While they don't necessarily have any chance of winning, enough support can lead to the 2 major parties getting the message and adopting some of the third party platforms we wish they had.
The only time a third party vote is idiotic is when you see one of the two candidates who has a shot at winning, as worse (or better) than the other and you live in a state that could go either way in November.
If I vote Dem or third party in November, given my residence in TX, it's not going to make a difference in November, since TX has enough GOP voters that I'd see snowmen in hell this year sooner then I'd see it go for Obama. Likewise with the voters in NY, CA, and many other states that are strongholds for a particular party.
Right now if you go to Pollster any of the dark red/dark blue state are where the third party candidates can get their votes without getting charged with losing the election. Voting third party in the yellow states, if you prefer Obama or McCain is where the third party vote becomes an idiotic move since you could throw that state to the candidate you like less. Of course if you don't have a preference for either Obama or McCain then voting 3rd party in a swing state is a valid choice.
Obama is against gay marriage.
I'm writing in a vote, FWIW.
Isn't he for some sort of civil union/partnership thing (like we have here)? Not technically a marriage in the eyes of god or whatever, but gets you your legal rights etc.
Yeah, sorry Gary. This is what I meant. I see legally binding civil unions as a marriage. It's this little ol' Englander being a little ignorant of the way Americans/Christians term things.
I think he strikes quite a balanced view on this.
I think that Obama is actually probably for gay marriage, although he's not going to push for it unless the country is more clearly for it. McCain, on the other hand...let alone Palin.
If history is proof of anything, you are flat out and completely wrong.
As sad and HORRIBLE a 2-party system is, its all we got.
Not voting Dem/Rep is not only worthless, its downright egotistical.
And voting GOP in CA or NY or Dem in TX or OK is any less futile?
If all the voters for the less dominant party were to vote third party in the non-swing states we'd either get a viable third party, or some of the policies that the third parties represent that we'd like in our government.
Not voting Dem/Rep in a swing state when you prefer one over the other is stupid. Doing it in a state that isn't going to change it's party affiliation makes no difference in the ultimate outcome and attempts to send a message to the 2 parties. Unfortunately there has not been enough support for a third party to get that message across since Ross Perot.
John McCain is getting more and more disgusting by day. Its unbelievable I actually ever had a good view of him previously.
Same. I remember thinking several years ago that McCain was one of the few Republicans that I would be willing to vote for. I used to think he had class, was willing to take the moral high-ground even if it hurt him politically, and would always put his country first. This election is bringing out the worst in him. This ad makes McCain look very bad.
I too, once thought well of McCain - especially for a republican. A couple years ago, I read an article about where the 'Maverick' moniker came from. It was originally attributed to the Bush campaign (probably Rove), and was used to discredit him with the party elite. They do not embrace 'mavericks' and want their candidates to fall into step with their positions. McCain actually defended himself against the charges. Then, as fate would have it, to old tag was found to be very helpful, for someone trying to portray themselves as a reformer and agent for change. The author of the article provided volumes of votes and policy decisions, which show a man who can goose-step with the best of him. There were only a handful of examples, where McCain broke with the party line, over legislation of any significance.
I think there is evidence to show all 4 of your options have some merit. However, I think McCain has ransomed his soul to the devil for one chance to sit in the big chair. This man is bought and paid for. He will not be ale to make a single decision, without someone's approval. Reformer? What a laugh. This person was not even able to pick his own VP. He was given the republicans next great candidate.
I believe you are sadly mistaken here. I think he supports it and will make sure his cabinet does as well. I do not think you should read too much into his desire not to make it a campaign issue.
And, with that, you will change the world.
You will help your cause much more by saving gas and staying home, not voting at all. We can at least respect that.