Politics as usual!

[dirtmistress]

Personally, I rather enjoyed the back and forth banter on the recently closed Pub thread about McCain and his choice of VP. Some of the photo's of her were no worse than some of the political cartoons in the L.A. Times editorial section.
It's an election year! We have the fever! Parodies happen!
Feelings get hurt in the blink of an eye. It's like stealing someones lawn sign, if it's not there, then nobody will vote for that candidate.
I also thought there were more intelligent things said than not and I actually learned a thing or two.
Lets keep it civil and talk some politics with our fellow STR'rs (?)
I'll start it off!
I'm concerned that McCain is going to pass away in office! I heard he wanted to choose Lieberman as his VP but the Head honcho's said No Way, go for the Pit Bull.
Can't a candidate make his own decision??

[davidB]

Anyone watching the republican convention? I'm a little confused here....

McCain:
I want to win this war
I want to lessen government spending



what? someone explain/defend this position. Please.

[schleppp]

Well yes the candidate can make his own decisions, but it really is a group effort. Always has been.

President Harding was 5th in the balloting at the Republican convention in I think 1918, but was still given the nomination, because the party bosses (who made the decision the proverbial smoke filled back room, well after all of the delegates had left the convention) thought he had the best chance of winning. And he did. Turns our his admin. was one of the most corrupt of all time.

[Jordansrealm]

McCain is not going to do anything good for this country. I feel sick to my stomach that people cannot see this.

[dirtmistress]

Originally Posted by Jordansrealm

McCain is not going to do anything good for this country. I feel sick to my stomach that people cannot see this.

In your opinion, what would be good for this country? Helping the poor? Health care? Being respected in the world again?

[ohyeah89]

I usually stay out of political discussions because I'm pretty middle of the road (on different issues I'll lean this way and on different issues I'll lean that way), so I get it from both sides. And people get way too emotionally involved when discussing poltics. I find myself becoming more conservative (not socially though) the older I get and the longer I work. Speaking of work, it ALLLL comes down to one issue for me: MONEY. Taxes. I never used to care this much when I was college. Oh but now I am seriously considering voting on a candidate STRICTLY on the basis of how he stands with taxes. Even though I don't agree with him on a lot of other things! And also because I get a little scared to think of one political party (be it Republican OR Democratic) controling/having a majority in nearly all branches of government (execultive, and BOTH legislative houses). Be it republicans or Democrats, I don't want either one to have a monopoly. But is money really enough to base my vote on? I may not vote at all cause I'm disgusted with both parties but then I wouldn't be able to bitch later So I am still undecided...

/End of Ramble/

Originally Posted by davidB

I want to win this war
I want to lessen government spending
what? someone explain/defend this position. Please.

HAHA good catch!

[schleppp]

Originally Posted by davidB

Anyone watching the republican convention? I'm a little confused here....

McCain:
I want to win this war
I want to lessen government spending



what? someone explain/defend this position. Please.

I did not hear this so which war was he pointing to? Iraq? Afghanistan? or Terrorism in general?

[sdyeti]

It is with complete respect that I say this...my viewpoint is completely different. How many candidates have made promises re: taxes and then flip-flopped while in office.

"Read my lips..." I know you all can finish that one.

Originally Posted by ohyeah89

Speaking of work, it ALLLL comes down to one issue for me: MONEY. Taxes. I never used to care this much when I was college. Oh but now I am seriously considering voting on a candidate STRICTLY on the basis of how he stands with taxes.

Yep, I could think of some really important things to do with $10 BILLION per month of extra spending money.

Originally Posted by davidB

Anyone watching the republican convention? I'm a little confused here....

McCain:
I want to win this war
I want to lessen government spending



what? someone explain/defend this position. Please.

[schleppp]

Originally Posted by sdyeti

How many candidates have made promises re: taxes and then flip-flopped while in office.

Rest assured it wasn't a democrat that said he would not raise taxes! I will say at least they are up front about it!

[davidB]

Originally Posted by schleppp

I did not hear this so which war was he pointing to? Iraq? Afghanistan? or Terrorism in general?

pick one.

[Jordansrealm]

Originally Posted by dirtmistress

In your opinion, what would be good for this country? Helping the poor? Health care? Being respected in the world again?

All of those are important. Stop listening to McCain's empty promises and look at his track record. He is just another "good old boy" let the rich get richer and the poor get more poor guy. His history tells his true tale. He may promise the world but he will not stand behind half of what he is saying.

I am not saying whether or not I favor everything Obama says I am merely talking about my fear of having someone like McCain in office for the next 4 years. It will be like Bush never left. (sad)

[dirtmistress]

I base my votes on what is good for me and what is good for people less fortunate than me. Who will help the most. Education, economy and equality. Who is the better diplomat. Who is more analytical and thinks things out.
McCain is certainly better than many other people that could have become the Republican nominee but his choice of VP, OMG! For one thing, (among many) she condones aerial shooting of wolves. As they run terrified for their lives, a sharp shooter in an airplane picks them off. That's as bad as killing an animal while it's sleeping. She condones that and it makes me sick!

[ohyeah89]

Originally Posted by sdyeti

It is with complete respect that I say this...my viewpoint is completely different. How many candidates have made promises re: taxes and then flip-flopped while in office.

"Read my lips..." I know you all can finish that one.


Yep, I could think of some really important things to do with $10 BILLION per month of extra spending money.

Maybe I should qualify what I mean by "Taxes/Money." More specifically I meant my viewpoints on Cutting/Borrowing/Spending and the philosophy of each party on these topics. Which makes your point still valid. And one of the major reasons I am still undecided.

I'm going to bed though. Haha I am out of this thread, it's inevitable it's (or me) going to get emotional! Just had to get my ramble out there for once. Have fun everyone debating. =)

[schleppp]

Originally Posted by davidB

pick one.

The reason I ask is that it makes a difference in how the idea is defended. The war in Iraq is very difficult to justify, except to say that we started the mess and maybe we should find a way to fix it. The argument starts when the solution is sought. The war in Afghanistan is truly justifiable, and most of the government is in agreement on this, that is why you never hear anyone complain about it.

Now on to the original question.

This is not a single position. They are two different ideas. Yes they are linked, do not get me wrong. But what is there really to explain. He wants to win the war, I assume he meant Iraq, and also lessen spending. These are mutually exclusive. Granted it would be much easier to lessen spending if the war was also put to rest.

However, I don't think the war is the only thing the gov. spends an excess amount of money on. There are plenty of "pork barrels" to go around for both parties. And I am sure that he could lessen the amount of money spent and still continue to fight an effective war. Also, if you look at it in the long run, spending money on the war in Afghanistan and terrorism in general now, may actually save money in the future. I said "may", it is pure speculation.

[art23rockpile]

Originally Posted by davidB

Anyone watching the republican convention? I'm a little confused here....

McCain:
I want to win this war
I want to lessen government spending

what? someone explain/defend this position. Please.

Simple logic, my friend (at least in theory, if not practice): not all goverment spending goes to the war. Thus, if a president were of a mind to, spending could be reduced even while the war is being won (or prolonged, depending on one's point of view) by reducing spending in other areas.

Originally Posted by Jordansrealm

McCain is not going to do anything good for this country. I feel sick to my stomach that people cannot see this.

This depends on one's perspective. As Liz stated, first you must clarify what you consider "good for this country", no? Some of us (such as myself), students of human history and of a more 'hawkish' nature (as opposed to doves/peaceniks), feel that during these turbulent times a tougher President is vital for our great country's well-being. A dyed-in-the-wool leftist like Obama (judging by his Senate voting record and extremist friends) is seen by many to spell disaster, should he become President. Let's face it, Obama reads well from a teleprompter, but offers little else, from what i've seen. He seems to be an 'empty box'. "Change is not a destination, and hope is not a strategy".

[schleppp]

Originally Posted by dirtmistress

For one thing, (among many) she condones aerial shooting of wolves. As they run terrified for their lives, a sharp shooter in an airplane picks them off. That's as bad as killing an animal while it's sleeping. She condones that and it makes me sick!

Would it make a difference if they were in a jeep, or on foot?