Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
J-Rod 
Registered: Jul '04
19974_Chewbacca
Date Posted: 5/9 12:55pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions - Date Edited: 5/9 1:05pm (1 edits total) Edited By: J-Rod
Think of all the Bush policies McCain used to oppose, but now supports; things like the Iraq War, and torture, and permanent tax cuts for the rich. He shares Bush's fuzzy understanding of the economy and foreign policy. (That last one is the real dealbreaker; he wants war, but doesn't know who we're supposed to be fighting.)

What in the heck are you talking about? McCain has always agreed with the Iraq war. He has had differences of opinion as to how to conduct the war. And he was right, as it has turned out.

And are you saying that McCain now endorses waterboarding? While I hope it's true, I haven't heard that one yet.

And yes, he's changed his mind about making the tax cuts (for everyone, not the rich) permanate.

Lord_Vivec posted:
J-Rod: Why are you a conservative?


Because I believe that people can take care of themselves. As such they should. I believe that Benjamin Franklin was right.."A government that can give you everything that you need is powerful enough to take everything that you have."

Jabbadabbado posted:
Republicans are going to stay home in November by the millions. Like J-Rod, they can't bring themselves to vote for a democrat. Unlike J-Rod, however, they are against a continuation of the Iraq war and don't trust McCain on economic issues. So they simply won't vote.


I don't think that it is about the war. I think it is about government spending. We are hugely disappointed with the size of the government. That's why the Reps avoided the polls in '06.

Please note that IMO the Dems didn't win on the strength of their ideas. We still believe. Many of us simply lost faith in our politicians. Not the ideals.

 

-----signature-----
God bless George Bush
John McCain 2008
Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" thinking
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Jabbadabbado 
Registered: Mar '99
7388_Throne Room
Date Posted: 5/9 1:15pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions - Date Edited: 5/9 1:16pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Jabbadabbado
I don't think that it is about the war. I think it is about government spending. We are hugely disappointed with the size of the government. That's why the Reps avoided the polls in '06.

I agree with you wholeheartedly: Republican lawmakers and the president have betrayed the interests of the party faithful who favor small government. Republican approval of George Bush has fallen to about 60%, but don't you think the disapproval is coming from a number of different sources, including Iraq, the economy, bloated government spending by the Republican congress?

Does McCain look like someone who's going to change course on any of those issues? Republicans are correct to be deeply skeptical.

 

-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 5/9 1:31pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions - Date Edited: 5/9 1:33pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
As opposed to what or who?

Republican approval of George Bush has fallen to about 60%, but don't you think the disapproval is coming from a number of different sources, including Iraq, the economy, bloated government spending by the Republican congress?

The democratic controlled Congress has an even lower approval rating, and certainly hasn't offered any kind of alternative to what you are suggesting above. Wouldn't that indicate a degree of dissatisfaction with both parties?

Jabba, it's funny to see you take a page out of the OWM playbook, in that you seem to be attempting to define a situation as you want it to be.

As an example, what was the latest potential figure on Obama's health care plan? 1-2 trillion dollar increase in costs? Now, I'm not bringing this up to debate the merits of such a plan, each person has to make up their own mind on the specifics.

But are you suggesting that Obama is going to go to a state like TN, and promote the idea of banning hunting rifles while increasing the size of the federal budget by a minimum of 1-2 trillion dollars and republicans in those states are going to stay home because those issues are no longer important?

I just don't get what you are suggesting. I suppose GOP voters could possibly "stay home in the millions," but it would certainly be new phenomenon. As I pointed out about, this past Wednesday represented McCain's single largest daily campaign haul, and while I don't have the specific why, it would seem to be a result of the last demmie primaries, and the fact that the country realizes that primary mode is now switching to general mode.

At this point forward, both McCain and Obama are going to start campaigning on the issues, and the election now becomes each others to loose.

 

-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Jabbadabbado 
Registered: Mar '99
7388_Throne Room
Date Posted: 5/9 1:37pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions - Date Edited: 5/9 1:41pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Jabbadabbado
Personally, I couldn't care less about idolizing "small government" as an inherent good, but I don't think disaffected Republicans will be as motivated to vote against Obama as they would have been to vote against Hillary.

Granted, low Republican turnout for the primaries does not necessarily translate one for one to low Republican turnout for the general election, but I'm fairly certain that high democrat turnout for the primaries will be reflected in the general election. Democrats are energized, engaged, in ways the Republicans simply are not, and the adrenaline rush from the primary battle is going to keep building ahead of November.

 

-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Geist 
Registered: Oct '99
6270_Darth Vader
Date Posted: 5/9 1:39pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions - Date Edited: 5/9 1:46pm (6 edits total) Edited By: Darth Geist
J-Rod posted:
What in the heck are you talking about? McCain has always agreed with the Iraq war. He has had differences of opinion as to how to conduct the war. And he was right, as it has turned out.


Well, the invasion itself, he favored (and said on the air that the whole thing would be "easy"), but he had a long history of opposing prolonged troop presence in other countries. In both Haiti and Somalia, he went on record opposing the use of U.S. forces as police, warning of mission creep and voicing the demands of the people that our troops be brought home as soon as possible.

Now? He wants the exact opposite.

J-Rod posted:
And are you saying that McCain now endorses waterboarding? While I hope it's true, I haven't heard that one yet.


He hasn't endorsed it directly, and in fact he's gone on record opposing it numerous times -- but he apparently doesn't oppose it enough to vote against the party line. Like all but five of the other Republican Senators, he voted against banning waterboarding this past February. He may have principles, but if those principles become incovenient, he'll drop them in favor of the party line.

On a related note, if you're wondering whether or not it counts as torture, try it. Here's how.

(Don't really try it. You won't like it. Here's a sample from the guy who tried it:)

The Straight Dope posted:
I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You know you are dead and it's too late. Involuntary and total panic.

There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It would be like telling you not to blink while I stuck a hot needle in your eye.

At the time my lungs emptied and I began to draw water, I would have sold my children to escape. There was no choice, or chance, and willpower was not involved.

I never felt anything like it, and this was self-inflicted with a watering can, where I was in total control and never in any danger.

And I understood.

Waterboarding gets you to the point where you draw water up your respiratory tract triggering the drowning reflex. Once that happens, it's all over. No question.

Some may go easy without a rag, some may need a rag, some may need saran wrap.

Once you are there it's all over.

I didn't allow anybody else to try it on me. Inconceivable. I know I only got the barest taste of what it's about since I was in control, and not restrained and controlling the flow of water.

But there's no chance. No chance at all.

So, is it torture?

I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.

It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.

The Spanish Inquisition knew this. It was one of their favorite methods.

It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever. No question in my mind.


J-Rod posted:
And yes, he's changed his mind about making the tax cuts (for everyone, not the rich) permanate.


While pledging to reduce the deficit. By fighting additional wars. Something doesn't add up...

J-Rod posted:
I believe that people can take care of themselves. As such they should. I believe that Benjamin Franklin was right.."A government that can give you everything that you need is powerful enough to take everything that you have."


Self-reliance is a very good thing, no question -- but everyone needs a little help sometimes. Obviously, we don't want people sitting around, doing nothing with their lives but collecting welfare; that's bad for the country. But throwing everyone out on their own and telling them "sink or swim" will leave a lot of people sinking; that's also bad for the country. What we need is balance.

And the modern GOP has swung things too far out of balance, in favor of the very rich. Hard work doesn't help when your company gets massive tax breaks for shipping your job overseas. Honorable work as a soldier gets that much harder when the government favors independent contractors (hell, let's just call them mercenaries and be done with it), who make three or four times your salary and are accountable to no one. No matter how hard an honest man works these days, he'll always be less successful than a dishonest man who knows how to work the system. And that's wrong, any way you slice it.

More to the point, the GOP has betrayed the conservative values it pretends to stand for. It pays lip service to fiscal responsibility, then doubles our national debt. It makes promises to the American worker, then ships jobs to India and China and Mexico. It pays homage to the American soldier, then awards ludicrously huge contracts to mercenaries who make the soldiers' jobs -- and the job of pacifying Iraq -- more difficult.

Neither party is anywhere near perfect. But the GOP has had eight years to make its case for why it should continue to run the country, and it's failed miserably. Time to give the Democrats another shot at it; they seemed to do all right the last time around.

 

-----signature-----
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 5/9 1:44pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
And I'm note sure I agree at all. Not that I know, I don't.. Is there anything to the Hillary-Obama split now? As likely as Hillary voters are going to put that aside and vote for Obama, GOP voters are going to vote for McCain. In other words, who knows until it actually happens? (save for either candidate making some sort of universal campaign ending blunder)

But generally, that's why I don't like to read exit polls, trend predictions and the like, especially when one attempts to compare primary races to general elections.

 

-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 5/9 1:59pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
Neither party is anywhere near perfect. But the GOP has had eight years to make its case for why it should continue to run the country, and it's failed miserably.

That's only because your statement is based on seeking blame, and not on the issues.

The Congress achieved a democratic majority 2 years ago, for all the same reasons you just mentioned. If anything, that was supposed to represent the justification for the democrats to "make their case." What was the only result? Congress sinking to a lower approval rating than the President himself.

And that's with a divided government, when the country seems to operate the best. (having a President from one party, with Congress representing the other) What I can see happening if Obama gets elected is that the pendulum will swing too far the other way, and there's a good chance that in the next election after that, there will be another "republican revolution" based on similar backlash, and it will be political wash, rinse, and repeat.

 

-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Geist 
Registered: Oct '99
6270_Darth Vader
Date Posted: 5/9 2:02pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
Mr44 posted:
Neither party is anywhere near perfect. But the GOP has had eight years to make its case for why it should continue to run the country, and it's failed miserably.

That's only because your statement is based on seeking blame, and not on the issues.


Which issues? I'm honestly asking. In what way are we better off now than we were eight years ago? What has Bush succeeded at, and how does it stack up against his failures?

 

-----signature-----
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Mr44 
Registered: May '02
Date Posted: 5/9 2:16pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
Well, I don't know the thrust of your above question. Is it focused on Bush, or on the upcoming election?

I'm questioning your assertion that the GOP, and the GOP alone has had 8 years to run the country, when in reality, it's taken 2 to tango, so to speak.

Do we "blame" Clinton for authorizing the war in the first place as well? Do we blame Obama for not really speaking out either way, except offering a cryptic "I'm not against war, just dumb ones-" a statement that left a wide enough space for interpretation that one could float a Persian Gulf bound aircraft carrier through it?

Again, all I would have to do is reverse the focus of your question-
What has the democratic Congress succeeded at, and how do they stack up against their failures? If we get down to it, what can you point to for making the same case? If that's true, shouldn't Bush have a 30% approval rating, while Congress enjoys a 89% approval rating? Instead of the Bush 30%, Congress 29% that currently exists?

Anyone can point to one side and attempt to pin the blame on it. Both sides have had successes and failures, but it's not, nor has it ever been a one sided, all or nothing procedure.

 

-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
J-Rod 
Registered: Jul '04
19974_Chewbacca
Date Posted: 5/9 4:53pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
While pledging to reduce the deficit. By fighting additional wars. Something doesn't add up...

See Geist, it's comments like this that make it hard to take you seriously. No one is suggesting that we go to war for the deficit. And though there is a lot of Reagan bashing here, he was the best president in my lifetime and he proved that lower taxes increase tax income to the government.

 

-----signature-----
God bless George Bush
John McCain 2008
Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" thinking
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Geist 
Registered: Oct '99
6270_Darth Vader
Date Posted: 5/9 5:12pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions - Date Edited: 5/9 5:19pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth Geist
J-Rod posted:
See Geist, it's comments like this that make it hard to take you seriously. No one is suggesting that we go to war for the deficit.


No, some of us are suggesting we go to war to stop third-rate Middle Eastern militaries from crossing the Atlantic Ocean. tongue

McCain has gone on record saying he wants to:

- Cut taxes.

- Keep fighting our current wars, and add a new war with Iran.

- Reduce the deficit.

He can't do all three at once. It's impossible. (Of course, he'd be the first to admit he doesn't know much about the economy...)

J-Rod posted:
And though there is a lot of Reagan bashing here, he was the best president in my lifetime and he proved that lower taxes increase tax income to the government.


Under certain circumstances and economies, it can. However, it's a fact that the national deficit was at $1 trillion when Reagan took office, rose to $4 trillion under Reagan and Bush I, climbed to $5.5 trillion under Clinton's first term, started to level off in his second term, and then skyrocketed to $10 trillion under Bush II.

Republicans talk the talk when it comes to financial responsibility, but none of them in the last twenty years have actually walked the walk, and McCain again markets himself as more of the same.

Mr44:

The Democrats may have had a majority in Congress for the last two years, but the Republicans held both the White House and Congress for the six before that.

Truman had a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here." With the Bush administration, the buck stops nowhere; every time something blows up in his face, one of his subordinates resigns, and he goes on like that's the end of it. Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld -- the list goes on.

Say what you want about Clinton's regime change policy, but he's not the one who authorized a full-scale invasion. Neither did Bush I, who had a much better opportunity to invade; he knew the risks, knew the drawbacks, and opted against it. (So did Cheney, at the time.) Who pushed for the invasion? Who made it happen? Who could it not have happened without? That'd be George W.

Ever notice you never hear the GOP call itself the "Party of Personal Responsibility" anymore?

 

-----signature-----
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
J-Rod 
Registered: Jul '04
19974_Chewbacca
Date Posted: 5/9 5:52pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
No, some of us are suggesting we go to war to stop third-rate Middle Eastern militaries from crossing the Atlantic Ocean.

laugh Twenty billion dollars. Bribes to the UN to lift sanctions. Didn't live up to his obligations. Thirteen years and 17 Failed resolutions. Say what ya want. It needed to be done.

What other options were there?

McCain has gone on record saying he wants to:

- Cut taxes.

- Keep fighting our current wars, and add a new war with Iran.

- Reduce the deficit.

He can't do all three at once. It's impossible. (Of course, he'd be the first to admit he doesn't know much about the economy...)

- I haven't heard where he wants to cut taxes.

- I haven't heard where he has a policy of adding new wars.

- I predict that no matter who gets in the deficit will get reduced.

Let's not forget that Bush was handed an economy that was into it's second quarter of a shrinking GDP. Then 9/11 happened and many of the same economic experts that are predicting a recession now were saying that it would take more than ten years to recover from it.

Bush took what he was given and did pretty well.

Is McCain an economic wizz? Nope. I heard the quote you keep bringing up. But at the same time many of the things that BHO and Clinton are proposing are economic suicide.

Start the biggest social program in history while floating an eight billion dollar national debt? C'mon.

Increase the capital gains tax? In a time of decreased or at least unstable investment spending? Again, c'mon.

Repeal tax cuts in an economic slowdown? Insanity.

 

-----signature-----
God bless George Bush
John McCain 2008
Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" thinking
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth Geist 
Registered: Oct '99
6270_Darth Vader
Date Posted: 5/9 6:26pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions - Date Edited: 5/9 6:30pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Darth Geist
J-Rod posted:
No, some of us are suggesting we go to war to stop third-rate Middle Eastern militaries from crossing the Atlantic Ocean.

laugh Twenty billion dollars. Bribes to the UN to lift sanctions. Didn't live up to his obligations. Thirteen years and 17 Failed resolutions. Say what ya want. It needed to be done.

What other options were there?


Plenty of third world dictators have flaunted international resolutions. Jesus Christ, take a look at Africa sometime; if you think Saddam was a murderer, check out Idi Amin. There was no compelling reason to single out Saddam, out of all the misbehaving dictators in the world. (Especially once Kim Jong-Il started jumping up and down, screaming about how he was going to nuke us.)

Saddam was contained. He would have stayed contained. The Iraqis had a stable, functioning country. Now 4,000 American troops are dead, and tens of thousands more have been horribly wounded, and all the Iraqis want is electricity, running water, and a chance to buy food at the corner store without worrying about getting blown to bits.

On top of that, we're losing Afghanistan now; the Taliban is taking back the country. Why? One, we took our eye off the ball there, and two, they're using tactics perfected by the insurgency. We just showed the whole world how any ramshackle militia can fight our forces to a stalemate.

Bush's policy got all those Americans killed and mangled. Bush's policy solved one problem, and created tens of thousands more. It's a losing deal, any way you slice it.

The infuriating part is that, if he insisted on invading Iraq, he could have done it right. But he disregarded all advice he didn't want to hear, ignored all possible scenarios except the one where Iraqis welcome us with flowers and rebuild overnight, and then went charging in with guns blazing.

When Iraq didn't turn into sunshine and rainbows, he had no backup plan, and his cronies came up with the brilliant idea of dissolving Iraq's entire infrastructure and military, unemploying about 50,000 working professionals, not counting the Iraqi army. Leaving the newly conquered people unemployed, pissed off, and armed was the stupidest move in the war.

Bush threw away every report he didn't want to read, and our troops are still paying the price for his incompetence. A competent leader could have done what Bush tried and failed to do. Bush is not a competent leader.

J-Rod posted:

- I haven't heard where he wants to cut taxes.


To be fair, he hasn't proposed any new tax cuts, but making "temporary" tax cuts permanent amounts to the same thing.

J-Rod posted:

- I haven't heard where he has a policy of adding new wars.


Then you haven't seen him sing about bombing Iran.

All right, that's more of a "gotcha" than anything else, but he's also talked about how Iran is training Al-Qaeda -- whoops, they aren't. He's shown a gross misunderstanding of the situation in the Middle East, which is a terrible thing for a President who wants to fight there.

J-Rod posted:
I predict that no matter who gets in the deficit will get reduced.


How? Deficits don't go down on their own; interest drives them up unless you do something about it.

J-Rod posted:
Let's not forget that Bush was handed an economy that was into it's second quarter of a shrinking GDP. Then 9/11 happened and many of the same economic experts that are predicting a recession now were saying that it would take more than ten years to recover from it.


9/11 didn't send our jobs overseas. Some of that was NAFTA, but China and India aren't part of North America.

J-Rod posted:
Bush took what he was given and did pretty well.


"Pretty well"? How do you measure that?

J-Rod posted:
Is McCain an economic wizz? Nope. I heard the quote you keep bringing up. But at the same time many of the things that BHO and Clinton are proposing are economic suicide.

Start the biggest social program in history while floating an eight billion dollar national debt? C'mon.

Increase the capital gains tax? In a time of decreased or at least unstable investment spending? Again, c'mon.

Repeal tax cuts in an economic slowdown? Insanity.


See, now this we can talk about. And honestly, Obama's left of both of us when it comes to economics. But he's honest about it. He talks about how tight things are right now, and how change is only going to come through sacrifice.

We're just about the only civilized country that hasn't mastered universal health care yet. I don't think it's some god-given right, but if we can make it work, I think it's a good idea. Our current health care system is a mess, even if you have insurance -- and I know the government isn't known for efficiency either, but it's hard to imagine them doing much worse. At the very least, we could drive down the cost of insurance through tort reform; America's so ridiculously litigious that doctors have to throw mass amounts of money at malpractice insurance, which drives up everyone's costs...yeah.

Anyway, listen, I've gotta get home, and then Battlestar's on. We can talk more later, if you want. happy

 

-----signature-----
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Lowbacca_1977 
Title: Senate Moderator
 Registered: Jun '06
Date Posted: 5/9 6:43pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions - Date Edited: 5/9 6:44pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Lowbacca_1977
Re how one could vote Bush over Kerry, but might vote McCain over Obama.... while I may not be voting McCain, I can say why I'm not voting Obama. In short.... I think he's wrong about the vast majority of issues.

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
KnightWriter 
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
 Registered: Nov '01
39907_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 5/9 7:00pm Subject: RE: The 2008 US Elections: Discussion, Opinion, Predictions
This sums up McCain's problems:


 

-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"The Obama Car will be fueled by FISA amendments and emit civil liberties for exhaust." A-B
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
« 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »
© 2008 IGN Entertainment, Inc (6.08.17.2300, ASPNET8) 0.266