Reply With Quote
Oh btw, Obama better thank Hillary for kicking his ass on the primary trail. She taught him by proxy how is done at the top. I think he learned well.
I wanted to be fair to both candidates for this election. Its the first time in my short life that I would feel very comfortable with either candidate as President. I mean that sincerely.
So there had to be some mitigating cir stance to delineate the two.
McCain: Unfortunately for McCain, imo, he is an older man with health issues directly and indirectly (melanoma) related to his service to this country. While commendable and highly honorable, his VP pick was of the highest importance to me (an tbh, I would hope its important to everyone else as well) in respect to those health concerns. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries, so when he picked Palin, I was a little heartbroken. At first Palin was an absolute disaster as a VP pick. It reeked of political pandering, not a shoring of his deficiencies. Weeks later, it looks ever-so-slightly better....when I say slightly, I mean very slight. So what is slightly better than a total ing disaster? A train wreck?
Obama: Obama was an unknown quan y. My initial impressions of him were probably the same that everyone else had. Smart, eloquent and a total rookie. But there is a part of me that has always wondered what a non-partisan, non-politician would do in the Oval Office. Obama is the closest thing to that notion in my voting lifetime (Perot being the other in my lifetime). Obviously, with his inexperience, his VP pick was important (but, imo, less so than McCain's). He picked a guy to shore up his weakest attribute by selecting a long-standing member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Thats a damn good pick.
So with an obvious bias towards Obama to start this internal-reasoning process, I moved on to the issues that are important to me.
Domestic Policy: Both candidates are going to bankrupt our nation. In no time have I ever seen two candidates from opposing parties so closely aligned with the ruin of our nation. Makes me think conspiracy, but anyway... There just isnt much difference between the two in their approach to this economic downturn. Sadly, neither share my view of the situation, but thats to be expected really. I am of the mind the entire system of government needs to be torn to shreds and rewritten, so its no surprise to me that a candidate from one the major parties does not share that sentiment.
IMO, education is the single most important issue of all time, no matter the generation. It has never been treated that way (on purpose, imo) but it should. So Obama's plan to give a $4k credit to students for tuition in exchange for X amount of hours of community service is downright excellent.
Its like a double dip of awesome in that you have young people attending college and youre forcing them to get involved in their community. When I heard that, I'll admit, I was swayed. It got me to thinking what welfare recipients should be forced to do and any other recipient of government assistance should be forced to do. To me, its this sort of thinking that needs to be re-instilled into Americans.
Abortion I could care less about, one way or the other. If its overturned, oh well. If not, who cares? I am personally of the mind that it should be a woman's right to choose (no late term though), especially in cases of rape and incest or the mother's health is at risk. But this entire issue I see as just a distraction (a wedge issue) to pander to the religious, self-appointed moral supervisors of our time who in turn pander to their chosen "Man of the Sky".
Taxation... yeah....see the first part of Domestic Policy. Ruinous on both sides. One favors the middle class and poor, one favors the status quo. Its class warfare with no discernible winner. I mean that only in today's relevant environment. In time, a shared responsibility (Fair Tax) could be beneficial, but its just not realistic at this point with an ever-rising national debt. Also, a Fair Tax would force Congress to do its ing job (you know, balance the ing budget) which is just entirely too much to ask. They were tasked by the Cons ution "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures", but they found that entirely too hard and gave that responsibility away as soon as they hit the first big hurdle. Cant have that sort of problem hanging around your neck in an election year, might as well privatize our monetary system (John Adams would be absolutely rolling in his grave if he were alive today).
Foreign Policy: Iraq needs to end. Shouldnt have been there in the first place, but we are. No use going back and forth on whose fault it is, better to just come up with a solution. The sooner the better but not at the expense of an unstable government in Iraq. Obviously I lean toward Obama on this issue.
I am of the mind that diplomatic relations with any and all countries is important. No matter our status with them. Keep channels open...wtf is so bad about that? Our meeting with them legitimizes their positions? Are you kidding? They dont need verification from the US to "legitimize" their position. They hold said position because they can, whether by force or cult of personality.
I dont hear any politicians complaining about meeting with China. They are not a democracy, they are not an open society even. But we dont mind because they loan us money and their consumer market is about to eclipse the US in its best days. Why do you think our government is so complicit with them? Because theyre going to pass us economically, thats inevitable, our lobbyist-controlled government knows where their bread is buttered and it isnt by we citizens. The Corporations of this country see an emerging market like never before seen in the history of the world, not even America's emergence. They have 9 million new drivers per year who buy new cars (not including existing drivers) just to name one area of intense interest. Its the same reason Japan is playing nice as well. They know where theyll be sending their electronic gadgets in 10-15 years, better to hold palaver now.
But thats ok, I guess. Whatever...no politician in my lifetime sees the world the way I do personally (maybe Ron Paul, but thats iffy at best). So I have to stick to the major affairs and judge accordingly.
The War on Terror is complete bull . Its the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Crime" or the "War on <insert vague noun here>" of our time and just as effective. There is no war with terrorists. If it were, it wouldnt make them terrorists now would it? No, theyd be an army if we could actually go to "war" with them.
Theyre an irregular opponent masked under extreme religious convictions and covered by the societies they dwell in. There is no winning with them, only more death. The best you can do with terrorism is what we did in Afghanistan. Ally with the government, drive them out of the country.
Because then you see where they run. Seeing a roach and killing it is one thing. Finding out where they live and breed is another, more important piece of info. At least we know who are not our allies and treat them accordingly. That means no aid whatsoever to them or their proxies.
Anyway, I am digressing here. Neither candidate thinks the same way as me, so its more or less a wash. What it came down to was America's perception abroad. Bush took 100+ years of excellent foreign relations and flushed them down the toilet in less than 6 years. We are a ing shadow of our former selves (in foreign clout, I mean) thanks to that ing born-again idiot.
Its my opinion that either candidate would do wonders to repair that reputation. , I would do wonders in contrast to Bush. But seriously, McCain or Obama would at least show the world that not all Americans are spineless, redneck cowboy re s afraid of their own shadow because you got your lipped bloodied in a skirmish 7 years ago. Show them, and more importantly other Americans, that we are not cowards and that terrorists or any other unconventional threats will not rule our entire existence in any way, shape or form.
Foreign policy I lean with neither candidate. Both are significant upgrades over our current POTUS. Total wash in my opinion, the differences just arent that striking to me, and neither actually share my worldview...so it.
------
All in all, I am going to vote for Obama. Mainly on the health of McCain and his deplorable VP pick. Its an insult to Americans in general, imo, that in a country that really only allows you a choice of two, that one of them would pick an absolutely divisive character who actively encourages other Americans to see the other candidate as an associate of terrorists, that there are parts of America that are universally un-American and that foreign policy experience is gained simply by your proximity to a foreign land. Because if thats the case, you Texans are experts on Mexico and I'm an expert on Canada.
Again, her as a VP wouldnt be a deal-breaker if McCain was ( , I dont know) 60 years old instead of 72 (when inaugurated). But he is 72, he has health problems, he is a former POW with lingering handicaps from that terrible ordeal and frankly, that dumb, pandering, divisive scares the living out of me if she were actually POTUS.
Quite literally, scares the out of me.
Then again, since I am for the dissolution of our government in its current form, maybe the better pick would be McCain in the hopes that he does die in office so that broad can be promoted. Then she would have to confirm my previous su ion of being dangerous and start suspending rights, starting wars and generally running amok because her campaign is guided only by "God", not that silly, old-boy network in Washington they call "Congress" while making moral pla udes about where and when the "inalienable rights" granted to all human beings thats written into the Cons ution should be applied in times of war. And since we have a vague, ever changing "War on Terror" with no clear battlefield or discernible opponent, we will always be (technically) at war and therefore the powers of POTUS are nearly limitless.
Hmm...come to think of it...
But seriously, my one reservation about Obama has nothing to do with Obama himself. It has everything to do with giving over Congress and the White House to Democrats. Make no mistake, they will up just as bad in the next 4 years as the Republicans did with the first 6 of Bush's reign.
So once again I find myself, as we all do every time this year (if you have one non-partisan bone in your body that is) with a choice of a "lesser of two evils".
*sigh*
I hate this government with the very fabric of my being for this kind of subversive, obviously tainted election bull . Red hot fury of a thousand suns. We are being conned by a very few, powerful individuals into thinking there is actually a difference between these two situations/candidates.
Oh btw, Obama better thank Hillary for kicking his ass on the primary trail. She taught him by proxy how is done at the top. I think he learned well.
I agree that we need more choices.
It's ridiculous that we only have two, that acutally stand a chance of winning anything, that is.
The two party system must be done away with, but that's not happening any time soon.
I pretty much agree with all your points, with the exception that I don't think Biden is a foreign policy genius.
I never said he was a genius, I just said that he was/is the Chairman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
To qualify that great wall of text, I'd like to say one thing.
If you think my Palin rationalization is flawed or just plain dumb, let me put it this way.
If McCain had selected a more qualified and far less divisive VP (like saaaaaaay Lieberman), McCain would get my automatic vote based on the composition of Congress.
I do not like giving one party all the power. But if I have to choose a lesser evil, then by my standard, Palin excludes McCain near automatically.
And no, she is still not hot. At all. Even slightly.
I had put this is the I voted thread, but will repost it here.
The problem, of course, is that third party candidates are largely appealing because the fact that they have no real chance of winning allows them to break all the rules. If a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or whatever) candidate suddenly got close enough in the polls to be a threat, they'd start pulling the same that makes the Dems and Repubs so unappealing. I hate to admit how cynical I've gotten about the whole process, but I can't help thinking more "legitimate" parties would just mean choosing the lesser of more evils.
how is he dangerous?
what are his ulterior motives?
mccain will be anything you want in return for a vote. pro-life, pro-choice, you tell him and he'll say ok.
I already told you that I cannot prove my strong su ions about Obama. Only time will tell if I am right or wrong.
I am just going to vote according to my inner convictions and gut instincts and be straight up about it.
That is all I am responsible to do.
Again let me stress, I do not like Senator McCain. I just disapprove of him less than I do Senator Obama.
You're not one of those "Obama is the anti-Christ" people, are you?
"But that is what concerns me. I think Senator Obama has ulterior motives and is such a good liar that he will fool the majority of the world before being finally found out."
what the heck does that mean? ulterior motives? sounds like you think he is truly a muslim terrorist?
what are his ulterior motives?
I don't know. Maybe.
I have not rulled out the possibility, but I don't have enough information yet to be certain one way or the other.
If Senator Obama has addressed the anti Christ accusations, I would be greatly interested to hear what he had to say.
Have any articles/ quotes?
Wow.
I think he's a one-man terror cell. Just kidding.
Has anyone inspected his scalp for 666?
If Senator Obama was an outright scoundrel than I wouldn't think he had ulterior motives now would I?
Just because Senator Obama says the "right things" and says them well, does not mean that he is sincere and trustworthy in regards to them.
Only hindsight is 20/20. Time alone will tell the true story.
Oy
He'd probably say it's ridiculous because it is.
there you have it, ladys and gentlemen!
holy !
I won't vote. The electronic voting system is too easily hacked and manipulated. Plus voting doesn't matter.
I would love to completely do away with the parties. We have people voting because of their affiliation or loyalty to a party not because they've made an objective well thought out decision. Its ing stupid.
Senator Obama will never address any accusations he is the Anti-Christ anymore than he would address being the messiah, Easter Bunny, or Santa Clause. Can you imagine the news headlines if a guy named Hussein started to talk about whether or not he was the Anti-Christ? I can, and they would be the lead ins on every news show and the headline on ever newspaper and John McCain would instantly rise at least 10 points in the polls because lending that kind of legitimacy to such a ridiculous notion would be the worst job of campaigning in presidental election history.
I don't think you have any information to say that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I'm not sure what you would identify in Senator Obama that you associate with the Anti-Christ and I really don't know what else to say about this. I'm kinda floored.
lol @ antichrist issues
I'm not scared of Obama, but I am scared of Mrs Obama?
That is a massive fo-head.
and Mic e Obama has man hands.
According to christian beliefs, the anti-christ is coming whether you like it or not, so voting against Obama for that reason isn't going to stop it. In fact wouldn't it bring about the rapture quicker?
I would laugh out loud if he really "addressed" the anti- christ accusations.
Obama: "I can assure you that I'm not the anti-christ"
Had anyone else posted it I would have known it was a joke. I know its NOT a joke when Angel posts it which is why I'm not sure how to react.
For the first time in Spurstalk Political Forum History, I'm precipitously close to speechlessness.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
