Sarah Palin is McCain's Choice for VP

[quote name='rumblebear']Palin is a superb choice and has quite an impressive background. As much I disliked Bush and what his party did, this sealed the deal and I'll definitely be voting for her and McCain this fall. Obama is just too unqualified and is treating the Presidency as if it's some sort of high school Prom King position reserved to the most popular kid. And those of you complaining about Palin's experience are hypocrites considering Obama, who's on top of his party's ticket, has far less experience and accomplishments than she does.

Let's see, Palin is currently a very, very popular (80-90% approval rating and has numerous accomplishments) Governor and has been:
-The head of the Alaskan National Guard
-Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska
-City Council
-City Manager
-The President of the Alaskan Council of Mayors
-Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (exposed corruption in her OWN party)

Compared to Obama, who has been what? A state senator and a newly elected U.S senator 4 years ago (who spent most of the time running for President the moment he got elected instead of doing actual productive work)

With these in mind, Palin actually has far more governing and management experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden. There's a reason why Governors are considered to be far more qualified than Senators to be U.S President.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but six years as the mayor of a small town followed by 18 months as governor doesn't make you more prepared to be president than eight years in a state senate and four in the US senate. The "experience" question is open and shut: She has less than anyone else in the race by far. (I mean, "Ooh, she was President of the Alaskan Council of Mayors! She'll totally think up a great health-care plan!") It may be smart to run a woman in the hopes of picking up a disaffected Clinton supporter or three, but they've completely shut themselves off from addressing Obama's "inexperience" ever again. Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and lots of people think being on the city council is like sitting in on the foreign relations committee or calling Georgia to talk about their invasion. "Russia is right across from Alaska," after all.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The fact that she's both unknown and also a woman certainly does an excellent job, in the short term, at silencing the post-DNCC-go-Obama feeling.

It's strategically brilliant, really. The news cycle is going to drop the DNCC like a bad habit and focus on this for the weekend and leading into the Republican Convention.

I'm interested to find out more about her before making a call.[/quote]

I agree with your post. First time in a long time things have been interesting on both sides.
 
[quote name='Koggit']"Not to overstate my opinion on this, but I know a thing or two about..." usually means "Trust me, I'm an expert on..." Kind of like how "No offense, but..." means "I know this statement is really offensive, but..." or "Not to be a dick, but..." means "Prepare for me to be a dick: ..."

Sorry for misunderstanding.[/QUOTE]

De nada. I should have phrased it more clearly.

[quote name='Msut77']trq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080603589.html[/QUOTE]

Huh. Interesting. I haven't really been following that sort of thing -- I just knew the business angle, and figured the stakes being higher than, say, "Batman Begins" or "Sudeki" doing well meant the practice would ramp up correspondingly. Thanks.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Palin is a superb choice and has quite an impressive background. As much I disliked Bush and what his party did, this sealed the deal and I'll definitely be voting for her and McCain this fall. Obama is just too unqualified and is treating the Presidency as if it's some sort of high school Prom King position reserved to the most popular kid. And those of you complaining about Palin's experience are hypocrites considering Obama, who's on top of his party's ticket, has far less experience and accomplishments than she does.

Let's see, Palin is currently a very, very popular (80-90% approval rating and has numerous accomplishments) Governor and has been:
-The head of the Alaskan National Guard
-Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska
-City Council
-City Manager
-The President of the Alaskan Council of Mayors
-Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (exposed corruption in her OWN party)

Compared to Obama, who has been what? A state senator and a newly elected U.S senator 4 years ago (who spent most of the time running for President the moment he got elected instead of doing actual productive work)

With these in mind, Palin actually has far more governing and management experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden. There's a reason why Governors are considered to be far more qualified than Senators to be U.S President.[/quote]

What about the war on drugs? How to help the inner cities? Foreign policy (or do you consider shipping salmon to Canada "foreign policy?")

Alaska is not in the least resemblant of the majority of the United States, so I would not say that being a governor of that state really qualifies her to be president.

If McCain ever dies during his term, I do not want this woman running our country. What a horrible choice.
 
[quote name='trq']Sorry, but six years as the mayor of a small town followed by 18 months as governor doesn't make you more prepared to be president than eight years in a state senate and four in the US senate. The "experience" question is open and shut: She has less than anyone else in the race by far. (I mean, "Ooh, she was President of the Alaskan Council of Mayors! She'll totally think up a great health-care plan!") It may be smart to run a woman in the hopes of picking up a disaffected Clinton supporter or three, but they've completely shut themselves off from addressing Obama's "inexperience" ever again. Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and lots of people think being on the city council is like sitting in on the foreign relations committee or calling Georgia to talk about their invasion. "Russia is right across from Alaska," after all.[/quote]

I think you misunderstood the post. He's saying there is an overall consensus that Governors are believed to be more qualified for President than Senators. A lot of experts believe this to be true as well. Whether it is true or not is not what he's saying.
 
You know, I was actually going to vote for him until this. She's a fucking polar bear killer and big oil ALL over again. Think we've had enough of that. Climate change is man-made... Right... fucking loon. He should have gone with the chick from HP. Ah well, Bidden wouldn't be that bad as president...
 
[quote name='Koggit']Skepticism is much more crucial to shaping a scientific mind than any scientific "knowledge" could ever be.

People of faith needs to be skeptical of their beliefs and people of science need to be skeptical of what we call fact. Creationism and other religious believes are great stepping stones into this discussion, because nearly all kids have a strong myopic belief (usually that of their parents). They either believe there is a god or there isn't. They either believe we were created or we weren't. They need to be taught, and science class is the setting, that faith is detrimental to progression regardless of what that faith may be, when trying to determine fact. They need to be taught that some people believe this, other people believe that, but regardless of beliefs it's important that conclusions be reached based on evidence, not predetermined and considered confirmed by a lack of evidence.

To say questions won't arise is complete bullshit. If you're like me and your parents told you God crated Adam and Eve from which we've descended, when your teacher tells you we've slowly changed over the years from single-celled organisms to fish to mammals to humans you're going to immediately wonder, like I did as a child, where Adam and Eve factors in. Were Adam and Eve single-celled organisms? Is the book wrong? What's going on?

The point is questions will arise and it's absolutely ridiculous to bar teachers from discussing it when it's the perfect opportunity to explain the importance of an open mind and skepticism, whether that message is being picked up by science-based kids who need to think critically about their science or to faith-based kids who need to think critically about their religion. [/quote]

Koggit, I usually vehemently disagree with most of what you say, but you are spot on here. Bravo. Totally agree.

[quote name='trq']Sorry, but six years as the mayor of a small town followed by 18 months as governor doesn't make you more prepared to be president than eight years in a state senate and four in the US senate. The "experience" question is open and shut: She has less than anyone else in the race by far. (I mean, "Ooh, she was President of the Alaskan Council of Mayors! She'll totally think up a great health-care plan!") It may be smart to run a woman in the hopes of picking up a disaffected Clinton supporter or three, but they've completely shut themselves off from addressing Obama's "inexperience" ever again. Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and lots of people think being on the city council is like sitting in on the foreign relations committee or calling Georgia to talk about their invasion. "Russia is right across from Alaska," after all.[/quote]

I guess it's all opinion, but I disagree. Managing things is entirely different than being apart of a legislature or legislating body in my mind. Which is why I would actually take someone that's run a large corporation successfully as president over a Senator or Congressman.

Imo, Palin is at least as qualified as Obama. Which is either a compliment or burn, depending on who you support.

[quote name='mietha']You know, I was actually going to vote for him until this. She's a fucking polar bear killer and big oil ALL over again. Think we've had enough of that. Climate change is man-made... Right... fucking loon. He should have gone with the chick from HP. Ah well, Bidden wouldn't be that bad as president...[/QUOTE]

LoL!

Nominated for funniest post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='SpiderLocMTGO']Anti-woman's rights? What, are we going to undo the suffrage movement now? I wasn't aware that abortion was the only rights women have, or that it impacts only women.[/quote]

Palin's first act as governor of Alaska was a veto of gay and lesbian partners of receiving benefits, she opposes all cases of abortion, even in cases of rape and incest (80% of Americans support abortion rights in this instance). McCain has a consistent record of being anti-women's rights, (abortion, equal pay for equal work) and he routinely garners an abysmal ranking from groups advocating for women's rights. McCain supports medical insurance coverage of Viagra, yet opposes coverage for birth control. A women's right to choose is very important, and when a threat of abolishing Roe v. Wade lies in the possible vacancies in the Supreme Court, the issue becomes even more salient.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Don't underestimate the importance of a "woman's right" to murder. It's key in this election.[/quote]

Conservatives are not consistent on the issue of life. They want to prevent the choice of abortion, yet are quick to pull the lever of the death penalty, while simultaneously and proudly touting firearms, which end the lives of tens of thousands of people in the United States a year.

We should make this clear in that we need to decrease the number of abortions, by raising these individuals out of poverty and advocating for safe-sex practices, not by eliminating the choice. It is a woman's personal choice.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']How so? Surely you don't mean that both are women? If he had nominated Cindy McCain as VP, yes, I would agree with you. Or maybe a name that was seriously mentioned, one of his advisers, Carly Fiorina. But how the hell does Palin fit in the cronyism mold? You obviously don't know enough about her or are just making a blind partisan attack.[/QUOTE]

You've missed the most simple connection -- each was a pick of a woman just for the sake of picking a woman with little or no regard paid to qualifications. Bush wanted to pick a woman to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and McCain wanted to pick a woman to woo Clinton voters. They both did so and by-passed much more qualified choices, women and men alike. In their thinking, one woman is as good as any other.

My point wasn't about cronyism it was about pandering with little thought about qualifications.

Think before you criticize, please.
 
Well it looks like Palin's son will actually be in Iraq before she ever sets foots there.

"Managing things is entirely different than being apart of a legislature".. yeah and so is scale. Alaska is bearly 650k people, Wasilla is 8-fucking-thousand people and change. And some point you have to think, yeah it's a little different than running one of the few remaining superpowers regardless if you can fit in under some broad "management" experience.
 
Who cares about experience?

The woman has an undistinguished B.A. in Journalism from Hamburger State. She's not even qualified to be mayor of that 8k town.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You're really, really overestimating the importance of the issues in a political campaign. It's about PR, character and image.[/quote]

And views like that are what thrust the nation into the current disastrous situation it is in. Hopefully the voters have learned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']I think you misunderstood the post. He's saying there is an overall consensus that Governors are believed to be more qualified for President than Senators. A lot of experts believe this to be true as well. Whether it is true or not is not what he's saying.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='thrustbucket']I guess it's all opinion, but I disagree. Managing things is entirely different than being apart of a legislature or legislating body in my mind. Which is why I would actually take someone that's run a large corporation successfully as president over a Senator or Congressman.

Imo, Palin is at least as qualified as Obama. Which is either a compliment or burn, depending on who you support.[/QUOTE]

Even *if* governors were generally considered to be better qualified for the role than senators, for that to have any weight, they'd need a *comparable amount of time in office.* I'm sorry, but suggesting 18 MONTHS as governor compare to 12 YEARS as a senator is some pretty heavy spin. Hell, even if you only count Obama's terms as *state* senator, that's still a year and a half in her statehouse compared to eight years in his. Further, it also means that Romney or Richardson would have been de facto superior nominees to McCain by the "any governor over any senator" standard.

What next? Maybe she's a young earth creationist, so she's even *more* qualified, because she's spent a year and a half out of 6,000 as governor, which is greater than Obama's twelve years out of 4.75 billion. C'mon now.

McCain is even playing the "outsider" card with her, and that's great (sounds a lot like "Change", but hey, go with what works if your own message is weaksauce, right?) but also suggesting she has lots of experience is a total contradiction. Can't really be an "outsider" with lots of "experience," can you? Again, I apologize, but that's really ridiculous. Mark my words: even the conservative echo chamber isn't going to try to build her up on experience: it'll be "values" -- lots of kids, a woman, anti-choice, a woman, likes guns, a woman, doesn't care about them sissy "endangered species," a women, etc.
 
Palin should feel insulted. He picked her to cover his own ass. She's supposedly "the most popular governor in the United States" but nobody ever heard of her ass. She was picked so the Democrats had to put away the baseball and get out the softball when they criticize her.

Biden might as well wear a beerstained wifebeater when he debates her because they're going to go Rove-style on his ass when he eats her alive. Obama's probably on his knees right now begging Hillary to be on hand to give Biden high fives everytime he verbally pimpslaps Palin.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I'm not too sure what your point / the video's point is... that he's sexist? What someone says to McCain doesn't say of McCain...[/quote]

The point is he made no attempt to point out that that wasn't really an appropriate way to talk about his opponent; quite the contrary. He chuckled right along, puffed out his chest and crowed about his poll numbers vs. "the bitch."

Do you think if someone hollered out to Obama, "How ya gonna beat that withered old piece of shit?" that he'd just let it go? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that he wouldn't waste any time informing the person that that was no way to address a gentleman who served our nation proudly in Vietnam and in the Senate, etc. And it wouldn't just be lip service.

So no, McCain wasn't the one who actually spoke the word, but he didn't even bother to go through the motions of pretending to be appalled. It was a pretty clear indicator of the level of respect he has for Clinton and likely women in general.

[quote name='Msut77']Anyone making bets on whether she will still be on the ticket in a week?[/quote]

I'll give her at least until October, when the investigation of her alleged ethics violations wraps up.
 
Oh your going to be fun. :applause:

[quote name='thenockmlb']McCain has a consistent record of being anti-women's rights, (abortion, equal pay for equal work)[/quote]
Site source please.

and he routinely garners an abysmal ranking from groups advocating for women's rights.
Click to expand...
Site source please. And please list groups other than abortion rights groups.

McCain supports medical insurance coverage of Viagra, yet opposes coverage for birth control.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But let's be clear here. He opposed REQUIRING corporations (private health insurance company's) to provide birth control. Read: Opposed government interference in a private corporations right to decide what their product is. So be against it if you want, but put it in context.

A baby's women's right to live choose is very important, and when a threat of abolishing Roe v. Wade lies in the possible vacancies in the Supreme Court, the issue becomes even more salient important.
Click to expand...

Just to show how little the wording has to change to show the alternate view.


Conservatives are not consistent on the issue of life. They want to prevent the choice of abortion, yet are quick to pull the lever of the death penalty, while simultaneously and proudly touting firearms, which end the lives of tens of thousands of people in the United States a year.
Click to expand...

Consistency = If you must kill people, make sure they at least did something to deserve it first. How is that not consistent on the issue of life?

If I wanted to follow such a myopic view of the issue, I can make the same argument for Liberals: They want to keep killing babies a choice (many up to and including the day of birth), even make tax payers pay for it, while saving the lives of the very worst in society, again, paid for by the taxpayer. That's consistent?

But these arguments are so old, they are tired. Come on now, you make this too easy, pulling out rusty 80's era planned parenthood pamphlet bullet points is fish in a barrel.

We should make this clear in that we need to decrease the number of abortions, by raising these individuals out of poverty and advocating for safe-sex practices, not by eliminating the choice. It is a woman's personal choice.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Let's raise welfare tenfold in an attempt to solve poverty, but change the name for the act of taking lives from "murder" to nicer words like "choice" in order to keep out of control carbon footprints to a minimum. :roll:
 
Hmmm what do I think well she's a women (which the GOP is oging to stress ocer an over) but I'm sure some republicans somewhere are getting pissy, hell Romney would have been a better choice but his religion would have lead to his downfall, well McCain you should have gone with Ridge cause I would have voted for you, now well I'll just have to vote someone else.
 
[quote name='kube00']Hmmm what do I think well she's a women (which the GOP is oging to stress ocer an over) but I'm sure some republicans somewhere are getting pissy, hell Romney would have been a better choice but his religion would have lead to his downfall, well McCain you should have gone with Ridge cause I would have voted for you, now well I'll just have to vote someone else.[/QUOTE]

Vote Bob Barr. Or write in Ron Paul.

They can't win, but maybe it is time the truly disillusioned of us try sending a message.
 
The idea isn't to "solve" poverty the idea is to enable those stuck in it to end the cycle. Fact is, for those born in poverty (or forced into it by unfortunate circumstance) opportunity is not equal and government intervention is required to give them the same opportunity. This is what so many conservatives mistake for socialism in the democratic (and even republican) platform.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Site source please.[/QUOTE]

Politifact.com has the score -- I'm too lazy to track it down but look under "attacks." It was just a single bill.


[quote name='thrustbucket']Site source please. And please list groups other than abortion rights groups.[/QUOTE]
How's NOW work for you? The largest and most prominent feminist organization in America... come on Thrust.
 
Anyone else read the article on Huffington Post about Palin's stance on abortion?

Once they learn that Sarah Palin opposes rape and incest exceptions for women seeking abortion, they completely write her off.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/palin-youre-no-hillary-cl_b_122479.html

I don't know exactly what her stances are on the issues, but she's already coming off as the Anti Hillary Clinton. I can't imagine any intelligent Hillary supporters actually shitting in their own back yard just to get a woman into office. They just might see women's rights dry up.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']Palin should feel insulted. He picked her to cover his own ass. She's supposedly "the most popular governor in the United States" but nobody ever heard of her ass. She was picked so the Democrats had to put away the baseball and get out the softball when they criticize her.

Biden might as well wear a beerstained wifebeater when he debates her because they're going to go Rove-style on his ass when he eats her alive. Obama's probably on his knees right now begging Hillary to be on hand to give Biden high fives everytime he verbally pimpslaps Palin.[/QUOTE]
Thread's over. Crunch wins.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']
I don't know exactly what her stances are on the issues, but she's already coming off as the Anti Hillary Clinton. I can't imagine any intelligent Hillary supporters actually shitting in their own back yard just to get a woman into office. They just might see women's rights dry up.

~HotShotX[/quote]

The McCain camp totally fumbled this...they just lost whatever Hilary supporters that had joined up with McCain. Maybe if he had chosen Charlie Crist...
 
[quote name='trq']What next? Maybe she's a young earth creationist, so she's even *more* qualified, because she's spent a year and a half out of 6,000 as governor, which is greater than Obama's twelve years out of 4.75 billion. C'mon now.[/quote]

Ha! That was awesome.

Amd I the only one who thought Huckabee would have been his best choice? Conservative Christian morons seem to like em, as does the media.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']



Consistency = If you must kill people, make sure they at least did something to deserve it first. How is that not consistent on the issue of life?
:[/QUOTE]

Because when it comes down to it, it's a judgement call. Pro-Life, I thought, removed that judgement call. If you start putting "but, ifs" on all your values you aren't really consistent at all.

But the actual consistency for conservatives is more in line with "after the person is born, fuck 'em" and Palin certainly falls in lline with this by jettisoning her 4 month old downs baby for a career in national politics.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Anyone making bets on whether she will still be on the ticket in a week?[/quote]

What odds are you paying out?

If McCain really wants to lose, he can kick her to the curb.

I think he is stuck with her.
 
[quote name='Koggit']The idea isn't to "solve" poverty the idea is to enable those stuck in it to end the cycle. Fact is, for those born in poverty (or forced into it by unfortunate circumstance) opportunity is not equal and government intervention is required to give them the same opportunity. This is what so many conservatives mistake for socialism in the democratic (and even republican) platform.[/quote]

Conservatives don't disagree with that statement. What they disagree with is the methods to employ.

We've been over this many times already, but what the hell. Conservatives, generally, simply believe that our government wasn't set up to make guarantees. The goal of the government should be to always stay out of the way of hard working people trying to make progress. No matter what their social status is.

As long as the "pursuit of happiness" is guaranteed, then that's the end of governments role. Now if there is a real proven obstacle in the way of someone's pursuit of happiness, then it's fine if the government steps in and removes it. And conservatives are generally fine with that to. But comparing a person born in a poor family to a person born in a rich family and saying "wow that poor person doesn't have as much opportunity, we need to equalize" is absolutely not the role of government.

How's NOW work for you? The largest and most prominent feminist organization in America... come on Thrust.
Click to expand...
NOW doesn't work for me. I wouldn't support such a radical and dangerous organization any more than I would CAIR or the KKK.

[quote name='usickenme']Because when it comes down to it, it's a judgement call. Pro-Life, I thought, removed that judgement call. If you start putting "but, ifs" on all your values you aren't really consistent at all.[/quote]
So then why do liberals put "if's" in front of abortion to justify it? "If it's still in the womb, it's her choice." "If the mother doesn't want to keep it, end the life".

You can't make a statement like that without realizing the door swings both ways. Of course ending a life is ALWAYS a judgment call. Self preservation, dealing justice to criminals, solving a bad choice - All judgment calls. And neither side is consistent, if you want to get technical.

But the actual consistency for conservatives is more in line with "after the person is born, fuck 'em" and Palin certainly falls in lline with this by jettisoning her 4 month old downs baby for a career in national politics.
Click to expand...
You are getting ridiculous now.
Applying the same logic - Liberals believe "Before a person is born, fuck 'em". See how this works yet? See how circular this line of arguing gets?

And how is a career in politics "jetisoning her 4 month old"? Should all politicians with kids leave politics? What happened to womens rights and choice? Does it go out of the window in certain cases with kids with down syndrome? What gives you the right to judge her choice? Hypocrite much?
You are just proving yourself to be one of those people really stretching for absolutely any dirt on someone in a party you hate. Either that or you watch too much Oberman.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Vote Bob Barr. Or write in Ron Paul.

They can't win, but maybe it is time the truly disillusioned of us try sending a message.[/quote]

Sadly, you're right.

I'm about 90% convinced Obama is a sack of crap. Of course, the sack was filled with a pile of crap labeled McCain.

I want to like Obama, but the support of telcom immunity, continued financial support of Iraq, saber rattling with Iran, a desire to escalate in Afghanistan and my general dislike for bigger government are keeping me from sealing the deal.
 
Government "size" is most easily indicated by expenditure. Obama's currently proposed plans involve a very modest 7% increase in government expenditure... and of course not all of his campaign promises will reach fruition, especially not before being scaled down by congress.

The idea that dem = huge government is largely GOP propaganda and myth, perpetuated by media hacks that use "liberal" as a synonym for democratic.
 
Replace "Obama" with "McCain" and "Kaine" with "Palin" then Karl Rove was dead on, gotta give him credit...

"I think Obama's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."
Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Koggit']Government "size" is most easily indicated by expenditure. Obama's currently proposed plans involve a very modest 7% increase in government expenditure... and of course not all of his campaign promises will reach fruition, especially not before being scaled down by congress.

The idea that dem = huge government is largely GOP propaganda and myth, perpetuated by media hacks that use "liberal" as a synonym for democratic.[/quote]

I'm against practically all federal government spending (standing army, federal highways, corporate welfare), but I'd rather see it directly benefit the American people instead of prop up other countries.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry'].

Biden might as well wear a beerstained wifebeater when he debates her because they're going to go Rove-style on his ass when he eats her alive. Obama's probably on his knees right now begging Hillary to be on hand to give Biden high fives everytime he verbally pimpslaps Palin.[/quote]

:lol:
 
[quote name='Koggit']
The idea that dem = huge government is largely GOP propaganda and myth, perpetuated by media hacks that use "liberal" as a synonym for democratic.[/QUOTE]

I'll admit that's partially true. Both parties now clearly stand for huge government, not just one.

But you have to admit that the Democratic rallying cry of the last decade or two is something akin to "What can your government do for you?". Meanwhile, the Republicans just start wars, grow the military, and toss billions at contractors we don't need while smiling with their hands behind their back saying "See, we didn't grow government!"
 
Well, there are nuanced differences. When you look at the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few relative to stagnant wages and the moving of blue collar jobs overseas (and the transition from being a society where a one-income, high-school education only job being sufficient for raising a family and being a homeowner to a society of two-income households relying on credit and desperately needing a college degree to have that same lifestyle) - however, you see where "the market will take care of itself" is largely a myth.

Patterns of wealth and income stratification, simply put, over the past thirty years, have shown that it is either time to bring the government to intervene in people's lives and relationships with businesses, or "the market," which has all of the power that the people don't (since the same people who think that "the market will take care of everything" tend to also be those who are anti-union, so they're fooling themselves into thinking businesses and workers are equally armed, yet favor disarming people of the one thing they have power in - *numbers*).

The Democrats do favor government intervention in ways that Republicans don't. And the opposite is true. But even conservatives like thrust are bothered by the growth in the Republican growth strategy. Once he realizes that "the market will take care of itself" is a myth for individuals, he may just very well vote democrat.

I doubt it, but you know.

As Obama said in his acceptance speech the other night, "And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise."
 
I think it'll get better over time for McCain in terms of her readiness. But to say this was unexpected for Palin (in terms of reaction) it's not.
 
I think in the end her in experience won't drive voters away from McCain. But, again, what it hurts is McCain won't be able to drive as many people from Obama by touting his inexperience anymore as he'll be painted as a hypocrite if he makes that argument after tapping Palin.

The only place Palin is going to help is getting white female, working class swing votes in states like Michigan. Her views on abortion will keep her from having a broad impact on women voters in general, but she should get some working class, moderate women who were previously on the fence on which way to vote.
 
Voters have experience at sucking.
Everyone should be nonpartisan.
When somebody talks about there party it makes me want to puke. They should have real people in elections not robotic nimrods from partys.:cry:
 
I agree it'd be great if every politician were independent, but they're not -- and because they're not, it's very important to consider the party's platform, because that's what will actually happen when that politician is in office. Voters should never disregard the party of the candidates.
 
You should also realize that politicians have the nonpartisan crap to get their buddies elected because their opponents kept winning with the party system (I'm mainly talking about judges here).
 
[quote name='dopa345']McCain lost my vote. I'll be voting Democratic in the presidential election for the first time in my life.[/QUOTE]

Elaborate, please.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']


The Democrats do favor government intervention in ways that Republicans don't. And the opposite is true. But even conservatives like thrust are bothered by the growth in the Republican growth strategy. Once he realizes that "the market will take care of itself" is a myth for individuals, he may just very well vote democrat. [/quote]
I haven't realized it's a myth, because I don't think it has to be. It goes back to what you were saying about how government can approach it. As long as the government approaches helping the individual by giving them tax breaks starting out, especially in industries needed, that's perfectly fine. I'd much prefer that than just punishing the highly successful mega corporations more and more simply because we are jealous and angry.


Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise."
Click to expand...
Well said. And this, I believe, is a libertarian belief.

This is the essence of why democracy failed in Russia. The people were not of the same mindset, willing to band together, rely on each other, and lift each other up. Democracy in it's purest form can't exist if everyone is out for themselves and willing to screw over anyone to get a leg up (Russia).

[quote name='Koggit']I agree it'd be great if every politician were independent, but they're not -- and because they're not, it's very important to consider the party's platform, because that's what will actually happen when that politician is in office. Voters should never disregard the party of the candidates.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And this is what is frighting - when you can't stand either platform and see them both heading in the same general direction, just on different tracks. The problem being, you don't like that direction, you like the opposite direction.
 
My cousin just made a hilarious comparison:

Thinks McCain's running mate looks like the sex ed teacher/stripper from "Varsity Blues."
Click to expand...
teachvarsity3.jpg
542389855_811a187e7b.jpg


....Holy Shit! If Varsity Blues is to be believed, Sarah Palin doubles as a stripper! /sarcasm

~HotShotX
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Koggit']You make no sense... saying she'd like a woman to be president but can't vote for Hillary because she's too leftist is staying loyal to her values. What would be completely wrong is if she said "I don't think the democratic platform is good for America but I will vote for Hillary anyway because she's a woman"...

You're very, very confused.[/QUOTE]

no, I was just saying that, her heart tells that she wants to vote for hillary, but due to her being loyal to her party she can't. I wonder if she's under contract to vote for Rep. candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top