The 2008 Election

Tools    





You're a Genius all the time
Pretty busy news day.

Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant, which is funny considering she's one of those abstinence-preaching types. Hurricane Gustav is dying down, but at least one Louisiana levee is in danger of collapsing. And the very, very lame Republican National Convention is cracking along, too.

Also, I think there's some kind of election coming up.

I'm basically apathetic to all this "government" business. I'm pretty sure that I'm not registered to vote, but I am kind of pulling for McCain in this thing. It just seems to me that (and this could be a very naive way of looking at things) if the Democrats have control of the senate, we should have a Republican president in place. Checks and balances and whatnot, ya dig? And if the Republicans were to take over the senate in two years, then McCain should get bumped and we'd land a brand spanking new Democratic president.

If I was supreme ruler of the universe, I'd decree that whichever party was in charge of the legislative branch of the US government would not be allowed to control the executive branch, as well. Does that make sense to anyone? Or does it go against every fundamental principle this country was built upon? Or is it just stupid?



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Originally Posted by Swedish Chef
Pretty busy news day.

Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant, which is funny considering she's one of those abstinence-preaching types. Hurricane Gustav is dying down, but at least one Louisiana levee is in danger of collapsing. And the very, very lame Republican National Convention is cracking along, too.
Oops, dear, you better marry the father and then we'll come out and say how happy we are!

Gotta love those religious republican types.

What I find rather funny is how McCain makes ads that say Obama is "dangerously inexperienced," and then he picks Sarah, whose like got a whole lot of experience under her belt!



You're a Genius all the time
Originally Posted by tramp
What I find rather funny is how McCain makes ads that say Obama is "dangerously inexperienced," and then he picks Sarah, whose like got a whole lot of experience under her belt!
Well, to be fair, Obama is on the top of the democratic ticket, running for President of the flippin United States. Whereas Palin is on the bottom of the republican ticket and is running for Vice President of the flippin United States. It is a pretty big difference.



A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
To be fair... it's really lesser-of-two-evils at this point. Good thing I'm not of voting age... I would vote Obama, but I wouldn't feel good doing it.

Although, now that he says he wants to possibly open fronts in Iran etc. as well, whereas McCain just wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely... and seeing as getting our military and economy out of the gaping hole they're in is my biggest priority...

So now I think, hmm, McCain...

On the other hand he seems a tad embittered, he's against a variety of things that I am for, and he's pretty volatile, meaning he could land us in some more foreign policy disasters.

So, as I said, lesser of two evils. (Hey, did I just talk myself in a circle?)



Originally Posted by Swedish Chef
It is a pretty big difference.
It's a huge difference. And everyone who claims that this undercuts McCain's experience argument would logically have to concede that the reverse is also true: that the Obama campaign's constant defense of his experience must logically apply to her, too. And this is all assuming she's less experienced than Obama to begin with, which is actually a pretty hard claim to defend.

People are free to be as cynical as they like about this pick. I don't think it was done with the assumption that it would woo Clinton supporters. The McCain camp has been staggeringly competent over the last few months, and I just don't see them taking such a simplistic view. The only reason to believe that is if you're inclined to believe the worst about the man to begin with.

More likely explanation: McCain only gets really excited by a few issues, and reforming government is definitely one of them. Palin's got a strong reformist streak, and we've been hearing about the "enthusiasm gap" between the campaigns for months. Whether you like the decision or not, there are far more likely, less conjecture-based reasons for the pick.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
She was picked because of the republican need for the religious right wing to vote for their party. And, whoa, she's also a woman, hurrah!

And two years as a Governor is stretching it on the experience front. You're kidding, right?

This is very depressing... I cannot understand how, after 8 years of republican rule, that people can sit around and even debate this election and even think about voting for a man who supports Bush's policies.

That gives me more than a headache.



A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
Well, I'd still choose Obama as I said...

But party loyalty B.S. has always bothered me. Just because the current Republican president ****ed up everything he touched doesn't mean that every Republican president will. The reverse could be true as well, and both rules apply to both parties.

I prefer to see both sides as much as I can :)



A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
Originally Posted by tramp
She was picked because of the republican need for the religious right wing to vote for their party. And, whoa, she's also a woman, hurrah!

And two years as a Governor is stretching it on the experience front. You're kidding, right?

This is very depressing... I cannot understand how, after 8 years of republican rule, that people can sit around and even debate this election and even think about voting for a man who supports Bush's policies.

That gives me more than a headache.
Woman = something of a downside for quite a few bible bashers, I would imagine. It does pull in the moderates, though.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Problem is, Sawman, McCain has supported Bush's policies. And it is time another party ruled. Republicans have screwed up so badly that to literally let them have 4 more years screams insanity to me.

I don't think in the history of my country has there been a better time to bring in a full-scale change of leadership. If this country wants to keep going like it has been going, then, hey, we're a bunch of morons if you ask me.

Party loyalty be damned. That's what I really want. I want those that think party over country to finally think about their country.

There went my good mood! :laugh:



Originally Posted by tramp
She was picked because of the republican need for the religious right wing to vote for their party. And, whoa, she's also a woman, hurrah!
Like I said, you can be as cynical as you want. But there are lots of other explanations that make more sense. They don't paint Republicans as utterly diabolical, though, which I suppose might cause some people to overlook them.

Originally Posted by tramp
And two years as a Governor is stretching it on the experience front. You're kidding, right?
Depends on what you mean. Do I think she has a lot of experience? No way. I wish she had more. But she was Governor almost exactly as long as Obama was a Senator before he started running for President. There's no way to criticize her lack of experience without criticizing Obama, unless you're prepared to throw all objectivity out the window.

And, cliche and talking-point-ish as it may be, there's still an added benefit to executive experience (IE: actually running something). There's a great argument to be made that Governors make far better CIC's than Senators. Four of the last five Presidents were Governors first, and the one that wasn't (Bush Sr.) was head of the CIA.

Originally Posted by tramp
This is very depressing... I cannot understand how, after 8 years of republican rule, that people can sit around and even debate this election and even think about voting for a man who supports Bush's policies.
Er, because he doesn't support all of them? Because he's his own person, and has bucked his party time and time again? And because some of Bush's policies were good? And because the Republicans actually only ruled for six years, and the Democrats have ruled for the last two?



Originally Posted by tramp
Problem is, Sawman, McCain has supported Bush's policies.
This is quite a blanket statement. I hope it's not based on that "McCain and Bush voted the same way 95% of the time!" line. That statistic includes meaningless resolutions, like the ones they use to formally congratulate Super Bowl winners. And, of course, some positions are far more important than others, anyway. The Obama campaign is making an awfully misleading (and simplistic) argument on this front.

Originally Posted by tramp
Party loyalty be damned. That's what I really want. I want those that think party over country to finally think about their country.
Hear hear! :) But you can't possibly think that, of McCain and Obama, that Obama is the one more likely to buck his party? McCain gives Republican loyalists fits. He's gone against his own establishment so many times that many Republican loyalists have been threatening to sit the election out.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Yoda, you've got to be kidding me. McCain was once his own man, he sold out years ago. First, by selling out his wife. But I won't go there.

And the Democrats the last two? Under a Republican President who would veto anything if a Dem sent it across his desk? Don't make laugh.

Some of Bush's policies were good? Name them. And if you can, name how any of those policies even can compare to the destruction he has done to the Constitution, the election process, the Middle-East, to our name, and to the values we hold dear.

As to the experience issue, you're right. I do think Governors make better Presidents. But to have an ad that doesn't just say Obama is inexperienced, but to call him "DANGEROUSLY inexperienced" and then add a woman with 2 years experience on his ticket shouts out the usual hypocrisy which is so clearly a part of this current Republican party.

To be honest, her "inexperience" doesn't bother me in the slightest. Her supposedly religious inclinations do.

And I was NEVER a cynical person until Bush took office. Call me naive, whatever, but I learned a lot these last 8 years. And if this country elects another republican after what we've been through, I'll not only be cynical, I'm going to give up on the good ol' USA. 'Cause I don't. get. it.



Originally Posted by tramp
Not when McCain is like a 100 years old and could die any minute. ;)
He's 71, right?

My mother is 76. Should I worry!?!
I'd like to think thst she has a good 10-15 years left. She's also highly intelligent.

There is an election 2008 thread. Not that anyone cares.



A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
Originally Posted by tramp
Yoda, you've got to be kidding me. McCain was once his own man, he sold out years ago. First, by selling out his wife. But I won't go there.

And the Democrats the last two? Under a Republican President who would veto anything if a Dem sent it across his desk? Don't make laugh.

Some of Bush's policies were good? Name them. And if you can, name how any of those policies even can compare to the destruction he has done to the Constitution, the election process, the Middle-East, to our name, and to the values we hold dear.

As to the experience issue, you're right. I do think Governors make better Presidents. But to have an ad that doesn't just say Obama is inexperienced, but to call him "DANGEROUSLY inexperienced" and then add a woman with 2 years experience on his ticket shouts out the usual hypocrisy which is so clearly a part of this current Republican party.

To be honest, her "inexperience" doesn't bother me in the slightest. Her supposedly religious inclinations do.

And I was NEVER a cynical person until Bush took office. Call me naive, whatever, but I learned a lot these last 8 years. And if this country elects another republican after what we've been through, I'll not only be cynical, I'm going to give up on the good ol' USA. 'Cause I don't. get. it.
In the same post you go from violently patriotic to somewhat, dare I say, apathetic. Don't ever give up on your country. If everyone did that, the U.S. would be far, far, far from where it is today.



I am burdened with glorious purpose
Originally Posted by Ðèstîñy
Originally Posted by tramp
Not when McCain is like a 100 years old and could die any minute. ;)
He's 71, right?

My mother is 76. Should I worry!?!
I'd like to think thst she has a good 10-15 years left. She's also highly intelligent.

There is an election 2008 thread. Not that anyone cares.
Yea, but she's not gonna be President. Have you seen how much gray hair they get in just a few years? Not that McCain will have that problem. :laugh:

Yes, Sawman, I am patriotic and apathetic at the same time. The apathy keeps me sane when the passionate part of me takes over. ;)

In all seriousness, though, if this election turns out not the way I think it should, I may not ever be involved again. Because my heart couldn't take it. I want to live to be 80. :)



Originally Posted by tramp
Yoda, you've got to be kidding me. McCain was once his own man, he sold out years ago. First, by selling out his wife. But I won't go there.
I think this would have to qualify as "going there." And in this case, "there" is completely over the line. Nothing I've read about the situation suggests it is half as simple as you're saying. Furthermore, I see how his divorce has the slightest bit of relevance to the argument being made.

Anyway, I can start listing the many, many (major) issues in which McCain has deviated from the party line. You're probably familiar with a number of them. Is there some logical reason I should sweep these all under the rug? Simply insisting he's "sold out" isn't an argument.

Originally Posted by tramp
And the Democrats the last two? Under a Republican President who would veto anything if a Dem sent it across his desk? Don't make laugh.
Irrelevant; it mitigates Republican policies. A Democratic congress might not get everything it wants with a Republican President, but obviously Republicans won't get much of anything if they don't even control Congress. The original point was about Republican rule; for the last two years, they haven't ruled. You'd have to take a very odd, narrow view of government to claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by tramp
Some of Bush's policies were good? Name them. And if you can, name how any of those policies even can compare to the destruction he has done to the Constitution, the election process, the Middle-East, to our name, and to the values we hold dear.
I'm not going to write you a dissertation on the Constitution, and I wouldn't want to anyway, because the fact is I don't agree with a lot of the things this administration has done. But I don't agree with your extreme view of the damage he's done, either.

If you want an example of some good Bush policies, how about tax policy? He had to compromise in 2001 by removing tax breaks for some of the upper income brackets (the dreaded "tax cut for the rich" :eek:). The compromise passed, and we sunk into a recession, anyway. Then, in May of 2003, he got his "tax cut for the rich," and economic growth shot through the roof. Unemployment plummeted. GDP stayed strong (near the average during Clinton's term) for several years, before slowing down again recently (though we still haven't dipped into a recession).

This is why discussions like this don't do any good, though. I could toss a million economic statistics at you right now to show you what an unmitigated success the 2003 tax cut was (and make no mistake, they're there; part of my day job involves economic research), but you've already decided that the man has run the Constitution through a shredder, a belief which you'll use to ignore any empirical point I can make about policy, anyway.

Please do not try to make me believe that there is any value in arguing logically here. You haven't given me the slightest reason to believe that any point I make will be considered, or responded to thoughtfully. All I'm going to get is broad, sweeping attacks on entire groups of people (to some of which I belong), interspersed with character attacks, and punctuated by extreme language in lieu of logical points. Thanks, but no thanks.



Originally Posted by Swedish Chef
If I was supreme ruler of the universe, I'd decree that whichever party was in charge of the legislative branch of the US government would not be allowed to control the executive branch, as well. Does that make sense to anyone? Or does it go against every fundamental principle this country was built upon? Or is it just stupid?
Well, making it an actual RULE is kinda kooky. But the idea that government governs based when the two parties are forced to work together is a very sensible one, with a lot of believers on both sides of the aisle. I generally count myself among them.

Funny thing is, it's an idea libertarians can get behind, too, because gridlocked government usually figures to limit the amount of legislation (whatever the kind) that gets through.